Moral or ethical dilemmas are often presented in an attempt to manipulate us to accept a particular point of view, no matter how distasteful we find it. In many cases, the dilemma is bogus, based on illogical or unsupportable premises...a false dilemma. This is the second of a set of articles that discuss and unmask these false dilemmas.
Here is a link to the first one:
False Moral Dilemma No. 1 - Torture
Killing another human being is generally considered a serious crime. We call it murder. There are exceptions. A soldier can kill as many enemy soldiers as he likes, and will receive only praise for his actions. He can even kill civilians if they are trying to kill him, or even threaten him. But soldiers have been tried and convicted of murder if they deliberately kill noncombatants...civilians who are not threatening them. This has happened in Vietnam, recently in Iraq, and elsewhere.
But notice the underlined word above. Civilians often die in wartime through accidental and unintended actions. This is commonly referred to as collateral damage. A bomb aimed at a terrorist headquarters goes astray and hits a house or a school or even a hospital. Bad things happen in wars, and generally the people responsible for collateral damage are not prosecuted unless they have been grossly negligent.
With that bit of background, consider the following "dilemma."
You are a military commander in Iraq. You have obtained information about the location of a terrorist leader from informants. The individual is sleeping in a house on the outskirts of the city with his family. Should you order an air strike to attempt to kill him?
Clearly, the terrorist leader is a legitimate military target. But the presence of his family presents an apparent moral dilemma. The air strike will almost certainly kill his family along with him. These are not accidental deaths resulting from a misguided bomb or poorly-aimed weapon...collateral damage. The deaths of his family must be considered as part of the planning for the operation.
So...the legitimate desire to kill an enemy, is pitted against the deliberate killing of his family...noncombatants who are not a threat to our soldiers.
Recently, one such attack was reported in the media. The terrorist leader was killed, along three of his wives and several children.
I suspect that I am not the only person in this country who is appalled by this. There is no moral dilemma here. This is the planned murder of innocent women and children. No matter how many atrocities that terrorist leader committed or ordered committed, this action cannot be justified on any moral basis.
This is most certainly NOT a moral dilemma at all.
To those who would cite beheadings of American soldiers or reporters, or even the WTC attacks, I say yes, those are horrible atrocities. One, or a dozen, atrocities does not justify an atrocity in response, either legally or morally. When we respond in kind, we are no better than the criminal perpetrators of those atrocities. Indeed, the murder of those women and children is an atrocity. There is no other word to describe it.
And the military commander who ordered it...or his superiors who directed him to order it...should be put on trial...not in a military court. This is a criminal case, and the accused should stand before a criminal court and let our judicial system decide his/her/their fate.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
But, we have, as a nation, have exceeded the limits of "acceptable (minimal..accidental...inadvertent) collateral damage" many, many times over. My lone example will be the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...which was defended on the basis that the war was shortened and lives were saved "in the long run"...which is total bull shit. We insisted upon making our demonstration of our new weapon..the weapon to end wars...known to the enemy by murdering..deliberately murdering civilians...hundreds of thousands of civilians....civilians WERE the targets. The demonstration could have been carried out another way, on an uninhabited island for example....the effect of causing a surrender would have been the same.
Also, there was the argument that Japan "deserved" it for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. But that attack targeted our military installations and war machines...ships and planes on the ground, not civilians. There were civilian casualties, but they were true "collateral damage." As you say, our attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacks on large civilian noncombatant populations. By any objective moral standards, they were indeed atrocities.
Sigh. Having said all that, I still approve of Truman's decision, because it surely saved a lot of American lives. So I am as guilty as everyone else who has rationalized this over the years.
Wilhelmine...I was waiting for someone to use that as an argument to justify the attacks. You didn't do that, of course, but I expected someone to say that since the terrorists were using their families as shields, the families became "combatants."
I think that is a flimsy rationalization, but the terrorists definitely use it to their advantage.
I can't really see any difference in the attack of a known terrorist which also kills his family or other civilians and the Japanese bombings...except for the huge difference in the numbers of civilians killed. The death of the terrorist..it can be argued...possibly saves a lot of American lives also.
I have visited the memorials at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it is overwhelming. I had to go outside several times while the tears subsided. A horrible, horrible deed, no matter the justifications.
Jim...good thoughts. Yeah, war has been with us since earliest recorded history...and probably long before that. Like religious faith, it seems to be something inherent in our nature. It may be that religious faith is at the core of our warlike nature. Certainly the terrorists are mostly motivated by their religious zeal. Greed, thirst for power and nationalism also have a role, though.
In general (I can be sure that this is always true) there is no excuse for the deaths of innocent bystanders. (Anyone who thinks that women and children control governments' actions should ...) In the modern world especially, there is no need to kill the innocent. The military simply does not have the tools or the training for conducting operations without such collateral damage. But the politicians who use the military instead of some other alternatives (no I am not talking about diplomacy) are quite as much to blame as any terrorist.
I know Bert...
If we don't have the clarity of moral vision to see that whatever the leaders of some country do, women, children, infants and toddlers, as well as the elderly, diabled and ill, all being threatened in our names...do not deserve to die, then how can we ever claim any place of moral leadership? How can we lead and change our world?
A couple of fine points for you:
"And the military commander who ordered it...or his superiors who directed him to order it...should be put on trial...not in a military court. "
Actually, ordering the killing of nocombantants that are not a threat is a violation of the uniform code of military conduct...which would have jurisdiction. I know there is a push to bastardize MEJA and use it to prosecute civilians in low level incidents...but how that rates differently than a Tomahawk shot 1,200 miles away at what you know to be non-enemy, non-combatants in a non-combat area I will never understand. Still - how do you get a jury of peers with soldiers?
"This is a criminal case, and the accused should stand before a civil court and let our judicial system decide his/her/their fate."
Not a Civil Court...you meant criminal court. Now I'm off to read the comments! :o)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I find it difficult to think in any 'logical' terms when it comes to war, Bert. To me, it is human insanity on a large scale. I don't know how one creates rules around organizing insanity.
Oh...Bert. I suppose American lives are worth more than the men, women and children of some other race or nation? How sad. Seriously...you mention American lives but you mean American Soldier's lives, right? And that's ok because...wow. Innocence sacrificed to save America's fighting men. And God only knows whether the numbers have any consequence.
Children. Born across an imaginary line devised by man and visible to nobody. Aren't they all God's children? Whatever the color. The nationality. The religion.
It's either wrong or it isn't.
thread. I wonder if war didn't present such an
enormous short term profit opportunity, would
this dilemma continue to proliferate? Things are
not getting better, if anything, they are getting
worse. Remember the use of children carrying
bombs in the villages of Viet Nam? Most shocking
at the time, it triggered Lt. Calley's response.
I also wonder if Americans could be persuaded
to enlist and participate if military service was
considered more risk and less adventure.
This is all to say, morality can take a back seat
to practicality, in such matters of engagement.
But you are right, that for the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about, war is a definite profit opportunity. The Cold War was really the best kind of war for those guys because it locked us in an unending arms race with the USSR, resulting in virtually limitless profit opportunities.
Bert. The connection I want to make is between the
modern method, (I hate to call it uniquely American, but,
I'm afraid it really is,) and the good old fashioned way,
where the men drew the line in the sand and went at
each other with sticks and stones, if you'll permit, and
one guy's chances of getting slewn (sorry) were about as
good as another's. Sanitary wars are sold as low risk
propositions, and that's my point. When you think about
it, you have to wonder if one side's morality is truly
superior to the other's?
I'm advised many suicide bombers are drawn from the
pool of the mentally ill, which is kind of like killing two
birds with one stone. Or, the recruited, brainwashed,
and drugged. Not to say there wouldn't be plenty of
willing candidates to be plucked from the general
congregation, mind you, but why go there unless
absolutely necessary? Strange world, we live in.
It would be hard, in a criminal trial, to use the evidence to establish intent. Motive may be seen as justified since, well, orders were to take down the terrorist leader. But these are usually covert operations, if I'm not mistaken, so forgive me if I assume that key evidence may be (made) nonexistent by the time it is needed in a trial of this sort.
Furthermore, would it even be realistic to speculate on the likelihood of a case (where a commander would, as you said in the article, likely be bestowed with honors for a kill like this, regardless of the ancillary or "incidental" casualties) being allowed to reach the trial phase? Without substantial behind-the-scenes suppression of possible witnesses and evidence by the military supervisors?
No soldier should ever be prosecuted for following orders, no matter how heirious. As I said above:
I sympathize with those who fight for a cause with much lower budgets. They fight with the weapons that they have and against those with whom they stand a chance. Not to say that I won't fight back. I just don't think that terrorism is any more evil than war of any other kind. It is just a war of despair.
I do not sympathize with all causes.