Abstract

This article submits that torture is not an effective tool in asymmetric warfare. It offers a definition of ‘effective’ as it relates to torture, and presents findings which discriminate between torture's tactical utility and its strategic consequences. By doing this, it attempts to convey the paradoxical nature of torture. Torture can help gain bits of information that may prevent terrorist acts. But the very act of torture, or even the perception of its use, holds strategic consequences for those nations who employ it. While they may thwart a given attack, states that apply torture are labeled as torturers regardless of their tactical victories. In essence, their identity is associated with torture. Labeled as such, they endanger their place in politics, villainize themselves in history, and erode their soft power. Any nation involved in an asymmetric struggle would do well to engage the enemy at the strategic level of war, employing all the instruments of power, rather than rest its hopes of victory on the piecemeal and questionable bits of information torture may provide.