Neocon Blues

I have a list of issues on which I’m undecided. This list is actually fairly long, and includes weighty topics like abortion and gay marriage. I usually find myself sitting on the fence because neither side can produce arguments that are overwhelmingly convincing. Take torture for example. There is a sickened feeling one gets from knowing the state is actively involved in the infliction of physical and mental pain. Moreover, in an age where detainees suspected of terrorist activities are not given a proper trial, it is gut-wrenching to know that we may be unwittingly harming innocent civilians. At the same time, as disgusting as the behavior is, it is not on the same level as murder or rape. There are, for example, no natural rights that say we should be free from pain once we have committed grave offenses against others. If we threaten the rights of others, it is reasonable to think that, at the very least, some of our own rights should be curtailed. On the other hand, Connor Friedersdorf’s line of argument is disappointingly unconvincing:

Though I cannot say definitively whether torture is or isn’t an effective utilitarian tool, I am mightily influenced Jim Manzi’s observation that “we keep beating” torturing nations. “The regimes in the modern world that have used systematic torture and directly threatened the survival of the United States—Nazi Germany, WWII-era Japan, and the Soviet Union—have been annihilated, while we are the world’s leading nation,” he writes. “The list of other torturing nations… has won no competition worth winning. The classically liberal nations of Western Europe, North America, and the Pacific that led the move away from systematic government-sponsored torture are the world’s winners.

These statements carry a lot of “statistical noise.” The correlation between victorious 20th century powers and their lack of torture seems weak and muddied at best. It is far more likely these powers won their conflicts due to large-scale factors such as economics or manpower, regardless of whether torture came into the equation at all. Afterall, the torture debate is about marginal gains and losses. We may likely win or lose a war irrespective of torture, but we may do either with less lives sacrificed because of it. Since torture’s aggregate impact is so small, it is inherently a short-term concern. Thus, Connor’s lament about a lack of long-term perspective is impertinent. It’s about saving lives, not winning wars.