Given the objective evidence that this is not reliable as an interrogation technique, why was it done?
I find it difficult to believe that US military brass are ignorant or stupid. These people spend their lives studying strategy, intelligence, etc. When educated and intelligent experts suggest or do incredibly irrational things, I often wonder if there isn't some other reason that is not being publicly stated or discussed. In other words, do these irrational things become rational when viewed from a different perspective?
A somewhat cynical answer I've encountered is: it was done to deliberately foment anti-American sentiment based on a "fight them over there, not here" and/or "shake the tree" theory of operation.
A significantly more cynical answer I've encountered: the US defense establishment is an enormous make-work program and requires a constant supply of enemies to justify its budgets. By this reasoning ISIS would be an example of a successful result of this program -- a long-term enemy against which we can fight a low-grade war for a decade or more.
Of course I suppose I may be wrong. My assumption here is that educated and intelligent experts will behave rationally. This assumption actually underlies quite a bit of so-called "conspiracy theory" -- the reasoning process goes "elite leaders of business and government act like idiots, but they're not idiots, so therefore there must be a big nefarious conspiracy or hidden agenda!"
But maybe they are idiots -- or at least are behaving very irrationally due to emotional or ideological drives or bad information. As the saying goes: conspiracy theory is actually optimistic. It assumes that human beings are rational, resourceful, organized, and in control of the situation. The other possibility is significantly more pessimistic: the world is run by delusional ideologues and "peter principle" apparatchiks who really are that foolish.
Why? The peter principle could be part of it, but I suspect it is unlikely to explain everybody.
I think there is a simpler answer: basic human nature, in the form of "alpha male"-style dominance displays, tribalism and the instincts/"folk wisdom" associated with it, and even - in some cases - plain sadism. The movie "Dr. Strangelove" was basically an exploration of these behaviors.
On top of that, add in the well-known source of bias and limited thinking "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". (Or for the HN crowd, "When all you know is SQL, every problem looks like it needs a database.") We should not be surprised when the people we train to use violence as a means to an end end up suggesting violence as a solution to other problems.
the US defense establishment is an enormous make-work program and requires a constant supply of enemies to justify its budgets.
The Communists where mostly gone by 2001 - the few left were either laughingstocks or Chinese. The Peace Dividend was a disaster for US "deep state" people and corporations. They latched on to the first easy boogeyman they could, Osama bin Laden. Notice that since Al Queada has effectively been droned out of existence, the emphasis has shifted to ISIS/ISIL, with Iran in the batter's box.
Terrorism has been immensely good for the US Deep State and defense contractors. I don't expect it to go away easily or quickly, cause, heck, it's more profitable than Communism.
I don't think that explains the gusto behind this program, or the degree to which it was propagandized or maintained in the face of public unpopularity. If it's not that useful, why try so hard to protect and advance it as a policy?
Consider that if it was that useful, maybe they wouldn't have to try so hard to protect and advance it as a policy? It's common enough for bluster and bravado to mask weakness.
Given the objective evidence that this is not reliable as an interrogation technique, why was it done?
I find it difficult to believe that US military brass are ignorant or stupid. These people spend their lives studying strategy, intelligence, etc. When educated and intelligent experts suggest or do incredibly irrational things, I often wonder if there isn't some other reason that is not being publicly stated or discussed. In other words, do these irrational things become rational when viewed from a different perspective?
A somewhat cynical answer I've encountered is: it was done to deliberately foment anti-American sentiment based on a "fight them over there, not here" and/or "shake the tree" theory of operation.
A significantly more cynical answer I've encountered: the US defense establishment is an enormous make-work program and requires a constant supply of enemies to justify its budgets. By this reasoning ISIS would be an example of a successful result of this program -- a long-term enemy against which we can fight a low-grade war for a decade or more.
Of course I suppose I may be wrong. My assumption here is that educated and intelligent experts will behave rationally. This assumption actually underlies quite a bit of so-called "conspiracy theory" -- the reasoning process goes "elite leaders of business and government act like idiots, but they're not idiots, so therefore there must be a big nefarious conspiracy or hidden agenda!"
But maybe they are idiots -- or at least are behaving very irrationally due to emotional or ideological drives or bad information. As the saying goes: conspiracy theory is actually optimistic. It assumes that human beings are rational, resourceful, organized, and in control of the situation. The other possibility is significantly more pessimistic: the world is run by delusional ideologues and "peter principle" apparatchiks who really are that foolish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle