| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
Topic: |
|
<
< | Preventing Human Rights Violations by the U.S. Military |
>
> | The Military Creed and Human Rights Violations (Draft 1) |
| | -- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008 |
|
<
< | C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing?
1. Analysis of the military under Arnold's theory. Perhaps this is too simple/easy? Maybe make this one part of the larger paper? Can I perform such an analysis in a couple hundred words? Too cursory?
2. Examine effects.
3. Discuss alternatives/solutions. |
>
> | I. Definitions and Conflict |
| | |
|
<
< | Different take on military topic: what happens when two conflicting sets of attitudes/habits that are part of the same creed collide? Consider the "duty to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic " vs. loyalty to civilian control and the national command authority. If the president illegally declared martial law, how would the military handle the order? |
>
> | A. The Problem |
| | |
|
<
< | military needs creed to perform function |
>
> | Last May, General Patreus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, received a survey that stated that more than half of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq would not report illegal conduct during combat. It went on to say that only 47 percent of U.S. soldiers and 38 percent of Marines interviewed said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. These attitudes result in violations of the rules of war concerning both civilians and combatants which have been an ongoing problem. Why do these attitudes prevail in the face of repeated efforts by the military to retrain service personnel and curtail the problem? Arnold’s article provides us with a possible explanation for the endemic problem and the difficulty of finding a solution. Reducing ethics violations in combat must start with equalizing the respective values military personnel place on the “killing ethos” and “combat ethics”. |
| | |
|
<
< | results in inhumane actions by soldiers |
>
> | B. Definitions
Throughout what follows I will use the phrase “killing ethos” to describe the ideals ingrained into every Marine which glorify killing for one’s country, defeating the opposition and cause the Marine to self-identify as a warrior and a killer. When I say “combat ethics” I mean the ideals which stress the importance of ethical decision making (treating prisoners humanely, avoiding the deaths of civilians, etc…) in combat. |
| | |
|
<
< | Assuming we want to prevent such actions (not entirely clear... depends on a nation's national creed), how do we do so?
is this a trade-off between effectiveness and "humanization" of foreign people?
Or can we incorporate good treatment of civilians into our creed. Military has repeatedly attempted this with very mixed results. |
>
> | C. Conflict Between Ideals
It is hardly surprising that these two ideals of the military creed come into constant conflict in Iraq. When the identity and location of the enemy is clear and when the fighting is taking place outside of civilian areas, that conflict is reduced as the mission of killing the enemy does not run counter to combat ethics. On the other hand, when it is difficult to separate the enemy combatants from the civilians and when the fighting is occurring in the middle cities, our military personnel must often choose between obeying the rules of war (following their combat ethics ideals) and breaking those rules in the name of defeating the enemy (the killing ethos). |
| | |
|
<
< | I. The Military fits Arnold's model |
>
> | The military would argue that combat ethics are an important part of the American military creed. Considerable effort is invested in inculcating this ideal in service people. Company grade officers, for example, are put through live exercises with “civilians” (actors) in the area of operations throughout their careers. Prior to deployment to Iraq, combat units go through extensive training program in dealing with non-combatants, detained enemy combatants and proper interrogation techniques. The first school newly commissioned lieutenants attend provides classes in ethics and morality. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. The Killing Ethos Prevails
In practice, however, the killing ethos dominates combat ethics when the two conflict as evidenced by the survey cited earlier. There are several reasons why this is so. First, where and when personnel receive indoctrination in different ideals of the overall creed plays a large role in determining how one relates to that ideal. In the Marine Corps, the killing ethos is made part of one’s identity upon entering recruit training while the ideal of combat ethics is not introduced until later schools. For the next three months the importance of aggressiveness and killing is stressed daily. Additionally, recruit training is designed to break down the recruit and rebuild him in mind, body and spirit. By making the killing ethos part of the indoctrination process, recruits, whose identities have been stripped away, embrace the ethos and make it part of who they are. No training in follow-on schools can touch the core of the Marine’s being the same way the lessons taught in boot camp can. Since combat ethics is taught after recruit training, it cannot hope to match the killing ethos. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | Second, the very process of exercising the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Treating others ethically requires, at a basic level, the ability to empathize with them; to humanize them. Killing, on the other hand, requires the dehumanization of others. Since military personnel in combat exercise the killing ethos ideal much more often than combat ethics, the longer a unit is in combat, the more eroded their combat ethic ideal becomes. This is borne out by history: there is a strong correlation between combat stress and incidents of war crimes. The quintessential example of this is the My Lai masscre. |
| |
III. Resolution? |
|
>
> | A. Changing the Military Creed
Reducing the number of further violations of the rules of war is not as simple as providing more ethics training to the military. To solve the problem, one would need to make combat ethics as central to the military creed as the killing ethos. If the killing ethos and combat ethics ideals were on par, service personnel would be much less inclined to give into the former over the latter whenever conflict between the two erupted. While combat stress would still erode combat ethics, such erosion would take longer. Organizations have great difficulty changing their creed on their own. However, because one of the central ideals of the American military creed is that it serves the civilian government, if the political will existed, one could force modifications of the creed. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | B. Changing Government Foreign Policy
The next question is do we actually want such a change to take place? Current American policy calls for using the military to secure U.S. interests by force of arms worldwide; a policy which many would argue undercuts the foundation of combat ethics (empathy). Further, if Abu Ghraib is any indicator, our government condones the emphasis on the killing ethos in the pursuit of its policy objectives. This makes sense since a more ethics-focused military might challenge orders which, although helpful in supporting U.S. interests, violate rules of war. Creating a workable solution to reduce human rights violations by our military must therefore start with a change in civilian leadership. |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |