The Future of War Ethics

Earlier this semester, I read part of Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations for the GSI-specific assignment. A central theme was his "Just War Theory," which highlights the moral questions we find ourselves dealing with when we must consider when to go to war, how combatants should conduct themselves during war, and how they should conduct themselves after war. Walzer focuses primarily on the just occasions of war (jus ad bellum) and justice in the conduct of war (jus in bellum). To briefly summarize:
-Jus ad bellum: When is it just to fight? We have the right to resist aggression by fighting back. We have the right to fight when it is because we're coming to the aide of somebody trying to resist an attack. We also have the right to stop a massacre of innocent people by using force.
-Jus in bellum: How should we conduct ourselves during the fight? The foundation of his argument here is that we must never harm civilians. War is a combat between combatants. Non-combatants should be protected from this combat.

Michael Walzer is featured in a BigThink exclusive, discussing his take on "Just War Theory" 

If you're curious to learn more about Just War Theory, this website has an extensive elaboration of the theory's history and many intricacies.

The Great Siege of Malta (1565)

I found this topic to particularly intriguing as it pertains to the morality of siege warfare. Siege warfare, the oldest form of total war, involves an army encircling a population and depriving it of resources until the defenders surrender. The siege commander has a clear goal, militarily, which is the surrender of the defending forces. According to Walzer, however, the very nature of the siege does not rely on the surrender as a result of the defeat of the enemy army, but on their surrender as a result of the "fearful spectacle of the civilian dead."


The way that war ethics apply to this very specific situation is unique and perplexing. Specifically, the role of the non-combatant civilian and the defending soldier is easily muddled. Clearly it is wrong to harm a civilian under any circumstance. It is not so clear, however, when a person should be considered a non-combatant or when this person should be treated just like any other combatant in the city walls because, after all, everybody remaining in the city is in a sense "defending" it (in the eyes of the attacker). Walzer outlines some of these nuances in the aforementioned work. For example, what if a citizen in the city does not want to be defended? Then is she clearly not part of the combatant defense? Should she not be treated as such? What if a citizen is overwhelmingly enthralled in the siege and is ready to risk his life by helping out the defending forces? Then is he equal to a combatant, or is he still technically a civilian anyway? How should he then be treated? According to Walzer, the only morally acceptable way to handle a siege with respect to civilians and noncombatants is to offer an open path for them to exit. Soldiers are obligated to not only allow free exit, but also to assist civilians in leaving. Once this condition has been met, any civilian who remains is doing so entirely by choice and, in doing so, is consenting to give up his or her protected non-combatant status.

As morally and philosophically convoluted as this nuanced situation is, I can't help but wonder how much clearer it is than anything our soldiers, philosophers and law-makers today encounter or will encounter in the future. In the sieges that Walzer discusses, most of his ethics center around how an attacker can and/or should treat the defenders and the civilians. This focus, however, relies on the difference between these groups. The attackers (who are besieging the defenders, the city itself, and its civilian inhabitants) are removed from the city. The city's walls and its defense mechanisms clearly separate the attackers from those inside, and are what force the attackers to resort to siege in the first place. There may be some confusion as to the difference between a defender and non-combatant morally, however there is not much confusion when it comes to differentiating between a physically capable man in chain-mail brandishing a sword and somebody that is not a soldier. Walzer even offers the clear-cut method to eradicate any such confusion: offer and assist in a free path to exit. However, when was the last time you have heard of a modern army encircling a city and waiting out the defenders?

The Siege of Tripoli (1289),
A clear difference between attacker/defender and combatant/civilian

VS.

The Battle of Bazeilles (1870), one of the first instances of urban warfare.
The soldiers do not look much different than civilians.

In modern wars, a "siege" has changed in strategy and in manifestation. Although we still see elements of the ancient siege (i.e. encircling the city, deprivation of resources, total war, etc.), the modern siege is played out within the city as much as it defined by the waiting out of defenders. War has become urbanized. We see it in our movies (Braveheart vs. The Hurt Locker), see it on the news ("insurgents", "terrorists", etc.), we even see it in our video games (Medal of Honor vs. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare). So, what does the urbanization of war mean for war ethics? How can we have rules and guidelines like those that we see in Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars with respect to the siege, when the siege is taken within the city walls?

In an article featured in Small Wars Journal called Postcard from Mumbai: Modern Urban Siege, John P. Sullivan and Adam Elkus discuss the tragic events of the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India. They discuss how many news sources called the attacks, where "a dozen men with guns paralyzed one of the world's largest cities, killing 173" a "siege." However, "there were no catapults, cannons or breaching ladders." They elaborate on how the urban zones of our world are increasingly becoming war zones where "criminals, terrorists, and heavily armed paramilitary forces battle--and all can be targeted." According to them, the "feral city and the military colony battle each other for dominance in the urban siege." The above article is an interesting take on the evolution of modern warfare but takes a more practical stance, focusing on the strategies that different sides employ. However, where is the role of ethics here?

Where are war ethics when there is less of a distinction between civilian, insurgent, target, innocent, terrorist and soldier? Where are war ethics when there is less of a distinction between these groups' and these people's spaces and their resources? How does one create these guidelines? Furthermore, how can we expect militaries (not to mention terrorists or insurgents) to follow them when it's so hard to tell the difference? If it's difficult for somebody philosophizing about these distinctions from a removed perspective, then it must be near impossible for somebody in the throws of battle to actively make these distinctions. How about policy makers? Do things get more complicated with technology? What are the ethics governing unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), for example?

Ethics and norms attempt to create barriers and boundaries that do not exist in the chaos.  For an increasingly global society to create norms, all parties must agree on norms. This would be hard to do when they do not share norms--even, have fundamentally different ones, that are sometimes at the root of the conflict in the first place. At the very least, the opposing sides must agree on the legitimacy of a third party creating these norms (like the U.N.). However, when many of the parties involved in modern, urban warfare do not subscribe to a larger system or are motivated by an opposition to this system, how can we expect this agreement to occur, much less be maintained?

Credits:

- The first video featured is from YouTube. It depicts Michael Walzer discussing "Just War Theory" on a BigThink special. Found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcBovmGZSPU, this video is used under fair use guidelines.

- The first image depicts the Great Siege of Malta, painted by Matteo Perez d' Aleccio in the 16th century. It is in the public domain.

- The second image depicts the Siege of Tripoli, reproduced in Christopher Tyerman's God's War in the 13th century. It is in the public domain.

- The third image depicts the Battle of Bazeilles, painted by Alphonse-Marie-Adolphe de Neuville in 1873. It is in the public domain.

- The second video featured is from YouTube. It depicts Harold Koh, legal adviser of the U.S. Department of State, giving a speech about why the Obama administration considers its use of UAV's as justified and lawful. Found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9qPYjK_n00, this video is used under fair use guidelines.