PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield Ethics



Dr Jack
05-05-2007, 01:59 AM
On 4 May 2007 the Department of Defense released key findings from the latest Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT-IV) survey, the fourth in a series of studies since 2003 to assess the mental health and well-being of the deployed forces serving in Iraq... More than 1,300 Soldiers and nearly 450 Marines were surveyed. The commanding general of Multinational Force, Iraq, also requested a first-ever study of battlefield ethics with the participation of soldiers and Marines currently involved in combat operations.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=10824


The significant findings include:

* Soldiers who deployed longer (greater than six months) or had deployed multiple times were more likely to screen positive for a mental health issue.
* Approximately 10 percent of Soldiers reported mistreating non-combatants or damaging their property when it was not necessary.
* Less than half of Soldiers and Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior.
* More than one-third of all Soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine.
* The 2006 adjusted rate of suicides per 100,000 Soldiers was 17.3 Soldiers, lower than the 19.9 rate reported in 2005, however higher than the Army average of 11.6 per 100,000 soldiers. However, there are important demographic differences between these two Soldier populations that make direct comparisons problematic.
* Soldiers experienced mental health problems at a higher rate than Marines.
* Deployment length was directly linked to morale problems in the Army.
* Leadership is key to maintaining Soldier and Marine mental health.
* Both Soldiers and Marines reported at relatively high rates – 62 and 66 percent, respectively – that they knew someone seriously injured or killed, or that a member of their team had become a casualty.

The full report with annexes can be downloaded at the link below:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/mhat-iv.cfm

SWJED
05-05-2007, 06:58 AM
5 May Washington Post - Troops at Odds With Ethics Standards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402151.html?hpid=topnews) by Thomas E. Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson.


More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed yesterday. Four in 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the Army report stated...

John T. Fishel
05-05-2007, 12:34 PM
There is a major debate about the efficacy of torture as a means of gathering information. Some argue that the person tortured will tell his interrogators whatever he thinks they want to hear just to stop the pain. Others say that it brings real and useful intelligence in a timely fashion. In the middle are those who say that "enhanced interrogation" produced intelligence can be useful but must be treated with great care in separating the wheat from the chaff. The Algerian War, particularly the Battle of Algiers, proves conclusively, to me at least, that torture can be tactically successful.

But it was the use of torture that cost the French their legitimacy at home and internationally. That, alone was the most critical factor in their losing the war. For all its tactical utility, torture lead directly to strategic failure. That, I think, is the lesson that must be taught throughout our military and civilian agencies. Nothing has hurt our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan so much as Abu Ghraib, the perception of mistratment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and the allegations of torture in secret CIA prisons. Whether the allegations are true or false - truth and falsity vary among these different situations - they have cost us dearly in the battles of the information war.

Tom Odom
05-05-2007, 01:14 PM
John,

Where this debate draws fuel is when you get a "suit" like George Tenet describing himself as a "shadow warrior" and arguing that "rough treatment" was OK. I amreaing his book and it is a painful read. More to follow later.

Best

Tom

John T. Fishel
05-05-2007, 02:28 PM
Tom--

Part of my comment was provoked by the Tenet interviews.

Cheers

John

jcustis
05-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Having participated in a couple of these surveys, I'd like to see the questions. One of the weak points of them, like the question about using torture if it meant saving a buddy, can be because the question provides those surveyed with a sense of certainty. I imagine it reads something along the lines of: "Would you allow torture if it meant that information was produced that could save the life of another serviceman?" There is that degree of certainty in the question which would in turn make a lot of people respond with a resounding,"Hell yes!"

If it was worded just a bit differently, the replies could vary widely. I've looked through the 89-page product, but couldn't find the survey questions.

Jedburgh
05-05-2007, 04:02 PM
Let's not start yet another torture thread, and keep this to discussion of the MHAT study.

The subject of the ethics and efficacy of torture in interrogation has been discussed before on SWC, in varying contexts, here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2695), here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1224) and here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=287).

Please review existing discussion and debate on the subject before chiming in. Original commentary and thought regarding this issue is very welcome, but this post is all about avoiding rehashing the same thing over and over again.

Dr Jack
05-05-2007, 05:25 PM
It is interesting to do a web search and see how this story is reported by the various news outlets --with their headlines and emphasis:

Long tours in Iraq may be minefield for mental health
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-soldiers5may05,1,3028834.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Los Angeles Times

Mental Health Survey Shows Troops Need More Time at Home
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070504/4pentagon.htm
U.S. News & World Report

10% of US soldiers in Iraq reported mistreating civilians
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?sub=1846

The Muslim News, UK

Many troops in Iraq lack ethics, US finds
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/05/africa/web0505-ethics-46348.php
International Herald Tribune

Study: Anxiety, depression, acute stress in combat troops
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/

CNN.com

Pentagon studies ethical dilemmas faced in Iraq
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/

CNN International

Many US soldiers endorse torture
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20070505-075830-1310

Washington Times

“Most US soldiers won’t report civilian killings, torture”
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=13298
Aljazeera.com

DOD survey finds ethical struggle in war
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=45611
Stars and Stripes

Uboat509
05-06-2007, 07:18 PM
Interesting similarity between the Washington Times' title for the article and al Jazeera's.

SFC W

Stan
05-06-2007, 08:59 PM
Uboat,
Exactly. Right up to the extremely disgusting (full of Sierra) end where the link for General Sir Michael Rose states (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=13429)


General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, urged the U.S. and its allies to "admit defeat" and stop fighting "a hopeless war" in Iraq, according to the BBC's Newsnight program.

Sir Michael also said it was time for foreign troops to leave Iraq and go back home.

"It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved."

Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: "Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened.”

"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq," he added.

It is a medical issue here

PhilR
05-08-2007, 03:43 AM
I've given the report itself a quick look. its interesting how the focus has been on some of the specific answers to questions and not the overall findings of the report.
From what I saw of the central findings, longer tours and more combat equalled, on average, more mental health problems. I believe that there also seemed to be a connection between the same characteristics of combat/tour length and increased the propensity for ethics violations.
I think that this report highlights an operational dilemma for COIN and other similar operations. There is always a refrain that forces need to be engaged longer in these types of operations so that they can really learn and understand the culture, environment, etc. This argues for lengthening unit deployments. The flip side, however, seems to be that longer commitment has the downside of greater "moral fatigue" and thus threatens to undercut the very advantages of prolonged engagement--which argues for shorter deployments. There's probably a sweet spot in there and its probably different based on the duties associated.
COIN is naturally morally degrading to the force. Outside of just the torture argument, without strong leadership attention, a force that is continually engaged in COIN is likely to slip down to the level of the foe wrt consideration of civilian casualties, etc.
One of the interesting findings is that transition team personnel tend to fair relatively better than their brigade combat team counterparts. I wonder if that's due to the level and character of their engagement with Iraqis--they are apt to develop a greater, less sterotyped regard for the people (people as in the Iraqi population) that they are fighting for.
The classic "men in combat" discussions emphasize that the troops really fight for one another, not for the stated national causes. In COIN, if taken to an extreme, this can be counterproductive to the mission itself. The bond of brotherhood can become more important than protecting, or considering, civilian lives. I would venture that the closer a unit operates within the community and with Iraqi forces, the more chance that those elements (population and allies) will be considered closer to the scope of the brotherhood to be treated with a similar emotional bond.

Maximus
05-08-2007, 05:23 AM
Phil,

Great post. Your analysis/thoughts about how our advisors respond to lengthy deployments is interesting and, although I don't have statistical data to back it, makes perfect sense to me. Most advisors have a much greater sense of accomplishment, close relations with Iraqis and can most likely grasp the mission better than your average Soldier or Marine that spends the better part of his deployment (be this 7 months or a year or now 15 months) commuting to work, especially over the past few years.

Here's the major problem I see with all the findings and conclusions drawn from the survey: for the better part of 3-4 years, our forces had almost zero relationship with the Iraqi people and, although it's tough to admit, spent their deployments in survival mode. By this I mean, lived in a FOB outside of town, patrolled into the town, generally in vehicles, sometimes getting hit by IEDs, and then returned to their fortress FOB later in the day, leaving most concerns WRT Iraqis until tomorrow or a few days later (I know there were exceptions). Because we operated in this manner at the tactical level, in a way, it's understandable, although unfortunate, that many Marines/Soldiers don't have a strong bond or sense of partnership with the Iraqis.

Further, for the first few years of this war COIN wasn't part of most of our formal school POIs and Marines/Soldiers weren't forced to expand the way they think about and understand the culture of their environment. We've gotten so much better in these areas in the past year alone.

Although we can't go back in time, so much of me thinks the results of the survey would have been very different had we been executing the new strategy since 2003.

goesh
05-08-2007, 11:47 AM
I would agree with the previous post that a COIN mentality would generate a much different data set given the cultural exchange that is occuring. I doubt there will be any follow up/longitudinal studies, however it would behoove some enterprising staffer of General P. to conduct this survey specifically in units that have some proven COIN time under their belts - a couple hundred randomly assigned, identical surveys, with manila envelopes that could be sealed and put in a collection box anonymously should do the trick nicely to show a distinct pattern, worthy of further pursuit. If my hunch as a civilian is correct, that there is some friction between traditionalists and COIN, this could be a nice feather in the cap, or ammo in the pouch perhaps, for the COIN side of things.

marct
05-08-2007, 02:01 PM
Hi Goesh,


I would agree with the previous post that a COIN mentality would generate a much different data set given the cultural exchange that is occuring. I doubt there will be any follow up/longitudinal studies, however it would behoove some enterprising staffer of General P. to conduct this survey specifically in units that have some proven COIN time under their belts - a couple hundred randomly assigned, identical surveys, with manila envelopes that could be sealed and put in a collection box anonymously should do the trick nicely to show a distinct pattern, worthy of further pursuit. If my hunch as a civilian is correct, that there is some friction between traditionalists and COIN, this could be a nice feather in the cap, or ammo in the pouch perhaps, for the COIN side of things.

I suspect you are right about the differences, and a follow up study would be worthwhile. Personally, I'm hoping that the raw data set will be released.

On another note, I find it fascination that the discussion of "ethics" is based solely on behaviour that can be counted. On my, admittedly surface, skimming of the report, nowhere do I see any solid process linkages between the behavioural rules, the processes behind the rules and mental health.

I see a lot of emphasis on reactive strategies to mental health situations (e.g. anger management training) but no linking of that to ethical processes either. I'll admit I am unfamiliar with the specifics of these particular training sessions, so maybe that is included in them - maybe someone who is familiar could comment?

Having said that, I should also note that I do have a fair bit of experience with counselling over the past 20 years (both career counselling and "pastoral" counselling). My experience has been that any successful counselling always involves placing behaviour into a general ethical and psychological context - i.e. a set of "operational rules of reality". It has also been my experience that counselling based on behavioural rules only tends to fall flat on its face the first time there is any confusion over the application of the behavioural rules comes up.

Marc

Jimbo
05-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Well,

Hasn't Insurgency/Counter-Insurgency been described as nasty dirty wars in the past? Soldiers and Marines have varying defintions of mistreatment and serious injuries. Marc, you are not going to see the raw data on this.

Dr Jack
05-08-2007, 02:16 PM
The MHAT-IV briefing slides to the Commandant of the Marine Corps can be found at the following sites:

http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/mhativ18apr07.pdf

http://www.iava.org/documents/MHATIVBrieftoMarineCorpsCommandant.ppt

Interesting data...

marct
05-08-2007, 02:36 PM
Hi Jimbo,


Hasn't Insurgency/Counter-Insurgency been described as nasty dirty wars in the past? Soldiers and Marines have varying defintions of mistreatment and serious injuries. Marc, you are not going to see the raw data on this.

I know :wry:. Let's just say I would be a lot more confident about their findings if I could get a look at the raw data. And, also, my comments about their definition of "ethics" still stand :cool:.


The MHAT-IV briefing slides to the Commandant of the Marine Corps can be found at the following sites:

http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/mhativ18apr07.pdf

http://www.iava.org/documents/MHATIVBrieftoMarineCorpsCommandant.ppt

Interesting data...

Somewhat, but most of it is in the main report. I certainly didn't see anything in the briefing about the role of chaplains, and I would have liked to. Then again, this is one of the limitations of the type of research they are doing - you can't really probe things or find out something you didn't already think about. For example, while there is some good data on "ethics" and NCOs, I didn't see anything that actually dug into this - only surface numbers. Why is there a difference? What are the characteristics of the NCOs that are limiting ethical breaches? How can those characteristics be translated into training programs? That sort of stuff.

Marc

tequila
05-08-2007, 02:43 PM
Full report and appendices at this link (http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/mhat-iv.cfm).

marct
05-08-2007, 02:48 PM
Full report and appendices at this link (http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/mhat-iv.cfm).

Hi Tequila, thans, that's the one I'm working off of - I downloaded the full report and all the appendices - I just haven't had the time to go through it all yet :wry:.

Marc

TROUFION
05-13-2007, 02:08 PM
I'd like to see how the ethics debate deals with this issue. AlQeada in Iraq says they have 3 US Soldiers. Is there doubt in anyones mind reading here of the fate these youngmen face? What do you think the reaction of their fellow soldiers will be?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The fact that US and other 'civilized' militaries play by rules and that insurgents/guerillas/bandits or what ever you call them do not is the basis for all of the debate on ethics.

So long as captured uniformed troops are paraded on TV, beheaded on camera, tortured in the most sadistic ways there will be an ethics issue. Try controlling the vengeance desire of your men when their best friend was just treated worse than a cow in the slaughter house. Further their can be no surrender at any time, a US serviceman or woman cannot under any circumstances surrender. The last serviceman captured and returned alive was the SF Pilot in Somalia back in the Blackhawk Down episode. And that only because he was captured by a 'business' oriented individual.

-T

marct
05-14-2007, 01:09 PM
Hi Troufion,


So long as captured uniformed troops are paraded on TV, beheaded on camera, tortured in the most sadistic ways there will be an ethics issue. Try controlling the vengeance desire of your men when their best friend was just treated worse than a cow in the slaughter house.

One of the main concerns I have with much of the current debate on "ethics" is the conflation of "ethics" and "morality". While there is no general agreement on the differences (if any) between the two terms, I have always been in favour of one line of argument that defines ethics as "right action" defined by the laws of reality and "morality" as right action defined by a particular society or culture at a particular point in time.

T., you raise an excellent point about the reactions of other service people to seeing their friends killed in this manner. I would note, however, that this is exactly the type of reaction that these actions are designed to produce.

Marc

goesh
05-14-2007, 01:51 PM
I would venture an opinion that no war can be won when one camp is not allowed to hate their enemies, regardless of tactics and strategies employed, and technology. Jihadists need only understand our tactics and strategies and weapons. They couldn't fight without hating us.

Dr Jack
05-14-2007, 02:01 PM
One of the main concerns I have with much of the current debate on "ethics" is the conflation of "ethics" and "morality". While there is no general agreement on the differences (if any) between the two terms, I have always been in favour of one line of argument that defines ethics as "right action" defined by the laws of reality and "morality" as right action defined by a particular society or culture at a particular point in time.

Although it may seem like splitting hairs, here are the definitions I used in my dissertation:

Morality: Morality is the aspect of human judgment that is concerned with the overriding evaluation of actions, values, and character. Morality is reason-based, prescriptive, objective, and autonomous. Morality is concerned with the issue of “what should be.”

Ethics: The term ethics is from the Greek word ethos, which means character. Ethics is the study of morality – what is good, bad, right or wrong in a moral sense.

slapout9
05-14-2007, 02:39 PM
Agree Dr. Jack or more precisely morality is the discussion and definition of what is good. Where as ethics is the execution of good, a codification of how to act good.

TROUFION
05-14-2007, 03:07 PM
Marc

Noted: that the enemy deliberatly try to inflame the various factions by extremist action, including televised torture and making examples. The same goes for suicide attacks and IED's. All designed to piss off the other guy, looking for extreme retaliation, particularly misdirected retaliation.

That said US troops ranging in age from 18-21 in most cases are a very susceptible market for this type of attack. C2 of these troops becomes ever more difficult over time. I understand that leadership, strong and effective can and will get these young people through the tough spots but it won't be easy. The more dispersed they are the harder it will get. Regardless of what you say you cannot and will not get troops to value the lives of the locals more than the value of their own. Look at the reaction to a policman being killed here in the US and look at the reaction to these captured troops. The local Iraqi's know that we will not put forth the same effort to recover them.

Seperately: I find the inequity of 'battlefield ethics' difficult to fathom. For instance if you drop a 'precision' 500 lbs bomb on a building in order to kill armed insurgents but in the process you kill five civilians. The civilians get classified as collateral damage. Conduct the same action with 'precision' rifles, grenades and bayonets and then you have a warcrime investigation. I am being somewhat sarcastic but I think that we undestand the point.

Another issue is one of fear. The insurgents may fear our bombs, and our tech, and a platoon of infantry, but they do not fear much else. What does an insurgent with bombs strapped to his chest have to fear? If captured by US forces he will be arrested, detained, charged, he will be fed, his medical treatment will be top flight. It is almost a pre-view of Paradise. No one will use a black and decker on his knee cap. I am not advocating lowering our moral standards this is just a fact of the times, the insurgents fear their own far more than they fear us. And fear is important. Substitute respect for fear and the same concept applies. What are the ethics of fear?

We are banking on the insurgency burning out. For the neutral inhabitants to say enoughs enough and to side with us. We target the leadership, we try to foster splits amongst rival groups, we weaken them by physical presence. But we draw a line at what we consider immoral and barbarous activity. They don't and that is the rub.

-T

marct
05-14-2007, 03:21 PM
Hi Dr.Jack,


Although it may seem like splitting hairs, here are the definitions I used in my dissertation:

Morality: Morality is the aspect of human judgment that is concerned with the overriding evaluation of actions, values, and character. Morality is reason-based, prescriptive, objective, and autonomous. Morality is concerned with the issue of “what should be.”

Ethics: The term ethics is from the Greek word ethos, which means character. Ethics is the study of morality – what is good, bad, right or wrong in a moral sense.

I have no real problems with these definitions <shrug>. They are certainly workable for purposes of discussion :). From these, would I be correct in assuming that yu are grounding "morality" within individuals and ethics as an intersubjective discussion of morality"?

Marc

marct
05-14-2007, 03:27 PM
Hi Troufion,


We are banking on the insurgency burning out. For the neutral inhabitants to say enoughs enough and to side with us. We target the leadership, we try to foster splits amongst rival groups, we weaken them by physical presence. But we draw a line at what we consider immoral and barbarous activity. They don't and that is the rub.

I agree, that is the rub, and I'm not sure what to do about it :wry:. I don't think that responding in kind is the answer. Outside of the fact that it is unethical (in Dr. Jack's terms, "immoral" in mine) and illegal, I also think that such actions have a tendency to "degrade" the individual who conducts them ("unethical" in my terms).

Marc

slapout9
05-14-2007, 05:20 PM
Troufion, Zenpudit posted a paper about this subject only it compared submarine warfare vs partisan warfare. They blend in with the people and submarines are completely hidden from the surface fleet(merchant marine) with no way to detect them. (this was WW1) so which is immoral?

Marct, that is a very good point about how people can change when they begin to use unethical tactics. This why some people go to prison and come out hard core criminals for life.

marct
05-14-2007, 05:25 PM
Hi Slapout,


Marct, that is a very good point about how people can change when they begin to use unethical tactics. This why some people go to prison and come out hard core criminals for life.

It's one of the reasons why I started to shift to the definitions I use now. I suppose I had been reading to much mysticism and Buddhism, but it just struck me that there are operational rules to "reality" that, if we break them, we end up paying (sort of like Karma :D).

Marc

carl
05-14-2007, 05:35 PM
Hi Troufion,



I agree, that is the rub, and I'm not sure what to do about it :wry:. I don't think that responding in kind is the answer. Outside of the fact that it is unethical (in Dr. Jack's terms, "immoral" in mine) and illegal, I also think that such actions have a tendency to "degrade" the individual who conducts them ("unethical" in my terms).

Marc

The only thing you can do about the "rub" is accept it and live with it as best you can. If you don't, things like the Sand Creek and Camp Grant massacres happen; events for which the words, illegal, immoral and degrading don't convey the full meaning.

Tom Odom
05-14-2007, 05:55 PM
Well he is back after being somewhat absent for the past couple of months. Ralph Peters now has the reason that Iraq has not gone the way it should. His rationale is a classic case of reverse morality...


Why Iraq is so hard (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_iraqs_so_hard_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm)

...Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it's losing that's immoral.

Consider just one of the many issues about which we're insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.

Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in a specific instance if it saved their buddies' lives.

The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too - surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.

Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it's immoral and because it's usually ineffective. But it's madness to declare that there can never be exceptions.

marct
05-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Well he is back after being somewhat absent for the past couple of months. Ralph Peters now has the reason that Iraq has not gone the way it should. His rationale is a classic case of reverse morality...

After reading that article, all can say is that I'm glad he doesn't have the launch keys.:rolleyes:

Marc

goesh
05-14-2007, 06:51 PM
I would suggest that for actively engaged jihadists the only breach of ethics and moral lapse is needlessly endangering the lives of comrades and failing in a mission. Ya' gotta' ask, how can such efficient guerrillas be so mentally uncluttered. I don't know how the standards and indicators would be defined, let alone implemented, but I bet a comparative PSTD ratio would show them sustaining about 20% of what our side does.

Dr Jack
05-14-2007, 09:28 PM
I agree, that is the rub, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I don't think that responding in kind is the answer. Outside of the fact that it is unethical (in Dr. Jack's terms, "immoral" in mine) and illegal, I also think that such actions have a tendency to "degrade" the individual who conducts them ("unethical" in my terms).

To determine what is "moral" there are different ethical approaches; I generally use three broad categories of ethics --

Principles, based on Kant's writings and the concept that one should not act according to the consequences of an action, but instead according to agreed-upon or settled values and principles (such as the rule of law).

Consequences, based on J.S. Mills' writings and the concept that one should act based on the likely consequences or results of the actions; The utility of an action, or how that action produces happiness, is “the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions” according to Mill.

Virtues, based on Aristotle's writings and not on “what one should do” but rather “what kind of person should one be?” Good character, or virtues, is central to virtue theory.

From a broad brush approach, Ralph Peters has taken a consequences approach -- just do what it takes to get the job done because the outcome makes it worthwhile (the ends justify the means).

GEN Petraeus, in his letter to MNF-I, indicates a sensitivity to all three approaches. He states that torture is illegal (a principles approach based on the rule of law); that such actions are frequently neither useful nor necessary (consequences approach); and that we "must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat detainees with dignity and respect" (virtues approach).

Jedburgh
05-14-2007, 10:23 PM
...I don't think that responding in kind is the answer. Outside of the fact that it is unethical (in Dr. Jack's terms, "immoral" in mine) and illegal, I also think that such actions have a tendency to "degrade" the individual who conducts them ("unethical" in my terms)....
It is not just the risk posed by this effect upon the individual, but that posed to the institution of the military. Our military, in that sense, is stronger than ever before, but this danger exists, and is nibbling away at the edges. At the small unit level, with leadership failure under stress, it has already occurred on several occasions, with significant negative impact. Effective follow-up to such failures has been minimal to non-existent - with a very few high-profile exceptions.

Previously quoted in a slightly different context, but certainly applicable here, is a quote from Bernard Fall in an interview in '63 (http://www.ndu.edu/library/ic4/L63-109.pdf): One of the by-products of revolutionary war - to come back to the question the gentleman asked me about the French officers - is that after awhile not only the front lines get fuzzy (because there aren't any front lines), but your higher front lines, of what is morally acceptable and what is not, also get fuzzy. This is really the permanent danger to anyone who has to fight that kind of war. This is what led those French colonels to practice the same tactics which they practiced on the Algerians and Vietnamese, on their own government and people in France. This is a real danger factor. An army which has to fight a revolutionary war changes in character--it changes very seriously in character. This has not yet been studied, but it must be clearly recognized and is certainly worth the study.

slapout9
05-15-2007, 12:07 PM
Thanks Jed, This is a fanatastic paper! I ties into the thread on 3GW,4GW.....etc. What is the answer for a proper name.... it's RW. Read the paper and find what that means. It is short paper full of meat no fat.

Tom Odom
05-15-2007, 12:33 PM
Agreed 100%. This is the cliff--not the slippery slope--of moral convenience.



It is not just the risk posed by this effect upon the individual, but that posed to the institution of the military. Our military, in that sense, is stronger than ever before, but this danger exists, and is nibbling away at the edges. At the small unit level, with leadership failure under stress, it has already occurred on several occasions, with significant negative impact. Effective follow-up to such failures has been minimal to non-existent - with a very few high-profile exceptions.

Previously quoted in a slightly different context, but certainly applicable here, is a quote from Bernard Fall in an interview in '63 (http://www.ndu.edu/library/ic4/L63-109.pdf): One of the by-products of revolutionary war - to come back to the question the gentleman asked me about the French officers - is that after awhile not only the front lines get fuzzy (because there aren't any front lines), but your higher front lines, of what is morally acceptable and what is not, also get fuzzy. This is really the permanent danger to anyone who has to fight that kind of war. This is what led those French colonels to practice the same tactics which they practiced on the Algerians and Vietnamese, on their own government and people in France. This is a real danger factor. An army which has to fight a revolutionary war changes in character--it changes very seriously in character. This has not yet been studied, but it must be clearly recognized and is certainly worth the study.

tequila
05-15-2007, 12:44 PM
An army which has to fight a revolutionary war changes in character--it changes very seriously in character. This has not yet been studied, but it must be clearly recognized and is certainly worth the study.

A very penetrating insight. One of the best books I've ever read on this is Deadly Embrace: Morocco and the Road to the Spanish Civil War (http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Embrace-Morocco-Spanish-Civil/dp/0199252963), about the Spanish Army of Africa's counterinsurgency campaign in Spanish Morocco. The Africanista officers like Franco who made their careers in the exceedingly brutal crushing of the Rif revolt, which featured liberal use of chemical weapons, torture, and massacre, would later use the same methods against the Spanish people during the civil war --- ironically often at the head of units of Moroccan mercenaries. These men became radically separated from society in the prewar years, even separated from the peninsular army which stayed in Spain.