Possibly "in the heat of battle", by small units, for tactical reasons. It would seem to be counterproductive as a strategic methodology, especially if one is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of a population. (How effective was torture in winning the "hearts and minds" of the peoples the Germans invaded?)

In Iraq, rather than save American lives, torture has undoubtedly cost American lives. In an attempt to gain information for the very short term the US has gained long term enemies and created more terrorists.

Additionally, it seems as if torture was routine, systematic, and not directly related to imminently useful tactical situations. Or effective in acquiring useful strategic information.

It won't be known how many lives torture has cost America until many Iraqis, their children and grandchildren have died.

In short, torture as practiced by America in Iraq would seem to have cost far, far more than it has gained and if only for that reason should not have occurred as an institutional practice.