Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Battlefield Ethics

  1. #21
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Troufion,

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    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.

  3. #23
    Council Member Dr Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post

    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.

  4. #24
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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.

  5. #25
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default 18-21 years & rifles vs bombs

    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

  6. #26
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Dr.Jack,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Jack View Post
    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  7. #27
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Troufion,

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    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 . 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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  8. #28
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Slapout,

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    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 ).

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  10. #30
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Troufion,



    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).

    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.

  11. #31
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default For a Truly Bizarre Warp of Morality and Ethics

    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

    ...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.

  12. #32
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    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.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Points of Reference

    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.

  14. #34
    Council Member Dr Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post

    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).

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct
    ...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: 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.

  16. #36
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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.

  17. #37
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Agreed 100%. This is the cliff--not the slippery slope--of moral convenience.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jedburgh View Post
    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: 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.

  18. #38
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    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, 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.

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
  •