Topics War

Question In one answer to a question posted on your forum on 30 July 2009 on the issue of human collaterals of wars (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2794), one 'philosopher' panelist remarked that it's not always practical to take the moral grounds when faced with a war situation like in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq and that in reality a choice has to be made of the better of unpleasant alternatives. In my opinion, it is precisely this kind of rhetoric that gives license to killing innocent people and waging indiscriminate wars. How would the author react if one of his fellow mates or beloved ones was caught as an innocent hostage and had to be killed as collateral? The UN role in establishing peace is important, difficult and at times hypocritical but the role of civil society and agents such as 'philosophers' to continue to teach freedom and critical reasoning based on experienced truth, one that is lived by the agents themselves, cannot be overshadowed by notions of skepticism. Wars are unfortunately part of the human condition but they have become more indiscriminate and erroneously justified. I refer the panelist to the work of my organization (UNESCO) in the field of philosophy and human rights.

Accepted:
August 7, 2009

Comments

I think Leaman is right that, in war and elsewhere, one must often choose between morally unpalatable alternatives. For example, the only way to protect innocent people from being massacred may be an intervention that risks killing other innocent people. And then your question (how would you feel if one of your loved ones were killed as collateral?) would be balanced by a similar question on the other side (how would you feel if one of your loved ones were massacred because we decided not to intervene?).

Having said this, I also feel I understand what upset you in Leaman's answer. There are two relevant passages. One says that "try[ing] to distinguish as far as possible between civilians and insurgents .. is a pretty empty policy once the bullets start flying. Right now the US and British military in Afghanistan have responded to pressure from the Afghan government to unleash less remote bombing operations to cut down on civilian deaths, and this has resulted predictably in increased military deaths among the allies." I suppose an empty policy is one that is unlikely to be implemented. Still, in this case the empty policy is also the morally right policy, and we citizens should not let the Afghan government be the only one calling for restraint. We should support as firmly as we can the call that such restraints be implemented (which, as Leaman's last sentence suggests, has now been done to some extent). Distinguishing between civilians and insurgents will increase harm to our soldiers, and this is a real, terrible cost. But what right do we have to pursue a policy that preserves the lives and health of allied soldiers at the cost of vastly larger numbers of Afghan civilians (as was the practice under Bush)? In fact, fighting there, what right do we have to assign any greater a value to our soldiers than to local civilians?

The other passage suggests we give up "trying to establish a UN policy of regulating weapons that no-one would adhere to anyway." Here I am rather more optimistic than Leaman: I think the ban on the use of biological weapons has worked quite well and has prevented a lot of harm. And the effort to ban landmines (spear-headed by Princess Diane) has also been impressive in the broad support it has achieved, even though the key offenders have so far not budged. I do not think it is hopeless to achieve widespread agreement that cluster bombs and napalm must not be used in urban areas where many civilians live. In fact, most people seem to agree with this prohibition, and very few states continue to offend against it. To be sure, an urban operation becomes more costly for one's own soldiers if one cannot just drop napalm all over the neighborhood. But then the commanders will have to consider whether the operation is really worth the cost (something they may pay much less attention to when the costs of the operation will be borne by foreign civilians) and, if it is, risk the lives of the soldiers they command.

Looking at the history of warfare, it is clear that some armies have, even at considerable cost, conducted themselves well vis-a-vis civilians even at times when bullets were flying (or the fighting was intense) and other armies have bahaved horribly. In Vietnam and also in Iraq and Afghanistan, allied military policy has been informed by great indifference to the suffering of the civilian populations. Such indifference to civilians is especially appalling because of the crushing military superiority we enjoyed in these conflicts: the survival and territorial integrity of our (allied) contries were in not the slightest danger, and the free fire zones and the napalming of villages in Vietnam victimized deeply impoverished families who lacked both the will and the ability to do the slightest harm to the US or anyone. Instead of feeling compassion for such people and a commitment to keep them out of harm's way, our military responded to their poverty and defenselessness with racist and cultural chauvinism (which was also in evidence in the widespread recreational torture practiced by our troops in Iraq). This is not the way all armies behave, and it is not the way ours is destined to behave. And even if this were the way our army is, or all armies are, destined to behave, we should explain why this is wrong and why it would be wrong to join, or to allow oneself to be conscripted into, such an army