Brilliant, useful
Interesting, perhaps useful
Of little utility, not practical
Delusional
Haven't got time to look at the link, but I pretty much despair once people start trying to put "ethical" frame frame works into these discussions. It leads you down a blind alley that utterly fails to account for the realities of operations and imagines that these things are somehow choices or even controllable - they are not.
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
What I notice in many discussions that involve ethics, law, and war is that there is a common error made among people who a) have legal backgrounds and b) get their knickers in a twist over inevitable civilian casualties and collateral damage that occurs in war. That error is that they completely forget all principles of respondeat superior and agency law. They assume that every decision made or action taken by a Soldier is one within the scope of that Soldier's job, within the bounds of the "normal course of business" for the organization, and within the Soldier's actual/implied authority. Often times, clearly, none of those are the case. Abu Ghraib comes to mind. There is still a large group of people convinced that that specific prisoner abuse was a policy directed by the administration. That would be like blaming me if I hire a guy to mow my lawn and, instead, he abandons the job, walks down the street, kidnaps a woman, and rapes her - and then concluding that I am a villain who justified the decision to have my lawn mowed by lying to the American people.
100% agree with. But saying that, I still believe that there is a need to have a deeper look on "ethic" and specially when it comes to counter-insurgencies.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Using civilians as weapons can be done in various manners. Sending them after diffusion of false informations to re-establish government supporters presence in non-secure areas is, by my definition, non-ethical.
Debate on what is acceptable and what is not to do about civilian involvement in the build phase should be open or at least re-examined.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 09-09-2009 at 09:55 PM. Reason: Spelling and grammar to make it easier to read.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks