U.S. Military - Term Paper Example

? U.S. Military (Add (Add (Add U.S. Military Ethics can be defined as the standards by which one should act, and values can be termed as the core beliefs like duty, honor, and integrity that decide attitudes and actions. Ethical values help one in deciding what is right and what is wrong when one is faced with two options. The very basic ethical principles I adhere to in my life are honesty, integrity, loyalty, accountability, fairness, caring, respect, promise-keeping, and responsible citizenship. However, on joining military, I realized that instead of the deontological point of view I possessed in ethics, the military ethics is more easily explained in the light of teleology and utilitarianism. Admittedly, before joining military and even now I love to adopt the Deontological point of view in ethics. I was of the opinion that the rightness of an action is assessed by the goodness in the action itself; not in the consequences. However, on reaching the military career, I faced a dilemma as I felt, in the first glance, that my own ethical principles would be in sharp contradiction with the basic military ethics. According to Toner (2003), military ethics is rooted in three Os: owing, ordering, and oughting. A look into the concept of owing made me at first feel that if I owe to my comrades, my chain of command, and my nation, I will have to remove integrity from my ethical repertoire. This happened because according to my notions, integrity meant being faithful to ones own convictions. So, I reached the conclusion that while totally owing to the chain of command, one will not be able to be loyal to ones own judgments. However, as I probed further into the issue, I made the realization that army life is ‘selfless service’ where there is no ‘me-ism’ or ‘egotism’. This owing in military life is the result of knowing what one is doing and why it is being done. As Sonnenberg (1985) states, in military, ones integrity lies in the fact that one recognizes ones responsibility and obligation towards ones duty by understanding ones moral indebtedness towards those who have given one life and learning. There I made the realization that integrity is also about knowing the ethical basis of ones own actions. Integrity, in military sense, means acting with honor, performing duties with impartiality, and most importantly, avoiding conflicts of interest. The second important foundation of ethics in military is ordering. Admittedly, this too created a lot of issues in the beginning as I found it contradictory to my own concept of liberty. However, later on I realized that in military, order is not directing subordinates what to do, but is the moral structuring and ethical priorities. The last point that deserves consideration is ‘oughting’. That means making one responsible for ones action. In fact, I always consider this personal responsibility as one among the most important ethical principles a person should possess. One naturally develops the doubt that when one is supposed to obey what directions come from the chain of command, how it is possible to be certain about the outcome of that action. Admittedly, for a soldier in the warfront, it is impossible to think a long time about the implications of following a direction before reaching an ethical judgment. So, it is reasonably justifiable if one claims that one cannot hold personal responsibility for ones actions in military. The best possible way to solve the confusion at this juncture is to bring forth the next important concept, that is, faith. In fact, I strongly believe in the ethical principle of faith. It is this mutual faith that keeps families, social organizations, governments, and even military together. One can say that faith in military is very vital, and in fact, a closer look will prove that just like a soldier’s faith in his nation’s and superior’s decisions, the whole nation and the superiors have faith in the soldier too. To illustrate, every military person is entrusted with a lot of arm power the irrational use of which can jeopardize the lives of many people. When the whole nation shows faith in a military person, showing the same faith back is just reciprocity. However, these are the very basic concepts of ethics and values that do not go deep into the present day military actions and ethical challenges. At present, one can see various ethical issues on the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. The ethical dilemmas on strategic level are the ones that are related to developing operation plans and objectives. I found this issue gaining mammoth proportions when I considered the use of nuclear weapons. Admittedly, the use of such a weapon causes a lot of destruction to civilians too. Thus, there arises an ethical dilemma on the strategic level when military activities harm innocent civilians. I could find another ethical dilemma on the tactical level too. The point that made me confused at this level is the ethical dilemma in military operation in Afghanistan. It is possible to destroy the terrorist settlements with accurate rocket fire but it always posed a threat to the lives of innocent civilians too. The second option is to send Special Forces which poses serious threat to the lives of the soldiers. At this juncture, the lives of either civilians or soldiers are to be put in danger. There are ethical dilemmas on tactical level too. To illustrate, I have seen many instances when soldiers find it difficult to assess whether a suspect is posing a threat or is just friendly. In order to understand this situation, I have to adopt what Augier and MacIntosh (2010) consider as the very basic theme of ethic. The first point is that ethical judgments should be universally applicable instead of being only reflections of the wishes of those who make them (p. 49). This realization made me reassess my judgment in the nuclear bomb attack on Japan. Admittedly, the attack caused immeasurable loss to life and property in Japan. However, while acknowledging this loss, I never looked into what would have happened if America had not resorted to such an aggressive action. The total loss of life and property around the world could have been much larger as the war would continue for longer times. From the discussion, it becomes evident that my own deontological view, just like many other ethical theories, cannot satisfactorily solve the ethical dilemmas in military context. In m y opinion, the only two theories that can reasonably meet the requirements are utilitarianism and teleology. Looking into the tenets of utilitarianism, one can see that one is supposed to adopt such an option that offers the highest degree of satisfaction to the greatest number of stakeholders. If this is so, using such a lethal weapon on a nation in order to ensure world peace is fully justified. Also, one can see the usefulness of teleology in this case. According to teleology, end justifies means. That means, the military use of force and lethal weapons in order to ensure peace is justified. Now, looking back into the present day US Military, one can see that these basic problems still loom large despite the best efforts by various scholars and experts to incorporate justice into war. When the word military is considered, the very first ethical issue that appears in ones mind is killing. Admittedly, there is a large number of people who believe that no one has the right to kill. Thus, when the military is trained to kill, it becomes necessary to look into the ethics behind killing. According to Christianity, one is supposed to love ones enemies. Similar is the case of Hinduism and Buddhism. I was of the belief that killing is unjust until I joined the military. However, thereafter, I understood the fact that there are circumstances when killing becomes necessary. To illustrate, there are instances when one becomes compelled to kill an enemy to protect oneself. Sometimes it becomes necessary to use force to protect an innocent person from harm. That means in real life, it becomes necessary to use force and killing to protect the innocent against unjust elements. Thus it becomes evident that for nations, it is necessary to kill and engage in armed conflict to ensure peace. To meet this end, it becomes necessary to train a special group of people who are capable of killing effectively. It is this basic understanding that gives birth to the jus ad bellum. Though it can be claimed that it is right to kill to protect the innocent, I find it difficult to understand the justice behind training military men to become effective killers. Admittedly, improving the military power of one nation will make other nations improve their own military might too, and this itself is sufficient to give birth to conflict out of suspicion. A perfect example of this situation is the First World War. Here, one can find ethics in the fact that military persons too are human beings. When they are sent to the battlefield, their lives are at risk. So, training military persons to be effective killers is aimed at protecting themselves and the nation or people they defend. Admittedly, one cannot argue that lay people without any idea about the battlefield should be sent to war. If this is the case, it is just to train people to be effective killers. However, the road ahead is still more difficult. The three Os of Owing, Ordering, and Oughting which are very necessary to ensure discipline in military give a lot of space for ethical dilemmas. For example, when a commander gives order to do something that is visibly immoral, a soldier is supposed to do it out of discipline. Some examples of such activities are torturing and shooting prisoners. The mere fact is that such doubts come out of lack of knowledge about the military traditions and rules. As I read the Air Force Manual for Courts Martial, I found Rule 916 that clearly states “it is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful” (Manual for Courts Martial, 2008). Thus, it becomes evident that the concept of discipline does not necessarily mean that a soldier is solely bound to obey orders from above. There is sufficient room for independent thought. Also, I have seen in my career that commanders often resort to inducing extreme rage in soldiers against their enemies as a way to increase motivation to fight, especially when there is fear. However, the fact is that this extreme rage often results in lack of mercy to the surrendered enemy soldiers and civilians. Evidently, recent years have seen a large number of such incidents of prisoner torture and killing by soldiers. In my opinion, it is necessary to avoid inducing rage in soldiers to make them more effective. According to Perry (2004), soldiers should be trained to distinguish between moral and immoral situations that usually arise in the battlefield, and they should be encouraged to disobey the evidently immoral ones. Another area of ethical dilemma is the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons. Admittedly, America has used such weapons effectively in various wars ranging from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. In addition is the use of landmines. Admittedly, these weapons are capable of harming innocent civilians. In the words of Snider, Oh & Toner (2009, p. 10) the fact here is that if these weapons are not used, the military persons’ lives would be at greater risk, and if they are used, there is the possibility of civilians losing their lives. It seems to me that one does not have the responsibility to put ones life into danger in order to protect others. To illustrate, depleted uranium weapons are effective against tanks, and the absence of such weapons will cause danger to the soldiers. That means, the absence of such weapons not only kills soldiers but also defeats the entire nation. That means, as far as better alternatives are not introduced like such landmines and depleted uranium weapons that automatically self destruct as the war ends, it is justifiable to use such weapons that are necessary. However, it is necessary to ensure that the lowest possible amount of harm is caused to innocent civilians. This can be done by assessing the required military power in a given situation. In other words, in my opinion, it is not ethical to do more destruction than what is required to win a war. Evidently, these points are compatible with deontological view I like to pursue because of their universal acceptability. Yet another important area where the American Military usually faces ethical dilemma is the humanitarian intervention in other nations. As the security of the nation was threatened by Al Qaeda through the September 11 attack, America was forced to invade Taliban and overthrow the government. Admittedly, invading a nation is considered as an infringement of the state sovereignty. However, in this particular case, there are many more points to be considered. First of all, Al Qaeda terrorists had been engaging in terrorist activities in the US and many other nations for quite some time. Secondly, Taliban was allowing Al Qaeda to conduct training camps and to use the nation as its base for monetary benefits. Thirdly, America had asked Taliban to cooperate in apprehending Bin Laden and Al Qaeda but Taliban refused to cooperate. Also, the UN Security Council failed to come up with an effective intervention. Though it has been principally accepted that any humanitarian intervention should get the approval of UN, the international world has not responded to the ineffectiveness of UN Security Council as has become evident in Kosovo and Rwanda. Here, in my opinion, America is ethically justified in its actions. This is so firstly because Al Qaeda was operating from Taliban. Secondly, America had requested Taliban to cooperate in the activity of eliminating terrorism but Taliban refused to act. Thirdly, despite visible evidence, UN Security Council and the international community refused to come up with an active solution. So, in my opinion, the Taliban invasion does not amount to an infringement of state sovereignty but is just retaliation, thus, well within the definition of jus ad bellum. In total, it becomes evident that American military is an organization which is highly likely to face ethical dilemmas and criticism because of its use of force and killing. However, as one gets closer to the organization, one realizes the fact that the military does not deviate from important ethical theories but only makes extensions of the ethical concepts as required. These ethical concepts of military are easily justified when ethical concepts of utilitarianism and teleology are adopted. References Augier, M & MacIntosh, J. (2010). Beyond good and evil- or, a genealogy of ethics: Challenges for professional, unprofessional and amateur users of force. Military Ethics: International Perspectives, 1-307. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/dn-nd/D2-264-2010-eng.pdf Manuals for Courts-Martial. (2008). Rule 916, 1-981. Retrieved from http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm.pdf Perry, D. L. (2004). Ethical issues in recent U.S. military engagements. American Association of University Women. Retrieved from http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/recent.htm Sonnenberg, S. B. (1985). A philosophical conflict: A fighter pilot's views on the ethics of warfare. Air University Review. Retrieved from http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/jul-aug/sonnenberg.html Snider, D. M., Oh, P & Toner, K. (2009). The army’s professional military ethic in an era of persistent conflict. Professional Military Ethics Monograph Series, 1-31. Retrieved from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB895.pdf Toner, J. H. (2003). Military or ethics. Air & Space Power Journal. Retrieved from http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/toner.html Read More