Is Torture Effective?

Let's set current controversies aside and see whether torture or extreme interrogation is an effective means of gathering information and making war.

Here's an excerpt from a US military journal about the French struggle in Algeria:

Although 10th Division soldiers called the assignment a "cop's job," they worked with zeal, determined to erase the ignominious memories of Suez and Dien Bien Phu.¹¹ Ruthlessly efficient, they made scores of illegal arrests and quickly and violently ended a general strike by breaking open stores and forcing people to work at gunpoint. Through the uninhibited use of torture, "disappearances," public beatings, and other forms of intimidation, the army quickly broke the FLN terrorist network.

By March 1957, the terrorist problem in Algiers was effectively ended.¹² But at what price? Although torture and murder occurred throughout the war, following the operations in Algiers, such actions became systematic and even institutionalized. From then on, with the tacit approval of the government, the French Army consistently relied on these methods in all its dealings with the FLN.¹³ Clearly, such methods were effective. Coupled with a successful campaign in the countryside (with free-fire zones, forced resettlement, and other tactics familiar to students of the American war in Vietnam), the tactics used by the French Army rendered the FLN incapable of mounting any large-scale resistance by the end of the decade.¹⁴

The widespread, ruthless recourse to barbarity by forces that stood for "civilization" destroyed what legitimacy the French had among ethnic Algerians, and this had major political repercussions in France. By late 1957, clear evidence of torture and other government-sponsored or condoned forms of brutality and illegal behavior by the Army fed a popular outcry that grew until Charles De Gaulle was elected to the presidency in 1958, ending the Fourth Republic.¹⁵ As De Gaulle was later to claim, he had every intention from the beginning of his presidency to end the war in Algeria by granting it independence.¹⁶

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/june _2005/6_05_1.html

At length the author also describes how the British have behaved according to the strictest rule of law in Northern Ireland and that the result is that British opinion hasn't turned against the war.  The IRA have also not been defeated and as we all know the British even negotiate with them and have released some of their prisoners.  Thus, they seem to be able to retain popular support indefinitely but are not winning, at least in my opinion.

This is an excerpt from a source that might seem a little biased by it's title "Irish resistance fighters" and seems to be anti-British, but they did say this:

it is interesting to note that the British did not resort to torture, nor even much brutality � the occasional atrocity such as the Batang Kali massacre when men of the Second Battalion of the Scots Guards shot down unarmed villagers (11 December 1948) definitely seems to have been an isolated, unauthorized 'incident' � (it was nevertheless hushed up). Instead of trying to torture prisoners to obtain information the British adopted the unorthodox, but highly productive, method of bribery. That this was effective is conclusively proven by the fact that leading Communist guerrillas such as Lam Swee, Osman China and Hor Lung were all persuaded to surrender with their groups in this manner. Rewards were, by local standards, enormous � Hor Lung for example got $120,000 and a complete pardon. In May 1952 the price on Communist leader Chin Peng's head was $250,000 and the price-scale ranged down to $2,500 for an ordinary 'private'.

Here's a BBC excerpt about British methods in Kenya against the Mau Mau, who were eventually defeated:

There was criticism at home and abroad of British interrogation methods in the camps. Police informers wearing hoods to disguise their identities were used to pick out the "hard-core" supporters judged to have been involved in some of the group's terrorist activities and there were reports of torture.

In 1958 11 Mau Mau detainees died in the Hola camp after being beaten. Political protest in Britain led to a call for a constitutional conference and ultimately independence for Kenya in 1961.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/ne wsid_3705000/3705049.stm

Edited by Genghis

No, it isn't, u can get anyone to admit anything through torture.

Originally posted by Thegeneral Tell that to the thousands who have given stuff up through torture.

Are you talking about the thousands of Soviet prisoners, Thegeneral?

I think the authors understanding of northern Ireland is tenuous to say the least which doesn't inspire much confidence in the rest of what he says.

To address what the General says "Tell that to the thousands who have given stuff up through torture."

Just after the Afghan War one of OBL top El Quada commanders was captured by US troops if you remember (I'll have to look up his name). Much media speculation followed on what would be done with him. Would he be taken straight back to the US  of stand trial in the new Afghanistan? Neither happened he was whisked away by the CIA to government location in Egypt where torture is legal and Egyptian and CIA torturers began to work on him.

One of the question they asked him was "Did Saddam have any weapons of mass destruction." At first he said no and there was no connection between Al Quada and Iraq. However after some toture he changed his story and agreed Al Quada had links with Saddam who had a secret WMD and intended to give it to Islamic terrorists.

The information from this torture is part of the discreditted secret intelligence dossier and arguably the main evidence that Britain and the US went to war on.

100,000 people have died as a result of this torture. As The General says torture makes people talk. If I ask you do you have WMD in you house? and torture you enough eventually you will say yes. torture makes people talk yes, but there's no truth criteria, they'll simply confirm whatever the torturer want's them to confirm to make it stop.

Torture is an unrelieable source of information. People will say eventually everything their torturers want to hear. It may lead to some quick victories, but at the end it will turn against the torturers. But what's more important: from an ethical point of view it's completely rejectable.

Washington lost most of his battles but won the U.S. independence. Washington was a success. The U.S. won most of Vietnam battles, but couldn�t prevent the fall of South Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a failure.

So, to revise your statement about the British, the British avoidance of torture has prevent them from achieving a quick military victory. On the other hand, The British still control Northern Ireland to this day. Their strategy has been a success.

Using torture brought quick military victories to the French army in Algeria. However, civilian support for the action in both Algeria and France eroded to the point that Algeria was granted its independence; ironically, achieving the FNL's goal.

Failure was the long-term result of torture. The French Army failed to secure the political goal of keeping Algeria. Their torture strategy was a failure.

That is not an absolute correlation.  The British used torture in Kenya and still won. 

The French were on the verge of victory in Algeria as more and more of FLN's top leaders were being captured yet it was the loss of French public opinion at home (which was not solely due to torture but many other things like battle casualties and exhaustion from Vietnam) that led to the French defeat. 

The French strategy was also not just torture, torture was something that was a piece in their larger strategy, just as the British kindness to the civil populace was a part of their larger strategy.

As for Washington, though he did lose most of his battles, he still won a military victory.  The British were unable to impose military force on the Colonies and because of the military force of the Continentals and their French allies.  More colonists actually fought for the British than against them actually.  The British did not lose the war only because of insufficient popular support, the Continental Army had damaged their capacity to make war.

Vietnam was also lost because it couldn't be brought to a military conclusion without going to war with China.

I'm not arguing with you in saying that one of the most effective strategies in counterinsurgency warfare is to win the hearts and minds of the populace.  I think that should be and for the most part is our strategy in Iraq.

However, it is not the only strategy, there is always more than one way of doing things correctly.

Look at the British in the Boer War, they used concentration camps and scorched earth tactics to bring the Boers to defeat.

Against FLN the French were on the verge of victory when domestic public opinion tired of the war.

Genghis Khan, enough said.

To highlight this you can look at when the French were in Algeria the first time.  Two successive Marshals used the polar opposites of approaches to counterinsurgency warfare with equal success.

One Marshall Lyautey used pacification and negotiation with the native rulers, and the winning of hearts and minds with subsidized low-cost markets and such to win over the population.

Another was Marshall Bugeaud who used extremely brutal tactics and was eventually recalled because of them, but by that time he was recalled his sectors had already been pacified.  Here's what answers.com says:

Bugeaud's strategy was to destroy Abd al Qadir's bases, then to starve the population by destroying its means of subsistence � crops, orchards, and herds. On several occasions, French troops burned or asphyxiated noncombatants hiding from the terror in caves. One by one, the amir's strongholds fell to the French, and many of his ablest commanders were killed or captured so that by 1843 the Muslim state had collapsed.

Again, I am not saying that benevolent pacification does not work, I'm just trying to show that it is not the only way and that brutal pacification is often effective if it is done correctly, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

Originally posted by Genghis That is not an absolute correlation. The British used torture in Kenya and still won. The French were on the verge of victory in Algeria as more and more of FLN's top leaders were being captured yet it was the loss of French public opinion at home (which was not solely due to torture but many other things like battle casualties and exhaustion from Vietnam) that led to the French defeat. The French strategy was also not just torture, torture was something that was a piece in their larger strategy, just as the British kindness to the civil populace was a part of their larger strategy. As for Washington, though he did lose most of his battles, he still won a military victory. The British were unable to impose military force on the Colonies and because of the military force of the Continentals and their French allies. More colonists actually fought for the British than against them actually. The British did not lose the war only because of insufficient popular support, the Continental Army had damaged their capacity to make war. Vietnam was also lost because it couldn't be brought to a military conclusion without going to war with China. I'm not arguing with you in saying that one of the most effective strategies in counterinsurgency warfare is to win the hearts and minds of the populace. I think that should be and for the most part is our strategy in Iraq. However, it is not the only strategy, there is always more than one way of doing things correctly. Look at the British in the Boer War, they used concentration camps and scorched earth tactics to bring the Boers to defeat. Against FLN the French were on the verge of victory when domestic public opinion tired of the war. Genghis Khan, enough said. To highlight this you can look at when the French were in Algeria the first time. Two successive Marshals used the polar opposites of approaches to counterinsurgency warfare with equal success. One Marshall Lyautey used pacification and negotiation with the native rulers, and the winning of hearts and minds with subsidized low-cost markets and such to win over the population. Another was Marshall Bugeaud who used extremely brutal tactics and was eventually recalled because of them, but by that time he was recalled his sectors had already been pacified. Here's what answers.com says/P] Bugeaud's strategy was to destroy Abd al Qadir's bases, then to starve the population by destroying its means of subsistence � crops, orchards, and herds. On several occasions, French troops burned or asphyxiated noncombatants hiding from the terror in caves. One by one, the amir's strongholds fell to the French, and many of his ablest commanders were killed or captured so that by <A class=ilnk href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222 &dekey=1843&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1"> 1843</A> the Muslim state had collapsed. Again, I am not saying that benevolent pacification does not work, I'm just trying to show that it is not the only way and that brutal pacification is often effective if it is done correctly, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

From your post, I assume that you endorse the thesis that torture is an effective tool of terror; since you have not addressed the usefulness of torture for intelligence gathering, I assume that you agree that it is useless. I also assume that you agree with all of us that torture is ethically wrong.

So let's examine the effectiveness of torture as a tool to terrorize a population and its political consequences.

Wars occur in social contexts, and the political and public relations play a role as important as military operations.

My stressing the importance of political goals is to focus on what eventually defines success when using force. My stressing of public relations is because it is in this sphere where the long-term costs of torture are paid.

A government using torture cast a negative view of itself. The effects are not immediate, but if torture is practiced routinely, it will have great consequences. Paradoxically, torture used to terrorize a population has to be used over a long period of time to be effective.

There are three negative reactions against the torture sponsoring government: the government loses the support of its citizens, the government faces greater diplomatic obstacles with other nations, and the government engenders strong hatred among members of the victimized group.

You mentioned several times how the French were about to win, but that the public turned against the war. Properly qualified, they were about to win a military victory against the FNL. However, the negative publicity that torture created in France made the political and military leaders lose the political goal, which means, that their operation was a failure.

Also, let us not forget the example of the Soviet Union, the most successful country that used torture as a terror tool. Soviet torture was a key element in turning a huge amount of people, many who were initially ardent supporters of the country, against it. As soon as the Soviet Union lost power, every country that could secede from it did.

I am not too familiar with the Boer War and its aftermath. Did the British used torture for a long period of time?

My conclusion is that torture�s only real use is to terrorize a population. When used this way, the cost of torture outweighs its benefits. It creates a negative public image that often hurts the political objectives of a government in the long term. For this reason, political and military leaders should avoid it.

P.S. I am tempted to use your other examples from the Boer War and Marshall Bugeaud, but it seems that we would be shifting into the topic of the effectiveness of a strategy of brutality and war atrocities. This is a close topic, but can be different. The key difference is time frame: war brutality last for a relatively short period of time. Torture is a long-term terror tactic.

Since you were so kind to start this thread, I will start one on the topic of war brutality as an effective tool. I sense that we will probably agree on the issue of short-term war brutality.

Well, I must say that I am convinced that the infliction of extreme pain as a way of gathering information is not effective after I found this quote by someone who obviously would be in a position of authority on the matter.  Napoleon Bonaparte:

�The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognised that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.�

Now, physical torture obviously does not work, but what about phsycological torture and mind games?

If you hold people long enough in questioning people give in to anything. I remember three teens were held for killing the sister of one of the suspects. They were held for fourteen hours the first time. The brother gave in and just made up a story on how he went about killing his sister. The following weekend one of the other suspects just gave in as soon as he walked in and said how the third suspect went about killing and he was just to watch for anyone coming. The third never gave into anything.

Then they found a 4th suspect who is known for having mental problems, and for some reason he had the blood of the girl on his sweat shirt. He was later convicted after a few years of the trial when the prosecutar couldn't come up with anymore, and the boys who are now in their twenties believe that the practice of questioning like this should change, which I believe it did. The police did lead them on in confessing, but the point is things get more and more on your nervs, and being held someplace against your will wieghs heavily on you and a person ends up just breaking under the pressure.

This just shows how delicate the human mind is, and you have to take into consideration how much pressure to be put on someone to get the right answers and not just something your hoping or wanting to hear.

Well, that's not really what I meant by psychological torture.  I meant using mind games and such to make a person feel so low or be in such a state of shock that they won't have the mental capacity to resist you making them tell you what you want them to.  I found an article about it. 

Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

source: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/category/national_security/ intelligence/page/2/