The morality of war
 

Read a piece in the Guardian today that I found both worrying and challenging.


Reading through the report a few thoughts come to mind. First, that the more things change the more they stay the same: the rationalisation of a change of accepted definitions and the actions that change allows. Second that there may be a fundamental clash here between what makes military sense in the field and what is morally acceptable to most people within the context of warfare.

In the context of Afghanistan, children are now categorised as potential combatants. A number of things flow from this recategorisation. When children are injured or killed in US strikes, it can be justified on the grounds of of their status as combatants. The expectation of children as combatants means it is more likely that children will be met as combatants on occasions when their status is unknown.

On the one hand, this seems a drastic step to take. An immoral and unjustifiable step. On the other hand, it is a response to actual instances of children being used by the enemy as active participants in the conflict. If children pose a danger to soldiers, then how are they not to view them as a potential threat? If not by ordered consent, then in their own minds at least.

The trouble is that the consequence of redefining children in this way, though it may recognise a real threat, allows not just for an awareness of and readiness to defend against child attacks, but now the targetting of children suspected of being combatants.

In doing so the US army closes the circle, and completes the child's transformation to soldier.

Rest of the article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...gy-afghanistan

I'd be interested in hearing other views on this.

One of the problems is with the word "children".

two year olds? or fourteen year olds? When does "military age" begin?

There were a couple of Afghan kids at my high school, refugees who had been smuggled out after the Russians put a bounty on their heads, because they had been blowing up tanks.
They'd approach with a tray of cigarettes to sell, offer other drugs, and as the transaction took place, one would lob a grenade in the tank, and they'd both run.
Well, that's the story, how much of that is accurate I can't say.

But "military age" starts young in Afghanistan. They would have been 12 or 13 or so.

I think soldiers have to assess all people - men, women, children - as potential threats, but also as potential innocent civilians, and act accordingly, as best they can.

Good point, but we're talking about children as young as 8:

Maybe we should call everyone human beings and give the war drums a rest.

Fun sponge.

Yeah, Griff, there's no money in that. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

I've been reading a lot of complains about the US troops being under such tight restrictions for getting permission to engage, it puts them at risk. A lot of politics interfering with getting the job done. Granted these are from military associated sources, so probably colored.
It seems to me, since Vietnam children pretty young have been involved in the fighting. Not soldier type fighting, but insurgent/resistance stuff.

Dani, all's fair in love and war. The morality of one is the morality of the other. The Laws of Land Warfare are not altruistic conventions between "civilized" nations, they're placebos for non-combatants in nations; or, other movements wealthy enough (including human resources) to have a subset of their population do their fighting for them. The primary objective is to keep those who can afford not to do the fighting themselves and their loved ones from being attacked. The secondary objective is to ease their consciences about having someone else do their dirty work for them. It only works in conflicts between the wealthy; unless, the disparity between wealthy and poor in a conflict is so great as to render a so called war nothing more than a police action.

When the survival of a nation or movement that can't afford the luxury of non-combatants is threatened, anything goes. It's not unlike embattled parents, who can't afford to go their separate ways, using their children against each other even to the point that a depressed child commits suicide; or, an angry child perpetrates violence on others. When the latter happens, we've authorized our police to use even deadly force if necessary to protect innocents which may include our own loved ones. Why would anyone consider not doing the same for soldiers, who are somebody's loved ones, fighting an opponent that will use any means available?

My question was rhetorical: People are either too far removed from the realities of war to comprehend some necessities, they're deluded into thinking that if wealthy nations which can afford non-combatants set the example then poor desperate movements will follow (apples and oranges); or, they consider soldiers to be a lower cast that's expendable just to ease their consciences.

It was popular in WWII according to folks I know who grew up in Poland and France. Lots of kids were couriers, spies, saboteurs, and I expect in some cases direct combatants.

I'm sure it has been going on for as long as people have been putting the smackdown on other people.

@ sexobon, I couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a paradox, right? To grant children special status in war, is to guarantee they will be used in war.

I mean against us, but you're right.

UT, yes ironic, but like 3foot said it's always happened. Wasn't that guy with the slingshot a kid?

Very well said, guys. I agree, it's always happened. And sexobon summarized the issues perfectly.

And so we had to burn the village to save it. How many forgot that lesson?

Once support of the local population is lost, then basic military concepts state, quite clearly, that the war is lost. Completely irrelevant are the number of casualties on either side. Only relevant is who controls the land after all warfare has ended. Once war happens, soldiers lives become secondary to the strategic objective. You may not like it. But in war, your emotions are irrelevant. Only the strategic objective is relevant.

Yup.

I recently saw part of an episode of a doco on Afghanistan.
The talibs had fired on a patrol from within a town. NATO moved some APCs and troops up some hills to vantage points, which of course the talibs wanted, because they had set IEDs there. Despite careful progress, there was a blast, one soldier injured.
Finally, the summit was secured, the patrol was in a position to bring fire on the talibs. The talibs realised this, and perfectly knowing the rules of engagement NATO are under, left their weapons, stood up in a way that made it clear they were unarmed, left the building, and went home in a fucking TAXI.

Any rule imposed on the troops will be exploited by the enemy. If we rule all under-eights as being by definition non-combatants, expect armed seven year olds.

IMHO it is a war crime to arm a child and send them to battle. A soldier who shoots a hostile person, regardless of age or gender, is not to blame.

A soldier firing on a hostile attacker who happens to be a child is one thing. Targeting 'potential' hostiles however...

Adult males can be innocent civilians, too, and yet appear "potentially hostile".
However it is that soldiers tell hostile from neutral with adults is how they will do for sub-adults.

The children used by the Talibs have become combatants. If non-combatant children are targeted as potential combatants, then we have turned them into combatants. We have made them 'child soldiers'.

Well then there's only one thing left to do. We'll have to air drop cartons of hoodies in children's sizes into Taliban camps. It'll meet the requirements of international agreements that combatants be in distinctive uniform. Any more armchair crises of conscience you'd like me to solve?

FWIW the day care center at the base of WTC was evacuated before the collapse. The only children killed on 9/11 were on planes. There were 8.

OK, so what's your solution?

I'm tempted to answer, somewhat flippantly that my solution would be not to get bogged down in unwinnable wars in faraway lands and morally dubious, decade long occupations of other countries. As a starting point. Lots of armies in the world regrettably use child soldiers, but they tend not to be flown about as invasion forces. Aside from some of the particularly messy African conflicts and civil wars, children almost exclusively act on the side of the invaded or occupied.

But given that we are where we are, not where I'd like us to be: I don't have a solution. I just wanted to think about some of the moral and ethical questions the situation raises.

:lol: at SexoB.

Hoodies are only combat wear if you're black, you know. :bolt:

Seriously, here's the solution. Don't target people as "potential" combatants. Adults or children. Only "actual" combatants should be targeted.

Of course, the difficulty is how the troops on the ground are to tell the difference, and how long they have to wait for an obvious ambush to be sprung before acting.

Rhetorical or not, these two ideas are only balm to sooth a rationalization.

Our "wealthy nation" has declared a never-ending war,
using troops that have volunteered for that duty.
There was/is little or no delusion that Iraq or Afghanistan,
would use the same the same weapons or tactics.

We are no longer fighting the enemy that harmed us on 9/11/01.
We try to separate "taliban" from "Al quada" from "terrorist", but can't.
So now, we are continuing essentially a religious war or moral war,
but in the role of the aggressor.

Soldiers are the tools we use... not because they are lower cast or anything like that.
I, and our nation, say "Thank you for your service" to individuals
and groups in the military, in multitudes of ways, and with sincerity.

But such appreciation also must be earned, over and over again.
In so-called "normal" military actions, it iconically accepts the risk of being wounded or killed.
But it also amounts to refusing to obey an unlawful order.

Actual self-defense is an imminent threat.
Firing a drone's missile into an automobile from a seat
in front of a TV screen somewhere in Texas is killing by guess-work.

Think back to the Viet Nam era...
Returning soldiers were sometimes not given the heartfelt welcome home that previous soldiers had received.
This was due, in part, to our nation perceiving the burning of villages,
and killing of non-combatants as immoral, and as "illegal orders".

More and more our military actions in the middle East are nearing the same judgement.

So now, you can start a clone thread called: The war of morality

That word, targeted, was chosen by the Guardian for an inflammatory headline, I didn't see it coming from a US military source. Being on the lookout for "children with potential hostile intent", is not the same thing.

I've seen literally hundreds of pictures from Iraq and Afghanistan where the kids are begging (and getting) candy from our soldiers. Also pictures of soldiers being vigilant, peeking around corners, while ignoring children near by.

What they are saying now is the taliban is using children and our soldiers should be aware, not ignore them as in the past.

An army placed into an unwinnable situation cannot tell the difference between combatants and civilians. And so that Army will burn the village to save it. A situation created because (as in both Vietnam and Mission Accomplished) top management was completely incompetant. Even violated basic military doctrine. And then lied about it. Making the Army's lowest level soldiers into victims who will lash out at anything only vaguely similar to an enemy.

Need we remember the so many previous lessons including My Lai? Even top officers who all but encouraged it, did not try to stop it, and tried to cover it up were somehow exonerated. Forget morality. It is the classic example of where 85% of all problems are created.

Deaths of innocents is often traceable to problems created at the highest levels long before those deaths start becoming frequent.

Need we remember but again large numbers of dead Iraqis found month after month along the 4th Infantry's supply lines from Kuwait to Northern Iraq? Any Iraqi who got close to a convoy had expectations of being sliced into parts by 50 caliber fire. It became too routine. A problem created by the same Gen Odiero who later did so much to learn of and then correct his mistakes.

War Prayer
 

Mark Twain wrote about a village which was sending their young men off to war. The day before the preacher and citizens gathered to pray for the soldiers. A stranger appeared and spoke to the crowd, telling them he'd just come from heaven.
Twain refused to let it be published while he was alive.

That's amazing.

That (what Twain wrote) is also the feelings of a lot of Muslims.

"We are NOT afraid to die; we embrace death!" so- that's a prayer the Muslim extremist would say. Actually, all extremists could say it - and be PROUD to say it.

Twain was heartily against war. and Twain was a really smart guy. He knew from war.

Very cool. I wonder if he wrote that in his study in Elmira...I've been there!

well I think that terrorist should not raise there children with such hate.. to whom it may concern.. how will anything ever get solved if we have never learned anything thing but how to kill.. to be honest I'm more worried about buggs coming up from my sink than I am of terriorst.. I feel safer than I've ever felt and if I do die like for real.. I am having faith that Gods will will be done.

I know you are just addressing the question Dana, but in my view, expecting moral principles to be followed through in a insurgency vs. counter-insurgency war is similar to expecting boxing rules to be used to a back alley knife fight. It is life or death for both sides so I really don't think they care what some non-soliders (myself included) think about the morality of war when their lives are on the line.

Saying that, I do believe the US and UN should follow moral standards in Afghanistan because of (1) morality (duh!) and (2) it is good PR. The war in Afghanistan was not inherently lost, but lost when we showed the Afghan people we didn't care about them. However, we must be realistic with our policies and they must be reflective of what is happening on the battlefield. If the Taliban start using children to kill American and UN soldiers, we must react accordingly. If that means accepting the idea that we may suspect certain children of being (child) soldiers, so be it. This just means we aren't giving Afghan children preferred status anymore, not shooting random children in the street (that would be bad).

I do not agree with your glib dismissal sexobon. I am not a soldier, I have never been in combat and it is extremely unlikely that I ever will be. IIRC, you have been in combat, though. I sincerely doubt that for those in combat, those members of countries or movements wealthy enough to have others fight and die for them, who themselves are fighting and dying, consider Laws of Land Warfare a placebo.

Are there no such soldiers who believe in and benefit from laws of war? Real rules for real situations? That sounds like the opposite of a placebo to me; an inert tonic to soothe the ills of a hypochondriac. Are there not laws that are more than some purty words to salve the consciences of those who are able to avoid the real pain of fighting? Is it an imaginary benefit that we receive for mutually agreeing to not use chemical weapons? Or are you saying that the benefit might be real, but the word "law" is an illusion, just as I might find my headache cured by a sugar pill?

I think "placebo" is inappropriately cynical and harsh. I also agree with your larger point that at some extremity, anyone can be pressed to sacrifice their love for law on the altar of their love for their child or cause or country.

Like all laws it won't prevent, it just allows the winner the excuse to punish the loser.

Then I would ask you this: what is the purpose of laws of war?

We have laws for driving, for example. And the laws do not prevent all transgressions. Actually, laws don't prevent anything. But they do codify what we've agreed to be acceptable behavior in a given milieu. Prevention comes from an individual's respect for the rules, mostly, and also from a desire to avoid risking punishment. That we codify expectations for conduct on the battlefield is not much different. And I believe, and I have not been persuaded otherwise, that such laws are merely placebos or mechanisms of punishment.

What do you think is the purpose for laws of war?

I already said, to justify Nuremberg.

Look up the banality of evil. I'd have a lot more respect for 'pro-life' politicians if their views also extended to the death penalty and war. Unfortunately, the restraint that they want to force on women is not the one they want to force on themselves.

So Arendt theorizes that normal people can do evil by simply performing and not challenging the directives of evil authority where Reicher and Haslam believe that they have to have accepted the ideology behind the evil to do these things.

Evil sheep vs evil accomplices.

I think the laws of war are a bit more than Bruce says. They give soldiers at least some guidelines about how they should act, and prevent it from becoming an anything-goes situation.

In a conventional, symmetrical war (eg WWI, WWII, Korea) there were cases of both sides limiting their behaviour. In WWI, the use of notched bayonets was stopped by mutual agreement.

The treatment of prisoners is another area where captors - who could have just slaughtered them, or starved them to death - have behaved ... well, better than the worst they could have done. These rules make surrendering a viable option on the battlefield, which does slightly improve the humanity of the overall situation.

It doesn't have to be buying the evil authoritie's reasoning.
If the state says I should shoot you because you're an enemy of the state, I'll probably not question it, if I already hate you because one of your kind ran over my dog, soiled my daughter, cost me my job, etc.

Someone asked a Polish soldier, if you had to execute a German, a Russian, and an American, which one would you shoot first?

The Pole replied "The American. Duty before pleasure."

BigV, I associated placebo with noncombatants.

You disagreed; but, by associating placebo with combatants.

Apples and oranges.

Soldiers of most militaries are indoctrinated into believing things that will give them a perception of moral superiority to enhance their motivation and resultant combat effectiveness.
Someone's been watching too many reality TV shows.
Applying what I said about noncombatants to combatants sounds like the opposite to me.
Yes, as I explained above, soldiers [combatants] of most militaries are indoctrinated into believing things that will give them a perception of moral superiority to enhance their motivation and resultant combat effectiveness. The same laws which enable this also provide a placebo effect for noncombatants. Two birds with one stone.
When the shit hits the fan, those agreements won't be worth the paper they're written on.
Laws can be rescinded, superseded; or, suspended (simply not enforced). The leaders of most nations (incl. ours), or movements, already have the autonomous authority to do this in the interest of national security.
In the case study of one dwellar, placebo was entirely effective in diminishing the participant's reading comprehension to the point he was able to rationalize that apples and oranges are the same without suffering any of the ill affects associated with being a pumpkin head.

:lol:

We've secretly replaced [Dwellar]'s placebo with LSD. Let's see if they notice...

Ok, you opened by talking about an apple, and I asked you, as an orange expert what it was like for those experts. We are still talking about the same one subject, right, Laws of Land Warfare.

Wow, harsh. So for soldiers the Laws of Land Warfare are indoctrination.
No need to be bitchy. You and I both know that there are such rules in real situations. How effective/sensible/respected/disregarded those rules are is a subject whose vigorous discussion extends before and beyond my lifetime.

You've made your point that you consider Laws of Land Warfare to be a placebo for non-combatants (a point with which I don't agree, still) an apple. I'm not applying it as you suggest, I'm asking for your opinion.
Waitaminit. You've gone to some trouble to distinguish these Laws of Land Warfare for non-combatants as apples and these Laws of Land Warfare for combatants as oranges. Now you're telling me they're the same stone? Of course they're the same stone, they're objectively the same laws, regardless if you're a combatant or not. That's exactly my point. My questions were an attempt to learn about their effect/importance/etc among a population of which I am not a member.
Sure. That puts them in exactly the same box as all the other laws we have.

I am highly suspicious of the implied "legal" autonomous authority you speak of, though I don't for a minute doubt or deny that such autonomy is being exercised. *This* subject, most importantly to me, in the United States, is an important and serious matter. Of course laws by themselves are inert, and require people to enervate them. People who believe.

Apples, oranges, pumpkins, whatever. It's all fruits basket!

Rendition? Torture?

I see where you're coming from; however, the subject I addressed was [the] morality [of war] and I don't consider The Laws of Land Warfare to be synonymous with morality. I was trying to point out that the Laws, which are what actually govern soldiers' actions, are not altruistic; whereas, morality is.

We don't need no stinkin' badges rules;

but,

they're mandatory training for soldiers. Some go into military service not knowing about the restrictions. Some don't agree with them when they find out. Nonconformists are discharged.

IMHO, they're one of several means by which politicians maintain sheltered lives for their noncombatant constituents (primarily) and spin into a false morality for their combatant constituents (secondarily) by saying - Look, the enemy fights dirty; but, we don't.

Soldiers get killed when they have to stop fighting to decide whether or not they're fighting a clean fight. War isn't sport. It may be the Law; but, it isn't my cup of morality (see, I made a funny there).

Imagine a group of soldiers talking about how they're getting maimed and killed and how their dead are being mutilated by their enemy. What are the odds of any of them saying that the thing to do in their situation is to treat their enemy better and pass laws to make all soldiers do the same; so, they can hold the moral high ground even if it gets them killed because they can't hold the hill they're on.

The odds of that happening are about the same as the odds of you talking with your cow-orkers about the government, bad economy, and high unemployment rate and you saying that the thing to do about the situation is make your employer downgrade everyone's full time positions to part time without benefits to give more people jobs; so, you can hold a high moral standard even if it means you'll all end up having to file for bankruptcy.

Laws can be classified for national security as are many other things that you'd have to see to believe.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

The rules of engagement can make you hesitate to pull the trigger because you know they'll do a 15-6 investigation. It's like fighting with your hands tied.

Children are so perplexing on the battlefield. Ya'll know I've done several projects for women and children while deployed (Operation Santa Sarge, etc.) as a form of atonement for collateral damage. But then there are times when they use kids to throw RKG-3 grenades at our convoys and you sometimes think just fuck it and kill them all because they'll just grow up to be terrorists. Shitty attitude, I know and I could never really do it

i'm sorry about the above post. sometimes the mind is in a dark place and you should keep your mouth shut

I'm really glad you didn't. It was the most interesting post in this thread, including the OP.

Seriously, thanks for sharing.

Absolutely. We know you love children and have been on active service. You're the best expert we have.

And yeah, an eleven year old who is acting as a messenger for the Talibs is very likely to be firing a gun with them in five years time.

I believe in those societies 12 isn't a child anymore, they're expected to be a productive member of the family pretty early. If the family business is insurgence, there's no question about the morality. They, like most kids, want to please their father.

This has been a really interesting discussion.

The main reason I put it into the philosophy section, rather than politics or current events is because it is so challenging. There are no easy answers, indeed there don't seem to be any easy questions come to that.

Thinking more about this, the Geneva convention and all that was fine for the regular symmetrical wars of the pre-1955 sort.

We're here in these uniforms, they're over there in those uniforms, over yonder are civilians in no uniforms at all.

So the rules are - as far as possible - to help guys in matching uniforms, kill or capture or drive off those in rival uniforms (within certain rules like no torturing prisoners) and avoid hurting the civvies .

I think the general ideas behind this are still valid, but applying them in asymmetrical warfare is increasingly difficult, especially with a clever and ruthless enemy that will exploit any limits we impose on our selves.

As Dana said, no easy answer.

None of those tactics are new. Standard practice all through the Korean War.

Key to defeating an American unit was to take out its mortars and artillery. N Koreans would mix with the refugees. Then flood into the rear where they would attack the artillery and mortar support. Leaving the Americans seriously exposed. A first US military unit in combat in Korea was quickly defeated this way.

The solution was simple. Expect it to happen and plan for it. Unfortunately, not all units were prepared for such standard tactics. Or the tactics were deployed in a fashion unexpectedly. But every military unit must have plans to dealing with civilians before entering that battle. Especially training. Superior training of American infantrymen kept acts of immorality so low. Considering the incompetancy that put them there in Mission Accomplished.

"Morality" breaks down when top brass is lying or puts those soldiers in an unresolvable situation. That was Nam. Resulting massacres occur when enlistedmen are left to become victims of their incompetant commanders. Loss of morality is a symptom of the resulting frustration.

1. Blaming loss of morality on bad leadership is demeaning to soldiers. Soldiers are not sheep who blindly follow "bad" leadership and become baby killers and village burners. Soldiers have just as much an obligation to not follow unlawful orders as to follow lawful orders. The closest thing to what you might be talking about is that leaders set the cultural tone for a unit.

2. The current asymmetric war fare in Afghanistan has nothing to do with your Korean vignette of mixing with refugees and taking out an arty battery. The Afghans are out matched, the only way they can fight the American Army is through asymmetric warfare. It's almost more of a harassment then a battle. A quite deadly harassment but all the same they cannot stand up to us on a classic battle field. I would do the same in their shoes.

Men women and children can be armed combatants on the battlefield. At the point of battle, it does not matter how or why they got there. If another combatant is using a weapon soldiers have the right to protect themselves. There is nothing amoral about this.

And that’s OK. There are those with a wider range of adaptability who can do it if the success of the mission depends on it. Those people are identified through psychological screening for placement in various special operations units and the process doesn't stop there. They are continuously evaluated throughout their tenure by their superiors and periodically re-interviewed by psychologists. If at anytime they lose that flexibility, they're transitioned back to the conventional military which is better for it. Do you know that there are US Army Special Forces qualified doctors (Green Beret doctors) and they don't have a conflict between their Hippocratic oath and working among the killing elite. It's all about being able to see your little corner of the overall mission in perspective. Some can do it, some can't. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different and better suited. Fewer issues to reconcile when they're removed from the situation.

PS for laughs: I used to teach the medical aspects of low intensity conflicts to classes of physicians in which one of them would inevitably ask [words to the effect] "What's it like to be a Green Beret?" My reply was "I don't know, I'll ask it." I'd pull my rolled up beret out of my trouser cargo pocket, hold it in front of my face and say "What's it like to be a Green Beret ?" Then I'd tell the Docs it said "It's a lot like being the covering on a pool table." [they're both made of green felt]

CA falls within the Spec. Ops. community and by the time one reaches Master Sergeant some SF rubs off on you. :cool:

If thinking myopically, then both wars are different. If thinking strategically, then concepts even understood over 1000 years ago, define both. Tactics were different. But strategically similar.

I was asking you to do something that many cannot. View the bigger picture. Obviously the similarities between Korea, Nam, and Mission Accomplished make that obvious. Do not get bogged down in minutae such as whether they attack mortars or convoys.

You have also assumed every Private has the mindset of an adult. If true, then My Lai never happened. It that case, even non-coms were so frustrated as to participate in a massacre.

Many enlistedmen are emotional. As are their civilian counterparts. Many stop acting as an adult when frustration, created by bad leadership, changes attitudes. It is inevitable. As noted previously, training means less soldiers did what was more routine in Nam. But the reality does not change because they attack mortars rather than convoys.

Meanwhile better training does not avert an inrrefutible fact. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Incompetent leadership at highest levels in both Nam and Mission Accomplished explain so many unnecessarily civilian deaths.

Does that come off with soap and hot water???

Further thought.

The rules also include not disguising yourself as a civilian, not hiding behind civilians, and not mixing military and civilian/humanitarian facilities.

It is the breakdown in these rules that puts so much stress on the other rules about not harming civilians.

It is the asymmetric nature of wars like Afghanistan that push one side to hide amongst civilians.

They give you guys soap and hot water? Ha! I guess it pays to toe the company line. Next thing you know you'll be telling me they give you three squares a day instead of making you catch your own snakes. :D

Yet we let our police shed their uniforms, mix with civilians, don gang uniforms to infiltrate their organizations, and conduct sting operations to lure people into committing crimes so they can be removed from society.

But then our domestic enemies are right in our own backyards, not far-far away like our foreign enemies where they're someone else's problem. It's good to be able to afford to be armchair moralists; or, is that hypocrites ... maybe they've become synonymous as English is a living language.

American soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. When they see the double standard, the ones who haven't been brainwashed learn to recognize a "morality" of convenience designed to appease some people's fickle sensitivities.