The Terrorist Breaker Blog

Where to Follow Me

2009-10-24T10:58:00.001-07:00

My Speaking Events

2009-04-10T10:12:00.001-07:00

I've spoken at numerous universities, institutes, and associations, including Georgetown University, West Point, University of California-Berkeley, George Mason University, the University of Maryland, Marine University, and The Woodrow Wilson Center. If you'd like to schedule a speaking event, please contact me at howtobreakaterrorist@gmail.com.

Accountability

2009-01-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

I support the call for an independent inquiry into the policy of torture and abuse. I believe that accountability is a requirement to prevent repeating these violations of law. We are a country based on the rule of law with a long history of holding everyone accountable to the law regardless of position or rank.

Suggested Reading on accountability by David Gray, an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Maryland:

Is Accountability Part of the Change Agenda

From his article, "You are asked to serve because of your intelligence, skill, and bravery; you choose to serve out of honor. None of these should be left on the dais when you take your oath."

Author Event

2009-01-14T06:42:00.000-08:00

Barnes & Noble
Gaithersburg Maryland
February 3rd at 7:30 pm

An Excellent Radio Interview

2009-01-07T13:30:00.000-08:00

The host, George Kenney, posed very intelligent questions. Check it out:

George Kenney interview of Matthew Alexander on electricpolitics.com.

Lastest Radio Interview with Paul Harris on KTRS

2008-12-26T16:31:00.000-08:00

I had a great discussion the day before Christmas with Paul Harris on KTRS 550 AM in Seattle. You can listen to it at www.harrisonline.com. The link is also at the right.

Feedback from an Anonymous Reader

2008-12-23T08:34:00.000-08:00

I think it was a really important thing for him to have written that book -- he offers a perspective that few people would even imagine without having read his book. I hope lots of people read it. It humanizes war and helps people realize that the people on the other side are people too, and helps understand how they can do what they do. Makes things less black and white.

I'm really glad I read it.

World War II Interrogators

2008-12-19T18:12:00.000-08:00

World War II interrogators believed that the most effective interrogations methods were based on relationship building. Even the most effective, and famous, German interrogator, Hanns Scharff, used relationship building as his method. Below are photos of World War II interrogators and the cover to an excellent publication by my former co-workers who conducted research on World War II interrogators. To read more about World War II interrogators visit the links at the right.

Hanns Scharff

Interrogation: World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq

Sherwood Moran, Major, USMC

Technical Sergeant Grant Jiro Hirabayashi

A Recent Review of My Book from an Anonymous Reader

2008-12-16T06:25:00.000-08:00

I've read a number of books on the Iraq War, from soliders' memoirs to journalists' observations. "How to Break a Terrorist" stands alone from that group, and is it gives an inside look into specific tactics on the most personal level.
I can see why the book ruffled some feathers--it is a complete rejection of the ways of old, and the new methods expressed in it could certainly raise some eyebrows. Creating relationships and developing mutual respect seems counter intuitive when dealing with mass murders. Why show people respect who would just as easily blow you up as they would sit in a room with you? And indeed, the author's inner turmoil over this point, combined with his persistent dedication to the cause (nailing Al Zarqawi) and trust in new methods of interrogation, is one of the more compelling subplots of the book.
The characters we meet are fascinating. I won't talk too much about that, because you should read about them yourself, but the men he interrogates are all distinctly different, and the methods he uses change based on the subject, from the street peddlers up to the final link to Al Zarqawi, whose breaking requires the most creative interrogation tactic of all.
To make it even more interesting, the new methods aren't even entirely accepted by the other members of the interrogation team, who prefer control tactics instead--the office politics--set in a warzone--remind us that old ways die hard. Also, as someone who only has a view of the military from the outside (so far, at least--that could change in the coming years), I was surprised to read about the structure of the interrogation unit. Matthew is a major, but his rank doesn't matter--one of the funnier exchanges comes within the books first few pages, when an NCO asks him if he'll have a "hard f*%$ing time" with a sergeant giving him orders. Nearly everyone is an equal in this endeavor.
Beyond the interrogation and workrooms, though, the author also makes a poignant commentary on the conflict itself: many Sunni join Al-Qaida out of economic and security reasons, and not because they care too much about the cause or are particularly fanatical. It's a decision to maintain the livelihoods of them and their families. By building good relations with the Sunni and presenting an alternative to joining Al-Qaida, the author posits, we can better go about creating a strong Iraq (he is vindicated--and I don't think this gives anything away--by some of Petraeus's later initiatives that do exactly that).
The author manages to convey his message about the effectiveness of the new, psychological interrogation methods without sounding preachy. He mentions torture sparingly, and focuses on why his ways work far more than on why others don't. Unlike other Iraq commentaries I've read, he doesn't have an ulterior agenda, and isn't out to get anyone, destroy careers, or anything even close to that. The DoD censures a good chunk of lines in the book, and yet, besides some exasperation linked to the aforementioned office politics, he never once says anything bad about his command--that's quite admirable, IMO.

How specific is Geneva Convention?

2008-12-12T06:35:00.000-08:00

I've been asked twice recently during radio appearances, "How specific is Geneva Convention with regards to torture?" The insinuation is that it is vague and allows the use of waterboarding.

Here's what it says:
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 3

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In addition here the language from the Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations:

All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status, shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program”, and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman,or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.

We can argue over semantics, but I know what this means. It is embedded in me as an American and as a member of the Armed Forces. If it's un-American, it's wrong. To me, it doesn't matter what agency you work for -- if you are an American, then you should adhere to American principles.

The Campaign to Ban Torture, whose endorsers include former Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, Retired Four Star Generals, and many others, proposes The Golden Rule:

We will not authorize or use any methods of interrogation that we would not find acceptable if used against Americans, be they civilians or soldiers.

We will win this war by being smarter, not harsher.

Response to My Washington Post Article

2008-12-10T04:07:00.000-08:00

The response to my article in The Washington Post (I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq) has been overwhelmingly supportive. Of hundreds of emails, only a few have been negative. Check out the below response from a reader. I think it sums up how my message of 'no torture' has been received across the country:

As someone who has a Master's Degree in Organizational and Social Psychology (even though I teach English!), I have often said "We, as humans -- as thinking, clever and conscience-laden social animals- MUST have devised a better alternative to torture, and to war, than what our current Neanderthal strategies would show."

Your article proved me right.

I asked my husband to read it aloud in our living room Sunday morning. (I know, it's hard to be both a teacher and a mom-- for my kids and husband that is!) In attendance were my three teenage boys (19, 17 and 13). Especially notable is that my 19 year old is a third year cadet at the Virginia Military Institute (ROTC- Marine Corps). His roommate from California was with us for Thanksgiving; also 19, a third year cadet and ROTC Marine Corps. Like many idealistic young men of their age, they are patriotic, but naive, with what I call a "video-game" mentality of serving their country. It's very "bad guy vs. good guy"; black and white kind of thinking -- although to VMI's credit as a liberal arts college, I've been impressed with the classes I've personally witnessed that show another view to life.

Your excellent article pointed out that there is much wisdom, and solid success, in using our brains; and in living in the shades of gray (not falling prey to stereotypical thinking).

My husband is a 30 veteran federal investigator from NYC -- he's dealt with his share of outlaws, and does have his stories of informants he befriended for the good of the investigation, rather than hammered them (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Final confession: I liked your article so much I am including it as part of my students' English final exam next week. They will read and annotate it, and then discuss the various ways your ethos, logos and pathos combine to form a persuasive argument, using Aristotle's criteria.

Thank you again for your insight, and for your courage in speaking out. I hope you have received supportive messages from those of us who see that patriotism does not just include a blind allegiance to policies that are a moral insult to the values of this country.

Sincerely,
Caron

Welcome

2008-08-27T21:16:00.000-07:00

I decided to write How to Break a Terrorist because I am opposed to torture. I believe that we will stop terrorist attacks by being smarter, not harsher. Torture is fundamentally against the principles that I swore to defend -- freedom, liberty, and justice -- and our torture policy is a recruiting tool for Al Qaida.
We are capable of using better methods of interrogation. Although the methods in the Army Manual are effective tools, the basic interrogation model needs improvement. Interrogation follows a simple formula of analyzing motivations and then applying incentives. The Army interrogations school glosses over this methodology and places the majority of emphasis on the approach methods. The approach methods are simply delivery vehicles for packaging the incentive. This way of teaching interrogation does not stress the importance of identifying a detainee's motivations and then applying an appropriate incentive. As a result, interrogators waste time haphazardly going through the sixteen, more or less, approved approaches instead of focusing on a detainee's motivations, which can be discovered through relationship building. Once a detainee's motivations are uncovered, then the interrogator can apply a proper incentive that maximizes the opportunity for cooperation.

It is also important for interrogators to realize that the strongest incentives are intangible, such as pride, ego, wasta (status), hope, cause, religion, principles, obligations, and relationships. These are what the interrogator is selling, and the approaches, although important, are merely wrapping.

There are numerous criminal interrogation techniques, or ruses, that can be effectively used by intelligence interrogators. The Army interrogation school should hire experienced criminal investigators to share their knowledge of these techniques. In my time in Iraq, I realized that most Army interrogators had no knowledge of basic criminal interrogation techniques. There is an entire untapped wealth of interrogation skills, none of which involve harsh treatment or torture, that could be legally, and humanely, used by intelligence interrogators. For example, the most commonly discussed criminal interrogation technique is Good Cop/Bad Cop, but there are many others.

For an excellent argument against torture and abuse, I encourage readers to check out the following article by Colonel Steve Kleinman (one of the most experienced and educated interrogators in our country) and Haviland Smith (a retired CIA station chief):
Abuse Has No Place in Interrogation Policy.