The Sole Survivor

[Ken White]

I agree with Ranger 94 to an extent but disagree that the Team was functioning in the LRS mode. Regardless, the action if a compromise or potential compromise occurred should've been part of mission planning and probably was. We do not know many things including the depth of that planning and the specific actions and the terrain and situation at the time during the mission; best laid plans and all that. Thus, I submit we cannot judge.

Obviously at first blush shooting civilians is not a good thing but situation dependent, we cannot say 'never.' Some missions may be too important and not be able to be rescheduled. In this case it would appear, and I agree with several, that the mission could be aborted (as it was) and rescheduled, so it was a bad idea if it was ever seriously considered. Was the shooting of the civilians ever seriously considered? We don't know really that, either.

I also submit that we cannot judge Murphy. Did he ask for a 'vote' (not a good thing) or did he simply solicit opinions about possible actions from the other more experienced Team members (a good thing). We don't know; we weren't there. We only have Luttrel's version and given that he apparently told the Murphys one thing for whatever reason and told another thing in the book his tale is at least mildly suspect to be after the fact-itis. Combat recall is dicey at best.

Much the same is perhaps true of Bravo Two Zero and 'Andy McNab.' There are others who dispute his version. Anyone who was not actually present in such operations is rarely going to get a clear unjaundiced view of what occurred. Thus, I'm inclined to believe judgmental calls on the rights and wrongs by all us bystanders (to include unit staff types involved but not in the field at the time and emphatically including higher echelon staffs) are probably going to miss many salient points, are generally unhelpful and should be avoided. YMMV.

Entropy who was peripherally involved says that there were many factors not made public (and I'm sure that's true) and that lessons were learned, absorbed and new TTP implemented as a result (and I'm equally sure that occurred) -- that's the important thing.

[Entropy]

Entropy who was peripherally involved says that there were many factors not made public (and I'm sure that's true) and that lessons were learned, absorbed and new TTP implemented as a result (and I'm equally sure that occurred) -- that's the important thing.

Ken is a wise man. The tragedy, as it seems is too often the case, is that good people have to die as a catalyst for such change.

Also, on the subject of books, it's important to keep in mind that some details will be left out because of security reasons and Luttrell's is no different.

Finally, on the goatherders, to me it doesn't matter if they were combatants or civilians - once "captured" and placed under the control of Lt. Murphy and his men, they are legally noncombatants and cannot be summarily killed. To do so would be a war crime if I'm understanding my LOAC correctly.

[kehenry1]

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:

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

Exactly right, and I concur with the majority of your observations on this, but this is CvC area of total war and war as it really is.

We are all suffering (and the UK as well, witness recent events of abuse) from a failure to install a sense of right and wrong in terms of behaviour.

The reason is an inability to articulate this in the context of modern operations, and effective military behaviour, because our military cultures are rested on wars on national survival, where your people count more than the others, and the beleif that modern operations require absolute behaviours devoid of judgement. Thank, WW1, WW2, and prospective Nuclear War for all of this.

I think the members of this board could write a workable code of behaviour in about 30 seconds. What is patently lacking is the courage of armies to implement and enforce it.

[Tom Odom]

Originally Posted by kehenry1 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.

One for a specific:

North Africa 1942 with regard to the Vichy French after limited combat between US and French forces

In general terms, I would offer that any conflict resolution based on reconciliation has elements of honor and chivalry built into it. That was true on the frontier wars of the United States and elsewhere. Tribal conflicts in the past often used ritualized combat as a limitation. The concept of blood feud and blood money draws on similar themes.

In my personal experience, I saw it take place in Rwanda between former Rwandan military whose government and fellow soldiers committed genocide and former rebels who won the war militarily and stopped the genocide. Acceptance of the idea that while accountability for genocide could and should be 100%, universal punishment was in the end self-defeating was and is very much a moral as well as practical position.

On the latter, moral positions and chivalry are in that sense quite practical. such terms are defined culturally; honor to an Arab sheikh is quite different than honor to one of us. Yet we have used a combination of self-interest, money, and honor as means to leverage greater accomodation between us and former insurgents.

I would agree with Malcom Nance about the moral hard deck; if you don't set it some folks will feel for the ground. But I would add that there are military and political benefits to setting that hard deck that are in the end imminently practical.

War is indeed hell. War without moral limits is absolute hell. Everyone does face their own test; group codes and morals frame those tests. When there are no limits, human beings are far worse than any animal.

Tom

[Steve Blair]

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.

[kehenry1]

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.

That is where I was going. I was thinking about various wars in western history. Beginning somewhere back in the days when chivalry and honor were supposed to be born. For instance, Edward I taking Bruce's wife and daughter, placing them in a cage and hanging them over the wall of his castle. For months if I recall the story correctly. Or the horrific death of Edward II. Or Simon de Montfort and his son being hacked to pieces after surrendering. Or Richard I ordering the massacre of people outside of Acre. Or Henry V cutting off the hands and feet of the resisters.

I could go on. But, if we look at Frontier Warfare, I would say that history points to the subjugation of the native population through very unchivalric acts. The western troops being known to ride into camps and kill everyone and everything. Driving the population before them. we now look askance and question such behaviors based on our modern concept of honor and chivalry, but then these acts were considered proper against a "barbarous" enemy.

Which is reflected in our modern dilemma regarding terrorists or "unlawful combatants" against the Geneva Conventions and Law of Land Warfare. We long ago placed such people outside of the "rules" and treated them as such. Today, we question that practice or its practicality, but only due to the type of war we are waging and our very modern ideas of "civilization". Particularly in a war where "lawfare" weighs heavily against "warfare".

Can you imagine the furor had we summarily executed Khalid Sheihk Mohammed? Even after his participation in 9/11 and various other terrorist acts killing hundreds and thousands? Do we now or in the future ever designate someone outside of these boundaries and protections?

Someone brings up WWII so I think that is another good place to reference, even if it is "total war". It is the question of when we deem whole populations outside of the protections of any code. Was fire bombing Dresden an act of chivalry, honor or necessity? Some would justify it by saying it was part of the strategy to break the will of the people and the ability of the enemy to manufacture the equipment for war. In the end, some say it may have shortened the war and saved tens of thousands of lives, even hundreds of thousands. The same thing we say about Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

We killed millions to save how many?

Does a war for survival make certain acts more acceptable and less considerate of such niceties as chivalry and honor?

Which brings me to the point about Luttrel's unit's decision and the fact that there was a decision to be made at all. If we would kill millions to save hundreds of thousands, if they had killed two to save four, is it only a difference because, paraphrasing Stalin, one is a tragedy and millions a statistic?