The Army: A Profession of Arms

[Bob Underwood]

Pete, I agree. Jargon inhibits our discourse both internally and externally. Hopefully what follows is plain spoken and clear.

Mike, I have in mind the second and third cases that seem related. Such people would have no principled objection to violence as such (that would be the pacifist in Case 1). They would only object to using it on certain people (case 2) and in certain ways (case 3).

The problem is that professionals traditionally enjoy autonomy in practice. Namely, they generally get to decide when, where, how and on whom to practice their expertise. Most would fear this level of freedom granted to our profession. So the question is: how much should we have? Can we afford this sort of autonomy?

The problem with our profession is that rights are at stake. If we fail to do our job, those we protect will lose rights (life, liberty, political community etc.). However, if we do our job incorrectly, act on the wrong people or in the wrong way, rights are lost as well. This is what makes morality appropriate to the conversation.

This brings me to Ken, and I’m unsure what to make of the discussion so here’s what I offer in reply:

First:

That's a rather sweeping statement and it raises several questions. Says who? Who enforces that? Who determines what is 'right?' My version of morals say that they are very much an individual construct and I have no right to impose mine on you nor do you have a right to impose yours on me.

Two things here: My point doesn’t necessarily depend on what is right and wrong. Whatever you suppose is right, you generally agree that you can’t be obligated to do wrong. Also, this statement seems inconsistent with your earlier claims. I take you to think it wrong to make a contract and then renege. So what would you say if I told you my version of morality tells me “don’t keep contracts”? If you think its wrong to break contracts, that’s fine, but such claims impose morality across individual constructs.

Second:

That not withstanding, the issue is not generally acknowledged criminal actions, it is the legal right granted by the People to the State to use force. That has been adjudged over the years by the majority of people in most nations and certainly including this one to be moral and, with some contraints, legal. Assuming those constraints are properly addressed and / or negated, then the contract in service of that usage is legal, period. …. Again, morality is an individual construct. Nations do not, cannot, have morals -- if they are to act 'morally' then it is in the terms of the various beholders and thus, obviously, some may not agree with the presumed correct "morality" of an issue. If one accepts a "moral" norm (some people do, some do not...) then one would presume that nations laws were crafted in "moral" terms and should account for such contingencies.

Here I cut parts of the quote together and don’t mean to do so unfairly. But, the issue is generally acknowledged criminal actions. Illegal wars are criminal, and widely thought to be so. The point holds if we extend this to moral terms as well. There is a long and well-established acknowledgement that unjust international attacks are moral wrongs in the strongest sense. What is widely accepted is the right to use defensive force. It might be true that nations do not have morals in the way individuals do. However, this does not mean that morality should not or cannot apply to state/national action. People take such actions, these actions affect people, and are meant to benefit still other people. These are moral issues.

Some common ground:

IMO, if a "moral" objection to an assignment (combat or not) is raised and is proven valid on the merits and corroborative testimony, I'd just discharge the individual (with an obligation to collect any funds not recouped). If, OTOH, it was not proven then they'd have the option of complying or receiving punishment as the modified UCMJ and a Court Martial direct.

I think there is something here worth talking about. However, this would be a significant departure from current policy. Does this mean the Army, National Command authority, or other agency have an obligation to tell its professionals on the merits and with corroborative testimony that the combat assignment is legal and moral? I think it might.

Parting shot:

It is not the job of the Armed Forces in this nation to tell anyone why a given action is "moral." That is the job of the elected civilian leadership (not that they won't try to sluff it ). That is dipping into the realm of strong personal opinions and that is no place for a large unwieldy bureaucracy to try to go. Particularly not one whose very existence is itself broadly immoral in the minds of a number of the citizens it serves...

This is interesting because it is clearly in tension with what you say above. Also, I think we have a duty to explain the morality of our actions when those actions involve killing people, ordering others to kill people, and ordering others to die. None of that makes any sense to me unless it is in a moral context. If you fear a large bureaucracy getting involved in moral issues, then first among those must be those that involve the deaths of thousands of people. Maybe that is exactly why it should be a personal and not governmental choice.

Regards,
Bob