Rather unsurprisingly, it has now been revealed that the CIA lied and broke the law (by disobeying a court order to produce "documentary evidence") to cover up its use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture). So, now we will be treated to a parade of justifications (rationalizations?) of lying during wartime: we had to it because al-Qaeda is uniquely evil and wants to kill us, etc. And that, for me at least, brings up the greatest military strategic thinker of all time, Sun Tzu. What might he say about this situation?
Long story short: he would be disgusted.
The first thing that comes to mind is that Sun Tzu would accept the general necessity of lying in wartime. After all, one of the most famous of his sayings is that "all warfare is based on deception" (1.17, 7.12). Now, an objection could be raised here that he means this in relation to the enemy: deception should be used to fool your adversary in ways that promote your victory. The CIA, by contrast, is deceiving us, the people it is supposedly fighting for, which may not be what Sun Tzu has in mind.
But Sun Tzu does embrace the idea of limiting the flow of information, even among one's own people. The wise commander: "...should be capable of keeping his officers and men in ignorance of his plans." (11.43) This suggests that certain operational details should not circulate even to officers. In order for this to apply to torturing captives, however, it would have to be asserted that gaining information from them (even though torture is a bad way of getting good, actionable information) is compelled by the same sort of critical immediacy as actual battlefield conditions. I am sure the CIA will make this sort of claim.
At the very least, then, there are ideas in Sun Tzu that can be invoked to defend the CIA's lying.
But, on balance, I believe that a more comprehensive consideration of Sun Tzu would support a condemnation of CIA lying. There are three reasons:
1) We should not be torturing captives to begin with - and so the lying to cover up the torture is simply covering up a bad practice. Sun Tzu tells us: "Treat captives well, and care for them." (2.19). To which the commentator Chang Yu adds: "All soldiers taken must be cared for with magnanimity and sincerity so that they may be used by us." Torture defenders might counter that the war on terrorism is not like a conventional war. The enemy is implacable and religiously determined to destroy us forever, which requires torture. To this the faithful interpreter of Sun Tzu would partially agree but continue to more basically disagree. The point of agreement would be the recognition that the war on terror may well be unique - but it is precisely because its particularity, and its political context, that torture must be avoided. Which brings us to the next two points.
2) The ground. Throughout much of his book Sun Tzu talks about terrain, the ground, and the necessity of fitting specific military moves to the physical environment. I have always understood this both literally and metaphorically. The actual physical terrain of the battlefield obviously matters, but so does the broader political and strategic context. The war on terror is very much a political battle - fourth generation warfare. And what this kind of struggle requires is a heightened sense of the political effects of the use of violence. It is not just about blowing up buildings or disarming specific enemy military forces. It is also very much about communicating specific political messages through violence. This is something Sun Tzu understood - and why he believed you could win the war without fighting a battle.
When you torture, you must assume that the fact of that torture will become public information, it will become one of the images and messages you are producing and circulating. And that message is obviously harmful to the broader political goals of the war. Beyond its obviously abhorrent quality, torture hurts the US strategically. Torturing and then lying about it, in big and obvious ways that shout to the world that the US tortures and lies about it, only compounds the problem.
Thus, while Sun Tzu can support certain kinds of lying in warfare, he would most certainly reject lying about torture in the manner of the CIA today.
3) The final reason for a Sun Tzu rejection of the CIA practice of torture and its public lying about it is the Tao. One of the the most fundamental factors necessary for victory he says is "Tao," which Griffith translates as "moral influence." He goes on: "By moral influence I mean that which causes the people to be in harmony with their leaders, so that they will accompany them in life and unto death without fear of mortal peril." (1.4). In a modern democratic republic, which the US is supposed to be, torture undermines the moral influence of the government. Nothing demonstrates this better than Bush and his loss of popularity (I would even say legitimacy). He is a laughing stock, a shame, an embarrassment. Many Americans feel that way. He lies and we can see it. He has validated practices that fundamentally contradict the most basic principles of our government and society. He has lost his moral influence and, through him, the US has lost its moral influence in the world. All of which hurts the US strategically.
Bottom line: Sun Tzu would say don't torture and don't lie about it.
And, by the way, Bush lost the war.
The Bush/Cheney junta are weakening this nation and the our character, individually, collectively. They couldn't be playing into the hands of Al Qaeda and its ilk better if they were working for them. Sometimes, I believe some of the junta just may be in the pay of our nation's enemies. Certainly, former Honorable Representative Randall "Duke" Cunningham was a was profiteer at the very least, although few actually call him that. War profiteer is edging close into traitor territory.
PS: At some point, will you be doing a post on the Wayne Dyer interpretation of the Tao that PBS has been showing for the past year?
Posted by: gmoke | December 07, 2007 at 10:36 PM