Military Ethics in the New Millennium “The Ethics of Warfare in the 21st Century” NE 203: Dr. Lucas
Military Ethics in the New Millennium WANTED FOR MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH USAMA BIN LADEN Military Ethics in the New Millennium Legalist paradigm applies to nation-states What about “non-state actors” (terrorists)? What happens when nations “fail” or collapse (Rwanda), or turn on their own citizens (Sudan, Ivory Coast, Liberia) Is it ever legitimate for one or more states to act proactively, preemptively, to prevent harm from occurring? NE 203: Dr. Lucas
After Vietnam and the Cold War Weinberger doctrine: war only in clear national interest, with full public support, massive commitment of resources, and clear definition of success and “exit strategy” Albright doctrine: use force to protect human rights throughout the world Bush doctrine: use force preemptively to take the fight to the terrorist or rogue enemy BEFORE he can strike the homeland Humanitarian and counter-terrorist interventions largely fail the Weinberger criteria NE 203: Dr. Lucas
Asymmetric Warfare “Asymmetry” results when one nation’s or coalition’s conventional (or nuclear?) forces are VASTLY superior to any adversary’s (training, equipment, performance) Weaker opponents driven to unconventional methods of pursuing conflict resolution, e.g.: terrorism (attack on USS Cole) When the opposition violates jus in bello, are we entitled to do likewise? Should we? NE 203: Dr. Lucas
“Virtual War” Kosovo campaign achieved its objectives without a single NATO combat fatality Michael Ignatieff (Harvard) calls this “virtual war” or “war without casualties” Does this pose any new or unexplored moral dilemmas? NE 203: Dr. Lucas
Some Possible Moral Problems “Riskless war” (for the superior force) is “easier to fight” “violence which moralizes itself as justice, and which is unrestrained by consequences” (Ignatieff) Risk is almost entirely exported to the opposing side, and to its civilian non-combatants NE 203: Dr. Lucas
Cyber War (“Information War”) Kosovo again: do we target fielded forces (Gen. Wesley Clark) versus Belgrade command center “Destroying the credibility and reliability of the data on which the enemy bases his decisions becomes just as effective as killing his people or wrecking his cities.” (Ignatieff) Examples of “dual use” targets: TV stations, power stations and grids, telephones, satellite communications, financial systems “Cyber terrorism”: computer viruses, hacking NE 203: Dr. Lucas
Moral Issues in Cyber War “warfare directed at a society’s nervous system, rather than against its fielded forces, necessarily blurs the distinction between civilian and military objectives” (Ignatieff) As with economic sanctions, attacks aimed at an enemy’s infrastructure do disproportionate harm to non-combatants Do we respond to a cyber-invasion with a similar computer attack, or a conventional pounding with cruise missiles? NE 203: Dr. Lucas
International Law and the “Legalist Paradigm” “International community” of independent states International law protects territorial integrity (self determination and a “common life”) Aggression/use of force = criminal act Aggression justifies two responses: self defense and law enforcement (allies) NOTE: very sharp limitation on use of military; aggressor states may be repulsed and punished NE 203: Dr. Lucas
Classical Just War Theory declared by a legitimate authority fight for a just cause and with the “right intention” War is a last resort; exhaust all other options Likelihood of success Comparative Justice or Proportionality of ends – “the value of the benefits sought or the injustices redressed must be proportional to the sacrifice and damage to be incurred” Just or “right” means -- principally not to target non-combatants NE 203: Dr. Lucas