honor on the battlefield

1. Honor on the Battlefield Conduct of War and Law of War

3. Why Did They Stop? With the entire Peoples Liberation Army behind him, why do we think that tank driver stopped? Would you attribute the virtue of moral courage to him? What is the difference between moral courage and physical courage? How would you compare the ethics of the actions of the tank driver and the actions of the man in the white shirt? If you believe the tank driver exhibited moral courage, how does his moral courage differ from that of the man in the white shirt? If the tank driver had not stopped, how differently would history have viewed this incident? Which action do you think it would take more character to do – to stand in front of the tank, or to stop the tank (disregarding direct orders, despite all of your training and the strict discipline of your service)? Do you think you could do either? What factors other than a tank driver’s character could make it more or less likely that he would stop his tank in such a situation? Generally, what factors affect obedience under authority? (Note: the famous Milgram experiments addressed this question.) Do we want our troops to be morally responsible, or do we want them to do as they are told? With the entire Peoples Liberation Army behind him, why do we think that tank driver stopped? Would you attribute the virtue of moral courage to him? What is the difference between moral courage and physical courage? How would you compare the ethics of the actions of the tank driver and the actions of the man in the white shirt? If you believe the tank driver exhibited moral courage, how does his moral courage differ from that of the man in the white shirt? If the tank driver had not stopped, how differently would history have viewed this incident? Which action do you think it would take more character to do – to stand in front of the tank, or to stop the tank (disregarding direct orders, despite all of your training and the strict discipline of your service)? Do you think you could do either? What factors other than a tank driver’s character could make it more or less likely that he would stop his tank in such a situation? Generally, what factors affect obedience under authority? (Note: the famous Milgram experiments addressed this question.) Do we want our troops to be morally responsible, or do we want them to do as they are told?

4. Introduction: How to Prosecute a “Just War” Suppose the conditions of Jus ad Bellum (or the “legalist paradigm”) have been met: e.g., Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda . . . Does it matter how we conduct the war? CWO Hugh Thompson on stopping the My Lai massacre in Vietnam: “This was NOT what we came here to do”

5. Contrast: Operation Iraqi Freedom LtCol Tim Collins, “we go to liberate, not to conquer” “If someone surrenders to you, remember they have that right in international law, and ensure that one day they go home to their family” “You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest, for your deeds will follow you down history”

6. Just War Terms Jus ad Bellum Jus in Bello Jus Post Bellum Just Cause the conditions under which war or the use of force may be justified Just Conduct ethical conduct in war, once war has been initiated Just Peace the termination of war and its armistice agreements.

7. JUS IN BELLO The Principle of Humanity in War. “A person’s enemies, while enemies, are still men.”  (Emmerich de Vattel) Major principles of jus in bello (justice in war): Discrimination; Proportionality; Right Intention

8. Jus in Bello: Just Behavior in WarDISCRIMINATION: For some, the most important criterion of just behavior in war… an absolute principle with little to no room for debate… … the moral principle that it is wrong to kill or target the noncombatants or innocents in war. This also applies to combatants (like POWs) who are no longer in the fight.

9. DOUBLE EFFECT: It may be morally permissible to conduct a military operation that allows for the potential death of noncombatants… …but it is NEVER permissible to make civilians (noncombatants) the direct object of military attack. This principle distinguishes between: direct and indirect targeting direct and indirect killing

10. Deals with the moral application of military force. The military creates operations plans with goals in sight: destruction of enemy targets; securing military objectives; defeating enemy forces, etc. The principle of proportionality dictates: combatants use no more force than necessary to achieve their military goals, and avoid disproportionate collateral damage to life and property whenever and wherever possible From a practical sense this is supportable (in keeping with concept of Economy of Force)From a practical sense this is supportable (in keeping with concept of Economy of Force)

11. The Road Block

12. The Road Block What are your impressions? Compare to “Incident at Roadblock” case study… Discrimination? Proportionality? Right Intention? Non-combatants? How do you think incident will affect the squad?

13. Interdiction in Afghanistan

14. What does this picture say?

15. Perhaps he is worried about this…

16. The 3-Way Moral Problem Target – Just War, Principle of Forfeiture, Utilitarianism Own Troops – Constitutional Ethics, Utilitarianism, Non-Combatants – Jus in Bello, Kant, Utilitarianism, Virtue (courage)Target – Just War, Principle of Forfeiture, Utilitarianism Own Troops – Constitutional Ethics, Utilitarianism, Non-Combatants – Jus in Bello, Kant, Utilitarianism, Virtue (courage)

17. The 3-Way Moral Problem

18. ROE Change Southern Watch 9 Sep 2001 Enduring Freedom 9 October 2001

19. The Warrior’s Honor(Michael Ignatieff at USNA) 0-2:45 Ethics – Code of the Warrior…what separates us from Barbarians…Ethics – Code of the Warrior…what separates us from Barbarians…

20. The Contemporary Version of a Warrior’s Code We require of the intervening forces … not merely that their controlling interests and command structures lack any personal conflicts of interest in the enforcement of justice, protection of rights, and establishment of peace We also require that they be willing to incur risk and put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of these moral ideals, and with an end of securing (and certainly not themselves threatening or destroying) the blessings of rights and liberty to the vulnerable and endangered victims whose desperate plight initially prompts the international call for military intervention In humanitarian (or counter-terrorist) interventions, as in domestic law enforcement, we cannot and we do not forsake our laws and moral principles in order to enforce and protect them

21. Walzer: The “War Convention” I propose to call the set of articulated norms, customs, professional codes, legal precepts, religious and philosophical principles, and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgments of military conduct the war convention (Walzer, p. 44) The soldiers who do the fighting, though they can rarely be said to have chosen to fight, lose the rights they are supposedly defending They gain war rights as combatants and potential prisoners, but they can now be attacked and killed at will by their enemies Soldiers fighting for an aggressor (or rogue) state are not themselves criminals; the moral equality of soldiers requires that soldiers fighting against an aggressor state have no license to become criminals; they are subject to the same restraints as their opponents, and their war rights are the same as those of their opponents The war convention rests first on a certain view of combatants, which stipulates their battlefield equality…… But it rests more deeply on a certain view of noncombatants, which holds that they are men and women with rights and that they cannot be used for some military purpose, even if it is a legitimate purpose [Walzer, pp. 136-37]

22. Thunder RunUS Army 3 Inf Div (Mech) April 2003 drive to Baghdad US Tanks advanced so far – so fast that the Iraqi people had no idea the war was already in their neighborhoods. This was complicated by the Iraqi Minister of Information (“Baghdad Bob”) refusing to acknowledge Iraqi losses or the impending attack on the city. Mixed in among the Iraqi (and mercenary Syrian) combatants – many of whom were dressed in civilian clothes, and arriving in civilian cars, trucks and busses, were unsuspecting Iraqi civilians who lost their lives because they continued to drive towards the American convoys, not realizing they were indistinguishable from real threats to the American Soldiers. The reactions in the books of the troops, as they progressively fired warning shots, then fired at engine blocks and then fired at the passengers if they failed to yield was almost universal…incredulity, wonder, necessity, disgust and pity.US Tanks advanced so far – so fast that the Iraqi people had no idea the war was already in their neighborhoods. This was complicated by the Iraqi Minister of Information (“Baghdad Bob”) refusing to acknowledge Iraqi losses or the impending attack on the city. Mixed in among the Iraqi (and mercenary Syrian) combatants – many of whom were dressed in civilian clothes, and arriving in civilian cars, trucks and busses, were unsuspecting Iraqi civilians who lost their lives because they continued to drive towards the American convoys, not realizing they were indistinguishable from real threats to the American Soldiers. The reactions in the books of the troops, as they progressively fired warning shots, then fired at engine blocks and then fired at the passengers if they failed to yield was almost universal…incredulity, wonder, necessity, disgust and pity.

23. What the Hell Just Happened?

24. What the Hell Just Happened?

25. The Dilemma

26. The 3-Way Moral Problem

27. 5 Considerations (Michael Ignatieff at USNA) Moral Numbing – Ethical implications of stand off weapons and pride in stand-off weapons Enemy not fighting by rules – Temptation Perverse consequences of doing good – More ethical you are, the more likely that will be exploited by your enemies. Casualty avoidance is Achillies heal of modern American warfare – Vigilance without overriding our role as diplomats and presence Legal is not ethical Moral behavior is an individual behavior Moral Numbing – Ethical implications of stand off weapons and pride in stand-off weapons Enemy not fighting by rules – Temptation Perverse consequences of doing good – More ethical you are, the more likely that will be exploited by your enemies. Casualty avoidance is Achillies heal of modern American warfare – Vigilance without overriding our role as diplomats and presence Legal is not ethical Moral behavior is an individual behavior

28. Road to Basra: 26-27 Feb1991

29. Road to Basra – Highway of Death

30. Religion and Conscience Bottom line – In all of these cases, the negative emotional/psychological impact of “doing the wrong thing” weighed heavily on those involvedBottom line – In all of these cases, the negative emotional/psychological impact of “doing the wrong thing” weighed heavily on those involved

31. Questions?