Morality vs. Strategy in War
Introduction
War, just like poverty, is an ever-present element of life. Reflection on warfare is one of the main things that occupy the public life of the members of society. Throughout history, warriors have faced ethical and moral challenges. Modern, highly technological, biological, chemical and unconventional guerilla wars magnify these challenges. Amid all the terror and “hell” of war, people are faced with moral responsibilities that they must achieve. Before determining the prevalent conditions at war, there are five laws which must be followed: The moral law; Heaven; Earth; The commander and the method or discipline. The strategy should change according to how favorable these conditions are. Morally questionable and ethically ambiguous situations arise for combatants especially where risk to non-combatants is involved. This is despite having undergone strong war ethics training. Some philosophers argue that it is permissible to wage war. One of the main questions, which show the relationship between morality and strategy, is whether any means may be used to win a war which is “permissible.” The best excellence is to break the resistance of the enemy without fighting. This means that strategy should be inherently moral. Armed conflict may be eliminated through joining strategy and morality together. This paper defends the notion that strategy cannot work without morality by focusing on three questions pertinent to war: whether it is just or unjust to begin a war; the justness of the methods to be used during war and the determination of non-combatant immunity.
First, strategy can only work if it possesses solid moral and political authenticity. The relationship between morality and strategy may be identified by examining the justness of going to war. One may argue that while devising a strategy to go to war, there are moral considerations to be made. The basic morality idea is that waging war is a crime. This is because initiating war is injurious to one’s own people as well as to the people of the target state. In this regard, one may argue that war is not just. However, war is the legal condition which allows two or more parties to partake in armed conflict. To overcome this perception of war as crime, approval is necessary. Morality is important for strategy because approval by the society is necessary before waging a war. Approval by the society improves the moral standing of the decision to wage war and, therefore, enables strategies to be carried out uninterrupted. The pursuit of doing right to comply with accepted norms is an important part of strategy. Morality should be afforded a greater priority in the military curriculum. This is because immoral acts by soldiers and their commanders result from lack of ethics and virtue. Even though war may be waged without moral thought, the victory achieved may not be regarded as victory if it comes at the cost of an individual’s or a nation’s moral worth. This is because a nation’s honor may be destroyed for waging war on another nation or for deploying its military personnel to a war in which they lose their lives. For example, the justification by Americans to drop the atom bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows the need to provide moral answers to strategy questions. The moral debate which was given in hindsight is that the bombs brought an end to the Pacific war before the U.S. invasion which may have led to millions of other casualties, both military and civilian. The side of the moral justification that prevails is not important. What is important is that moral justification happened. Anger is usually directed towards those who begin a war. This is because they are responsible for death and destruction. This argument underlines the fact that when waging war, there are moral questions which have to inform military strategy. Even when ignored, these moral questions may have to be considered after the war is over.
The second argument in support of the notion that morality is necessary for strategy to work is based on the manner in which war is waged (is the war being fought in a just manner or not). Morality in war goes beyond the question of whether to attack or not but also to the force with which the attack is made. This encompasses the examination of the moral reality of war and moral equality at war. This is a moral subject which should be deeply entrenched in strategy. Wars are ever present ass possibilities. A nation must be able and willing to go to war if the moral need arises. This is because this state is imperative for national survival. However, morality is crucial in sorting out the problem that causes war or in giving the impetus to wage a war. For morality to thrive, there must be an authority present to enforce it. Sun Tzu writes that in war, the best thing is to win the war without exchange of armed aggression and to capture the entire country of the enemy without shattering it or destroying it. Simply put, for war to be judged to be moral, the strategies and methods used must be balanced. Soldiers who fight freely, designing their battles and choosing their own enemies do not commit a crime by engaging in crime. However, if soldiers fight without freedom, the war is not their own crime. Military conduct is based on rules. When soldiers fight freely, the rules of war hinge on consent and mutuality. On the other hand, when they are bound by the strategies of others, the rules of war are hinged on shared servitude. The basic idea in this argument is that there are limits beyond which combat cannot be considered as being moral. The justification for this argument is that all soldiers on either side are equal despite the moral status of the nation for who they are fighting. Both sides in a confrontation during war are morally obliged to fight justly. This means that morality should temper their strategies. For example, unmanned aerial strikes by American forces at war (such as using highly technological drones with lethal weaponry) have been placed under moral and ethical scrutiny. In this case, the argument is that these strikes deliberately target particular people. Although the U.S. has categorized these strikes as summary executions, some may consider them to be acts of war. If they are regarded as acts of war, these strikes represent an unjust method of going about war, which are morally wrong. The right of soldiers to kill is also examined in war. First, when and how to kill are moral questions. Secondly, whom the soldiers can kill is equally important. This means that war should be between combatants only, while non-combatants should not be harmed. This means that morality affects strategy in the question of whether neutral parties, soldiers who have surrendered and civilians should be immune from attack. Strategy and morality go hand in hand.
Thirdly, morality and strategy are inseparable because they are involved in the determination of non-combatant immunity as well as military necessity. Non-combatant immunity comprises of avoiding armed conflict with unarmed civilians who are not part of the armed conflict. These may include combatants who have surrendered as well as civilians in the country which has been invaded during war. Military combatants should take measures to ensure that non-combatants are not harmed during armed exchanges. This is a morality question which the warring countries must take into consideration when waging war against each other. War should only be between combatants of both sides of the war. A soldier must, therefore, take proper aim to ensure that they do not hit non-military targets. Military necessity is the right to use measures which bring a military operation to a successful/reasonable conclusion. For example, during the first and Second World War, German submarines used the military practice of “sink on sight” on Merchant ships. This policy went against the naval warfare policy, in which “absolute duty” to the passengers, crew and documentation of the sunken ship was required of the prize crew. Although the 1936 London Naval Protocol reaffirmed the “absolute duty” policy, the argument in favor of the “sink-on-sight” was based on military necessity since a submarine became exposed to attack once surfaced. Guerilla warfare also calls for a careful examination of the strategies based on morals. The basis of the guerilla war is it places civilians at risk. It also becomes difficult to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Some civilians also aid guerrilla soldiers. This fact provides serious challenges to the strategies of the war. In addition, questions on morality come to the fore. This is because combatants have to establish how to avoid non-combatant injury or death while continuing with the war. The strategies involved have to be reexamined. This is because to engage in a war against guerillas means that civilians and non-combatants must be involved. In addition to guerilla war, the war on terrorism presents serious morality questions which have to be answered for strategists to plan the war. This includes establishing the extent of retaliatory force to use.
Conclusion
The best excellence is to break the resistance of the enemy without fighting. This means that strategy should be inherently moral. Moral considerations must be brought to the fore when strategies of war are being drafted. Armed conflict may be eliminated through joining strategy and morality together. Armed conflict may be eliminated through joining strategy and morality together. There are three main arguments that show that morality and strategy are inseparable. First, the relationship between morality and strategy may be identified by examining the justness of going to war. Before strategizing on how to go to war, the strategy must not be seen as being a crime. This involves seeking approval from society by using moral arguments. Secondly, the manner in which war is waged is equally important. This raises moral and ethics questions which must be examined before deciding the amount of force to use to use in armed conflict. The justification for this argument is that all soldiers on either side are equal despite the moral status of the nation for who they are fighting. In addition, the best thing is to win the war without exchange of armed aggression and to capture the entire country of the enemy without shattering it or destroying it. This implies that parties to armed conflict should not use unjust means of conflict. Thirdly, morality and strategy are inseparable because they are involved in the determination of non-combatant immunity as well as military necessity. Non-combatant immunity comprises of avoiding armed conflict with unarmed civilians who are not part of the armed conflict. These may include combatants who have surrendered as well as civilians in the country which has been invaded during war. Military combatants should take measures to ensure that non-combatants are not harmed during armed exchanges. For example, a soldier must, therefore, take proper aim to ensure that they do not hit non-military targets. Military necessity is the right to use measures which bring a military operation to a successful/reasonable conclusion. The closeness and inter-dependability between strategy and morality shows that they are inseparable in war. The relationship between the morality and strategy is that one depends on the other.
References
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. J.J. Graham (Ware, UK: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1997), 151.
Fisher, David. Morality and war: can war be just in the twenty-first century?. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Friedman, George. "Hellfire, Morality and Strategy." Stratfor. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/hellfire-morality-and-strategy (accessed December 11, 2013).
Kellogg, Davida. "Guerrilla Warfare When Taking Care Of Your Men Leads To War Crimes." Department of Geological Sciences and Institute for Quaternary Studies 5, no. 3 (2001): 1-16.
Tzu, Sun. The art of war: Sun Tzu, in plain English. New York: Writers Club Press, 2002
Walzer, Michael. Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. 4th ed. New York: Basic Books, 20061977.
