(This is Part 2 of a 2-part article. Go back to Part 1.)
Now let's look at a third example: Recently the media has been consumed with the abuse by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This is not to compare the U.S. with the truly egregious examples discussed above; that would surely be a false comparison.
However, what this third example does illustrate is the dark pit that any country, person or institution can fall into when the end becomes elevated above the means.
The currently-stated goals of the U.S. are to bring liberty and democracy to Iraq. Yet after the abuse of prisoners coming to light in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanimo, is that the image that America is coupled with now in global opinion? No; the predominant images, at least for a time, have become gruesome ones.
While America has had her share of missteps—from the displacement of Native Americans to slavery of African-Americans to the deposing of governments abroad—she has also done incalculable good in the world, everything from the Marshall Plan after World War II to providing an example for the world of free speech, civil rights and a long-lived democracy.
But it seems to me that the U.S. is now on a precipice. Crushing terrorism now seems like such an overriding goal in certain quarters that almost any means may seem justified. If we have to abrogate civil rights at home or abuse prisoners abroad in the pursuit of vital intelligence, this argument goes, well, so be it.
But this argument is a fallacy. If in the pursuit of high ideals we use low means we'll be remembered primarily for the low means—just as the iconic images of the U.S. in Iraq are now the photos coming out of Abu Ghraib.
We cannot win the War on Terrorism this way. For the global War on Terrorism is not primarily a military war at all, but a contest for the hearts and minds of the Islamic and Arabic world and, indeed, the world at large.
This is so because terrorists, insurgents, etc. are supported by and blend into the indigenous populations from which they arise. Angry populations are the soil out of which terrorists arise. (And from a military viewpoint, guerilla warfare is the correct response if you are facing a vastly superior army.)
If the population of a country or region feels a sense of increasing anger and injustice, all the ignoble means in the world won't help us. Because for every terrorist that we kill or neutralise three more will appear.
For all our nobly-stated ends, if ignoble means are what we use then that is what we'll be primarily remembered for, that is what will stand out.
Moreover, experts on interrogation are almost unanimous in saying that torture is actually counter-productive. Since the person being tortured sooner or later reaches a state where he or she is willing to say anything to stop the pain, along with information comes a much larger quantity of mis-information.
Experts in interrogation advocate gaining the prisoner's trust and making him or her feel safe. The reason for this is the knowledge that most people are actually quite eager to tell their story if the proper environment is provided.
But this is an argument at the tactical level only. On the deeper level where an individual, a country or the human race looks at itself in the mirror, the relationship between means and ends is all-important. Or to put it another way, what is most crucial is how we do what we do.
As individuals, as a country and as a world, it is vital to scrutinize carefully the means that we use to attain what appear to be our crucial, noble or beautiful goals. For the means we use is what we will be remembered for in the end; that is what we will actually achieve.
—jim sloman, 5.15.04 for Apr 29
|
