Action Taking during Military Operations - Essay Example

In this paper I've basically tried to answer the question: when to fire and when to protect during hostile situations viewed as a military officer. If we can for a moment forget the military men as armed forces only, and try to look beyond their armored uniform and heavy weapons they use to protect themselves and the people and welfare of their country, we see that they are similar in almost every way to the young boy or girl his age next door. Young bloods enrolling in any country's defense services are put through extensive physical and psychological training to toughen them up, so that the security of the nation is in tough hands. The various defense institutes try vigorously to transform these men and women into robots, but although physically almost transformed, psychologically they still are superior to robots, because they think and differentiate. A very important decision to be taken during any combat operation, is to decide whether to open fire or not and when to open Mostly people in the commanding positions encounter this question as an integral part of their job. Prior to giving orders of firing to control hostile situations the commander as a human being faces and answers some moral questions to himself. This is the time when he considers some issues like Moral reasoning, Proper leadership, Personal ethics, Constitutional ethics, Moral virtues, Utilitarianism, Justice. In this paper the basic discussion is about as how do these issues govern the decision taken and its consequences The Beslan school hostage crisis (also referred to as the Beslan school siege or Beslan massacre) began when a group of Islamic terrorists demanding an end to the Second Chechen War took more than 1,100 schoolchildren and adults hostage on September 1, 2004, at School Number One (SNO) in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania, an autonomous republic in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation. On the third day of the standoff, a series of explosions shook the school, followed by a fire which engulfed the building and a chaotic gun battle between the hostage-takers and Russian security forces. Ultimately, at least 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children. Hundreds more were wounded or missing in what was called "the worst terrorist attack since September 11, (Wikipedia). The handling of the siege by Vladimir Putin's administration was criticized by a number of observers and grassroots organizations, Criticism, including by Beslan residents (the survivors and the relatives of the victims), centered on the allegations that the storming of the school was ruthless, citing the confirmed use of heavy weapons, such as RPO flamethrowers and tank guns. Human Rights activists say that at least 80 percent of the hostages were killed by indiscriminate Russian fire. The military of any country often face such incidents of hostile situations. While facing such situations the first and foremost question that comes to ones mind is: when to fire and when to not. "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners". Albert Camus. This was rightly said by a great man. As civilized human beings we always have a tendency of avoiding unnecessary firing and unwanted bloodshed, but circumstances always compel man to do what he loathes. As a person in the commanding post of the military or a force, his chief objective while controlling any hostile situation is to curb the hostility with minimum violence, bloodshed and loss of life and property. Even though a commanding officer desires to establish control over the situation by non-violence, the hostility displayed by the counterpart invites violence. Now the most important decision is entrusted in the hands of the man giving orders, the question to be decided on is: "if fire is to be opened, what should be the deciding and compelling need to do so", and there should be enough reasons to support the decision and its cause alike. When a commanding officer gives order to fire or use any arms and ammunition to subdue a hostile situation, first he must himself be entirely aware of the situation, convinced of the requirement of the decision he makes and entirely responsible for the outcome and result, good or bad. Before releasing any order, the commanding personnel find themselves under tremendous psychological, emotional and not to mention professional stress and pressure. Different contradictory thoughts keep speeding through their minds and lead to an enhancement in reasoning. The personnel are expected to anticipate, consider, judge and visualize every incident that can occur as a result of his order. We observe in warfare that a lot of its consequences are directly related to the foresight and judgment of the commanding authority. It's often observed that other than the professional considerations and judgments, different emotional, personal, psychological and ethical reasoning occupy a considerable part of the brain play an important role in decision making. Although there are numerous factors that govern the mind and intellect in such situations, some of the most important ones are: 1.Moral reasoning 2. Personal ethics 3. Constitutional ethics 4. Proper leadership 5. Moral virtues 6. Utilitarianism 7. Justice A probe into these aspects of the thoughts preoccupying the mind along with professional aspects may assist us in solving the basic question: when to fire and when to not, to some extent. Two categories of anticipatory self-defense are commonly recognized, preemption and prevention. Arthur Lykke offers a definition for each: Preemptive Acts: An attack, raid or war initiated on the basis of expectation and/or evidence that an enemy attack is imminent. Preventive Acts: An attack, raid or war initiated on the belief that armed conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that delay would involve great risk. (Arthur F. Lykke, ed., Military Strategy: Theory and Application (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1993), 386.) In both the cases we observe that the decision on to open fire or not has to be taken. Let's discuss the various points mentioned that play an effective role in governing this decision. When asked what I do for a living, I find myself in a bit of a quandary. If I wish to be perfectly honest, I should probably say that I'm a hired killer, but there's more to it than that. My usual response is to say that I'm a fighter pilot, but I don't think that makes the point either. Perhaps the best answer is that I'm a highly trained, intelligent, sophisticated killer with a conscience. Would I drop bombs on or strafe innocent women and children intentionally, as many people accused us of doing in Southeast Asia No. First, I'm not trained to do that. Second, such callous actions are militarily counterproductive. Finally, I'm not an animal or a robot that either instinctively or on command reacts without fully thinking about what he's doing. I'm a sensitive person who believes in God, participates in community activities, and is repulsed by the thought of hunting, fishing, and any other activity that involves killing one of God's creatures. How then, you ask, could I have participated in 177 combat missions in Southeast Asia and be willing to fight and kill again "Next question," I might respond. After all, the explanation you are looking for is not an easy one. Perhaps the most coherent answer I can give is that I have made a conscious decision that life without freedom is not life at all. I believe that God intended for people to be able to live their lives the way they wish, to worship in their own way, to work in the profession of their choice, to marry whomever they wish, to organize themselves for the betterment of mankind and to elect their own leaders, and to speak their opinions freely without fear of reprisal. Apparently there are a lot of other people who share these ideas since this credo, albeit imperfectly practiced at present, has been adopted by most Western countries. Unfortunately, there are some people who are not satisfied with these simple ideas and who must, by whatever means are available, subjugate other people to fulfill their own needs for power. The majority of human beings throughout history have not been able to exercise the simple freedoms I mentioned earlier because of the overwhelming power of other human beings. On those occasions when the oppressed people acquired the power to overthrow their oppressors, they always used it. And on those occasions when it became apparent that they did not have the power to achieve or maintain their freedoms, many chose death (witness the mass suicide by the Jewish zealots at Masada). I share the same feelings as these people, but I, as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, possess considerable power to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of others. I have used that power and will use it again, if necessary, to protect these freedoms. The phrase "better red than dead" has been used time and again this century, and I neither agree nor disagree with it. (A Philosophical Conflict: A Fighter Pilot's Views on Ethics of Warfare, Major Scott B. Sonnenberg). The above piece is taken form the moral and ethical interpretation that a fighter pilot draws for the job he does. We an very well see that throughout the pilot has conflicting thoughts about the various unwanted measures he is bound to adopt to fulfill his job effectively. He impressively tries to bring to light the fact that he is also a God fearing person like any other human being and that he shall never tread the path which leads to destroying His creation. But the irony is that his job requires him to do exactly what he loathes. This is the situation where psychological and personal aspects like moral reasoning, moral ethics, sense of justice, and the quality of proper leadership comes into play to guide him to make the decision on the crucial question of whether to fire or not 1. Moral reasoning: Before doing any kind of act we as human beings involuntarily judge the act morally. In military operations the very basic job goes against morality. As human beings we can never justify morally the killing of another human being. But unwantedly they are led to such circumstances that the military men are compelled to perform this inhuman act. The best that any person can do under such circumstances is find the justification and the compelling reason to commit such an act. Even though military training toughens up the body and mind of the military men, hesitation always persists before killing a human being. This is the situation when the military men encounter a moral and professional conflict. The commander in charge is the person who should be convinced enough on the decision he makes when he orders fire to control any hostile situation. As the fighter pilot mentions in the above piece that if he will fire innocent women and children The answer is as expected of any civilized human being, no, but he also mentions that if on the course of protecting his country and his countrymen he has to perform such an action he shall perform it. 2. Proper Leadership: This is perhaps the most important aspect of any operation. The consequences of any operation depend gravely on the leadership quality of its commander. The commander is the person who can directly influence the number of casualties by his efficiency as a leader. Apart from planning a successful combat operation, the efficiency of a great leader lies in the fact that as to how he avoids the use of artillery and still achieves victory. When thinking of preserving the lives of his soldiers he must think also of preserving the lives of the opponent army but still take control over them. 3. Moral virtues: Moral virtues play an active role in the building the character of a person on the whole. A military man before firing any terrorist rethinks the necessity of the kill and the ways to prevent it yet bring the situation under control. We the common man are fortunate to get a comparatively longer duration to think and judge a matter before taking a decision, the military men on the other hand are not that fortunate enough. However sometimes its necessary only to protect and not to kill, and a commander with good moral virtues in such conditions finds ways to avoid the casualties. Here comes the basic human part of a soldier. But sometimes it's not possible to judge on moral virtues it leads to casualties and losses on his side which is unacceptable. 4. Constitutional ethics: Constitutional ethics is the procedure of following the rules and regulations formulated during the various conventions worldwide. Most of the times its seen that a commander's decision cannot be challenged, but it depends upon the commander as how far he shall abide by constitutional laws and be fair in his decisions. Only the commander is the person who judges the necessity of his order to fire, therefore we can say that if the enemy don't pose immediate threat or danger, it's the commander who decides to be human and not open fire or b brutal and open fire. Actually it's impossible for any other person to judge the necessity of the moment. 5. Justice: Before taking any decision the most important requirement is to justify its need. In military before the commander orders fire he judges and evaluates his judgment. Any commander will never give order to fire arbitrarily and on occasions when its not needed. Before taking any decision and thinking about the consequences a justifying it in front of the authority, he first justifies it in front of his conscience. The conscience of any person is the first place where he gives justifications and argues about his deed before exercising it practically. If the person wins in argument and his conscience supports his decision he knows he is right. Things don't happen as they should always; sometimes justice is not done to every situation. These are the situations in which inhuman paths are treaded by human beings. 6. Utilitarianism: In civil society, to terminate another person's life is usually considered a crime. Exceptions to the prohibition against killing must be justified. Most people regard self-defense as permissible, but other forms of killing are far more controversial. Abortion and euthanasia are fiercely debated moral issues because it is unclear whether fetuses are persons and whether human beings have the right to terminate their own lives. Capital punishment is opposed by many on the grounds that the "self-defense" rationale fails, for a convict has already been incapacitated in the relevant way. Nor does there appear to be empirical evidence for any deterrent effect, which some maintain would permit an interpretation of the practice as a form of community "self-defense". War, the socially coordinated use of deadly force by groups against other groups, prematurely terminates human lives. Because wars involve many different people, moral judgments regarding war and the various actions carried out by military personnel during wartime are highly complex. The diffusion of moral responsibility, characteristic of wartime activity, arises because a variety of agents are contributing in one way or another to what amounts, taken as a whole, to a war. Although leaders wage wars, rarely do modern leaders themselves wield deadly weapons. Rather, leaders order their troops to kill, and, far more often than not, the troops obey (Calhoun, 2002c). In the standard public justification of war, an enemy nation has acted so as to mandate military retaliation by the victimized nation. The rhetoric of "just retribution" continues to be wielded by leaders, but the United Nations now officially condones the use of deadly force only in the name of defense. Allegedly "just retribution" metamorphoses all too quickly to vindictive revenge. In the case of individual self-defense, only a threat to one's very existence could justify the death of one's aggressor, but less destructive forms of debilitation should be attempted, when feasible. Therefore we see that even though killing is necessary the ways and reasons of killing should be clear and just. For example the My Lai Massacre in the Vietnam War was absolutely unnecessary, inhuman and unexpected. All the activities of the troop depend upon the commander. He is the person who makes discrimination among the necessary and unnecessary events and happenings during any combat operation against any hostile situation. The psychology of the soldiers and particularly the commander highly influences the acts of the soldiers in the combat operations. Sometimes even though the troop and the fellow soldiers take recourse to and perform inhuman acts, soldiers themselves can judge and take decisions and avoid unwanted killings such as the one soldier-Michael Bernhardt-who, refused to shoot in the My Lai massacre, during the Vietnam War. The ethical values are to be inculcated within a person by himself. The various institutions can only show them the way, the decision to follow it depends entirely upon the individual. Ethics is to be practiced and preached. One basic consideration that should be recognized is that would the soldiers expect or desire the same unethical behavior from their opponents if they were in their shoes Definitely not, therefore before taking life or firing the military men must always keep in mind the ethics and the justified reason to kill or not kill. Conclusion: The complex ethical pressures upon the military professional are the rules, goals, and situations that provide the context and criteria for determining what is right and wrong, good and bad. The moment of decision-making or action-taking for the military professional is crowded with signals emanating from rule-oriented obligations, goal-oriented aspirations, and situation-oriented demands. Each individual is responsible for juggling the moral claims from these sources and for determining which signals merit priority. Military personnel, more than most citizens, live under a sense of ought ness, aligned with a strong base of order, obedience, and discipline. As citizens we are also obligated to honor constitutional justice, civil law, and the social and ethnic mores of our communities. The primary ethical pressures upon us, however, are such formal mandates as telling the truth, keeping promises, respecting property, and preserving life. These constitutive or universal norms are the mortar without which social institutions would crumble. While such norms need not be regarded as absolute moral restrictions, the burden of proof is always upon those who would take exception to them. In addition to citing rules, we determine which decisions and actions are ethical by referring to goals. The previous question was "What ought I to do" The questions here are "What is good" or "What goal should I seek" The criteria for determining right and wrong are no longer historical standards but future consequences. The good decision or action is measured by its ability or promise to attain a desired goal. Aristotle defined the good all men seek as happiness.4 Jeremy Bentham elaborated this happiness principle of ethics as the principle of utility, "that principle which states the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question, as being the right, proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action."5 In the hands of John Stuart Mill, the greatest happiness principle was enlarged to include the general good of all: "the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned." (Ethics Theory for the Military Professional, Chaplin (Colonel) Samuel D. Maloney, North Carolina Air National Guard) Bibliography: 1. Belsan school crisis (Wikipedia). 2. (Arthur F. Lykke, ed., Military Strategy: Theory and Application (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1993), 386.) 3. A Philosophical conflict, A Fighter Pilot's Views on Ethics of Warfare, Major Scott B. Sonnenberg). 4. (Ethics Theory for the Military Professional, Chaplin (Colonel) Samuel D. Maloney, North Carolina Air National Guard) Read More