Luttrell's "Lone Survivor"
I just finished reading Marcus Luttrell's book "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10". It's outstanding, heart-breaking, and inspiring. He also raises an important issue regarding Rules of Engagement, and how worrying about the possible ramifications of breaking ROE may have contributed to the single greatest loss of life in Navy SEAL history.
Please read it and pass it along, if you haven't done so already.
We can disagree. While I agree with your premise
if applied to a conventional unit, for some SOF missions one simply has to apply a different standard and Luttrell's quandry is but one example of many where there are differences in approach and training that must be applied.
Is it morally acceptable to shoot an innocent (if he is in fact 'innocent') shepherd, perhaps a child? Dunno. Is it moral to NOT shoot said child if his life being spared results in losing four or six or ten of your own people? Dunno the answer to that, either. METT-TC applies and I suggest that each person has to make their own decision when they are actually in such a situation. That creates a quandry and there is no 'right' answer.
You cite Luttrell's military training being abrogated and I agree -- if applied to conventional forces. In SOF operations of many kinds different rules apply; have to apply -- that's part of why they are called 'special operations.' You may disagree that such operations are conducted or that such organizations can have different rules. That is your prerogative but it doesn't change reality. Such organizations do exist, such operations are conducted, the rules ARE different and such quandries are a part of them.
You also condemn "his Lieutenant" for abdicating his leadership role. In most SOF units that line is not and absolutely cannot be as distinct as it is in a conventional unit. That, too is reality.
All the above factors are some of the many reasons there's a disconnect between the 'big Army' and SOF. You mention the incident as a "...case study in the terrible choices men have to make in war a hundred years from now and how we prepare them to face those choices." Good idea. Part of that case study could be used to educate the conventional force on some of the very knotty problems faced by their SOF brethren that conventional units rarely if ever face. We have not done that at all well.
If COIN was all one's got to do, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Buckwheat
...So as far as COIN goes this is right up there with AC-130s blasting 50-100 person weddings...
We need to re-establish the hard moral deck here.
Unfortunately, all war is not COIN. If I haven't learned anything else in the last 75 years, I've learned to avoid saying never...
Sadly, the Pennsylvania Dutch have it right...
"We are too zoon oldt und too late schmart." And I'm a living example of that... :D
I agree with you, got be careful on the judging -- but we have to train people to do the right thing to the maximum extent possible. Thankfully, we mostly do a good job of that. Hard deck is good, just gotta allow for the occasional and hopefully very rare hatch (being careful not to trip over the coaming...). ;)
Chivalry is not dead, it never lived [as you think] in the first place
Quote:
The "solution" being offered to this double bind by certain ideologues - "it's not torture, just a necessary tool in the War on Terror" - is not a solution that can be accepted while retaining honour.
How much history and how much myth are codes of chivalry and honor? and, would you consider certain acts as practiced in the past, considered within honorable and chivalric codes, to be honorable and chivalric today?
I am not, by any means, supporting torture nor am I discarding the idea that we must act and appear more honorable and humane than the enemy. Particularly in COIN. Nor even advocating a regression to some form of total war on the population.
But, I would challenge you all directly to point to a historical victory that was won through and honorable or chivalric act. I don't mean the last act where a leader accepts the parole or sword of another with honor and chivalry, but that the battle or war itself was predicated on such acts. I think we could name a few defeats or really horrific death tolls that occurred because an act of "chivalry" where the survivor of such an encounter returned to destroy the offerer.
They say that "war is hell" for a reason.
Historically, chivalry has been discarded out of necessity and honor conferred to the winner. Chivalry has often been limited to a small group or class. Everyone else being fair game. So, let us not confuse our modern ideas of chivalry and honor in military groups or individuals with history or actual war.
Having said that, I would point to something I wrote a few years ago (pardon the self linkage) re: chivalry today and the art of war. Quoting Shay:
Quote:
This brings us back to my earlier line of reasoning. It is not enough to ask, “Can our warriors still get the job done if they do not have a code?” We must also consider the related question: “What will getting the job done do to our warriors if they do not have a code?” Accepting certain constraints as a moral duty, even when it is inconvenient or inefficient to do so, allows warriors to hold onto their humanity while experiencing the horror of war — and, when the war is over, to return home and reintegrate into the society they so ably defended. Fighters who cannot say, “this far but no farther,” who have no lines they will not cross and no atrocities from which they will shrink, may be effective. They may complete their missions, but they will do so at the loss of their humanity.[snip]
Therein, I believe, lies the question that must bother Luttrel. In the end, the two concepts of chivalry actually collide. The first part that demands we treat our brothers in arms with honor, defend them, bring them home, etc and to do no harm to others who also fall within the code.
Which one was the most important to have followed? Which one is the most cruel? Which one the most damaging?
Luttrel doesn't know and that is why he still wrestles with it today.
I would say, as others have, it is all good and well to talk in ideological terms here, even so far as intimating the lack of honor or chivalry in various others, but I would guess that each person would be tested under different circumstances and would come to the same dilemma in the end, which ever he or she chose, finding themselves wanting.
Chivalry versus code of honor
I've never been overly comfortable with the term "chivalry" being used to describe conflicts...if for no other reason than the term itself carries too much mythology and revisionist connotations to be worthwhile (by that I mean that it was used by later generations to define and describe an ideal way of conflict that may never have actually existed). Chivalry could also be very class-distinctive and applied to a certain group or limited groups. Tom's quite right to point out tribal conflicts as containing elements of what we might consider a code of conduct (Marc's more qualified to discuss the fuzzy side than I am, though....), and he's also right in pointing out that those codes vary greatly depending on the culture. To draw on his frontier example, ritualized torture was a common part of many tribal conflicts (the degree varying depending on the tribe in question)...something that was horrifying to the white newcomers. But there were also cases where attacks might be broken off and conflicts ended by an act of bravery (honorable conduct) on the part of one or more warriors.
During the Civil War, Grant was known for his honorable conduct toward his opponents in the Western theater. He had the reputation of demanding unconditional surrender, but on the whole his terms were usually honorable. What tripped his switch (I think) was the growing realization that what he considered honorable conduct (to include sparing certain production facilities) was viewed as weakness by his opponents. This has always been one of the interesting points for me (probably because of my Frontier Army research): the intersection of competing codes of honor and/or conduct. I think it's those collision points that make war even more hellish.
I can endorse your fourth paragraph
on about all counts plus a little. Pinnipeds should probably stay real close to large bodies of water, they can really dangerous there; too far away, not so much -- though ya gotta give 'em credit for testicular fortitude if not super competence ashore...