Honor on the Battlefield Conduct of War and Law of War
Readings for Today:Conduct of War/Honor on the Battlefield Objectives from reading: Understand the moral basis of the rules of war. Comprehend the nature of restrictions in the conduct of war Apply the principles of Just War and the Law of War to concrete examples drawn from recent conflicts. Understand the Naval Leader’s role in solving the “3-Way Moral Problem.” • EMP (2 pages) • The Moral Code of the Warrior (Lucas), pp. 301-302; • CSME (24 pages) • Interdiction in Afghanistan (Schoultz), pp. 17-24; • What the Hell Just Happened? (Webber & Rubel), pp. 45-46; • Incident at a Roadblock (Anonymous), p. 47; • The Road to Basra (Cook & Hamann), pp. 73-82; • Tiananmen Square (Rubel), pp. 89-91. • Naval Law (3rd Edition) • Justice in War (Jus in Bello), Law of Armed Conflict, pp. 229-232 (4 pages)
What are these Rules of War?? • If victory is the goal, why are there constraints? • Last class = When is it right to fight? • This class = How & Why do we fight right?
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”
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” Fighting right just doesn’t just happen…YOU must take an active role in mentally preparing your Marines/Sailors!
Why Did They Stop? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdKgtIenuWI • With the entire PLA 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 & 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 takes more character to do – to stand in front of the tank, or to stop the tank (disregarding direct orders, despite all of your training & 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? Do we want our troops to be morally responsible, or do we want them to do as they are told? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyPgHwB82xY&feature=related
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. Just War Terms
JUS IN BELLO = Justice in War 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 Conditions under which ‘just war’ is conducted
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. THERE IS NO MORAL BASIS FOR EVER INTENTIONALLY TARGETING INNOCENT, NON-COMBATANTS! (THAT’S CALLED TERRORISM) “Treat the captives well and care for them.” ---Sun Tzu
Jus in Bello: Just Behavior in WarDISCRIMINATION: 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. Warriors must display moral courage
Jus in Bello: Just Behavior in WarPROPORTIONALITY: 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, 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.
Jus in Bello: Just Behavior in WarPROPORTIONALITY: • Must not bring about harm disproportionate to the anticipated military gains • Must not cause excessive damage • Must not use weapons that cause militarily-unnecessary injury (Bio/Chem)\WMD (harm future generations) • No killing surrendering troops after battle is won • No economic destruction once winning is certain Use only the force that is necessary to achieve goals.
The Road Block What are your impressions? Compare to “Incident at Roadblock” case study… Discrimination? Proportionality? Non-combatants? How do you think incident will affect the squad?
The Moral Basis for Rules of War • 1. Prudential (Utilitarian) • If I harm civilians, enemy may escalate • If I lob a nuke, he may do the same • Therefore, it is in my interest to follow the Rules of War • Restoration after the war…Just Peace • 2. Reciprocity (Kantian) • I should treat POWs & non-combatants as I would want mine to be treated • Treat all humanity w/ dignity and respect • 3. Virtue of Professional Arms • Cowardly to murder civilians • Professionalism • Meet military objectives (What are we fighting for?) • If we lower ourselves to the least common denominator, what do we have at the end of the war? • We can’t defend our values using means that violate them • Psychological well-being of our troops – mental damage caused by atrocities
Interdiction in Afghanistan What points must you consider in deciding to fire or not fire? How does an officer weigh risks to his people vs risk to non-combatants? Did attack on compound violate Laws of Armed Conflict? What factors did LCDR Reynolds consider? What were his moral obligations to his country? His troops? Non-combatants? What if he had been wrong? Does the Maj Wyatt have a legitimate case?
What does this picture say? • Concern? • Fear? • A mission to his left? • Back to the wall… a threat? • Kids to protect?
Perhaps he is worried about this… Our job is to complete the mission AND protect the innocent
The 3-Way Moral Problem Risk to Own Troops Value of the Target Constitutional Ethics, Utilitarianism Just War, Principle of Forfeiture, Utilitarianism What is the Moral Basis of each “Piece?” Risk to Non-Combatant Civilians Jus in Bello, Kant, Utilitarianism, Virtue (courage)
The 3-Way Moral Problem • Question #2: • Are all three pieces equal? • What conditions & considerations might influence you to “cut it differently?” Value of the Target Risk to Own Troops • What kind of war are we fighting? • Peacekeeping • Limited war • Counterterrorism • Nuclear • Is this a High Value target? • What if we are losing? • Enemy isn’t playing by the rules? Risk to Non-Combatant Civilians
Sgt Sarra’s 3-Way Moral Problem Value of the Target Risk to Own Troops • Do you think he did the right thing? • Which of the three will you favor? Why? • He described himself as “crying hysterically…”how does he deal with the moral (and psychological) burden that he will carry the rest of his life? • The rest of the story: • Sara’s Chaplain states that he was so upset (damaged) that he had to be pulled off the line, then out of Iraq, then out of the Corps. He is under therapy for psychological, spiritual, and moral damage. • Final Question: • How is it that a Marine Sergeant does the “right thing” and now he is no longer able to function as a Marine? How might such actions complicate “the way you slice it?” Risk to Non-Combatant Civilians
Road to Basra – Highway of Death • Author’s validation for attack: • Iraqis fleeing with loot • Firing Manpads from cars • Retreating – not surrendering • “Surrenders” embedded with combatants • Issues for aircrews: • Cars/Trucks instead of Military Vehicles • “Turkey shoot” • Dehumanizing of enemy • Criticisms: • Disproportionate Force • Kuwaiti Prisoners & Hostages • Attempts to Surrender • Large number of civilians
Readings for Next Lesson: Just War Theory Applied • EMP (25 pages) • Jus in bello – Just Conduct in War (Orend), pp. 273-285; • Why Warriors Need a Code (French), pp. 323-334. • CSME (24 pages) • The Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims, pp. 244-261. • Abu Ghraib (Rubel), pp. 43-48. Objectives from reading: Know the purpose of the Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC) Know US government policy regarding LoAC & the responsibilities of officers WRT violations of the LoAC Apply the LoAC to Rules of engagement , the conduct of hostilities, & rights of individuals Understand the basis of LoAC violations in recent real world examples
Readings for Today’s ClassJunior Officer Relationships & Mentoring • Marine Officer’s Guide, pp. 338 – 346 (8) • Division Officer’s Guide, pp. 286 – 293(8) (change) • Objectives from readings: • Know the importance of followership • Know the importance of honesty & communications w/ seniors, peers & subordinates. • Understand the roles & responsibilities of a mentor. • Know how to implement effective mentoring techniques.