this is a blog I wrote for a friends site, it doesnt get any traffic so im sharing it to get input. Greetings, Much has been made of late about military involvement throughout the world. The nation building wars of occupation, and surgical strikes used to combat terrorism. We are going to examine the morality of these types of warfare. There are going to be some hard realities of war discussed, so I would like to preface the piece with my opinion on when war should become an option. It is my steadfast belief that a nation should only go to war when its citizen’s lives, and its sovereignty are threatened. If the nation is not threatened with emanate destruction, or the chance of a massive loss of life, then diplomacy, espionage, and international pressure should be the avenues utilized. To send a country to war over greed, hate, ego , or religious differences is a crime, and the leaders who do this should be removed. With that caveat, let us assume from this point on that the wars we are to discuss are justified, and necessary. The term Total_war has a few varying definitions as seen in the link. We aren’t concerned in this piece about the mobilization, or production aspects of it, but will be more concerned with the on field application. While not a history lesson, I found the paragraph about the Native-American warfare to be enlightening. Author and historian Mark van de Logt wrote: “Although military historians tend to reserve the concept of “total war” for conflicts between modern industrial nations, the term nevertheless most closely approaches the state of affairs between the Pawnees and the Sioux and Cheyennes. Both sides directed their actions not solely against warrior-combatants but against the people as a whole. Noncombatants were legitimate targets. Indeed, the taking of a scalp of a woman or child was considered honorable because it signified that the scalp taker had dared to enter the very heart of the enemy’s territory.”[8 The main purpose of war, once you have decided to beat the drums, is to win. Nothing should be allowed to prolong, or expand the war beyond the scope of victory. In the above example, the use of terror (the killing of women and children) served a multi-fold purpose. The front line troops were distracted and demoralized by the loss of loved ones, and the threat of enemy combatants behind their lines. This would lead to desertions, and lack of cohesion in any offensive actions. The use of warriors against soft targets will also ensure that the attacker loses less trained assets, while inflicting damage on more than one level. Although a primitive example, this is a useful force multiplier. The morality issue here is limited to one thing, did it hasten victory. If so, it was a moral act, because it resulted in a lesser loss of life than a prolonged war, and left more trained warriors to defend the nation in the event of future conflict. A later example of this is William_Tecumseh_Sherman‘s campaign during the American_Civil_War. For three and a half years armies had fought set piece battles using the template of Napoleonic_era tactics. These resulted in massive loss of life for both sides. They were, however, seldom conclusive from a strategic point of view. Armies would be defeated, but instead of pursuing and destroying them, the gentlemanly generals would allow their opponents to withdraw. This was a obscene tactic. Sherman on the other hand cut through the enemies lines, avoiding battle with standing armies, and destroying infrastructure as he went. He supplied his army off of the provisions of his enemy. By destroying production as he went, he ensured that while he was supplied, his opponent were left wanting. In the matter of a few months he had cut a swath through the enemy’s heartland disrupting his supply lines, and destroying the morale of the enemies armies. This, more than the slow bled of attrition, or the effects of the Anaconda_plan brought the war to an end. Many less lives were lost to Sherman’s march than in even one of the large battles previous. More importantly his actions led to victory. When confronted with the first use of land mines in modern warfare, Sherman quickly thought of a way to limit his losses, and to stop the enemy from using landmines. He simply placed enemy prisoners at the front of his column. If anyone was going to die to the landmines, it would be the troops whose side had placed them. Modern day warfare seldom allows for this type of bold decisive actions. We, in this case the U.S. and the North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization, have chosen to engage in conflicts around the world. The political reasons, and goals of these conflicts are often muddled and ill-defined. This leads to the most immoral type of warfare imaginable. Starting with the Vietnam_War the policies of fighting limited wars have met with failure. These failures come with a very high price in lives, and a national morale. Wars of occupation are a horse of a different color. Even the Romans, who controlled a vast empire, found it nearly impossible to maintain a stable situation through the use of their legions alone. Military might, as we have discussed, is used to crush and defeat an enemy. To then ask them to try to rebuild, and pacify a population is an exercise in futility. The post WWII rebuilding of Germany and Japan are often referenced to show that it can be done. That example is faulty. Both countries were basically crushed, and their political structures dismantled. Even with that, the amount of money and time invested was monumental. The success in this was more economic and industrial, with the occupying armies only maintaining order until local resources could be implemented. The use of drones to take out terrorist is a new tactic in warfare. Being new, it is often poorly used. In many ways it isn’t even warfare, but messy assassinations. While the deaths of enemy civilian population was shown previously to often have many beneficial advantages, in the case of drone attacks, it does not. Although the fear factor is very real, it serves little purpose. We are not trying to take territory, or defeat an army, but instead trying to take out small groups of leaders. It can be argued that this only creates more enemies from the survivors of the attacks. The drone strikes and occupations also break the rule of fighting a war to defend the nation. These conflicts will never result in any discernible victory. Because of this they are immoral conflicts, and should be ended immediately. I have tried to show that morality in war is a difficult to define concept. Since war is designed around death and destruction, any conventional definition is useless. The taking of prisoners is a fine example here. The only reason to ever take prisoners in an active battlefield situation, is for intelligence gathering. Prisoners if captured in large numbers take away significant numbers of your own troops. They also require provisions and medical care if you choose to take prisoners. In this case it must be remembered that the objective is victory. If taking prisoners will impair your chances for victory, then no quarter must be given. Another consideration in this is breaking the will of your enemy. A take no prisoners strategy will often sap the will of poorly trained troops to continue fighting. Your own prisoners that the enemy may hold can not be taken into consideration here. They must be seen as lost, or at best as a drain on the enemies resources. A quick victory is the prime moral objective here, and anything that impedes that is contrary to moral action. War is a terrible and vicious thing. The methods of success in war are just as draconian. In conclusion morality in war is expressed in expedience, and brevity, not right and wrong. No deed in war that ends a war quickly, and in victory can be considered immoral. Now in the long run the effects of these actions on the very real young men and women you send to war must be addressed. You can not ask people to commit these kinds of acts without understanding the toll it will take, even on the ones who emerge without a scratch. We send our best and brightest off to defend what is most precious to us. They serve with honor and courage, despite having to commit barbarous acts. The obligation on the leaders who send them to war is of the highest order. I can’t stress enough that to go to war must be the last resort. It doesn’t matter if the civilian pundits feelings are hurt, or the country is embarrassed. Unless the general well-being of the entire populace is threatened, it doesn’t matter if business profits suffer. War should never be entered into because of any but the most dire necessity. Share this: Share About Scott Hargrave View all posts by Scott Hargrave →
Posted on: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 02:01:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015