The morality of war

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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).

[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.

[BigV]

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I already said, to justify Nuremberg.

[richlevy]

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.

Banality of evil is a phrase used by Hannah Arendt in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.[1] Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

Reicher and Haslam have challenged Arendt's idea of the banality of evil. They acknowledge that ordinary people can commit evil actions, but assert that it is not simply a matter of “blind people following orders.” They point to historical and psychological evidence that suggests ordinary people become evil when they identify with evil ideology.[2]

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.

[ZenGum]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[ZenGum]

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."

[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.

[ZenGum]

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.

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

[BigV]

BigV, I associated placebo with noncombatants.

You disagreed; but, by associating placebo with combatants.

Apples and oranges.

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.

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.

Wow, harsh. So for soldiers the Laws of Land Warfare are indoctrination.

Someone's been watching too many reality TV shows.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Sure. That puts them in exactly the same box as all the other laws we have.

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.

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.

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.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

Rendition? Torture?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

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. ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Wow, harsh. So for soldiers the Laws of Land Warfare are indoctrination. ...

... You and I both know that there are such rules in real situations. ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... 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. ...

...My questions were an attempt to learn about their effect/importance/etc among a population of which I am not a member. ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... I am highly suspicious of the implied "legal" autonomous authority you speak of, ...

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

Originally Posted by BigV

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

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

[Big Sarge]

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