The morality of war

[DanaC]

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

The US military is facing fresh questions over its targeting policy in Afghanistan after a senior army officer suggested that troops were on the lookout for "children with potential hostile intent".

In comments which legal experts and campaigners described as "deeply troubling", army Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age males", had been identified as a potential threat because some were being used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.

"It kind of opens our aperture," said Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. "In addition to looking for military-age males, it's looking for children with potential hostile intent."

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.

[ZenGum]

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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

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

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Griff

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

Fun sponge.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, Griff, there's no money in that.

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.

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.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah, Griff, there's no money in that.

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.

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.

[DanaC]

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

The piece also quoted an unnamed marine corps official who questioned the "innocence" of Afghan children, particularly three who were killed in a US rocket strike in October. Last month, the New York Times quoted local officials who said Borjan, 12, Sardar Wali, 10, and Khan Bibi, eight, from Helmand's Nawa district had been killed while gathering dung for fuel.

However, the US official claimed that, before they called for the strike on suspected insurgents planting improvised explosive devices, marines had seen the children digging a hole in a dirt road and that "the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission".

[sexobon]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[sexobon]

BigV, I associated placebo with noncombatants.

Originally Posted by BigV

I do not agree with your glib dismissal sexobon. ... 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. ...

You disagreed; but, by associating placebo with combatants.

Apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Are there no such soldiers who believe in and benefit from laws of war? ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Real rules for real situations? ...

Someone's been watching too many reality TV shows.

Originally Posted by BigV

... That sounds like the opposite of a placebo to me; ...

Applying what I said about noncombatants to combatants sounds like the opposite to me.

Originally Posted by BigV

... 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? ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Is it an imaginary benefit that we receive for mutually agreeing to not use chemical weapons? ...

When the shit hits the fan, those agreements won't be worth the paper they're written on.

Originally Posted by BigV

... 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? ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... I think "placebo" is inappropriately cynical and harsh.

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.

[Undertoad]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

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?

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

[orthodoc]

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