http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
"By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired 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.'
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply 'not a good way to get information.'
In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the 'batting average' might be lower: 'perhaps six out of ten.' And if you beat up the remaining four? 'They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop.'
Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It 'endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity.' It does 'damage to our country's image' and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be 'making gratuitous enemies' and that prisoner abuse 'is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry.' Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of 'special methods' might help explain why the war is going so badly."
But I am "naive" and "sometimes the best intentions are counter productive in war", so WTF do I know...:shrug:
