"Ethics on the Battlefield" Topic

Andy Owen, former member of the Intelligence Corps of the British Army reaching the rank of Captain argues soldiers should know their philosophers:
Ethics on the battlefield – Essay on Aeon.co

He probably knows what he is talking about, he completed operational tours in Northern Ireland 2003, Iraq 2004 and 2005 and in Afghanistan 2007.

James Gillcrist, also a former soldier also seems to think along that line:
Soldier turned philosopher specializes in military ethics on ncronline.org

So what do you think, how helpfull would it be for a soldier to know more of Kants Ethics, Aurelian Meditations and to remember Socrates once was a distinguished hoplite in the Peloponesian Wars before he allegedly stirred up the youth and accepted the chalice?

…
Krishna to Arjuna in Peter Brooks Mahabharata on Youtube
Highly recommended play.
I should know.

Hmmmm? How to handle something which, at its heart, is unethical in a manner that is ethical. Interesting conundrum.

Yep, ethics on the battlefield sounds like a good way to get your men killed.

Ethics in the cockpit of a nuclear bomber, and there goes our nuclear deterrence.

War is dirty business, we can talk ethics after we've won the war.

I'm all for it the second the other side has the same ethnics, other than that it's a feel good class given by Officers who read all the wrong books.

Yep, ethics on the battlefield sounds like a good way to get your men killed.

Ethics does not include a ban on killing per se.
To be precise almost all ethics do allow killing under special circumstances.
From killing in self-defense to killing for the greater good.
Whatever its flavour.

And as a soldier you practice some ethics every second, at least in a combat situation.
You're right that automated reactions of professionally trained soldiers under combat stress are more effective, do minimize their risk and that of others, and maximize the chances of success.
As far as I understand the articles and a few dozend or so more, nobody suggests an inner Hamlet monologue under fire.
But e.g. those Ozzie heros 'blooding' their young ones with Afghanistan civilians should have contemplated beforehand not after they got caught on their on cams if their ethics is 'appropriate'
Allthough we all know, they didn't care about a few Untermenschen more or less.
I know that type, they were a great fancy in Germany from 1933-1945.

A friend of mine, private in the Bundeswehr asked me after his assignment in Mali what he should have done when on patrol a bunch of 14 year olds with AK 47 on the street suddenly would have aimed in his direction.
Of course I answered 'Shoot first', but that was not his question.
He was a trained soldier.
His question was why nobody ever talked to him about that beforehand and afterwards.
He asked me.
I did not realize that back then and gave the wrong answer.
'Shoot first' was the right answer to a whole different question.

We were taught what a War Crime, etc., was. Studied My Lia, in a class at the Infantry Officers Adv Course, etc.

Being a former Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co. Cdr, on Active Duty,'79-'90 we had a lot to do to train our units in prep for combat, tactics, techniques and procedures, SOPs, etc. Somewhere in there I'm sure we taught something about what war crimes are, etc., etc.

In some cases even with the best trained and even experienced soldiers when the shooting starts, someone goes down, etc., etc., things can go "bad". Does not take too much of an imagination, etc., to understand that. The best a leader can do IMO is try to control the situation. Take charge, Lead by example, etc. But even then bad things could happen … AFAIK.

USAF & Irish Marine +1 …

… to killing for the greater good.

Yikes, that's a slippery slope. Ask a jihadi, he'll tell you he is killing the the greater good.

But e.g. those Ozzie heros 'blooding' their young ones with Afghanistan civilians

I'm opposed to torture and going out of your way to be cruel. But when the shooting starts, I'm not too worried about collateral damage.

Ethics? Just East of London, innit…

One of the problems with the whole discussion is "Monday morning quarterbacks", examining a 3 minute firefight over the course of three weeks to determine what the "right" thing to do was. The guys on the ground didn't have three weeks to ponder the situation, they had incoming rounds with hostile intent to deal with.

There's a police officer involved shooting that just happened a few weeks ago around here, and that's what's going on. But none of people pointing fingers were down range.

Let's increase the troops soy rations. That will do the trick.

But none of people pointing fingers were down range.

Bingo !

"Monday morning quarterbacks"

I detest them they have no souls…

It makes it only worse if they never served a day in uniform.

The idea that ethical decisions and combat are mutually exclusive is simply incorrect.

Second guessing that troop in a two minute exchange of fire or that door gunner with tracers coming up is mostly offensively silly but the REMF sitting in a TOC and choosing whether or not collateral damage is "acceptable" sure as heck should be subject to having his judgment reviewed.

Holding the folks at the sharp end reponsible for split second decisions is tough but the people that put them in bad positions with bad orders, bad ROE's, bad intelligence and inadequate training should be held to the highest of standards based on outcomes.

I wonder is anyone in the chain of command was worried about collateral damage when the decision was made to drop an atomic bomb on a civilian population center during the end of WWII. And then we did it again.

"But when the shooting starts, I'm not too worried about collateral damage"

Those weren't collateral damage- those were deliberate.

Yes, the two A-bombs and some other bombings were deliberate. But at the time it was "Us" or Them" … Based on the situation then it was unavoidable it appears.

But e.g. in the position as a SL, PL or Co Cdr … when you start taking effective fire. CD has to be a secondary consideration … if at all.

However, from what I have studied, read, been told, etc. in many places we were/are deployed. Supporting fires were denied for fear of CD. Which could mean our losses could be larger. Which as a former PL & Co Cdr, I find pretty much annoying, upsetting, etc.

The two A-bombs were not under discussion. What was being referred to is certain SAS troopers hunting down unarmed villagers in Afghanistan and shooting them while helpless.

The A-bombs were deliberate … that is why I mentioned it. But we have discussed this over and over again … both topics. If you like you can look up my posts on these topics, but I'm not going to comment again and again.

And yes it is very unfortunate that non-combatants were killed in A'stan.

Tell it to the judge.
YouTube link

Wasn't there … so … it's up to the courts … If they committed war crimes they should be punished.

On a side note, in the US a lot of people especially in conservative and christian circles weren't fond of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Truman got a lot of flak from that side afterwards.
At least for some time…

But allthough there is a lot of partisanship involved, Truman was a Democrat, and their fear of a stained patriotic image of the USA, they probably wouldn't have been fond of it for moral reasons, if they were asked beforehand.

Regarding those killings in Afghanistans I recall an anektdotal tale a member of my former wargaming club told me about his time in Afghanistan with the Bundeswehr.
They were in some hidden observation post somewhere south of hell until a shepherd and his flock came along.
My mate said they cleared the postion, because they feared to be discovered or spied on by that shepherd out of his curiosity or even his loyalty to whomever, at least more than to some occupation forces that happen to visit his hellhole every 30 to 50 years or so.

Back at the camp they were mocked upon by some of the US Troops and asked why they didn't make him 'disappear'.
Of course those weren't statements from higher ups.

Since it's anektdotal it can't be said much about it.
Since it was a war over there for a good reason, it could even be argued, those Grunts mocking were not entirely wrong, since the shepherd jeopardized the operation, but I'm still happy my mate didn't told me a different story.
And for some strange reasons people also tell me such stories.
I don't now why.

So, there are good reasons for killing and there are bad reasons for killing.
To complicate the situation, the line between them blurrs into a grey zone in a combat situation.
The term 'fog of war' obviously (pun intended) has also a moral meaning.

For me this is a highly interesting topic for various reasons and I do realize the emotional involvement of people that actually did or do serve.
I'm glad you didn't shoot the fool on sight.

I have to thank you all.

But allthough there is a lot of partisanship involved,

Yes that has not changed today. But many like me and other Vets think it was a good way to end the war without large allied losses[mostly US] landing and fighting on the Japanese mainland. Based on the last 3 battles when the US was landing and fighting IJFs. It certainly appeared the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child. It was a simple equation. The US & our allies taking huge losses … or just dropping two A-bombs.

And of course hindsight is 20/20 … but many still think it was the correct strategic decision, especially in the USA.

So, there are good reasons for killing and there are bad reasons for killing.
To complicate the situation, the line between them blurrs into a grey zone in a combat situation.

On the ground in the heat of a firefight, etc., etc. things could get pretty confusing, etc., I'm sure.

A similar situation happened in Iraq with a US SF team behind Iraq lines Scud hunting in GWII, IIRC. The SF team let an Iraqi famer and young daughter go after they stumbled upon the SF Teams' location.

In the long run it got pretty dicey for the Team. The farmer must have alerted the Iraqi military. Which was no surprise to anyone in the Team. The Iraq forces tried to attack the SF team. Costing them dearly when the SF called in multiple airstrikes along with the Team's own organic firepower. The SF Team waw far superior to the Iraq's, as we know. The Team was extracted eventually suffering only some slight WIAs. The Iraq's lost many to the US Forces' tactical the skills, firepower and of course massive amounts of airpower. Which is pretty much the norm in many cases.