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.