It’s hard to be a saint in the (war-torn) city
How much risk should soldiers bear in order to minimize civilian casualties?
According to the New York Times, even before General McChrystal’s firing, American troops abroad were uneasy with his strategy of counterinsurgency. Many soldiers think that the General’s insistence on tightening the rules of engagement in order to minimize civilian casualties has put American troops at risk. When fighting a terrorist enemy unafraid to hide within civilian populations, Americans must withhold their military superiority in order to protect civilians. This means eschewing artillery strikes or air support in favor of risky urban warfare.
While McChrystal’s reasons are surely more strategic than ethical, it is important to ask whether American soldiers have a responsibility to put themselves at risk for the sake of foreign civilians. After all, it is not uncommon for Americans to think “our” troops are more important than “their” civilians.
The combatant/civilian distinction exists in order to restrain the scope of war. War should be a relation between nations (or perhaps sub-national groups), and combatants are the armed emissaries of their nations. Civilians, without the ability to harm, are not directly part of the war effort, and therefore are not liable to be killed. Combatants, on the other hand, not only acquire the ability to harm, but have also implicitly taken on the risks of war. War, brought by combatants, is thrust upon civilians. Thus, combatants should take the brunt of the risk associated with war.
Arguably, the reason terrorism is so objectionable is because it seeks to erode the combatant/civilian distinction. Our moral repugnance toward terrorist attacks in New York is no different than our repugnance toward terrorist attacks in London, and so we should remain consistent when considering terrorist attacks in the Middle East. In all three cases the moral opposition is to the killing of civilians not liable to be killed, the nationality of the victims is morally irrelevant. Thus, when conducting our own wars, the combatant/civilian distinction should remain paramount – when fighting terrorism we should be careful not to imitate it.
There is still a further question of how much risk soldiers should take on. Surely, they should not take suicidal risks, nor should they hold their fire whenever there is any chance of civilian casualties. Here philosophy can offer few hard and fast rules – but the discussion above suggests a general standard soldiers should hold themselves to. If the reason Iraqi or Afghan civilians should be protected is the same for American civilians, then soldiers should take the same care on foreign soil as they would on American soil. When faced with a hard moral choice in Kandahar or Fallujah, a soldier should ask “what should I do if this was Butte, Montana?” This standard would mean relatively stringent rules of engagement. If terrorists had hidden among a population of Montanans, only extreme emergencies would allow an indiscriminate air strike or artillery barrage.
If this standard seems strict and demanding, it is because it is. But when faced with something as calamitous and oppressive as war, it would be strange if such standards were easy.
-Han
Related posts:
- Was Fort Hood terrorism?
- Controlling the uncontrollable
- Iran and just revolution
- Live and let die?
- Do enemy combatants take checks?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
