David Underhill – 01 Nov to 05 Nov 04 (Week 10) – Honor on the Battlefield

 

Monday: 275-292

The Moral Code of the Warrior (275)

  • A priest speaking to students at a Spanish university in the 1500s condemned the Spanish army
    • Denounced the military for their treatment of the natives
    • Disagreed with both their legitimacy and especially the way the military handled the natives
  • Even soldiers in war are constrained by natural law
  • The Code of the Warrior distinguishes the soldier from the murderer
  • The theory that “war is hell” and in hell one can do anything is denounced by most modern cultures (inc. US)

 

War Crimes: Soldiers and Their Officers (Walzer) (279)

  • The War Convention – there are moral constraints on the military during war
  • All combatants are morally equal
  • Combatants: forfeit the right not to be target; gain the right to be treated humanely as a POW; gain the responsibility to fight justly and use only the force needed to achieve the mission
  • In the Heat of Battle (280)
    • Two soldiers each shoot Germans as they surrendered
    • Officer tells CO they were in a killing frenzy and it was hard to discern the difference between combat and murder
    • This is like a plea of temporary insanity
    • Allowances may be made for certain situations – if a group has been attacked by soldiers feigning to surrender before, they may be less sure of when killing is “extra”
  • In the Thin Red Line, the men continue to kill after overrunning the Jap position from the rear and the CO says nothing
    • He should not allow the men to improve themselves at the expense of the enemy
    • Furthermore, killing is more a sign of hysteria than toughness
    • Command Responsibility – CO must take action to prevent such immoral killings in the future
  • When combatants are ordered to kill innocents, the liability for their immoral acts is divided up
    • Combatants responsibility for their actions is diminished
  • Superior Orders: The My Lai Massacre (282)
    • Soldiers may not be transformed into mere instruments of war
    • Two defenses argued by those who followed immoral, superior orders
      • Ignorance – didn’t know what they were doing was wrong (especially true with long-distance weaponry and bombs – impossible for a soldier to know if what the commander says is true)
      • Duress – stress forced the following of the immoral action (holds true if the harm is not disproportionate)
  • Command Responsibility (286)
    • Military commanders have morally crucial responsibilities:
      • When planning, they must limit civilian casualties to a minimum
      • When organizing forces, they must ensure their men are held to the standard
  • The Case of General Yamashita (288)
    • US forces disrupted his chain of command
    • His troops committed atrocities during this time (except those with which he could still communicate with)
    • The US executed him for not maintaining control (two Supreme Court justices dissented loudly)
  • The Nature of Necessity (290)
    • Killing civilians purposefully is always murder
    • Murder can rarely be done for a good cause (under proportional duress, or some other special condition)
  • The Dishonoring of Arthur Harris (290)
    • Harris was the commander of the British Bomber Squadron during WWII who led the bombing against German cities and civilians
    • After the war, he was not recognized and those lost under his command were not remembered
      • It was a big slap in the face and showed the British people’s new commitment to just warfare

 

Wednesday: 313-318; CSME: 17-24, 45-46

Is the Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction Morally Defensible?: Ethics for Calamities (Reiman) (313)

  • Reasons in Favor of the Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction
    • Innocent people should not be harmed
    • Combatants are trained and equipped for war and are prepared to be targeted
    • Minimizes overall casualties
    • Creates more promising conditions for peace
  • Reasons for Doubting the Moral Validity of Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction
    • Biased in favor of larger powers - larger powers have an air force which can kill indirectly (civilian casualties called collateral damage) while smaller forces attack directly (civilian casualties called murder)
      • Moral responsibility should be dependent on both consequences and intent
      • Walzer criticizes the doctrine of double effect for  not imposing a duty to minimize harm to civilians
    • The combatant-noncombatant distinction does not line up with the guilty-innocent distinction
      • Noncombatants are often the guilty ones (producing war materials, driving capitalism if that’s the other side’s ‘enemy’, etc) and combatants are often innocent
  • Justifications for Abandoning the Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction
    • Most people are Kantian, except when it comes to large-scale thinking (then they become utilitarianism) – large-scale makes Kant inappropriate
    • Combatants and noncombatants are both members of the enemy, eroding the distinction between them
    • Noncombatant civilians have some responsibility for what their gov does
      • People with special relationships with susceptible people are responsible for their care
      • As the harmfulness of an action goes up, more sacrifice is expected to prevent it
      • Principle of calamity ethics – citizens have an obligation to stop the gov from committing large-scale harm

 

Interdiction in Afghanistan (Schoultz) (17)

  • Spec Ops asked if they can do a mission the next morning to stop a convoy of al-Qaeda leaders driving to the Pakistan border
  • There is little time to prepare but they get ready and go after the targets
  • Helos and SEAL/Ranger teams engage two vehicles and take them out (filled with terrorists and weapons)
  • LCDR Reynolds thinks he sees a woman in the car and has his helo gunner hold his fire
    • Puts the bird at risk (SA-7 could have taken out the entire team and helo)
    • Lands a few hundred yards in front and stops the vehicle
    • Turns out he is right
  • Back at base MAJ Wyatt was upset about the risk
    • Reynolds claims it was the moral thing to do based on his observations
    • Wyatt says it was extremely dangerous and a poor decision and says they were very lucky

 

Incident at Roadblock (ed. Shannon French) (45)

  • Soldiers have to move through a city after parachuting in the night before
  • All inhabitants had to be off the streets by 8PM
  • The soldiers setup up barriers and stationed guards with loudspeakers and native speakers at intersections
  • Tanks are also present to ward off anyone venturing nearby
  • A bus comes driving at the barrier and refuses to stop despite warnings
    • The occupants are dressed like the opposition forces and are firing shots
    • When it comes across the barriers, the soldiers open fire, killing all but the driver
    • They turn out to be joy riders, not opposition forces
    • The officer asks the driver why they didn’t stop; says they just wanted to see if the soldiers would actually open fire

 

Friday: 307-312

Winning and Fighting Well (Walzer) (307)

  •  Battle of the River Hung
    • The Duke allowed the other army to completely form up before attacking
    • His army was weaker and lost
    • “I will not sound my drums to attack an unformed host”
  • Mao Tse-tung said “we have no use for his asinine ethics”
    • Argued guerrillas could not take prisoners
    • Either disperse or execute – a tactical decision
  • If rules can be broken for the sake of cause, then rules have no standing in any war worth fighting

Sliding Scale Argument (309)

  • Sliding Scale (extreme form) – soldiers who fight a just war may do anything useful to fighting
    • General Sherman held this view
    • Soldiers won’t kill civilians for the sake of killing, but will kill them if it advances their mission
  • Deciding against the sliding scale requires a position of moral absolutism according to many
    • Requires one to do justice even if the heavens fall
      • Implausible for most
  • Another alternative – do justice until the heavens are about to fall
    • Utilitarian extreme – restrains military action to usefulness and proportionality

Dealing with the tension between the rules of war and the theory of aggression (310)

  • War convention is set aside in favor of utilitarianism
  • Convention slowly gives in based on the moral urgency of the cause
  • Convention is overridden only in the most extreme circumstances
  • Convention holds and right are respected regardless of consequences