The peace and operational psychology debates on counterterrorism: Unanswered questions, lessons learned, and implications for future practice

Psychologists aiding the U.S. government in counterterrorism operations may be the most controversial topic in the history of the healing professions and applied psychology. Absent much contention, operationally-minded psychologists have long provided assessment and selection procedures, resilience-building interventions for operators, and consultations to leadership in furtherance of team building, resource optimization, and cohesiveness throughout the national security establishment. Of much greater concern to their critics, the peace psychologists, operationally-minded psychologists have also provided consultations, training, and subject matter expertise in relation to assessing, detaining, and interrogating accused terrorists with lesser legal protections and external oversight. Related subjects of debate have spanned from the late 19th century through the aftermath of 9/11, honed in on the relationship between the American Psychological Association (APA) and federal government agencies, and led to reforms in law, Department of Defense (DoD)/Department of War (DoW) policy, and psychology ethics and practice. From this narrative emerges unanswered questions and lessons learned in regards to the Global War on Terror (GWOT) detainees still housed at the military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay Cuba (GTMO), whether reforms have led to widespread changes in practice, and psychology’s role and responsibilities in an ever-evolving threat landscape.