col yu,
Quote:
I disagree and disagree big time.
This is war and while we do have to take into consideration the feelings of those not exactly on our side, in the final analysis, it is us versus them and I choose us each and every time.
The only question is ... can we live with ourselves with we've done to win this war and in the case of waterboarding? Oh hell, yes, we could.
Until JAG tells me that waterboarding is illegal, I don't care what others think. If we win, they'll say we cheated. They will be alive to say we've cheated.
If we lose, I won't care much added on the numerous other crimes they say I've committed to stand me in front of their firing squad.
|
my problem with guantanamo is not so much the moral implications of what it means to US (the west has done far worse), but with the political impact of what it means to those fence-sitters. if we're ever going to win the GWOT, it is by persuading the fence-sitters to join our side.
put it this way, take the example of abu ghraib. what we did wasn't a scratch on what AQI does daily, it seems. however, what was the political impact? Coalition Provisional Authority polls taken before abu ghraib showed coalition support at some 65%. taken after abu ghraib, 9%. this is an impact strategic in nature, and not good for us.
in the end guantanamo allows us to win the tactical battles. the terrorists locked up in there are nasty and deserve far more than waterboarding, certainly. however, if the info we squeeze out of the terrorists allow us to catch ten more, while one hundred thousand (or whatever number) of muslims become incensed at our actions, i fail to see how we strategically win.
""More than anything else it's been the image -- how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States."- adm mike mullen