Here is a link to a great documentary with Robert McNamara. McNamara was the Secretary of Defense under Truman and in this interview he is answering some tough questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekdt0QwFQw
So, do you think there should be morality in warfare? Is there room for morality in war? Would you do something that you knew would be a 'war crime' just to ensure victory?
There should definitely be morality in warfare. Most soldiers do not ever have anything personal against the enemy. They fight for their country... but not to kill other humans who want to kill them. The biggest thing a soldier will tell himself is that "They will shoot me if I do not shoot them". Hmmmmm don't both sides probably think that. Since this is a crazy and twisted way to fight, why not at least be moral? Even Nazis knew to take POWs instead of shooting them (*cough* except for Angry Soviets storming Germany *cough*). There always has and always will be rules of war. If there was no morality, then what would even be the point of war?! Don't you fight for a moral cause? Hitler's cause was moral to him: Eradicate the "evil" Jews and Races for the BETTER of Aryan people. Even though this is completely untrue, even evil warbringers have moral ideals. Just like Bin Laden in Jihadists.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would never commit a war crime because the US would never issue one (and if they did, then hello Civil War 2 or World War 3) and it would be unnecessary. I'll admit, I need to see an official rule sheet for war.
"If there was no morality, then what would even be the point of war?!" "Don't you fight for a moral cause?"
DeleteYour point is well taken, but I disagree. I feel that war is inherently selfish and immoral. Take the Nazis for example, they blamed the Jews for the situation Germany found themselves in after WWI (we all know life was pretty awful in Germany during that time). Why did they blame the Jews? How about because they [the Nazis] selfishly thought that their lives were not as comfortable as they ought to be, and so they needed to invent a scapegoat. The Jews were perfect, as they were already disliked by many Europeans and many Jews held high ranking economic and political positions. So who better to blame for your problems than people in power? Hitler and the Nazis can then use their completely fabricated excuse that the Aryans have a moral right to eradicate the other races in order to justify their selfishness and immorality. And I'm pretty sure many Germans thought the war had a point. What I'm saying is that oftentimes war is fought over incredibly selfish things, like land or resources. These types of war are inherently immoral because they, like the Nazi conquest, are only waged to satisfy the selfish hunger nations have for other nations' things.
"Since this is a crazy and twisted way to fight, why not at least be moral?"
Maybe we just have different ways of thinking about this one, but honestly I would rather be victorious knowing I was 'immoral' than subjugated or dead just because I chose the high road. War to me is like a state of nature. Its everyone for themselves, and if you're not prepared to do what it takes to survive, then why even try? Because you can guarantee that there is someone on the other side who has what it takes, and will gladly go through you to preserve his own life. Morals won't win a war, but effective strategy will.
Actually I keep thinking about this and feel I need to clarify,
DeleteMorals are good to have to JUSTIFY your cause, but at the root of it (and I would assume a majority of soldiers realize this) you are not fighting for your morals any more than you are fighting for a moral cause. Most likely the cause is immoral and the 'morality' is just used to justify the atrocities committed by your side in order to ensure victory.
But like I said before, morals won't win a war, action will.
You said war TO YOU is like a state of nature. This is untrue to a lot of other people as seen at the 1899 and 1907 conventions at the Hague where they formed war crimes. For there to be crimes, there must be morality.
DeleteI like your point about a state of nature. Looking at World War I especially it seems sides are not good guys versus bad guys. Sometimes soldiers shoot each other. Even in movies you see disagreement in command. But wouldn't this also mean you are using your morals to decide where you stand?
I think that as long as we want to say that we are better than people like Hitler then we need to have morality in our warfare. In reality few of the moral values we have are held against countries like the US because we view ourselves in such a high regard. Is there room for morality in war? I think that as long as we keep morality in it, it won't be quite real, but then again morality isn't kept in war, we may be told that we are, but that just isn't the case. Would I personally do something like that to ensure victory? This is a very complicated thing. I probably would, if I truly wanted what 'playing dirty' would get me. I think most people would do it because we are human.
ReplyDeleteI think both of you guys have really good points. Nick, for the most part I like what you're saying, but I disagree with you that we go to war for "moral reasons". That's not always the case. Often we go to war because we want things that benefit ourselves. For example, Hitler said he wanted to get rid of "evil Jewry" but I suspect that his agenda for German domination was even more important to him, and I don't see any morality in that. So Collin's point actually makes a lot of sense to me - if we go to war with the intention of getting ourselves ahead and we're willing to kill a bunch of people to do it, why bother playing nice? We want easy, painless victory. So that actually ties in with the nuclear bombing thread, because thats one way to ensure that you win really fast without losing any of your own men.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: I think what I just said makes sense, and it explains why people do what they do, but I do not support it in any way!