The good, the bad and the ugly - the book's style, and attitude, not just the contents
As far as a rating level, this was a toughie, as I was reading through it, that bounced everywhere from low 2-star to low 4-star in my mind.
There's several things to like - beyond a psychologist who is also a career soldier putting the reader inside the military lingo and the "fog of war" mind - about this book.
On major thing is James' airing the question as to whether or not the "terrorist mindset" should be classified as a new category of mental illness. He uses Tim McVeigh as a reference, noting that, by all current classifications, McVeigh was "normal."
His describing his own PTSD symptoms, plus his "professional macho" refusal to get help for them at first, personalizes this book, as does his discussion of his history at Abu Ghraib with a class of young Army psychologists a few years later.
Finally, James rightfully defends himself, and Army psychologists in general, against SOME of the charges leveled against them.
BUT - this book also has many problems.
First, it is a matter of record that, as a profession, American psychologists, as opposed to psychiatrists, have never taken an unambiguous stand about being involved with torture in any way, via their relative professional associations. And James, in his self-defense conclusion, never discusses this.
What's Jeams' take on the American Psychological Association's refusal to follow the American Psychiatric Association with an unambiguous condemnation of SERE and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"? How does he square that with his "do no harm" mantra? Doesn't matter if it was CIA psychologists, not Army ones, that started SERE at Gitmo. To the degree it spread beyond the CIA, it became an issue for military psychologists.
To that end, the 12-point statement of the psychology association James cites, beyond being a tardy response as compared to the psychiatrists' group, is about as bland and mushy as oatmeal.
Fact No. 2 is that, while the Red Cross report on Gitmo was basically focused on events from before James' arrival, we don't know everything he did while there. Improving how interrogations work, and not just reducing or eliminating harm to inmates - is that a proper role of a psychologist? And, beyond what he lists in the book, just what did he do?
Fact No. 3 is that James' stereotyping of the International Committee of the Red Cross as Birkenstock-wearing, America-hating hippies makes his book - rightfully or wrongfully - take on an extra degree of appearance as a PR screed.
Ditto for Abu Ghraib. Yes, he addressed problems there, but was he also, at the same time, a collaborator in some ways? Does he agree with BushCo distinctions as to who is, and who is not, protected by Genevas, and which specific conventions?
And, where were he and other Army psychologists BEFORE we hit the ground at both spots?
What about all the psychological problems we see reported today in Gitmo detainees? Where's Col. James' long-term care for Gitmo inmates who clearly have deep depressions? Obviously, AWOL. And, since James went back to Gitmo after Abu Ghraib, he surely deserves at least some responsibility for this, doesn't he?
And, the stylistic issues. For example, is it appropriate for a psychologist to call a female "really ugly"? Or psychologically sensitive? It's jarring for him to be sensitive to women soldiers being coerced to have sex on one page then make a comment like this on the next.
To be honest, I might have 3-starred it before the conclusion, but, as noted above, that conclusion was highly selective.
Beyond his notable and rightly commendable work to help troops in two hellholes, just how innocent was Col. Larry James? You'll have to read for yourself, and you m ay still have plenty of unanswered questions afterward.
James
This is an interesting book about James' experience serving at Abu Ghraib as an army psychologist. He walks the reader through the horrible conditions he faced at Abu Ghraib and the demons he had to face upon his return to the States in an effort to overcome PTSD. James writes about his meetings with Phil Zimbardo (who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment in the 1970s) and their disucssions comaring the conditions at Abu Ghraib to those that took place during Zimbardo's prison experiment. Overall it is a good book written in a modest and straighforward tone.
Fascinating Read!
Finally, someone who has actually been in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is talking. This book addressed many of the controversial issues about the war today, namely psychologists and interrogations and the very uncomfortable topic regarding what happened in Abu Ghraib that led to those horrible pictures.
Dr. James doesn't provide the military party line about the current administration and he admits that mistakes were made. He provides information as to the evolution of improvements in the detention facilities, specifically regarding interrogations of terrorist suspects and changes to the leadership and routine at Abu Ghraib.
This first hand report was desperately needed. I didn't put this book down - it is no literary masterpiece but it is an incredible read all the same given the value of the information.
rewriting history
This author is rewriting history in his effort to portray himself as a hero rather than part of the problem. He has important responsibility for his contribution to the Army's official policies which amount to torture, and while pushing for psychologists to continue participating in interrogations, reportedly shouted out, "people will die!" if psychologists withdraw. This is a naive and misleading position.
This book should be entitled "Creating Hell"
It is well-documented from news sources that Colonel Larry James designed and led the BSCT programs inflicting torture on prisoners at Guantanamo. The majority of his fellow Psychologists and Psychiatrists were ashamed and shocked at this perversion of our professional duty, to improve the mental health of our clients and humankind. These programs are against international law. This book is a sensationalistic and hypocritical attempt to justify psychologists' participation in torture, under the guise of preventing harm from interrogations. The truth is that, unfortunately, Colonel James' programs have been documented to intentionally harm prisoners , who are held incommunicado without charges for months and years at a time. Even though torture has been proven ineffective in eliciting information form prisoners, it caues mental illness and stress, preys on psychological weaknesses. Colonel James' recommendations included sensory deprivation, sexual harassment, uncomfortable body positions, personal humiliation and insults, and potentially lethal assaults with dogs and water-boarding. I am disappointed that Professor Zimbardo recommended this book. What a low point for a formerly well-regarded psychological researcher.
(5 reviews)
