Justice in War

[datalink7]

Philosophical studies of war frequently involve Just War Theory and its three parts: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. But as a soldier who fought as an Infantry Platoon Leader during The Surge into Baghdad, my concerns were not merely philosophical – that is, jus in bello, or justice in the conduct of war, was not only a concern of mine but a living experience.

Setting aside jus ad bellum and jus post bellum, how do we go about ensuring justice in war? I know through personal experience how the rules of war (or external guidelines) sometimes constrain and become muddled in what I call rules in war, the actual ethical decision making process soldiers on the battlefield engage with. Is there a way to reconcile the objective and subjective perspectives from which war actions are judged?

What happens when strict objective rules lead to bad outcomes? And of course, on the flip side, utilization of subjective modes of conduct can also lead to immoral acts. (If anyone wants examples of both of these, let me know).

Can there be justice in war, as Walzer suggests, or is it just a fantasy and total unconstrained Clauswitzian war is preferable? Or is it somewhere in between?

*There are a few strains of thought in here but I thought some of them could be the start to an interesting discussion.

 

[Craig234]

You have raised an issue of concern with me. There are big issues with the conflict between morality, and the behavior of societies/armies/nations.

A lot of things get mixed up. Everyone wants to justify their actions, so there will almost always be appeals that we're killing for 'right' and demonizing the other side.

There are practical considerations - soldiers who simply hate the other side and view them as subhuman monsters seem more effective than ones noticing they're killing human beings a lot like themselves and feeling badly about that. (Which has a related topic that historically, it appears soldiers often shot to miss in wars - there is a natural aversion to killing, one we have somewhat defeated with modern training designed to do exactly that, which may or may not be related to higher rates of PTSD).

Wars often have 'corrupt motives' and morality has a very questionable place where incentives reward winning and do not much reward moral behavior.

The military has some interests I'm against. I think it's essential for people to remember they are morally responsible and they cannot hand that over to a general or government to relive them of it - while the military largely prefers the opposite, for soldiers to accept that what they're doing is right and not question it.

I tell people it's a mistake to join where you will allow someone to tell you who it is ok to kill when they might be wrong. By the time you're in it's a bit late to object to the orders.

I know the military makes various efforts to try to soften the issue - they have 'codes of coduct' and the approval of democracy for their actions in theory - but I think the measures are inadequate. With them all, there are still big issues with the morality of the use of the military. I won't repeat the summary I posted in the other thread on this recently but refer to it.

Can there be justice in war? Yes. But it's a bit of rolling the dice to hope you happen to be in a war on the side where it happens. It's largely just chance.

But one thing is pretty much guaranteed, war is a humanitarian disaster, with tragedy on all sides.

I would recommend you read Chris Hedges - he's a writer who specializes in questions of the morality of war, and has seen a lot firsthand.

Start with one of my favorite book titles ever, "War is a Force Thhat Gives Us Meaning".

 

[CycloWizard]

I agree that there is an inherent conflict between fighting and justice. In the US Marine Corps, they are taught that the only unfair fight is the fight you lose. However, you are still constrained by the rules of engagement. These rules implicitly constrain your ability to win any fight while trying to preserve some modicum of justice. The US has been able to overcome these constraints thus far because of its vast economic resources which give troops a huge technological advantage over their opponents. That only marginally shields them from the problems inherent to this type of warfare.

In the absence of this unbalanced economic power, I think the problem is analogous to banning guns. If we have two families feuding and they decide to fight, which side will win: the one following the law with no guns or the one breaking the law with guns? The former has compromised its ability to fight in the name of following the rules of warfare while the latter has discarded the rules in the name of victory.

In the extreme future case of the real world where developed nations have advanced robotics, it is conceivable (and already happening to some extent in the air) that no humans need be involved with the combat side of things except remotely. Could such a nation ever be suitably invested in conflict with a poorer nation still using human soldiers? It's a scary thought that we could send an army of robots to carry out our bidding without human cost on our side. To the extent that this imbalance exists today, I think it is a major source of indignation and motivation for terrorism. How soundly would we sleep at night if we never knew whether our home would explode the next moment? How would we feel towards the nation that was capable of such attacks? Wouldn't we use any tactic possible to overthrow them? I think we would.

 

[cwjerome]

This is a good topic and a difficult one. The Civil War, as it does in so many instances, provides a great backdrop to investigate these ideas. Was it a "Just War" and how did each side perceive the morality of it? Probably the most famous campaign and at the same time its most controversial was Sherman's March to the Sea, brilliant in its development and execution and brutal in its application. Was that brutality necessary? Did the March to the Sea go too far? In some ways this symbolizes what Civil War scholar Mark Grimsley calls The Hard Hand of War.

Under our Constitution, as Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, “The laws will…not be silent in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice.” I believe this is true in the bigger philosophical realm of rights and ethics when it comes to war. It's a bit "different." Perhaps small, temporary lapses in "traditional"adherence to moral beliefs become small when they are stepping stones to the more important, larger arc of liberty and justice.