SERE was exposure to brainwashing, not interrogation techniques
Over the past week it has become ever clearer that the Bush administration torture program took place during the time that Cheney was searching for 'evidence' of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
Now consider what a friend who works as a defense analyst just pointed out to me: The principle objective of SERE was to expose troops to the techniques used for brainwashing, not defense against interrogation.
The military has long understood that the best way to protect military secrets is not to reveal any information that is not strictly necessary to any personnel who might be captured. Torture is not an effective means of interrogating POWs, any information is almost certainly worthless by the time the victim is finally broken.
The Vietnamese objective was to break the US airmen to extract 'confessions' and 'denunciations' for propaganda. The Pentagon began the SERE program in an attempt to avoid or at least mitigate similar embarrassments in future conflicts.
It is not just the timing of the torture that is suspicious therefore, the techniques themselves are suspicious. At a time when Cheney is known to be looking for any evidence that might be used to support a claim of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link the Pentagon stops using the techniques known to be most effective for interrogation on their prime Al Qaeda prisoners and instead begins to use techniques known to be most effective for brainwashing.
The timing and the techniques provide two pieces of the puzzle. The destruction of the torture tapes provide a third. The fact that the administration had employed torture was already known at the time that the tapes were destroyed. The surviving records will almost certainly reveal the names of the staff involved. Destruction of the tapes clearly served no intelligence purpose and was clearly not going to be sufficient to derail the investigation into the use of torture during interrogations that had already begun. The only reason to destroy the tapes would be if it demonstrated that the purpose of the torture was for something other than interrogation, such as brainwashing the prisoner into confessing to the existence of a fictious Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship.
If the purpose of the torture is in fact proved to have been brainwashing rather than interrogation it changes the game entirely. The infamous Yoo and Bybee memos do not provide immunity for the use of torture in a brainwashing program, nor does the immunity provided by Congress.
All of which makes the current GOP attacks on Pelosi more understandable. The GOP can probably survive a truth commission into the use of torture for interrogations, but it knows that even its bedrock support in the heartlands is not going to forgive it if the scope of the commission expands to considering the fabrication of evidence used to make the case for a disastrous war.
Now consider what a friend who works as a defense analyst just pointed out to me: The principle objective of SERE was to expose troops to the techniques used for brainwashing, not defense against interrogation.
The military has long understood that the best way to protect military secrets is not to reveal any information that is not strictly necessary to any personnel who might be captured. Torture is not an effective means of interrogating POWs, any information is almost certainly worthless by the time the victim is finally broken.
The Vietnamese objective was to break the US airmen to extract 'confessions' and 'denunciations' for propaganda. The Pentagon began the SERE program in an attempt to avoid or at least mitigate similar embarrassments in future conflicts.
It is not just the timing of the torture that is suspicious therefore, the techniques themselves are suspicious. At a time when Cheney is known to be looking for any evidence that might be used to support a claim of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link the Pentagon stops using the techniques known to be most effective for interrogation on their prime Al Qaeda prisoners and instead begins to use techniques known to be most effective for brainwashing.
The timing and the techniques provide two pieces of the puzzle. The destruction of the torture tapes provide a third. The fact that the administration had employed torture was already known at the time that the tapes were destroyed. The surviving records will almost certainly reveal the names of the staff involved. Destruction of the tapes clearly served no intelligence purpose and was clearly not going to be sufficient to derail the investigation into the use of torture during interrogations that had already begun. The only reason to destroy the tapes would be if it demonstrated that the purpose of the torture was for something other than interrogation, such as brainwashing the prisoner into confessing to the existence of a fictious Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship.
If the purpose of the torture is in fact proved to have been brainwashing rather than interrogation it changes the game entirely. The infamous Yoo and Bybee memos do not provide immunity for the use of torture in a brainwashing program, nor does the immunity provided by Congress.
All of which makes the current GOP attacks on Pelosi more understandable. The GOP can probably survive a truth commission into the use of torture for interrogations, but it knows that even its bedrock support in the heartlands is not going to forgive it if the scope of the commission expands to considering the fabrication of evidence used to make the case for a disastrous war.
Advertisement
















Now that's an interesting hypothesis. Rec'd.
May 20, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well laid out. We may never know if the torture tapes were the oft-sought smoking gun, but these questions of timing, what was asked, why, who wasn't consulted but perhaps should have been, whether anyone brought up this issue at the time, etc. are the questions that will ultimately help determine the story our grandchildren hear about the past ten years.
May 21, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Take note . . .
SERE training in 1966 through 1972 was provided to trainees as a defensive mechanism to understand and thereby alliviate as best as possible the effects of both brainwashing and interrogations if taken captive.
I served in a US Naval aviation unit and also was an instructor in SERE techniques.
Your premise is still valid. The DOD at the directions of the Bush administration used techniques employed in SERE training unlawfully.
~OGD~
May 21, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brainwashing would also explain why it was necessary to waterboard the guy 84 times.
I am starting to think that one of the outcomes from the Bush administration torture program is that the US SERE and UK R2I programs are going to have to be terminated.
SERE clearly lowered resistance to use of torture techniques. The argument was made that the prisoners were only subjected to the same treatment that US troops were.
May 21, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
One more try . . .
The SERE program was originally designed to train OUR military personnel in techniques of escape and evasion. It was not originally designed to teach our military personnel to squeeze information out of those we held/hold captive.
The Bush/Cheney/Rummy administration ordered the DOD to have it used in a manner it was not initially intended to be used. No doubt an investigation into it's use is called for. But, there are also many other rat holes that need to be investigated after this bunch ran ragged through the DOD and the military.
SERE system itself did nothing of the sort to lower resistance in our personnel who were so ordered to use techniques in an illegal manner. You can't hold a system accountable for actions that are illegal by the human(s) who were so ordered to employ it in a manner that it was not originally intended to be used. You hold the individual(s) accountable.
That's like saying, let's outlaw all parachutes in military aircraft because someone used one to suffocate and murder someone in the barracks.
~OGD~
May 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your post is that troops (in SERE)were subjected to methods that are torture, by international law. You make it sound as though they were just subjected to/shown "propoganda techniques" and that torture was excluded, it wasn't, torture was done to them, to show them what they might be up against.
May 21, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink