Paradox of Military Ethics
Note: Providence is the magazine of Christian Realism
Mainly:
Ethical considerations in war are tragically paradoxical: the more ethically constrained military campaigns and operations are, the longer evil reigns. The opposite is likely true as well: the more brutal war is, the longer peace can prevail. The decisive victory at Chaeronea and at Carthage, and the failure to maintain the peace after WWI serve as a small sampling of this paradox. The prolific British strategist Colin Gray noted that, “among history’s many ironies, it would seem indisputable that efforts to control and limited war, or armaments, both in theory and in practice have tended to have the reverse effect of that principally intended.” It is simply the case, Gray continued, that “awful means need to be threatened or employed for the purpose of advancing desirable end-state policy goals.”
Notes
- The simple fact that someone is not shooting at you does not mean they don’t want to, or that they won’t if given half a chance. Peace is more than the absence of open conflict - [1]
- Analytical note: some say that 'Germany was humuliated after WWI' - therefore it started WW2. However, the more appropriate argument, citing the paradox of military ethics - appears to be that Germany was not punished sufficiently and henceforth it didn't think it lost, and its military capacity was not extinguished - [2]. History seems to be in support of the validity of Pershing's request for unambiguous loss to Germany, which was not granted in the armistice terms - which were lenient.
- Instead, this inability to reconcile the apparent facts on the ground with the fact that they had surrendered left Germans grasping for an explanation. Alas, to terrible consequence, they would find one.
- jus ad bellum - jus ad bellum, answering the question about when going to war is justified, gives us three conditions that need to be met: proper authority, just cause, and—most importantly here—right intention. This last condition aims at being sure motives point toward the proper end of war. Proper intent can be conveyed in both negative and positive terms. Negatively, this condition reminds us of what we ought never to intend: we should not desire to see the enemy suffer per se, become cruel, lust for power over others, and the like.[iv] Positively, right intention reminds us that the desired end of war ought always to be peace.
- jus in bello - guidelines, which instruct us in how to prosecute a just war. There are two primary requirements. The first, discrimination, mandates separating combatants and non-combatants. The second, proportionality, argues that the amount of force and means of expenditure employed should be appropriate to the intended end.
- Author proposes that 'proportionality' is not based on restraint, but that amount of force sufficient for a decisive victory aimed at a durable peace.
- Fight to win: lesson from the Great War - [3]
- just war proposal I make here does not create a contradiction in aiming at peace but engaging in war, nor in loving your enemy and fighting to win
- Virtu - Machiavellian principle of virtu, where good men must, in order to protect their people, engage in violent acts
- Jewish sages teach that “he who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate.”
- Concluding paragraph: But, if B.H. Liddel Hart was correct when he stated that “the object of war is a better state of peace,” we must recognize that peace follows governments and militaries acting with an eye towards winning a durable, total victory. The periods of greatest peace almost all followed fierce, brutal wars. Gray was fond of noting “history does not record major cases wherein a distinctively ethical, as contrasted with a bluntly prudential, reasoning shaped statecraft and strategy.” Commentators should keep in mind that, for all the wonders of the 21st century, we still live in a world defined primarily by power politics, a reality we must work through instead of denouncing.
