"To include" vs. "including"

Yes, it was incorrect to say "to include" rather than "including".

This error is almost universal among U.S. military officers. Most of them say "to include" in every single case where they should say "including". Every time. And this has been true for at least the last three decades.

I have no idea how this started, but it is easy to imagine a folk etymology for it. You could imagine a general giving the order "you are to take this and to include these". The recipient of the order is unclear on proper grammar, and so later replies with "I took that, to include those". And somehow the error spread.

I don't know if that is the actual cause of this error. But it is true that the infinitive is appropriate for giving orders, and the military often deals with orders. And it is true that this error is now firmly entrenched in the common speech patterns of that community.

Piling on to what others have already said, I would argue that the usage here is flat wrong. There is an implied tense mismatch at work ... when you use the infinite form "to include" with a list of items, you are implying future composition of those items, which may or may not come to pass. Since all of these cases reference past events explicitly, such an implication is inherently non-sensical, therefore only the use of the gerund form "including" is acceptable.

I agree with the suspicion expressed in another answer that this was likely an attempt at a rhetorical device to distance the authors of the report from the events described.

Infinitives and gerunds are sometimes used interchangeably; sometimes it works, and sometimes not. They are not the same.

Saying "You are to include waterboarding" is not the same as saying "You are including waterboarding." Saying "I am swimming with the team" is not the same as saying "I am to swim with the team."

The infinitive should represent an intention or an instruction. The gerund should represent the actual occurrence. Of course we mix them up sometimes and it is usually not an issue. If we look at the sentences before and after, there is generally no ambiguity. That said, the sentence in the example is awkward, and in my opinion it is wrong to use the infinitive.

In this case I believe it is a clumsy attempt at rhetoric. By not "doing", but instead listing "to do," the sentence tries to disengage from the action and make it appear somehow separated from the subject of the torture.

As a civilian editor who works for the Army, I see this way more than in that report. My own take on it (based on hearing people say it, almost daily) is that it is meant in the sense of a command. But as an indefinite infinitive, it is far less inclusive than "including," because it leaves open the possibility of might include and might not include. I eradicate it from everything I edit that has it in it and patiently explain to the writer that it's simply wrong. But it's not just the military. It's used throughout government. There are many others: vice when the meaning is versus or as opposed to; careerist when the meaning is someone in a career (really). "The art of the possible" when the meaning is not compromise, but the sky is the limit. The list goes on and on.