Preventing Human Rights Violations by the U.S. Military

I. The Military fits Arnold's model

A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short). One central contradiction: killing ethos vs. combat ethics (define each).

II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence

A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible.

B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations.

1. The military would argue that the military creed DOES place value on non-American civilian life.

i. Officers receive extensive training on combat ethics

ii. All Marines receive training (to include simulations) on handling civilians/fighting in a civilian environment.

iii. Thinking that they are the "good guys" helps them to rationalize inflicting violence on others. Ties in with larger American values.

2. In practice, however, combat efficiency dominates decision making and the human rights elements of the creed fall away. Some elements of the creed (in this case, effective killing) appear to have a stronger hold over members than other elements (combat ethics). Why does this happen?

i. WHERE these various creeds are placed in the indoctrination process is telling: the killing ethos is central to recruit training (the first "school" inductees go to). Combat ethics is taught in secondary schools, AFTER the recruit has mostly created his new identity and to a much less extent. Could it be that because the killing ethos is (a) made part of the violent and stressful recruit training process and (b) is the first part of the creed they learn that the killing ethos elements of the creed overwhelm the combat ethics elements when the two come into conflict?

ii. The killing ethos allows members to rationalize violating combat ethics in numerous ways: (1) violation will save fellow Marines, (2) convince oneself that the victim is the "enemy", etc...

iii. The very process of living by the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Killing becomes a tool to solve problems. With repeated use, it becomes difficult to decide when to use that tool and when not to.

III. Resolution?

A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results. The problem is that combat ethics are an after-thought to the killing ethos both in training and in practice. As explained above, unless combat ethics are central to the creed- that is, as important as the killing ethos- violations will continue to occur.

B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable?

1. A trade-off between the killing ethos and combat ethics is impossible to avoid.

C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians. Could the military effectively change its creed on its own?

1. If we decided as a country that military really was a purely defensive force (which it has never been... America has been growing by force of arms since the revolution), the trade-offs associated with making combat ethics dominant over or even on par with the killing ethos would matter less. That, however, is a civilian policy decision.

2. Current (and standing) civilian policy is to use the military to assert American interests worldwide. As a servant of the government, the military will try to carry out its duty to the best of its ability. With the current policy stance, the military creed will focus on killing/defeating the enemy.... not on performing ethical military operations.

3. To prevent Abu Ghraibs and My Lais, the government first needs to redefine the role of the military and then push the services to change their institutional creeds. Any other approach may reduce the incidents of violations but will not ensure such violations will never occur.