When Francis Edward Smedley wrote, “All’s fair in love and war,” he certainly was not expressing an official military position. The Pentagon would assert that many things are considered unfair in time of war: torture, for instance, and the killing of civilians.
A few years ago, this code of ethics was brought to our attention with the Abu Ghraib scandal.
In this instance, soldiers did not follow the rules of proper conduct, and the military took action against them. Doing so showed that such rules do, indeed, exist and are (theoretically) endorsed by those in command.
American soldiers again demonstrated their fallibility shortly after this with the killing of many Iraqi civilians in Haditha.
Last Sunday “60 Minutes” re-broadcasted an interview with one of the soldiers involved in this event, who was later put on trial for murder.
Though he did not try to claim that he acted ethically, he asserted that he acted as he felt he needed to and as he had been trained to act.
Exactly what our soldiers are being trained to do is unclear, as the interview also mentioned a military policy called “positive identification,” which requires soldiers to ensure that a person is a threat before shooting.
Though I have not been through military training myself, I would suppose that the message soldiers are receiving is rather mixed: “Make sure you don’t kill any civilians, but don’t take too many chances either.” Then there’s instinct, urging one toward self-preservation, which, in a war situation, translates into killing. When it comes to torture, “The enemy is doing it,” soldiers think. “Why shouldn’t we?”
And that’s not a bad question. I admire America’s determination to hold itself to a higher standard than our opponents seem to be striving for. I’m glad that the military does not endorse the use of torture or the killing of civilians.
But the “rules of war” that we are operating under do not seem to fit the war that we are currently fighting.
During the American Revolution, these ethical policies would have worked. The enemy was identifiable and exposed (he was wearing a red coat and standing on the other side of the battlefield.)
This is not the case in Iraq. Anyone could be the enemy, and the enemy could be anywhere. Although the military still seems to consider killing women and children particularly undesirable, these people could be involved in anti-American insurgency just as a man could.
How, therefore, is a soldier supposed to distinguish friend from foe? It seems inevitable that some will make mistakes and kill innocent Iraqis.
It seems inevitable that others will break under the stress of the situation and also kill innocent Iraqis, fully aware of what they are doing.
But can we blame them? Such action, of course, is wrong, but war is wrong.
Having a code of ethics for war is like forcing someone to live inside an ice cream parlor and telling them to eat healthy food. Perhaps he or she can stay away from the double chocolate fudge swirl chunk and go for the reduced-fat vanilla, but the person is still breaking the rules of what most people would consider healthy eating.
Similarly, a soldier can try to refrain from killing the innocent, but he or she is still in violation of the standard ethical code to not kill.
Arresting the Haditha soldiers for murder, therefore, seems ridiculous. The action took place either because of the nature of war, the nature of this particular war or the effect the war had on the soldiers psychologically.
If war is to blame, maybe we should arrest it instead. I propose sending it to Abu Ghraib and then suspending the anti-torture rules.