POLICY OF TORTURE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR U.S. (5-2004)

Anybody who has regularly watched “Star Trek” on TV knows that the 
United Federation of Planets, of which Earth is a founding member, 
would never use torture to extract information from a prisoner, or 
to punish him. According to Captain Picard, speaking to his 
Cardassian interrogator, “One wonders why it’s still used.”

The “Federation” is supposed to be the futuristic counterpart of 
the United States. And, although Third-World dictatorships may use 
torture frequently, it’s not something that the United States 
would ever use against its prisoners of war. At least that’s what 
many of us always thought.

Never mind the Mi Lai massacre in Vietnam or the collateral damage 
in Iraq and Panama during our excursions in those places. Those 
were isolated incidents.

But the recently publicized torture of Iraqi prisoners by American 
military personnel didn’t seem to be an isolated incident. It 
seemed to be going on routinely. And it didn’t even seem to be for 
the purpose of extracting critical information. It was simple 
brutality.

Although it was not sanctioned by the president or other high 
officials, it nevertheless has painted the U.S. in a different 
light globally. It has understandably made those in Arab nations 
madder at us than ever. 

Ironically, however, it has tarnished our sought-after reputation 
of being the great liberator and replaced it with one more 
befitting a Third-World tyrant. We went in to Iraq to free it from 
a ruthless dictator, and then we proceeded to torture and abuse 
some of its citizens.

The first Gulf War, led by George Bush, Senior, was quick and 
popular, although it left the Iraqis hanging after we went home. 
The former president’s popularity went through the roof during and 
after the war, and he was a shoe-in for reelection. Then the 
economy got him.

George W. Bush may be seeing a recovering economy, but his 
policies in Iraq may be what does him in. Public support for his 
Iraq policy has plummeted in recent weeks.

So what does the U.S. do to save face? For starters, we need to 
turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. It should 
be a matter of days, not months. It’s their country; let them run 
it.

In addition, Donnald Rumsfeld should resign. He may not have 
ordered the torturing, or even been aware of it. But he should 
have been. By virtue of his position, he is responsible. 

Finally, the U.S. must reexamine its foreign policy. Do we really 
need to be involved in the Middle East at all? I’m not advocating 
an isolationist policy, but we do not need to be involved in 
everything.

The alternative to that would be to go in and take over Iraq 
completely. Stop using the measured response policy. Go in and 
route the country with whatever amount of force is needed to get 
it done quickly, then set up a puppet government and use their oil 
resources to fund our mission.

It could be done. The Soviet Union did it in several countries 
following World War II.

But since that would be a very unpopular move at home and abroad, 
it is not likely to happen. That leaves us with the get-out-and-
cut-out-losses approach. We did what we set out to do: We toppled 
Saddam Hussein from power and then captured him. So let’s turn him 
over to his people and go home.

The world will forget our atrocities soon enough. And we’ll forget 
about them eventually, too. We always do.