[Peace-discuss] Why the US tortures

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Some interesting selections from Tony Judt's article, "What Have We Lerned, If 
Anything?," in the current New York Review.  --CE]


...What, then, is it that we have misplaced in our haste to put the
twentieth century behind us? In the US, at least, we have forgotten
the meaning of war. There is a reason for this. In much of continental
Europe, Asia, and Africa the twentieth century was experienced as a
cycle of wars. War in the last century signified invasion, occupation,
displacement, deprivation, destruction, and mass murder. Countries
that lost wars often lost population, territory, resources, security,
and independence. But even those countries that emerged formally
victorious had comparable experiences and usually remembered war much
as the losers did. Italy after World War I, China after World War II,
and France after both wars might be cases in point: all were "winners"
and all were devastated. And then there are those countries that won a
war but "lost the peace," squandering the opportunities afforded them
by their victory. The Western Allies at Versailles and Israel in the
decades following its June 1967 victory remain the most telling
examples.

...The United States avoided almost all of that. Americans, perhaps alone
in the world, experienced the twentieth century in a far more positive
light. The US was not invaded. It did not lose vast numbers of
citizens, or huge swathes of territory, as a result of occupation or
dismemberment. Although humiliated in distant neocolonial wars (in
Vietnam and now in Iraq), the US has never suffered the full
consequences of defeat.[4] Despite their ambivalence toward its recent
undertakings, most Americans still feel that the wars their country
has fought were mostly "good wars." The US was greatly enriched by its
role in the two world wars and by their outcome, in which respect it
has nothing in common with Britain, the only other major country to
emerge unambiguously victorious from those struggles but at the cost
of near bankruptcy and the loss of empire. And compared with other
major twentieth-century combatants, the US lost relatively few
soldiers in battle and suffered hardly any civilian casualties.

...As a consequence, the United States today is the only advanced
democracy where public figures glorify and exalt the military, a
sentiment familiar in Europe before 1945 but quite unknown today.
Politicians in the US surround themselves with the symbols and
trappings of armed prowess; even in 2008 American commentators
excoriate allies that hesitate to engage in armed conflict. I believe
it is this contrasting recollection of war and its impact, rather than
any structural difference between the US and otherwise comparable
countries, which accounts for their dissimilar responses to
international challenges today. Indeed, the complacent neoconservative
claim that war and conflict are things Americans understand—in
contrast to naive Europeans with their pacifistic fantasies —seems to
me exactly wrong: it is Europeans (along with Asians and Africans) who
understand war all too well. Most Americans have been fortunate enough
to live in blissful ignorance of its true significance.

...How else are we to explain our present indulgence for the practice of
torture? For indulge it we assuredly do. The twentieth century began
with the Hague Conventions on the laws of war. As of 2008 the
twenty-first century has to its credit the Guantánamo Bay detention
camp. Here and in other (secret) prisons the United States routinely
tortures terrorists or suspected terrorists. There is ample
twentieth-century precedent for this, of course, and not only in
dictatorships. The British tortured terrorists in their East African
colonies as late as the 1950s. The French tortured captured Algerian
terrorists in the "dirty war" to keep Algeria French.[7]

At the height of the Algerian war Raymond Aron published two powerful
essays urging France to quit Algeria and concede its independence:
this, he insisted, was a pointless war that France could not win. Some
years later Aron was asked why, when opposing French rule in Algeria,
he did not also add his voice to those who were speaking out against
the use of torture in Algeria. "But what would I have achieved by
proclaiming my opposition to torture?" he replied. "I have never met
anyone who is in favor of torture."

{complete article at <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21311>}