Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 161

Thread: The Army: A Profession of Arms

  1. #81
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Case View Post
    Is this hyperbole? An inside joke? I want to check before someone takes my comments about it the wrong way.
    Not a joke. Why would anyone start wanting to debate "ethics" and "morality" in a profession that should be bounded by "Law." What is "ethical" is delineated by "Policy." Un-ethical actions undermine policy.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  2. #82
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Case View Post
    The "profession of arms" helps create policy. Not only that, but it is through the actions of the military that we come to know what policy is doing in order to create more new policy.
    Huh? So Policy only comes into being when the "profession of arms" starts acting?
    See Afghanistan for illustrations of this and how the military "can-do" attitude creates policy.
    Policy has to exist in order to frame the actions needed to set it forth. Yes, policy is "modified" by actions. So what?
    Denying this reality seems odd after the earlier invocation to Clausewitz.
    Show me any text of Clausewitz discussing "ethics."
    The second claim seems either trivial or a repudiation of much of western thought. What are we to take away from this? Is it that whoever is in power decides what is ethical because they are powerful and therefore we ought not question it? Or does this only apply to people who are members of the power apparatus, in this case members of the "profession of arms?" Are their thoughts on ethics supposed to reduce to might equals right? If so, what does the American "profession of arms" think it can achieve in a counterinsurgency fight in Afghanistan and Iraq? Might equals right conjoined with COIN seems to lead to interesting outcomes and actually might be the result of "anthropolgizing" war. That being the case, Americans ought not be surprised when they are accused of being imperialists by those subject to this use of power.
    What has any of this do to with my assertion that "all policy" is ethical and the military has duty to set forth policy - NOT make ethical judgements.
    IF an action undermines policy - then it is probably "un-ethical." - thus what is "ethical" flows from the Policy.

    Soldiers need to understand the relationship of their actions to policy, because they serve policy makers.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #83
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Huh? So Policy only comes into being when the "profession of arms" starts acting?
    No. I thought the context of the discussion would make it clear that here I only mean to discuss policies of using military force to achieve goals. I apologize if you somehow thought that my comment meant that I think that other government policies (education, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) somehow could not be created or enacted without military actions.

    Now that it is clear that I am referring to policies regarding the use of military force, my claim is that it is political policy and that military professionals do have a part in creating it and advocating for or against it. This is just to deny your earlier claim that the "profession of arms" merely serves policy. That claims is just not true. For example, GEN Powell proactively took the use of force off the table for other policy makers by going to the press with his doctrine on when the US should resort to force. He was so popular and influential that this guided political policy. GEN Abrams tried to do the same thing with his reforms after Vietnam and GEN Petraeus influenced policy prior to the surge based on his influence and popularity as well. If you think strategic military leaders do not create, but only carry out policy, fine. I just don't see the evidence that this is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Policy has to exist in order to frame the actions needed to set it forth. Yes, policy is "modified" by actions. So what?

    Show me any text of Clausewitz discussing "ethics."
    First, I did not claim that Clausewitz discussed "ethics," this is related to the previous point about the relationship of military professionals to policy creation. War is an extension of politics according to Clausewitz and military professionals do create policy. This point is merely to say that I find it odd that you posted this:

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Read Clausewitz!
    and

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Adhere to and study Clausewitz.
    followed by this:

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    The profession of arms serves policy.
    For Clausewitz war is policy and politics. My claim, based on actual actions from military professionals, is that they don't just serve policy, they create it as well. That is all. You can disagree, but I don't see evidence that strategic military leaders only serve policy. If your claim is that for soldiers at lower levels this is different, fine. But I think the blanket claim about "the profession of arms" is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    What has any of this do to with my assertion that "all policy" is ethical and the military has duty to set forth policy - NOT make ethical judgements.
    IF an action undermines policy - then it is probably "un-ethical." - thus what is "ethical" flows from the Policy.

    Soldiers need to understand the relationship of their actions to policy, because they serve policy makers.
    None of the above has anything to do with this. This is from a different post. That post was an effort to begin questioning your assertions in regards to the the difference between something being legal, ethical or moral. You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I find it very disturbing that this debate even got going.

    You cannot teach "ethics" and morality. You teach Law. You teach what is written. Policy is always ethical. That is what policy "is."

    I think there is very great danger that TRADOC has managed to elevate something pretty simple, into a pseudo-science, which lacks a grounding in the simple and classical teachings that have proven effective historically.
    I think the second and third sentences are false. TRADOC may try to do pseudo-science (I don't know), but the "classical" teachings (if you mean in western civilization) challenge your claim in the second sentence. I take the "classical teachings" to be precisely about trying to teach what you claim can't be taught. I take them to be attempts to reflect on what we think is right in order to reconcile what is legal with what is right--in other words, creating a civil order in which we can be good people while also being good citizens. Or, maybe I just don't know how to read Plato, Aristotle, etc., or they are not "classical teachings," or maybe all the "classical teachings" worth reading are just about the law and why we should just follow it without reflecting on its correctness because it is based on what the powerful want and there is nothing we can do about it.

    Further, if this discussion is disturbing to you I would refer you to what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." I am guessing that you mean something different in your use of the term "ethical" than I do. I am sure Eichmann and those at Nuremberg would have loved it if the juries decided that doing what is ethical just reduced to whatever the law and policy happened to say. Or are these just examples of "victor's justice?" Is it that might equals right, the ethical reduces to the legal and the only thing Eichmann and his compatriots did wrong was to lose--is that the simple lesson of history?

    This is all just to say that the law may be influenced by what we take to be ethical at any point in time, but to say that the ethical is reduced to law is not a view I find appealing. You are obviously free to disagree and think that I am missing the simple lessons of classic teachings and history. I think it is an interesting discussion and not disturbing at all.

    Regard,
    Chris
    Last edited by Chris Case; 11-11-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  4. #84
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Chris Case, I think CvC did talk about ethics,cain't remember the passages but he talked Moral COG's and the Military virture of the Army and it's commander.

  5. #85
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Case View Post
    Now that it is clear that I am referring to policies regarding the use of military force, my claim is that it is political policy and that military professionals do have a part in creating it and advocating for or against it. This is just to deny your earlier claim that the "profession of arms" merely serves policy. That claims is just not true.
    ...and once you get told "get on it," with go do it. It is then the Policy makers job to alter the military objectives to fit an altering policy - again, soldiers can advise at to Ways and Means. - Witness Allenby who was given more to do with less forces and just did it, without complaint.
    For example, GEN Powell proactively took the use of force off the table for other policy makers by going to the press with his doctrine on when the US should resort to force.
    Proves my point. Powell was dead wrong and crippled US Foreign Policy as a result. He should have stuck to his pay grade.
    If you think strategic military leaders do not create, but only carry out policy, fine. I just don't see the evidence that this is true.
    The evidence would thus show most of the military men who seek to dabble in policy are misguided.
    War is an extension of politics according to Clausewitz and military professionals do create policy.
    As far as I know, Clausewitz never said "extension." He did say "continuation" on two occasions. In 1827, on his 10 July Note, and on page 605.
    ....but the military serves policy, once it is in place. These actions "cost" so you see a modification and adaptation. If the military start formulating policy then to what end would they craft to policy? To be better served by war?
    War is a very blunt instrument. It can only serve certain policies. To quote Ashkenazi "Do not ask me what to do. Tell what you wish done and I will tell you if it is possible."

    For Clausewitz war is policy and politics. My claim, based on actual actions from military professionals, is that they don't just serve policy, they create it as well. That is all.
    Well aware and my point is that this does not work well.
    Further, if this discussion is disturbing to you I would refer you to what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." I am guessing that you mean something different in your use of the term "ethical" than I do.
    I live amongst a good few Shoah survivors, so I am well aware of the path I tread. Hitler believed himself to be entirely ethical, as did Eichman, and all the Nazis. THAT IS MY POINT. The Nazis' "taught" ethics. Ethics is politics. Law is what generally what prevents the Holocausts (which is why Hitler changed to law to allow it), but when you want to have a holocaust you have to get people to believe it is "Ethical" to do it. - those ethics get taught. Rwanda would seem to provide good example. The US believed it served Policy = thus ethical - do deny it was genocide to avoid involvement. The men doing that saw their actions as "ethical."
    I think it is an interesting discussion and not disturbing at all.
    That is why I find the discussion disturbing. Teach Law! - Written Law )not perfect, but best). Do not teach "morality and ethics." They are products of prejudice and fashion.

    What was "ethical" in the minds of a US citizen, on Sept 9th 2001 had changed by Sept the 14th.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  6. #86
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Chris Case, I think CvC did talk about ethics,cain't remember the passages but he talked Moral COG's and the Military virture of the Army and it's commander.
    Slapout9,

    My recollection of Clausewitz is that he refers to "morale" and that it is sometimes conflated with "moral." I am pretty sure that the passages you are referring to are about "morale" by which he means something like "spirit" or "esprit." He does think this is vital, but I don't think his usage has anything to with what is moral or ethical necessarily unless what is ethical or moral reduces to being successful. Some may think this is true, I just don't think it is. I could also be wrong and am open to being corrected on this.

    Also, he may have discussed ethics in something I have not read--it is clearly possible. I think that if he did, it would be important to understand what he means when he uses the term and in order to do that one would have to have an understanding of Kant and Hegel. That said, I think understanding Kant and Hegel (to some extent) is important for understanding Clausewitz in general, not only in regard to any ethical or moral theory that Clausewitz may hold.

    Regards,
    Chris

  7. #87
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Chris,
    here is a link to an article by Dr. Joseph L. Strange called "Centers of Gravity: What CvC really meant." About halfway through the article you will see a pretty extensive discussion on Moral Centers of Gravity.



    http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0735.pdf

  8. #88
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default "The art of war in its highest point of view is policy"

    From Book 8, Ch 6 (1873 Graham trans; Paret's at home and too much to type out anyway) (emphasis added):

    Influence of the Political Object on the Military Object
    ......
    In one word, the art of war in its highest point of view is policy, but, no doubt, a policy which fights battles, instead of writing notes.

    According to this view, to leave a great military enterprise, or the plan for one, to a purely military judgment and decision, is a distinction which cannot be allowed, and is even prejudicial; indeed, it is an irrational proceeding to consult professional soldiers on the plan of a war, that they may give a purely military opinion upon what the cabinet should do; but still more absurd is the demand of Theorists that a statement of the available means of war should be laid before the general, that he may draw out a purely military plan for the war or for a campaign, in accordance with those means. Experience in general also teaches us that notwithstanding the multifarious branches and scientific character of military art in the present day, still the leading outlines of a war are always determined by the cabinet, that is, if we would use technical language, by a political not a military functionary.

    This is perfectly natural. None of the principal plans which are required for a war can be made without an insight into the political relations; and, in reality, when people speak, as they often do, of the prejudicial influence of policy on the conduct of a war, they say in reality something very different to what they intend. It is not this influence but the policy itself which should be found fault with. If policy is right, that is, if it succeeds in hitting the object, then it can only act on the war in its sense, with advantage also; and if this influence of policy causes a divergence from the object, the cause is only to be looked for in a mistaken policy.

    It is only when policy promises itself a wrong effect from certain military means and measures, an effect opposed to their nature, that it can exercise a prejudicial effect on war by the course it prescribes. Just as a person in a language with which he is not conversant sometimes says what he does not intend, so policy, when intending right, may often order things which do not tally with its own views.

    This has happened times without end, and it shows that a certain knowledge of the nature of war is essential to the management of political commerce.
    .......
    If war is to harmonise entirely with the political views and policy, to accommodate itself to the means available for war, there is only one alternative to be recommended when the statesman and soldier are not combined in one person, which is, to make the chief commander a member of the cabinet, that he may take part in its councils and decisions on important occasions. But then again, this is only possible when the cabinet, that is the government itself, is near the theatre of war, so that things can be settled without a serious waste of time.
    The bottom line here is "CIMIC" (Civil-Military Coordination/Cooperation) - in effect, some kind of "executive committee" system. The devil is in the details, especially getting down to the field level (e.g., CORDS in Vietnam).

    Regards

    Mike

  9. #89
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Chris,
    here is a link to an article by Dr. Joseph L. Strange called "Centers of Gravity: What CvC really meant." About halfway through the article you will see a pretty extensive discussion on Moral Centers of Gravity.



    http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0735.pdf
    Thanks for the link. The argument in the article is focused on what Clausewitz meant by "centers of gravity." While it uses the word "moral" I don't see anything in it that differs from my interpretation of Clausewitz's use of the term as something akin to "spirit" or "esprit" and its relation to his concept of "will."

    The discussion of moral centers in the article is a discussion of the popular will and its relation to centers of gravity. The article calls the "moral centers": the leaders, the ruling elites and a strong-willed population.

    For example:

    "Two central elements common to these moral centers of gravity are the will to fight and the ability to command resources." (p.26)

    I don't see how this has anything to do with "moral" in the way that the term is used in discussions of ethics or moral philosophy. The authors give the example of Saddam Hussein as a "moral center of gravity" that the coalition forces failed to adequately address in the first Gulf War (p. 26). This may be true, and it may be a good interpretation of Calusewitz's concept, but I would argue it has nothing to do with moral theory qua moral theory and everything to do with success in achieving policy objectives.

    Regards,
    Chris

  10. #90
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Proves my point. Powell was dead wrong and crippled US Foreign Policy as a result. He should have stuck to his pay grade.

    The evidence would thus show most of the military men who seek to dabble in policy are misguided.

    Well aware and my point is that this does not work well.
    If you were making a claim about what ought to be the case, great. The point I was challenging was the descriptive claim that the "profession of arms serves policy." I claimed that it creates policy. You are now saying that it causes problems when it does that. Fine, but that is not I was challenging. If the point of your earlier post that I disagreed with was just to say that it ought to X because when it does Y it leads to bad results then I wouldn't have responded the way I did. What I am trying to be clear about is that many in the military hold the view that there is an absolute distinction between creating and carrying out policy and that the military does only the latter. This is descriptively false whatever we may think about what ought to be the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I live amongst a good few Shoah survivors, so I am well aware of the path I tread. Hitler believed himself to be entirely ethical, as did Eichman, and all the Nazis. THAT IS MY POINT. The Nazis' "taught" ethics. Ethics is politics. Law is what generally what prevents the Holocausts (which is why Hitler changed to law to allow it), but when you want to have a holocaust you have to get people to believe it is "Ethical" to do it. - those ethics get taught. Rwanda would seem to provide good example. The US believed it served Policy = thus ethical - do deny it was genocide to avoid involvement. The men doing that saw their actions as "ethical."

    That is why I find the discussion disturbing. Teach Law! - Written Law )not perfect, but best). Do not teach "morality and ethics." They are products of prejudice and fashion.

    What was "ethical" in the minds of a US citizen, on Sept 9th 2001 had changed by Sept the 14th.
    I still don't find this argument convincing at all. In fact I think you have it precisely 180 degrees wrong. Also, I think your examples prove my point rather than yours. The Nazi's may have taught ethics, big deal, that doesn't mean they were right about it. However, they also taught law and they used that law to murder innocent people legally as you point out. This seems to make the case that the law is more dangerous because it has the force of government behind it and can license all variety of immoral behavior. I think law is more the product of prejudice and fashion and that your Nazi example shows this. I also think that it is through moral theory and the study of ethics that we try to improve the law (ideally) in order that the force of law does not license such immoral behavior. It is not a knock against ethics or morality that Nazis were so confused and barbaric.

    Rwanda don't prove your argument unless you think that what is right reduces to whatever some person happens to think is right. Bill Clinton thought he was right to ignore genocide, now he thinks it was wrong. What does that have to do with the fact of whether what happened was actually right or wrong? Does the moral status of the Genocide in Rwanda really depend on what people believe?

    If your claim is that we just can't know if anything is ever right or wrong and all we have to rely on are people's beliefs, fine. And further, that these beliefs should not be subject to reflection outside of what the law says, I don't see how that view makes the law any more appealing than anything else. In fact, to me it seems that it should be less appealing because you are giving power to the state in matters where all actions it takes according to the law will be (in regards to questions of right and wrong) either arbitrary, capricious, indeterminate, or based on beliefs which may be either true or false depending on what people happen to believe at a given time absent any further reflection. How has the law changed if it is not subject to reflection outside its own mode of thinking? In addition, at least here in the US, you are giving that state power over people's lives while acknowledging that there is no way to know right or wrong other than opinion. If there is nothing but what people happen to believe and to enshrine in law to determine right and wrong than it seems to me that we should really be careful about how much power we give to the law.

    Regards,
    Chris
    Last edited by Chris Case; 11-11-2010 at 06:59 PM. Reason: addendum

  11. #91
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    This is from the article and is a direct quote from CvC but it does not cite the exact passage.

    “The moral elements
    are the most important in war.
    They constitute the spirit that permeates
    war as a whole, and at an early
    stage they establish a close affinity
    with the will that moves and leads the
    whole mass of force. . . . History provides
    the strongest proof of the importance
    of moral factors and their often
    incredible effect.”


    But here is my interpretation of that. Moral is what is right and wrong and if you are morally right you will have high morale (spirit to fight for what is right)
    and the physical manifestation of both Moral and Morale will be your Leaders and the enemies Leaders. And that would make them COG's for both physical attacks and propaganda attacks (morally wrong war).
    Last edited by slapout9; 11-11-2010 at 06:18 PM. Reason: stuff

  12. #92
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    This is from the article and is a direct quote from CvC but it does not cite the exact passage.

    “The moral elements
    are the most important in war.
    They constitute the spirit that permeates
    war as a whole, and at an early
    stage they establish a close affinity
    with the will that moves and leads the
    whole mass of force. . . . History provides
    the strongest proof of the importance
    of moral factors and their often
    incredible effect.”


    But here is my interpretation of that. Moral is what is right and wrong and if you are morally right you will have high morale (spirit to fight for what is right)
    and the physical manifestation of both Moral and Morale will be your Leaders and the enemies Leaders. And that would make them COG's for both physical attacks and propaganda attacks (morally wrong war).
    slapout9,

    That may be your interpretation, but I don't think it has anything to do necessarily with what is right or wrong. I think it is a charitable interpretation and would be happy if that is what it actually meant. I just don't see the evidence in Clausewitz. It may be there and he may mean that the right side will win because their morale will be high, again, I just haven't read that part. Even given your interpretation, I don't know how from any of this (the quote + the interpretation) we can determine anything about what is "right and wrong" other than through "history" and the "effects" of the spirit and its close affinity to the will. If you are correct, does it mean that Clausewitz is telling us either that the good will always win because they will have high morale or whoever wins just is good because they had high morale, based on the right morals and we discover those things based on who won a contest of wills? How does the relation between morale and the moral work to determine what is right or wrong? Or, am I missing the point?

    If we interpret Clausewitz as saying something about the will in reference to Kant and "the Good Will" then we may be on to an interpretation that could include determining "right and wrong." But, I don't think that is the point of this discussion or whether the texts support that view.

    Regards,
    Chris

  13. #93
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Chris,
    1-I think CvC is saying that is why we have wars. Right and Wrong is often just somebodies opinion.

    2- Which is why I believe in situation ethics. I posted this on another thread but I think it has bearing here. Especially important to the military because what is right or wrong will depend on the situation, A moral METT-TC if you will. This was popular in the 60's so you will see that the ultimate moral is "God is love" I learned it from my grandfather as God = good, close to the Kantian idea of Good will as a duty but you may not agree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

  14. #94
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    ... the Army and it's commander.
    Halt, this is the Apostrophe Police. The word "its" only has an apostrophe when it is a contraction of "it is." Drop and give me two zero and go and sin no more.

  15. #95
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Halt, this is the Apostrophe Police. The word "its" only has an apostrophe when it is a contraction of "it is." Drop and give me two zero and go and sin no more.
    Forgive me Father for I have sinned.

  16. #96
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Peccavi.

    Me too...

  17. #97
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default Peccavi and COIN in Central Asia

    From Wikipedia:

    General Sir Charles James Napier, Order of the Bath (August, 10, 1782 – August 29, 1853), was a general of the British Empire and the British Army's Commander-in-Chief in India, notable for conquering the Sindh Province in what is now Pakistan.

    [Paragraphs omitted]

    In 1842, at the age of 60, Napier was appointed Major General to the command of the Indian army within the Bombay Presidency. Here Lord Ellenborough's policy led Napier to Sindh Province (Scinde), for the purpose of quelling the insurrection of the Muslim rulers of this region. They had remained hostile to the British Empire even after the end of the First Anglo-Afghan War. Napier's campaign against these chieftains resulted in victories in the Battle of Miani (Meanee) and the Battle of Hyderabad, and then the subjugation of the Sindh Province, and its annexation by its eastern neighbors.

    His orders had been only to put down the rebels, and by conquering the whole Sindh Province he greatly exceeded his mandate. Napier was supposed to have despatched to his superiors the short, notable message, "Peccavi", the Latin for "I have sinned" (which was a pun on I have Sindh). This pun appeared in a cartoon in Punch magazine in 1844 beneath a caricature of Charles Napier. Later proponents of British rule over the East Indians justified the conquest thus: "If this was a piece of rascality, it was a noble piece of rascality!"

    [Paragraphs omitted]

    General Napier put down several insurgencies in India during his reign as Commander-in-Chief in India, and once said of his philosophy about how to do so effectively: "The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed."

    [Paragraphs omitted]

  18. #98
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Yes...

    From your quote, Pete:

    ""The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.""

    Some things don't change much. The passage of time does not insure subsequent generations are more advanced in all aspects...

  19. #99
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default Point Taken

    True, but Napier also said, "So perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to be misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another."

  20. #100
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Two Tempests . . .

    . . . one in a teapot, the other not.

    A lot of debate in this thread is going on about moral versus ethical. I think this is the tempest in a teapot as there is here a distinction without a real difference. Morals and ethics are pretty much synonymous. From an academic perspective, this quotation extracted from the article on morality in Wikipedia holds true:
    Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[7] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[8]
    The second tempest---whether the source of "the right" is the law or morality--is not so trivial. One can be right in many ways. But when it comes to conduct, we tend to narrow that down to two categories--doing what is morally right and doing what is legally right. However, let us not forget that some things that are morally right are nor necessarily legally right and vice versa. Whether the source of what is morally right is what is legally right is open to serious debate. Likewise with whether the origin of legal rectitude is moral rectitude. I happen to disagree with both positions but do not think this thread is the place to rehearse the reasons for that position. I will note that sometimes it happens that a given action is both legally and morally right (or wrong), but it may also be the case that a legally right action is morally wrong and vice versa.

    The review of the professional ethic needs, in my opinion, to consider what is the basis of right and wrong in the formulation of the ethic. In other words, is the ethic based on law or is it based on morality. It may based on both. If so, then in those cases where the two sources may conflict, the ethic nees to specify which has primacy. If neither, then the ethic needs to expalin what other way(s) members of the military should resolve the conflict.

    We also need to remember that right and wrong do not perfectly divide the world of judgments about actions. Actions may be morally/legally required, prohibited, and permitted. I think that judgments about right and wrong in the third category--permitted--are usually inappropriate. For example, were I walking down a dark street alone at night, I might decide to whistle. Unless I happen to live in some odd place where a law has been passed that forbids whistling, my choice is neither required nor forbidden, is neither right nor wrong. The review of the military ethic should try to make sure that it captures this threefold distinction and not stop with delineating just what the profession requires and forbids.

    One other thing to keep clear is the following. How we judge acts and and how we judge those who perform them may be very different. It may well be that we find an act that produces the greatest good for the greatest number is the right action. However, we may also judge a person who produces the greatest good for the greatest number to be a very bad person. Suppose, following an example from John Stuart Mill, we hear of a person who has saved someone from drowning. Most would say the lifesaver was a good person because saving a life is usually a good thing. But suppose the person was saved because the savior intended to practice waterboarding techniques on the victim. Now what judgment does one want to make? I submit that most of us would say the action was still a good one, but our judgment about the rescuer would now be quite different.

    Whatever else the review of the professional ethic does, I think it needs to make sure that the bases for making both sorts of judgements are considered.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 03:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •