More than 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq says torture is acceptable

[HoreTore]

Anyone surprised? Shocked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6627055.stm

Relevant qoutes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.

More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.

About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.

Note: this survey is done by the pentagon itself, so no need to cry "liberal media whiners"...

[Mooks]

The survey, by an army mental health advisory team, sampled more than 1,700 soldiers and marines between August and October 2006.



I hardly call that 1/3 the troops in iraq.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bandit:

It's hard to assess the validity of the study without a better sense of the sampling frame and methodology. Survey data gets influenced by lots of things -- the specific word choices used, the appearance of the person asking the questions, the venue in which those questions were asked.

However, in statistical terms, IF the sampling frame was constructed properly and the sample was an essentially random group from the appropriate population and IF the methodology of the questioning process was more or less "neutral" in its potential to influence the responses, then 1700 "data points" can be used to generate a statistically useful sample with a relatively low degree of error.

The key issue isn't the number of people sampled -- that was sufficient -- but the other research design issues that have to be controlled effectively in order to generate VALID data.

[Tribesman]

It's hard to assess the validity of the study without a better sense of the sampling frame and methodology.

Well you can get all the information you want here
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/new...iv/mhat-iv.cfm

It appears that the army comes out worse than the marines . Perhaps that is due to length of deployments .
One thing that struck me was the 17% who view all non-combatants as insurgents . Not a good sign , but then again its a dodgy situation they are stuck in .

[Xiahou]

More than 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq says torture is acceptable

I'm assuming that would probably mirror the views of the US populace at large as well. In fact, I remember seeing that the 1/3 value pretty much extends to the entire world.

Oh look! A chart.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Views on torturing prisoners
Country Against all torture * Some degree permissible * Neither/Don't Know
Australia 75% 22% 3%
Brazil 61% 32% 8%
Canada 74% 22% 4%
Chile 62% 22% 16%
China 49% 37% 13%
Egypt 65% 25% 9%
France 75% 19% 6%
Germany 71% 21% 7%
Gt Britain 72% 24% 4%
India 23% 32% 45%
Indonesia 51% 40% 8%
Iraq 55% 42% 1%
Israel 48% 43% 9%
Italy 81% 14% 6%
Kenya 53% 38% 9%
Mexico 50% 24% 27%
Nigeria 49% 39% 12%
Philippines 56% 40% 5%
Poland 62% 27% 12%
Russia 43% 37% 19%
S Korea 66% 31% 3%
Spain 65% 16% 19%
Turkey 62% 24% 14%
Ukraine 54% 29% 18%
US 58% 36% 7%
Average 59% 29% 12%

[Rodion Romanovich]

This is shocking! Perhaps it's time to reconsider the idea of standing armies, as it seems to in this case have attracted a way too high percentage with obviously bad mental health. Especially the 10% who beat Iraqis without any reason are extremely dangerous, and should probably be kept under supervision in special homes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

[Duke of Gloucester]

You beat me to it BG. I too find this encouraging (nearly 2/3 of US forces say torture is unacceptable even if it could save comrades' lives).

[Tribesman]

In fact, I remember seeing that the 1/3 value pretty much extends to the entire world.

Errrrr...thats a chart showing that different countries have different views , and that some countries support torture more than others .

[BigTex]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

Well said. 1/3 of grunts supporting torcher is quite low compared to other wars. Speaks volumes to the ability of the Officer's in charge. The question also tilts it so as to get a higher number then just flat out. It's "would you torcher terrorists to save lives" and not "would you torcher terrorists".

It's also a good sign that the US military is conducting these polls, and even making their findings public. Can't think of very many war's in the past were countries have asked these kinds of questions or even announced them publicly.

[Tribesman]

Well said. 1/3 of grunts supporting torcher is quite low compared to other wars. Speaks volumes to the ability of the Officer's in charge. The question also tilts it so as to get a higher number then just flat out. It's "would you torcher terrorists to save lives" and not "would you torcher terrorists".

Someone didn't read it then eh Tex

[HoreTore]

As LegioXXX pointed out, this isn't about whether american soldiers are loons or not, it's about whether Iraq makes loons out of sane people. And I think the survey clearly shows that people spend too much time down there.

The US government claim they are protecting and helping the Iraqi citizen, right? That's a bit hard to do when half the army says that they don't believe the Iraqis should even be treated with respect.

The US simply HAS to change this if they are ever going to "win the hearts and minds" in Iraq. You don't get any support with soldiers like this.

[Adrian II]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

Teh solid judgment of BG, as so often in military matters.

On a sidenote: there are several good reasons to prefer a conscript army with a professional core over a purely professional army (let alone mercenary forces), but mental sanity is not one of them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Teh solid judgment of BG, as so often in military matters.

On a sidenote: there are several good reasons to prefer a conscript army with a professional core over a purely professional army (let alone mercenary forces), but mental sanity is not one of them.

Could you expand on that? Im not being combative, just interested.

Ive always thought that if you can afford a professional army, it is always preferable. (Mercs are a completely different issue)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Among other things, it's cheaper. The army size grows and shrinks adapting to the needs in a much more flexible way. Also, the entire population will take more responsibility for the wars and try to prevent wars that aren't necessary. Nations and empires that rely too much on mercenaries have historically tended to enter wars much more arbitrarily. Besides, the complement of conscripts makes the army damn more efficient on defense, when mercenaries or a purely standing army tend to be less reliable.

[Adrian II]

Among other things, it's cheaper. The army size grows and shrinks adapting to the needs in a much more flexible way. Also, the entire population will take more responsibility for the wars and try to prevent wars that aren't necessary. Nations and empires that rely too much on mercenaries have historically tended to enter wars much more arbitrarily. Besides, the complement of conscripts makes the army damn more efficient on defense, when mercenaries or a purely standing army tend to be less reliable.

All agreed, except the latter point which I am not so sure of. In my view the main benefit of conscription is in the increased mutual awareness of the citizenry and the armed forces of each other's mentality, expectations and limitations. Professional armies are a compromise between conscript and mercenary armies, with some of the disadvantages ascribed to the latter by Machiavelli.

[Redleg]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

Yes indeed - I am glad that you wrote this before I saw this thread.

The only part of the data that the survey presents that concerns me is how the soldiers view the Iraqi people. That could represent several important things as it relates to the operation and how the soldiers act.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

Comforting? Not in any way, shape or form. This survey is shocking, and telling of an occupational force that is morally bankrupt.

Yes, in a philosophical sense, in an entirely-dissociated-from-reality kind of way, then there are cases where torture is conceivable. But that is not what this is all about.

This is about a demoralised force that has lost all sense of cause, of direction, and in the end, of morality. Less than half the troops think Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. 10% said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them when it was not necessary to do so.

There is no goal to the invasion, no cause, no definition of either enemy or victory. What there is, is a demoralised allied force left burning in the desert sun, wasting their youth in a dump, a , on a compound surrounded by a hostile population. Put me there for six months and I'd go all Cho Seung-hui on the Iraqi's. I would be wanting to serve them brown desert ******* right too.

That is what this is about.

[Adrian II]

Put me there for six months and I'd go all Cho Seung-hui on the Iraqi's. I would be wanting to serve them brown desert ******* right too.

Then you should subscribe to Banquo's Ghost's view that the survey result is actually quite comforting and shows good morale given the circumstances.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bugger, you're right. I need to read first and reply second.

[Blodrast]

Comforting my bubblegum!... It's only "comforting" insofar as the low regard in which so many of the troops keep the Iraqis explains (at least in part) the 150k-600k kill-err, liberated Iraqi civilians...

As for attitude towards torture, this is completely and utterly unsurprising, seeing as how a large chunk of our fellow American orgahs (civilian and/or (ex-)military) explained clearly a few months ago that they don't consider waterboarding and sensory deprivation as torture, and besides, those filthy terrorists have no rights anyway.

Just goes to show that some people's "normal" is other people's "unacceptable", and that we all hold vastly different opinions - even on matters of life and death. We're all very, very different.

[Redleg]

Comforting my bubblegum!... It's only "comforting" insofar as the low regard in which so many of the troops keep the Iraqis explains (at least in part) the 150k-600k kill-err, liberated Iraqi civilians...

Do you think soldiers in previous wars thought highly of the opposition's citizens?

I know some veterns - many deceased now that had absolutely no regard for the Japanese or the Germans.

[BigTex]

Comforting my bubblegum!... It's only "comforting" insofar as the low regard in which so many of the troops keep the Iraqis explains (at least in part) the 150k-600k kill-err, liberated Iraqi civilians...

As for attitude towards torture, this is completely and utterly unsurprising, seeing as how a large chunk of our fellow American orgahs (civilian and/or (ex-)military) explained clearly a few months ago that they don't consider waterboarding and sensory deprivation as torture, and besides, those filthy terrorists have no rights anyway.

Just goes to show that some people's "normal" is other people's "unacceptable", and that we all hold vastly different opinions - even on matters of life and death. We're all very, very different.

Compared to any other war these are hugely low lvl's from grunts (not officers). You should also read very carefully the questions asked. "would you torture terrorists to save lives?" I would hope most soldiers would be willing to go the extremes to save their comrades and the people in Iraq. If this number was any lower I'd even say we have a massive problem. And really, using the lancet's findings which they even admit were skewed for a high finding for political purposes is a poor idea.

[Blodrast]

Do you think soldiers in previous wars thought highly of the opposition's citizens?

Absolutely not - I fully agree with you here.
However...
1. How on earth is that an excuse/justification ?!
2. I thought it was interesting that you used the term "opposition's citizens"... I thought it was precisely those citizens that the US went to liberate, not to fight against...
Relax, don't take it as a personal criticism - but your way of thinking just gives me some insight (potentially) into how some American folks think/feel about this war/conflict...

I know some veterns - many deceased now that had absolutely no regard for the Japanese or the Germans.

Fully agree with you. It was absolutely wrong then, as it is now.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't think BG, Redleg, and others are approaching this from a philosophical perspective of whether it's right or wrong for 1/3 of US soldiers to consider torture acceptable in some circumstances, but rather from a pragmatic perspective, considering the numbers from this survey in comparison to the nature of soldiers historically, and the military's concern with the issue in comparison to lack thereof historically. It's not a good thing, surely, but perhaps much better than it could be.

As for winning hearts and minds, holding people in contempt is certainly not conducive to earning their love, but then I don't think military occupation is a way to win hearts and minds in general. The problem is with using the military for something it doesn't do. Armies defeat other armies in battle; they don't conquer ideas and win the trust and appreciation of civilian populations. They're fighting an impossible battle insofar as they're being used to combat an ideology. Ideas must be defeated with other ideas, not with bombs and steel.

Ajax

[Blodrast]

Compared to any other war these are hugely low lvl's from grunts (not officers). You should also read very carefully the questions asked. "would you torture terrorists to save lives?" I would hope most soldiers would be willing to go the extremes to save their comrades and the people in Iraq. If this number was any lower I'd even say we have a massive problem. And really, using the lancet's findings which they even admit were skewed for a high finding for political purposes is a poor idea.

1. About the lancet study - well, that's why I used the low level bound as well as the high one, because I know it's been vehemently contested. Do you disagree with even the lower bound, of 150k ?
I personally find even that 150k figure to be a lot, considering this was not initiated as a war of occupation, but rather as one of liberation.

2. I'm not sure I follow your first sentence, can you clarify a bit ?
Are you referring to the percentage of low level soldiers in Iraq, or just the chunk that was interviewed ?
And I agree with you the way questions are formulated is always a very tricky issue.
Like I said in my previous post, BigTex, I didn't base my comments exclusively on this article, I took into account the discussions we had a few months ago, with the "legalization" of torture for suspected terrorists (I don't recall the exact title of the article, but you may remember what I'm talking about).

Again, read the conclusion of my previous post, about the huge differences in mentality among us. That's really the only conclusion I can draw. In my eyes, your opinion may be wrong, and in your eyes, my opinion may be wrong - but since there is no higher moral arbiter, we can never decide who's "right" and who's "wrong" (if that is even the case - perhaps we're both right, or wrong).
Best we can do is agree to disagree.

I would be interested to discuss (not in this thread, don't mean to derail it) why exactly some of us have such opposing views, and what are the factors that influenced us to feel/think the way we do (if that's a doable task to begin with...).

EDIT: To clarify a bit, I find the soldiers' stance much easier to understand, given the situation they find themselves in - namely, at war.
But I find it more difficult to understand why some of our fellow Orgahs (or at least the ones that are not involved in the Iraq war, if you really want to be pedantic about it) have a similar attitude.
I'm not dissing it, I'm saying I don't understand why some people think/feel that way. And I'd like to understand, naturally.

[Blodrast]

I don't think BG, Redleg, and others are approaching this from a philosophical perspective of whether it's right or wrong for 1/3 of US soldiers to consider torture acceptable in some circumstances, but rather from a pragmatic perspective, considering the numbers from this survey in comparison to the nature of soldiers historically, and the military's concern with the issue in comparison to lack thereof historically.

I agree with you. *I* was trying to approach the issue from that perspective.

[Soulforged]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

Yes I too find it surprising, but not comforting. I also believe that torture in that context has no other purpose that saving lives, and in general torture had that purpose when used non-systematically.

[Del Arroyo]

The views on torture are not surprising and not worrying. In fact, if you look at the stats that were posted for the civilian populations of various countries around the world, I think you will agree that this is a non-issue.

The issue of soldiers respecting and empathizing with individuals within the Iraqi populace is a serious one which leaders have been trying to improve for some time now-- and they have made some progress, perhaps not enough. Very few Americans speak Arabic and Arab culture gets very little exposure in America. Most Americans are barely aware of the American cultural variations which exist outside their immediate geographic region-- joining the Army usually broadens their horizons in this respect, but they are still often unprepared to psychologically process a culture which has many striking, superficial differences from their own.

That said, there are alot of good eggs. Time spent working alongside the locals tends to produce positive effects.

[Redleg]

Absolutely not - I fully agree with you here.
However...
1. How on earth is that an excuse/justification ?!
2. I thought it was interesting that you used the term "opposition's citizens"... I thought it was precisely those citizens that the US went to liberate, not to fight against...
Relax, don't take it as a personal criticism - but your way of thinking just gives me some insight (potentially) into how some American folks think/feel about this war/conflict...

Where in my statement did I excuse or justified that 50% of the troops treat the Iraqi's badly. If you read my previous post to that you will have your answer, but here to help you out with my postion.

The only part of the data that the survey presents that concerns me is how the soldiers view the Iraqi people. That could represent several important things as it relates to the operation and how the soldiers act.

Troops suffering from anxiety, depression or stress were more likely to engage in unethical behaviour, together with those who had had a colleague wounded or killed in their unit.

Its important to understand how people act and react in stress and combat. That the study is being done is a demonstration that some are trying to address the concerns that raised by the study - well that is my hope and assumption about why the study was done and subsequentaly published for the public to read. This demonstrates an openness to change that was not present in previous conflicts, now the question remains is will the military chain of command do something about it to bring about the change.

Change can not happen if studies are not done, the findings published and discussed. While you are viewing it as a solely negative item, I find it refreshing that the military that I served in, is actually attempting to study and maybe change the soldier's preception of things to a more constructive viewpoint. Time will tell if I am right on that or not.

I found your view point to solely function on the negative aspect of the report, not on the historical significance that the report and its publication could mean in regards to address a very common aspect of all previous conflicts - that the citizens of the nation in conflict are not worthy of fair treatment.

Fully agree with you. It was absolutely wrong then, as it is now.

See the above - Hopefully you can see the historical signifiance about such a study done by the military. If something postivie can be gained from the study - ie better training and education of the soldier entering the conflict about how to deal with the civilians caught in the middle of the conflict. So from a pure personal aspect yes one should not tolerate torture or abuse - from a military historical aspect this study and its publication is a step in the right direction in attempting to prevent the abuse by maybe studying the effects of combat on the soldiers and their actions.