Friday
10 March 2000
0830-1030 (L)
Kind hearted people might, of course, think there is some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: War is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst.
Carl von Clausewitz
No nation could face or even define its choices without a moral compass that sets a course through the ambiguities of reality and thus makes sacrifices meaningful.
Henry Kissinger
Force gains moral justification only by virtue of its relation to some valid purpose beyond its own immediate effect.
Robert E. Osgood
Although war is evil, it is occasionally the lesser of two evils.
McGeorge Bundy
By moral influence I mean that which causes the people to be in harmony with their leaders....Those who excel in war first cultivate their own humanity and justice and maintain their laws and institutions. By these means, they make their governments invincible.
Sun Tzu
I contend that fortitude in war has its roots in morality; ... war itself is but one more test-the supreme and final test if you will-of character. Character, as Aristotle taught is a habit, the daily choice of right instead of wrong; it is a moral quality which grows to maturity in peace and is not suddenly developed on the outbreak of war. Man's fate in battle is worked out before war begins. For his acts in war are dictated not by courage, nor by fear, but by conscience, of which war is the final test ... for a man of character in peace is a man of courage in war.
Lord Moran
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman.
George Santayana
Purpose
The purpose of this lesson is to comprehend moral and ethical dimensions and US law as major factors that shape and constrain US military strategy.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the influence of ethical considerations on military strategy.
Discussion
The use of military power implies potential or actual violence: the killing, wounding, capture, and displacement of combatants and non-combatants, and the destruction of property, often on a massive scale. It involves ordering and leading people to do these things, and it involves placing them at grave risk to themselves. Its residual consequences can include extensive social disruption, environmental damage and psychological trauma that can last indefinitely. As such, military strategy ought to be guided and judged by moral and ethical norms. The conflict, of course, is that many such norms would exclude or mitigate the violence that is war. Also, such military imperatives as victory and force protection weigh heavily in military strategy and can make ethical reasoning all the more difficult. The kind of force we develop, the objectives for which we employ it, the way in which we fight, and the choices we make among competing strategic alternatives should all reflect-and be perceived as reflecting-the nation's moral character and higher purpose, ultimately judged by the people themselves. "The people," however, American citizens as well as the international community, can seem to want many things in varying degrees: a just cause, strong consensus, a quick and decisive victory, few casualties, little damage, no regrets. Reconciling all of these variables in an "ethical" military strategy, then, can often depend on the character and conscience of the strategist.
The core principles of the just-war tradition studied in Course 5602 are centuries old and well-established, if not always observed. Our era includes its own moral dilemmas: the strategic utility of nuclear weapons; the perceived necessity of intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state; nuclear deterrence of chemical and biological weapons; and deterring and countering terrorism, to name a few. Some might argue that morality and ethics are relative, culturally bounded constructs, ultimately determined by war's victors. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that military strategists are always subject to these influences.
Issues for Consideration
1. Do you think that morality (as distinct from political prudence) has a place in military strategy? Can leaders responsible for the nation's security afford to be guided by moral considerations when confronted by those lacking such constraints? Can they afford not to be?
2. When, if ever, is the United States (or the United Nations) justified in intervening militarily in the internal affairs of another sovereign state?
3. Does the United States have a moral responsibility--and, thus, an obligation--to use force to promote and uphold its values? What are the constraints involved?
4. Does the changing nature of warfare require us fundamentally to rethink the moral and ethical foundation of military strategy? Do new technologies and techniques impose new standards and new obligations on warfighters and decision-makers?
5. How would you define the primary objective of Rules of Engagement: protection of combatants, or protection of non-combatants? Could ROE serve both purposes? What are the risks and benefits? Do same considerations apply to joint and combined operations?
6. Archer - The JCS will have to issue guidance to CINCENT on Rules of Engagement in the Gulf. What should drive that guidance? Are the standing rules adequate? Does the fact that the United States is involved in another conflict in Korea add pressure toward more liberal rules of engagement, and application of violence, in either theater?
Required Readings
1. Joint Pub 1, Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States, 1995, Chapter II, "Values in Joint Warfare," pp. II-1 - II-10 (Student Issue)
2. Bryan J. Hehir, "Expanding Military Intervention: Promise or Peril?" Social Research, Vol 62, (Spring, 1995), pp. 41-47. (Reprint)
3. Paul Kennedy and George J. Andreaopoulos, The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), "The Laws of War: Some Concluding Reflections," pp. 214-225 (Reprint)
4. Anthony Hartle, "A Military Ethic in an Age of Terror," Parameters vol XXV, no 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 120-127 (Reprint)
5. Bryan J. Hehir, "Kosovo: A War of Values and the Values of War," America Press, May 15, 1999, pp. 7-12 (Reprint)
6. CJCSINST 3121.01 Joint Standing Rules of Engagement, October 1, 1994, pp vii-x and Enclosure A pp A-1-A-8. (Student Issue)
 |
 |
 |