America is a land of morals and of good-ole' family values. It is a land that possesses morals that have been embedded in the spirit of our nation since its founding. These are beliefs of such an absolute moral clarity that to question them is to question the very foundation of our country, to question the very meaning of being an American.
Certainly at this point in history, there are very few people who have not heard the rhetoric surrounding the ostensible morals that bound our country. Yet, these moral obligations that our country is so firmly committed to are currently being pushed to the brink by our international policy regarding the treatment of enemy combatants.
The treatment of captured enemy fighters is an area of foreign policy that is not unfamiliar with scandal. Names such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are now synonymous with American misdeeds in regards to the proper treatment and interrogation methods of prisoners. Yet, what connects these two geographically disparate places is what currently threatens the future of this uncertain area: a lack of a clearly articulated set of principles committed to the moral obligations of the United States regarding the proper treatment of prisoners.
The current debate on this subject is focused on whether the Department of Defense should adopt a set of standards that would borrow language from the Geneva Convention precluding "cruel," "humiliating," and "degrading" treatment. Proponents argue that this will allow the United States to build more extensive international support and prevent abuse, while opponents contend that it will only serve to weaken America's ability to combat terrorism.
Some are reluctant to adopt these measures because they can be described as too vague and not fulfilling the entreaties of American critics abroad. Yet, if the United States wishes to maintain any semblance of a moral high ground, it must ignore these dubious counter-arguments and set an ineluctable standard of conduct based on contemporary international mandates.
The impetus driving this necessity resides within the contextual environment of the war on terrorism. This global struggle is undoubtedly a war of diametrically opposed ideologies, competing for supporters by the strength of their message. For the United States, its ideology is one based on the principles of liberty and democracy. For the insurgents, theirs is one based on theological principle and Muslim unity. Both of these clashing viewpoints rely on the claim of moral superiority to attract adherents to their side, and the United States is eroding its claim by its lack of a moral policy on prisoner treatment.
The paradox of appropriate prisoner treatment lies at the nexus of morality and operational readiness. This is the focal point of contention, and the issue that those opposed to adopting stricter standards tend to exploit. While opposing arguments can be appealing a priori, further analysis proves them to be unconvincing. The primary argument is that it is a vital interest of the United States to be able to collect intelligence about the plans of insurgents and must possess the means with which to collect it in order to best combat the enemy. Yet, harsh treatment of prisoners is not the sole means through which the United States can achieve this end. There is another resource that would not compromise American integrity, and, in doing so, strengthen support for American objectives.
The greatest resource that the United States has in the war on terrorism is not its vast arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, its armies of well-trained troops or its monetary resources. It is soft power. As defined by Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, soft power is "the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals." The primary tool of American soft power is culture, which serves as an extension of our national principles. Soft power is contingent upon the credibility of the United States in its commitment to its principles of democracy and liberty. But it is this credibility that is debased by a lack of a firm obligation to uphold the same values the given to American citizens by not adopting the international standards of humane prisoner treatment.
If the United States wishes to win the war on terrorism, it must lead the way in moral superiority, rather than being reminded to do so by the appearance of the next Abu Ghraib. It must set an example that is right and justified, so that American interests are seen as inherently more appealing than the converse. In order to achieve our foreign policy objectives, the United States must adopt a concrete policy upholding the humane treatment of prisoners. Otherwise, we may win the battle, but we will lose the war.
Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
