Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is important first of all to win. The "modern world" is a mix of things, but if it doesn't win, then we move backward.

I agree completely, we must win. But I wonder just what the victory conditions are? Do we attempt to subjugate the whole world and force them to our way? Do we even have the power and ability (much less the national toughness) to even attempt that? Do we attempt the Roman model expanding and, eventually, integrating?

How do we know we've won unless we know what we're trying to win and what the victory conditions are?

In the meantime, you gotta make the winning omlette, which means ya gotta break a few eggs.

At what point do you look at how things are going, realize that the omelets you've made so far are really just scrambled eggs, and try another tack?

The demand of perfect morality in pursuit of the win gets in the way of the win. In hockey terms, I don't care if we now and again get a two minute minor, or an occasional high stick call.

Nice analogy, but flawed, I think. Geopolitics is not a hockey game. In hockey, your teammates take a break in the penalty box. In geopolitics, your teammates first sit out, then join the opposition. You have to persuade them to rejoin your team. If you fail, if all you've got left is a goalie, it's too late, you've lost.

The win is the key, it is the aim, it is the goal.

Granted. But what is the condition for a win? If the goal of our enemies is to destroy our culture, and we beat them by destroying our culture, then Pogo is right and we've lost by winning.

We've become a very warlike nation, with our wars against poverty, against drugs, against crime, against terrorism. Hell of a shame is that we haven't bothered to define objectives in any of these wars that are objective, measurable, and pertinent.

So, what are our goals? Why do they matter? How do we achieve them? And how will we know if we do?

And, in all that, is the insignificant (and doubtful) tactical advantage of torture worth the strategic cost?

--Pete