This was fascinating not only for what the author put on the page, but for what he didn't intend to convey. An intelligent soldier trained in and devoted to non-coercive interrogation techniques is sent in under heavy pressure to find a dangerous man driving Iraq into civil war. He arrives to find that humane, legal methods are the only ones being used, but they are not believed in universally or being applied effectively; in other words, he's still fighting an uphill battle.
The first interesting (from a human nature standpoint) contrast is with the writings of, say Ali Soufan. Soufan is an ethical and compassionate human being who isn't reluctant to admit to crying and feeling sincere grief for the sailors killed aboard the USS Cole, for his adored boss who died in the WTC, or feeling empathy for a terrorist or his family. He's also one of our most effective interrogators. Alexander, like Soufan, is firmly opposed to torture. But you can read his combat background and the intolerance of his working situation plainly, even down to the harsh title of the book. He feels he's a good guy, and compared to many, he is.
But he tells the story of successfully interrogating a man who built bombs to financially support his second wife, while deeply in love with his first wife. Alexander gains his cooperation by giving him fake divorce papers from his second wife, and the opportunity to write a letter, which Alexander assumes will be to the second wife. The bomb-builder knows his confession will lead to his execution. He writes the letter, which turns out to be a deeply loving message to his first wife. Alexander realizes this man has traded his life for the chance to make things right with his wife and essentially send her one final love letter. The bomb-maker is taken off to face execution at Abu Ghraib, and Alexander has to decide whether or not to mail the letter. Thinking of the horrific photos and videos he's seen of the victims of suicide bombers, he decides not to grant this man his redemption, and destroys the letter. It's a petty and spiteful move that hurts only the innocent wife who could have learned that her husband loved her and gave his life for her.
In another instance, he interrogates a young man whose car was followed to his house after being used in a crime. It seems open and shut, as the car was followed by helicopters. The young man vehemently denies any wrongdoing, which angers Alexander. Alexander tells him that he and his two brothers are going to be executed at Abu Ghraib, but if he cooperates maybe the brothers can be spared. The sobbing suspect insists he's innocent. The next day, Alexander tells him that now only one brother can be spared. He hands the suspect photos of his two brothers and tells him to choose one. He has the guy sobbing in emotional anguish, begging to be believed, saying they're innocent and he can't pick one of his brothers to live and the other to die. Spoiler: They're all innocent. The neighbor with a similar car did it.
Alexander, to his credit, feels horrible about what he did and personally apologizes. He feels even worse when the suspect sincerely forgives him. But ....here's a guy who's talking about not believing in torture, and he put an innocent man through brutal psychological torture without even thinking about it in those terms. He writes about how upsetting the content of the videos of terrorist acts he has to watch are, and presents his disgust with those evil acts as the reasoning behind his utter lack of empathy with the men he questions. He fakes empathy remorselessly, but stomps down his kinder side when it tries to emerge and tell him to feel for people and believe in their humanity. Again I can't help but contrast his attitude with Soufan's; Soufan lost people he cared about deeply and personally to terrorism, walked into ghastly scenes of wreckage that made him cry, but brings none of the forced hatred to the table that Alexander does as a result of the videos he's seen.
This isn't just a story of the ultimate success of the author in using noncoercive interrogation and personal courage and determination to catch a vicious terrorist. It's also a telling insight into what happens when we tell people they're not allowed to feel empathy. You can almost see the author forcing himself to think in lines of black and white, good and evil, even as he navigates far greyer areas. He saved many, many lives, but his work also took many lives, of the men who were executed after talking to him, and the people including children who died in missile strikes launched on the basis of information he obtained. He promised a suspect the life of his best friend would be protected. Zero effort was made to spare the man's life in the US attack, and the cooperating terrorist breaks down sobbing when he learns that his best friend has just been killed as a result of information he provided Alexander. There's great deal of emotional brutality, and a great deal of missing the point.
"We don't torture" isn't just an abstract ideal It's a component of a bigger message: we, as the good guys, will not stoop to cruelty, brutality, emotional revenge, and other acts that feel wrong to decent men. Despite the evil of our enemies. And that's the point a good man misses here, quite possibly due to the military culture around him.
- Hardcover: 304 pages
- Publisher: Free Press; 1 edition (December 2, 2008)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 1416573151
- ISBN-13: 978-1416573159
- Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 1.2 x 8.4 inches
- Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 103 customer reviews
-
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#438,925 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #593 in Iraq War History (Books)
- #659 in African Politics
- #856 in Terrorism (Books)
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
