SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Given the damage done to the reputation of U.S. forces in Iraq by the detainee abuse scandal and the currently pending court-martial coming out of the Haditha incidents, General David Petraeus is certainly doing the right thing in demanding a rigorous adherence by soldiers to the country’s traditional law-of-conflict ethics rules. He issued an open letter to the soldiers under his command in connection with a recent DOD mental health survey. The letter states:
“I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq. I also know firsthand the bonds between members of the ‘brotherhood of the close fight.’ Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us — or our comrades in arms — to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.
“Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they are also frequently neither useful nor necessary. . . “
This is a classic case of the one-word-too-many, of unnecessary and inappropriate equivocation. Specifically, the word is “frequently”: torture is “frequently neither useful nor necessary.” This of course implies that sometimes it is useful or necessary, which is contrary to the rule laid down during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln when he ordered that considerations of military necessary could never justify torture. (General Orders No. 100 of April 24, 1863, art. 16).
Considering the continuing prevalence of the “seven thousand mile screwdriver” which the Bush Administration’s neocon warlocks have continuously used in Iraq, my question is: who insisted on the addition of the word “frequently”? David Addington? Dick Cheney?
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”