So, John McCain and his media entourage finally browbeat President Bush into capitulation. For a President whose backbone is one of his most salient characteristics, backing down on coercive interrogations is a disappointment, though the votes seem to have guaranteed the override of a veto.

We are left with an American intelligence apparatus that now cannot even instill the fear of any physical pressure among terrorist detainees. If this policy was in place last year, Americans would have been killed.

After about 20 more minutes of useless questioning, [Lt. Col. Allen] West grabbed the man, held him down near a box full of sand used to discharge jammed weapons, and said something like, "This is it. I'm going to count to five again, and if you don't give me what I want, I'm going to kill you." West held the man down, counted to five, and then fired his pistol into the discharging box about a foot from the Iraqi's head. He began talking. Over the next few minutes, the prisoner gave very specific information about the plot. He named the conspirators, gave times and dates of the assassination plan, and even described how attacks would be made...

An Article 32 hearing — the military equivalent of a grand jury — heard the charges against West in November. The results of that hearing are due any day, and may recommend felony charges against West.

So a soldier fired a gun into the ground, scared a prisoner and, as a result, saved lives. Based on this story, it seems certain that Americans will lose their lives due to excessively stringent rules so that members of Congress can grandstand. Again, we are not talking about real torture, but just reasonably rough and coercive interrogations. Perhaps I'm just an outlier, but am I the only person who thinks that scaring a prisoner to literally save lives is a good trade-off and that firing a gun into the ground is not so bad? Not only will this more restrictive policy cost lives directly, but it will do so indirectly by impairing morale.

Col. Kevin Stramara, West's boss...testified at the Article 32 hearing. With about a dozen of his troops listening, Stramara was asked, "If you had to choose between following the rules and saving American lives, which would you choose?" His answer: "I don't know. I'd have to have some more details." While Stramara looks for those details, his men know their lives may be lost. His instinct is to cover his butt, not to save his troops...Ask yourself: Would you like your 19-year-old son serving on a battlefield under this man?...

It would be a great mistake to believe that the army's action on this case will be unimportant. The troops are following it closely, and the decision on whether West is court martialed will reverberate throughout the force. The community of warriors is both close and tight, and very well informed. They talk about these things, and take them to heart. I described the facts of the West case to a couple of the active-duty warriors I know, and their reaction was the same. They told me that court martialing West will damage the trust the troops place in their commanders.

But forget about what happens on the ground in the real world, amid a war against an enemy the likes of which no American GI (including the McCains and Murthas) has ever faced. At least the politicians in the Beltway echo chamber can feel better about themselves.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/2741

---

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

What is the Vice-President's last name?

(NOTE: You must get this correct, otherwise, your comment will be rejected.)

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)