David Underhill – 08 Nov to 12 Nov 04 (Week 12) – Issues of Modern Warfare

 

Monday: 255-264

The Reluctant Interventionist (Lucas) (255)

  • April 1997: Sec. State Albright says US will now use force to defend human rights abroad
  • Jus Ad Intervention – when to deploy force for humanitarian ends
    • 1) When a nation’s conditions or behavior threatens others or
    • 2) When a nation threatens basic human rights
  • Epistemological - branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and its foundations, extent, and validity.
    • Epistemological Crisis – a traumatic revision of the understandings and knowledge of a society
    • MacIntyre’s description is more troubling – represents “wholesale repudiation” of a community’s beliefs
    • Conflict models must analyze morality
  • The concept of humanitarian intervention has upset the balance of international relations as people theorize about ways to make intervention a part of those relations
  • Moral considerations now play an important role in deciding a nation’s opinion and response to a conflict
  • Albright has made morality a basis for foreign policy
  • Realists fear that establishing a procedure for humanitarian intervention will allow strong nations to intervene in their own interests while pretending their intent is to solve a humanitarian issue
    • Author claims this is cynical because nations currently use national sovereignty as a way to explain their failure to intervene in both places where it is in the nation’s economic interest and where it is not
    • Attempts to write human intervention into realist policy have failed

The Intervention Imperative and the Dilemma of the “Reluctant Interventionist”

  • Force is certainly permissible when used to defend liberty, justice, and human rights
  • Sovereignty, anarchy, and self-interest provide an explanation not a justification for force
  • Intervention Imperative – if able, a nation must intervene to prevent injustice
    • How we carry this out is not specified
  • Reluctant Interventionist – actively seeks to prevent injustice but has trouble deciding which merit intervention
  • Weinberger doctrine – “Can you offer reasonable assurance that … what you are attempting to do is … just?”
    • Intent is to make it hard for authorities to use force to further policy
    • Albright’s doctrine weakens this stance by relaxing constraints and broadening when force is justified
  • Draft Provisions for Humanitarian and Counter-terrorist interventions

1)       Intervention is allowed when a nation greatly violates human rights or threatens other nations

2)       Sovereignty is ignored if rights can only be protected through intervention

3)       Intervention must be limited to humanitarian concerns or the protection of liberty

4)       Military intervention must be a last resort

5)       Military force may only be used if likely to succeed

6)       Intervention must cause a proportional amount of good to the harm it causes

7)       Intervention measures must be moral

 

 

Wednesday: 296-306; CSME: 47-56

Perspectives on Intervention: Somalia (Zinni) (299)

  • In Somalia, Bush sent the military in without a clear political objective that was translated into military objectives
  • The humanitarian effort could be done with the military, but without guidelines it might not be done in the best way
  • Somalians demanded things that the military wasn’t prepared to offer (jobs programs, etc)
  • The American General set up a police force, prison system, and court system
    • They worked well but were not part of a specific plan
  • The UN came in and completely changed the approach to fixing the country, excluding many who would have been involved in the US effort
  • We have to decide what exactly our military’s role will be
  • The military has to pay for these missions regardless – this detracts from its ability to fight conventional war
    • Political motivation to get as many countries involved as possible is also a burden on the military
    • Many other countries do not have the logistics or training to support themselves in situations like Somalia which requires the US baby-sit and spend their own resources propping up other countries’ forces
  • To handle a situation like Somalia, a distinct policy needs to be passed down
  • America is the strongest and most economically great nation in the world and is a nation of haves
    • “We [must] make some hard decisions about the moral obligation we have for the rest of the world”

 

Case Studies in Humanitarian Military Intervention (47)

Rwanda (1994)

  • Was a Belgian colony until after some time after WWII
  • The Belgians favored the educated minority ethnic Tutsis and when they pulled out a huge tension existed between them and the majority
  • This tension began to unravel when the government by the majority was attacked by the Tutsis
  • When the leaders of both sides die in an airplane when it is shot down, Rwanda’s leader assassinate moderates and order the killing of all Tutsis
  • Many run around with machetes, clubs with nails, and anything remotely deadly and begin hacking Tutsis to bits
  • The UN peacekeeping force (Belgian and Canadian, mostly) is overwhelmed and withdraw
    • A captain with less than a hundred men is protecting over 2,000 Tutsis when he is ordered to withdraw
    • His is torn, but follows the order – the Tutsis beg for him to kill all of them rather than leave them there
    • After he leaves, they are all hacked to death
    • The Canadian general in charge suffers serious mental problems as a result later

 

Srebrenica (1995)

  • Srebrenica was a mostly Muslim city in Yugoslavia
  • Ethnic Serbs began an ethnic cleansing campaign
  • Dutch peacekeepers sent in to relieve weary, undermanned Canadians but are very poorly supplied
  • The Dutch become demoralized and communicate that they cannot protect their objectives
  • The Serbs capture 30 Dutch soldiers and threaten execution if they are bombed by air
  • The Serbs attack and air support is very lacking when the threat is reiterated
  • The Dutch are overwhelmed and evacuate, leaving the city to the Serbs who execute 7,000 Muslims

 

 

Friday: Code of the Warrior; Five Moral Dilemmas of Modern Warfare

Code of the Warrior (French)

  • A warrior’s code defines limits on what warriors can do and not do
  • Warriors of today often find themselves fighting enemies who fight without rules
  • The degree of separation between warriors and murderers is very small
  • Its easy to rationalize murder if one believes their cause to be noble – terrorists do not see themselves as murderers
  • No matter how one justifies their actions, one must follow the rules of war or forfeit their right to be regarded as warriors
    • Are the rules of war absolute or changing?  Were American guerillas in the Revolutionary War murderers?
  • Rules governing when an how one kills distinguishes warriors from murderers
  • Terrorists believe the “pricks of conscience” they feel are their weakness trying to steer them away from their sacred duty
  • “The ugliness of war against an enemy considered to be subhuman can hardly be exaggerated”
  • Psychological damage is often the result of violating what is right
  • Technology cheats people from the “chance to absorb and reckon with the enormity of what they have done”
  • Warriors must respect opponents
  • “Everyone who cares about the welfare of warriors wants them … to have lives worth living after the fighting is done”
  • The warrior’s code guards their humanity

 

Five Moral Dilemmas of Modern Warfare

  • The distances at which lethal force can be applied is growing
    • Difficult for those who press the buttons to understand death is occurring
    • Makes one observant, careful, accurate
  • “In virtual war, death is far, far away”
    • A warrior must “keep a sharp focus on death and those you are killing” to maintain honor
    • Technology can make you morally numb which isn’t going to make you do your job with the “discrimination, care, and sense of responsibility you need”
  • The temptation to vengefully, indiscriminately use force is great when the other side does not play by the rules
  • The enemy may exploit a warrior’s observance of the rules
    • If we violate the rules, the consequences can be extremely costly
  • Military is also a diplomat of American values
  • Recently, military action has been subjected to legal review
    • This does not necessarily provide moral coverage
  • Ethical life is to important to leave to someone else; moral abdication should not be an option for a military member
  • “Moral behavior is always individual behavior”