"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means"
About this Quote
Dennis C. Blair, serving as Director of National Intelligence in 2009, was addressing the legacy of the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation program when he drew this careful distinction. He acknowledges that coercive techniques sometimes produced information intelligence officials considered useful. But he refuses the leap from usefulness to necessity. The key phrase is the admission of unknowability: without a counterfactual, there is no empirical way to prove that the same insights could not have been obtained through lawful, rapport-based methods, traditional tradecraft, or patient analysis. That uncertainty undercuts the strongest defense of harsh methods, which rests on claims of indispensability.
The statement also reflects a broader tension in national security policy: tactical gains versus strategic costs. Even if coercion produced some leads, the program carried legal, ethical, and diplomatic liabilities that were concrete and enduring. It risked unreliable reporting under duress, complicated prosecutions, strained alliances, and damaged U.S. credibility in advocating human rights. Blair’s formulation pushes policymakers to ask not only whether something worked at moments, but whether it was the only way to achieve the objective and whether its cumulative costs outweighed sporadic successes.
There is a methodological humility at work. Intelligence is a domain where outcomes are rarely controlled or replicable, and post hoc claims often conflate correlation with causation. By highlighting the impossibility of proving necessity, Blair reframes the debate around standards and rules rather than anecdotes. If you cannot establish that extraordinary methods are uniquely effective, the case for abandoning legal and ethical constraints collapses.
His stance aligns with the Obama administration’s decision to prohibit enhanced interrogation and return to the Army Field Manual, while still acknowledging the complex pressures of the early 2000s. It invites a policy ethic that resists the seduction of exceptionalism, favors practices that are both effective and legitimate, and accepts that responsible governance often means saying no even when yes might promise faster results.
The statement also reflects a broader tension in national security policy: tactical gains versus strategic costs. Even if coercion produced some leads, the program carried legal, ethical, and diplomatic liabilities that were concrete and enduring. It risked unreliable reporting under duress, complicated prosecutions, strained alliances, and damaged U.S. credibility in advocating human rights. Blair’s formulation pushes policymakers to ask not only whether something worked at moments, but whether it was the only way to achieve the objective and whether its cumulative costs outweighed sporadic successes.
There is a methodological humility at work. Intelligence is a domain where outcomes are rarely controlled or replicable, and post hoc claims often conflate correlation with causation. By highlighting the impossibility of proving necessity, Blair reframes the debate around standards and rules rather than anecdotes. If you cannot establish that extraordinary methods are uniquely effective, the case for abandoning legal and ethical constraints collapses.
His stance aligns with the Obama administration’s decision to prohibit enhanced interrogation and return to the Army Field Manual, while still acknowledging the complex pressures of the early 2000s. It invites a policy ethic that resists the seduction of exceptionalism, favors practices that are both effective and legitimate, and accepts that responsible governance often means saying no even when yes might promise faster results.
Quote Details
| Topic | Knowledge |
|---|
More Quotes by Dennis
Add to List
