This is Ramesh Ponnuru responding to Rich Lowery and it shows how bad an idea it is to depend on idealistic ivory tower theoreticians for policy. There are just so many things wrong with Ramesh's line of reasoning as to astound a common sort like me. He views life through the prism of his supposedly higher morals while seemingly never considering how he would feel about his high minded beliefs should it be his family sacrificed at the altar of high ideals. Put simply they are completely incapable of walking in another's shoes.

The Corner on National Review Online#084957: "You note that David Ignatius suggested that it is worth opposing torture even if it costs some Americans' lives. You don't really disagree with that, do you? You do believe, that is, that there are some things that you would agree count as torture and that should not be done even if they cost some Americans' lives--don't you?

You are not a pure utilitarian on the question. And if the failure to commit what you yourself consider torture did cost an American his life, you wouldn't feel specially obligated, would you, to write his family a letter telling them his death was 'worth it' to vindicate a moral point? Are you sure that issuing a challenge to Ignatius--telling him to write that letter--wouldn't be a kind of moral preening in itself?"

He actually declares that he is ok with losing a few American lives if that is what it takes to enact his idealistic gentleman's rules regarding torture. You know what; I am ok with that, as long as the first lives lost are the families of all those who either voted or supported these new rules regarding torture. Let Senator McCain sacrifice his son John first. Let Ramesh offer up his wife April if he feels strongly that it is ok to sacrifice a few American lives.

When put into such personal and stark terms its not quite so attractive is it? But just as a capitalist asks those who ask for favors from the Government to rephrase the question from the Government paying for it to I am paying for it, so should the moralist rephrase the question from some unknown soldier paying for it to my son paying for my ideals.

What is truly absurd about that point of view is that it we are not talking about the "pull your fingernails out" type of torture but of water boarding, putting them in uncomfortable temperatures, making them stand for awhile and other ridiculously loose descriptions of so called torture. Wrapping a terrorist in an Israelis flag, qualifies as torture? Moreover, such horrible torture that Ramesh and other high-minded ivory tower specialists have absolutely no problem allowing young soldiers to die to uphold such absurdities.

Belgravia Dispatch gets involved with quotes along these lines.

Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of the constant litany about whether wrapping someone up in the Israeli flag or menstrual blood constitutes torture, or abuse, or is no big effing deal, or something in between, or whatever. I'm sick of Rich Lowry getting all pissy-matchy with Sullivan about whether things like "belly-slapping" constitute torture or not. Or Mark Levin's sad series of apologias over at NRO (in these days of rather embarrassing K-Lo-esque buffoonery, said periodical has dropped, methinks, far below Buckley-compliant standards of golden yesteryear).

So I'm guessing he considers those items torture, fake menstrual blood, wrapping a prisoner in the Israelis flag are all NOT allowed to save soldiers lives in Iraq. Perhaps Greg might do well to understand what real torture looks like. Here is a snippet of a description of real torture.

"'They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a 'celebration.' We all knew what they meant by 'celebration.' All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.''This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us.' 'Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat.' There is a moment of silence. Then Idrissi says: 'What we have seen about the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib is a joke to us.'"

And no, nobody on the so called "pro" torture side is advocating this sort of behavior by our soldiers.

So then, you might assume that Greg is against anything that might even resemble harsh treatment. You would be right up to a point. When you ask does that point change? Well when it is Senator Grandstands ass or Gregory Djerejian's ass that might be blown up then oops sorry but we better get the water board out. See both Senator Grandstand and others all acknowledge that there are times when torture may be required, like when Manhattan is under the threat of some sort of large weapon. Now all of a sudden those annoying terrorists are getting personal, and its time to bring out all the tools proven to work, water boarding, Psy Ops, long periods without sleep, and the rest of the horrible stuff defined as torture under the new enlightened age of the high thinkers.

We know torture works by the testimony of Senator Grandstand himself when he talked of his time in Vietnam and even more directly because Senator Grandstand says as much himself in his new phony baloney rules for torture. Here is the relevant quote from Belgravia Dispatch

Lowry is concerned that moralist preening will end up costing American lives. God forbid, should there be a major terror attack that kills tens of thousands, we will see a chorus of complaints that Saint McCain helped spur on the massacre because of his too coddling approach to detainees. This is bunk. As McCain has said, if there is a real ticking time bomb scenario, the gloves will come off, but the interrogator will be responsible for his actions.

Peachy, even at the point that the poor interrogator saves their asses they STILL refuse responsibility and will STILL prosecute the interrogator that saves Manhattan. Well if we prosecute the interrogator, are those who built the back door just as guilty?

That a back door exists also does wonders for the only argument that the Anti Israelis flag dress up crowd ever had that was worth a damn. Torture should not be allowed because it does not work. Well if it does not work, then why have that back door in Senator Grandstands idiotic rules?

Now after attacking others for their views regarding torture it is probably only fair to expose myself to derision by trying to explain my own views. Overall, I do not believe that I have any right to dictate to my soldiers how they should win the war. Instead, I understand that war is a terrible nightmare and that I have no right to ask anything of my soldiers except to win. That is their sole instruction from me. Win.

Winning is something many seem to take for granted not me. Our soldiers are the best-trained and most effective soldiers in history but it must be acknowledged that our enemy is unlike any we have faced. Certainly many may not be able to see the multitudes of ways we could lose this war but with even a cursory glance, it becomes obvious.

I value each of my soldiers lives as I value my own dear children because I know that their parents love them as I do mine. I am not willing to sacrifice even one of my soldiers, however unknown to me, to unreasonable rules so that I can feel myself acceptable to those around the world who consider themselves civilized.

I am not willing for them to be badly led because that leads to the sort of useless abuse of Abu Garib. Abu Garib was terrible not because of the treatment of the prisoners but because it contributed nothing to victory. Simply put I am for winning and anything that furthers that cause is good, anything that hinders it is bad.

My definition of winning is killing so many of our foes that their children rue the day their fathers took up arms against us. Would I torture a suspect myself? Absolutely if the choice was between saving American lives or saving my honor, my honor would fly out of the door. Why, because I know how much I love my children and the parents of those soldiers I saved love them just as much. Perhaps I would live in shame for the rest of my life but it is a small price for saving even one of my country-men's lives.

The war is not won, stop being arrogant believing that you can raise any obstacle and our government can overcome it to defend us. Because one day the sacrifice may indeed be your child or dear wife.
iraq Politics News murtha Able Danger Curt Weldon bush war on terror spying patriot act nsa CIAtortureAbu GhraibGuantanamonational review

The Corner on National Review Online#084957">Reference Article