ETHICS IN COMBAT (AP Photo by Anja Niedringhaus) A U.S. soldier arrives at the site where a suicide car bomber attacked a NATO convoy 16 May 2013 in Kabul, Afghanistan. Hizb-e-Islami, a Muslim militant group, claimed responsibility for the early morning attack that killed many in the explosion and wounded several others. Ethics, Combat, and a Soldier’s Decision to Kill Chaplain (Maj.) Sean Wead, U.S. Army n a lonely forward operating base in Iraq, an is to deliver critical supplies to units spread across his 18-year-old private, who five months before region. The commander orders him not to stop on the worried only about whom he might take to road for anything—even for children blocking the road. Othe prom, listens carefully to his commanding officer The enemy uses them to obstruct the road, hoping sol- as if his life depends on it. It does. The soldier’s mission diers’ moral sense will cause them to stop their vehicles, MILITARY REVIEW March-April 2015 69 (Photo by Sgt. Matthew Moeller, 5th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment) A soldier with 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, fires his M4 rifle during a gun battle with insurgent forces 12 July 2009 in Barge Matal during Operation Mountain Fire. The tiny mountain village in Afghanistan’s east- ern Nuristan Province was overwhelmed by enemy forces until combined elements of the Afghan National Security Forces and Interna- tional Security Assistance Forces forced the enemy to flee. which leaves convoys open for attack. If he should meet a position behind the kneeling insurgents. He takes any children on the road, the soldier is ordered to run out his M9 Beretta pistol and fires a bullet through the them down if they refuse to get out of the way.1 head of each prisoner.3 Four Navy SEALs (members of a sea-air-land team) These types of morally complex quandaries of war drop into an isolated village in Afghanistan to identify could be considered part of what is commonly called the location of a Taliban commander. Their operation the fog of war. This idea, attributed to famed strategist is exposed when they are discovered by a young shep- Carl von Clausewitz, refers to the uncertainty and herd boy and his companions. The SEALs agonize over ambiguity that surround military operations.4 Former whether they should kill the shepherds and continue Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara explains: the mission or let them go. By freeing them, the SEALs “What the fog of war means is—war is so complex it’s undoubtedly will alert others to their presence, bring- beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend ing probable death and mission failure.2 all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are Four insurgents kneel blindfolded before the squad not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily.”5 of soldiers who captured them. These same insurgents were captured and handed over to the Iraqi govern- A Complex Moral Decision ment twice before. Each time they were released to In war, soldiers make judgments of life and death. fight again. The previous night, these same insurgents The magnitude of such absolute decisions is nearly had injured U.S. soldiers with a command-detonat- beyond comprehension. No remediation can change ed improvised explosive device—the wounded were the outcome of killing, justifiable or not. When members of the same squad as those now holding the faced with killing someone, soldiers often try to insurgents at gunpoint. After conferring with the bat- synthesize moral and legal values with their mission, talion commander, the platoon sergeant—having sworn their safety, and the safety of fellow soldiers. They to protect the lives of his men—moves deliberately to may struggle with the decision to kill, and eventually 70 March-April 2015 MILITARY REVIEW ETHICS IN COMBAT they may struggle with the memory of killing for many that sometimes war may be justified and preferable to years afterward. an immoral peace.7 But if war is to occur, it must be When soldiers make decisions about killing, guided by morality, and the most evil aspects of warfare they make moral choices. When soldiers have time must be muted, limited, or eliminated. to consider a moral problem and make a decision, Both jus ad bellum and jus post bellum are of great their thought process usually integrates an ethical importance when a nation’s leaders are considering war. foundation of personal concepts of virtue that influ- Their implications are strategic because they apply to ence intent, rules that guide actions, and the conse- the state giving guidelines for actions during and after quences likely to follow the decision. Even if all these war. Moreover, the strategic implications of decisions things are understood theoretically, applying these made by political and senior military officials have -im moral concepts is not a habit in the average soldier. mediate tactical and operational effects on the military Therefore, when a decision must be made and action forces that prosecute the war. taken in the moment, the conscience is morally disen- Soldiers asked to give their lives or to take lives gaged. The enormity of the decision is only considered in defense of their country deserve a well-reasoned in the aftermath. justification for their sacrifice and labor. To tell sol- In the dense fog of war, soldiers need more than diers only that they will do their duty in unquestion- these sometimes-competing frameworks ranked by the ing obedience is an abuse in a professional military. dominant value and only contemplated when given Soldiers will bear the aftereffects of such actions for a the opportunity after the fact. Soldiers need a way to lifetime. They deserve to understand the meaning and understand and apply moral guidance and internalize purpose of their actions so they can manage and give moral standards as second nature to all their actions. order to the consequences. This essay proposes that the principles ofjust war theory In the same way, civilians in a democracy demand can help soldiers develop a clear moral vision when justification to provide both blood and treasure to any they have to measure out whether to kill. such endeavor. Sun Tzu, in the oldest known manu- Ideally, soldiers take life in the belief they will script on war, postulates in his “First Constant” that make the world a better place—or at least prevent it before going to war, a state should consider “The Moral from getting worse. They believe their actions in war, Law, which causes the people to be in complete accord while unpleasant, are necessary. They feel morally with their ruler so that they will follow him regardless responsible for protecting and defending others from of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”8 This means malicious attack and unlawful assault. Of course, this that to maintain a fighting force willing to give their is an idealized understanding of a soldier’s duty, which lives for a national goal, both the soldiers and the ci- is intrinsically tied to trust and faith in the govern- vilian population must believe their cause is right. Just ment of the United States. war principles, when considered, can provide the moral The Nation’s decisions must be perceived as just high ground. and implemented to protect the American people or Just war principles provide moral, psychological, its allies rather than for selfish gain. This means that practical, and strategic reasons for conducting war- to maintain faith in the government, soldiers must fare, juxtaposed with enemies’ motives and actions believe that the war they fight is just. The standard for that would lead to unacceptable devastation if not determining if war is just is known as just war theory, stopped by violent means. To help forces handle the or justified war.6 moral dilemmas they stumble into in the fog of war, Just war theory consists of criteria addressing justice the military equips its personnel with principles of in going to war (jus ad bellum), justice in waging war jus in bello—justice in waging war. Most military (jus in bello), and justice after the war jus( post bellum). personnel know the applied form as the rules of The theory comprises a systematic application of moral engagement or the law of armed conflict. This is the reasoning for the decision to undertake armed con- codification of just war by treaty and international flict against another state. It includes conduct during commitments as they apply to different situations war and after its completion. Just war theory claims and battlefields. MILITARY REVIEW March-April 2015 71 Soldiers need to understand the principles of jus in At least jus in bello, through the concepts of distinc- bello because they can help clarify moral reasoning. Jus tion and proportionality, provides a baseline for deter- in bello dominates other paradigms of moral justifica- mining the actions that would be moral. For example, tion for actions in war. When understood and applied, it is clear that a civilian—even a citizen of an enemy it dissipates much of the fog of war by guiding when the state—who is not an immediate participant in combat, taking of life is appropriate and when it is not. The rest is an unlawful target. Similarly, it is clear that destroy- of this discussion focuses on applying jus in bello at the ing an entire town to kill a few enemy combatants is tactical level. morally wrong. There is a baseline, a point of reference from which to decide. Jus in Bello The U.S.