This kind of thinking results in incidents like Haditha -- a lot of civilians dead, and no closer to ending the war or accomplishing our mission.

GSF, very well said.

Ground troops must deal with the moral ambiguities of combat. The trade off between mission success and force protection will always be a fine line that cannot be easily judged from an armchair.

However, the question that comes into my mind is what is the moral stricture that governs a Hellfire missile launched by a Predator that may kill the intended target but also destroys innocent life? The Predator is merely a robot at one end of a cyber network thus the risk to its safety one would assume is not a relevant variable in the equation of mission success vs. innocent lives destroyed?

GSF, really well said and your thoughts are based on what actually happens in a high threat environment in the middle of combat at the small unit level.

TTC, you want to cough up the dough to train and equip every Marine and Soldier in Hostage Rescue CQC then you can talk about what they should have done, while your at it, you might want to look back as near as Korea and WWII when American Soldiers often did the same thing during urban combat such as throwing grenades in rooms before entering to clear them. If you know civilians are there and can spare them, by all means do whatever you can but there comes a point when it is just not always realistic in a combat situation.

Yes, and we also firebombed cities and destroyed every church steeple between Normandy and the Elbe.

The enemy-based approach to Iraq, and the emphasis on force protection, explains why the first half of the Iraq war was an abject failure. Some guy named Ricks wrote a book on it I think.

GSF, I need to read this article a couple more times. I admit that, but I'm responding anyway. Tired after working all night and I don't have the energy, so I'll apologize later and take my lumps as required. Couple things in this article kind of rubbed me wrong, but I love the fact that somebody is talking about ethics and morality and what the American people think. Even if it has this political "will of the people" dimension, ie factoring in the will of America like it's a AAA emplacement in enemy territory, just another factor that must be analyzed on this chess board we call war. I understand it, but that brings me to my response to you.

This isn't just a philosophical, in the weeds, nicety that doesn't apply on the ground when bullets are flying. I wish it were, but it's not. The ethical and moral mistakes that are being made by us today are so huge, so far removed from the trenches, that they eclipse the human pyramid pictures in Iraq and even the killing sprees by so called rogue units. They are so basic, and so important, that this topic absolutely needs to be discussed in great detail, in my view. I'm glad Mr. Ricks posted this, it's the most relevant post I've seen here.

If we win American hearts and minds, and win those of our enemies too, but we politically and legally and "spiritually" sacrifice ourselves to do so, have we won? What if the WE of before is no longer the victorious WE of now? The ethical and moral questions we face today are not the hippie musings you might find on a liberal college campus. They're real. They are the rule of law and our American political processes.

Put another way, if our politicians and Generals had a magical device that allowed them to lose the war(s) against our enemies, at the expense of a recorded American loss OR to win the war(s) against our enemies, in exchange for a Soviet win, what should they choose? Is it worth remaining the United States and losing, instead of bargaining with the devil and winning as a country that can't honestly be defined as the America we were handed by generations before? That's the question. Who are WE, and how valuable is strategy to win, if it sacrifices that? Those are moral and ethical questions not far removed from legal questions.

I'm not a smart man, but in college I majored in religion and I minored in philosophy. Beyond that, I have done things I don't like in combat operations, on several occasions. I can justify them, and I can sleep at night just fine. I drew a line ethically. I felt my line was pretty far forward, and I never thought I'd be asked to cross it... But the issues we face with ethics and morality today are not so easily wiped away with "fog and friction" and troops in contact. That kind of language has its place, but it can't be used to excuse the kind of unethical and immoral and un-American action that is being taken today in the name of winning wars. It's an important issue.

In my opinion, and I'm tired, so I'm going to bed.

"Yes, and we also firebombed cities and destroyed every church steeple between Normandy and the Elbe."- firebombing whole cities is hardly the micro level and I am pretty sure I was specific in my example that we are talking about small units or ground troops.

"The enemy-based approach to Iraq, and the emphasis on force protection, explains why the first half of the Iraq war was an abject failure. Some guy named Ricks wrote a book on it I think"- Yeah, I think the Military with the help of a guy name Kilcullen wrote one too and going after and killing insurgents is part of it but you have to do your best to protect the populations as well, doing this on a large scale and would be what is called the macro level.

What GSF is talking about, please correct me if I am wrong GSF, is that in small unit actions in an urban environment morality is not that clear cut. For example, if a platoon or squad is getting effective Small Arms Fire (SAF) from a building to include Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) they most likely will not get Close Air Support (CAS) or Indirect Fire (IDF) to hit that building, a Strategic (Macro) moral choice to show the locals we are doing our best (Not always the best call though) to spare civilians. Those same troops will have to clear that building and they will or at least should clear that building by throwing in a grenade first, if civilians are inside, while that is tragic, it is hardly an immoral choice made by the people assaulting that building. The immoral choice was made by the insurgents, not the troops and is better than either a slew of our troops being killed or more buildings that surround the one being used by the insurgents from being flattened by an air or artillery strike. It also, at times,might be the moral choice to use a large strike on that building, it just not that clear cut . It is the difference between what sounds good on a Post Grad Paper or in a Military Professional Magazine or on a blog and what is the reality in the field.

ERIC, good response right on the money.

@TTC and Pick; Thank you for my freedom to respond. Welcome home.
I say none of that with any sarcasm. I mean it. You did what you were ordered to do. I did it too.
Haditha. Shit, is that a standard? From my view point, the full truth is not out yet and won't be until/if SSgt Wuterich's trial hapens. I will not go all Murtha on the situation and I haven't read the investigation reports, but on face value--it doesn't look good. Be as that may, it is not what I was originally speaking of. Murder does happen in a combat zone and Major Pryer speaks of that in his piece above. Haditha and the ROE's that have existed are two distinct things. Apples and Oranges
@Pick speaks of this dilemma and very rightly talks of the moral problem of troops in contact. My original post was just my affirmation, and I believe that Maj P speaks of the same, of the morality of waging war. I took it to the lowest level- rounds flying. JPWREL dives into the periphery of morality too-what do we do at the trigger pull moment? Who can justify all this?
I'll (just have to) throw in a personal perspective. (ESIII show me some slack.) This is the time of the year that I remember my own flesh and blood's KIA. I lost him as I originally wrote: going through the door; I believe, after much investigation and analysis, the ROE was flawed. If a grenade was used first, I just might be busting chops with a guy who loved the Bills as I follow the Giants. Now I speak to empty air, still expecting a call back. I'm left to ponder "morality".
Point is that I do believe that the morality, as Major Pryor outlines (although I get lost in the weeds with the 1 through 6 approach) was not done at the National level. Therefore, what happens next--the obvious: subordinate units are ordered into combat and they do what they do. I did not agree with a combat action against Iraq, but I did (eventually) agree that my obligated son must go. We do what we are trained and ordered to do. The borderline of legitimacy and morality was breached (in my opinion) but I put my first born on the plane and praised his responsibility and cryed for his participation in a foolish adventure. We both held up our right hands and repeated the words.
So now what? He, like a lot of you, traveled to an active AO. WTF? Who advocated an ROE that would tie his hands? If you send the troops into "harm's way" dammit fight to win and perform a mission, then get the hell out.
BS to the waivering, the rules change the 5 pages of Bremmer Stupids, the "Oh yeah, we need a surge". If you (America) is going to do this, you have must have gone through the machinations of legal, political, moral obligations that you must do and decided that invasion and occupation of another country is the way forward, and then dammit, let your troops win. You (Executive and Legislative branches) authorized this...so do it.
Therein lies the rub. The die was cast but now we are held back because the planning was flawed, the politics dictate the tactics, and we don't know what to do when Americans are hung from bridges other than knee jerk reactions.
I know the ramifications of a shit sandwich first hand. I just don't believe that Federal level decision makers do. We are now obligated to pull all troops out of Iraq by 12/31. F me but I'm not going to pop champagne for that. It will be unnoticed by virtually all in this country, an oblivious population who never really gave a shit about it all while it was happening. I suspect that AFG operations will just the same melt away in the Nation's conciousness too.
Argument over morality at this point is just more fodder for service schools to debate. Most of us out in the hinterlands won't care or believe that anything will come of it.
To ESIII and others participating in what you do in AFG: I'm sorry, East Podunk Iowa doesn't care. Doesn't know where Afghanistan is on the map and many don't know youa are there. Please just come home.
@Pick, this isn't what I intended to write for I am tired too. Not just because it is late on the east coast, I'm tired of attempts at justifying, analyzing, rehashing morality in regard to the events of the last decade in the morning and afternoon too.
Sorry Tyrtaios, RVN SF and others, but "It don't mean nothin'".

Tom, I busted Rule 19. Happens occasionally.

Terrible story you shared, but glad you shared it.

But now I must say I still think your premise is slightly flawed. Tis true many of these moral decisions should have been made before and weren't. That's the macro problem. But as long as our troops are in contact this discussion should continue. That's the micro problem.

I (and I think I can speak for Pryer) believe that our morality is sacrosanct, not dependent on the whims of the foe we are engaged in. There's really only one standard of behavior. We may argue over small thin line points. But I think the crucial elements of this notion are 1) We serve at the behest and in service to the American people, we represent their interests - even when they remain disinterested, sigh 2) We act in the way that we believe is appropriate, see the Soldier Rules, a too late innovation for this war that isn't as highly publicized as it should, we do this knowing that our enemy won't necessarily reciprocate 3) we do these things first because they are right, second because they facilitate battlefield success, utility, and third because to do otherwise puts our soldiers at risk for psychological/mental damage that exceeds that of the just your everyday shitty day in combat. This is what led me to stand in front of my 600 and say - almost direct quote - "I don't want you to come home physically well, but mentally broken because you did something you shouldn't have." (You, GSF, know well my concerns as they relate to PTSD and suicide)

There's the absolutist argument and the consequentialist argument. But morality which sways with the time or place doesn't seem to be a morality to me at all.

Kudos to Pryer for bringing this up, but let me say as someone in the schoolhouse right now this is a big subject. The Army is talking about this, not as much as I might like but they are talking...and I am writing.

What exactly are you advocating in regard to morals, ethics and ROEs?

an extremely good question and probably one that Hunter needs to raise at NWC level. Pull that morality issue down to the ROE level and leader's responsibility to perform the mission and protect the troop concurrently. I suspect that you are already debating that one, and ESIII and others have legit input into this academic calculus.
It goes further into the issue of well, lengthening the war. Has morality (with nasty politics and dumb-sit decisions) caused this F'in thing to extend a full decade? This goes beyond predictions, political cycles and (GSMother hates this one) basic common sense.

I hope they are taking input from guys on the ground GSF and think your basic premise in your earlier post, as I understand it, is correct. Unfortunately I often see 05's, 06's and almost always GOs forget basic "ground truths" and often make their choices with good intentions couple with grand ideas but rarely realistic goals and even more rarely with tactical level input. In other words, they (the senior officer corps) often do not think how their strategy will really effect the "boots on the ground". I doubt that the Army (or any other branch) has now magically gotten realistic in their approach to morals, ethics and ROEs.

Whether it is St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, theories of ‘Just War’ formulated under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church makes one wonder about the motive for such a philosophical effort? Perhaps the reason may lie in the desire of the ancient Church to construct a moral basis in order to excuse its tendency to wage war by fire and blade upon those who did not accept its ecclesiastical suzerainty? Wars fought in God’s name could hardly be immoral.

Augustin's motive, so far as we know, was to provide a justification for Christian participation in the defense of the late Roman empire against the Goths.

What Aquinas was thinking I do not know, but some suggest that he was concerned more with war among Christian kingdoms - pretty common in 13th century Europe - than between Christians and their enemies.

....is something of a red herring in this discussion - one to which Maj Pryer alludes in his 5th point.

Framing an argument around a moral equivalence with the "insurgent" is a refusal to face some realities: his (the guerilla) struggle is legitimized by a response he can extract from the counterinsurgent - in this case, the occupying force. This is a practical consideration on his part, not an issue of morality or ethics. He is not launching his attack from within the population in order to provide himself with protection but to hold out a seemingly irresistable opportunity for his opponent to respond in a way that is self-defeating to his mission. Oblige him at your peril because the available data suggests that you, not he, will pay the price in opprobrium and injury to a much sought after legitimacy.

The view of the population (the battlefield of modern war) will not be that they were being abused by the guerilla (whose fundamental aims they possibly share) but that a well trained and equipped foreign force held their own lives to a higher value than their own and that the foreign soldiers were more than willing to transfer the risk of death or injury to the civillians than accept it for themselves.

To ES III's comments: Are those really the only options - CAS or house clearing? What about refusing battle? Isn't that a reasonable alternative? Spin out the possible consequences of each course of action and see which one has the best likelihood of tactically supporting the strategic goal. This may not be the favored option of the warrior but that, again, is missing the point.

The modern theater of war, into which the United States has chosen to thrust its military - but refuses to stomach the price of success - will not be forgiving of forcing the local citizenry to shoulder the cost.

I don't understand this. How can morality be a red herring? The author uses "moral" in his title and ten more times in the essay.

I like what this piece is trying to do, just not how it is doing it.

It is not that there exists a greater moral coherence in a wired world, but that there exists a greater opportunity to view moral hypocrisy in warfare, over and over, courtesy of Youtube.

This is bad enough. Such discrepancies between intention and action can become iconic - regardless of context. I am thinking here about the famous shot of that suspected VC being summarily executed during the Tet offensive. Or that little napalmed girl running down the road four years later.

But what is far, far worse is when moral hypocrises are perpetrated by those who were ordered to war using the language of messianic moralism and divine sanction.

The messy gap between the means and ends of war is real and will never be closed - I don't think there is much argument there. But consistently holding the moral high ground has been rendered pretty much impossible by the camera phone. It makes no difference whether the ends and means of the campaign is licit according to one side's notion of it (be it based on Augustine or John Yoo) - there will be a gap, and it will be messy - especially when it is edited into a video and set to hip hop.

Refusing to engage? Really? I hope you will think about where that leads, especially in a counter-insurgency campaign and how that would then influence the insurgents Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. What would you do in the insurgents shoes if in order to shoot at the counter-insurgent forces and avoid any consequences for those actions you could just terrorize the local populace and hit your enemy by engaging from occupied homes? Wouldn't that then become your Standard Operating Procedure? Again, some of the views I see posted or even written as guests are just not practical and often avoid reality.

"Wouldn't that then become your Standard Operating Procedure?"

According to some - including you - that's already the case, along with the assumption that he does so out of cowardice and in order to avoid the consequences of his actions even when it has been demonstrated time and again that the tactic does not work to that effect.

First of all, in all the time I have spent among Iraqis and Afghans, I haven't once heard a complaint that insurgents were using them as human shields. Really, not once in years of day to day contact. What I did hear them complain of was the escalation of force, particularly by US troops. It doesn't matter whether or not that complaint is justified, it just exists. And that perception of guilt becomes the reality you must deal with. Or fail.

I am not saying that your underlying assumptions are wrong - though I haven't seen them particularly well tested either and I've heard the same arguments from both sides in a number of conflicts.

Let's alter one assumption for a moment and see how it changes the game. Let's say that the insurgent or, more likely, his commander, is a wily bastard who sites himself within the community, not in order to save his own ass but to draw a violent response from the counterinsurgent. He may also have pre-planned his exit route. If he's done his reading (and you really should assume that he has) then he will know that to elicit a reaction that favors force protection over mission success, is another step - for him - on the road to victory.

Your overall analysis is skewed toward self-preservation (and I'm sympathetic to that) but that doesn't get you where you need to go. I think I've said it before here but it's worth repeating my mangling of a Rummy quote: You go to war with the enemy you have, not the one you wished you had.

No Steve, it has not become an SOP, nor did I say it was, it happens but it is not an actual SOP by the insurgents. This debate was about the morality of conflict and how as nice as what the guest writer put up on this blog is it just does not jive with reality, to include your opinion about not engaging. The situation I used is an example and disengaging the enemy is not really an option in that case, you will have to come back and clear them out eventually if you want to secure that village and the safest and least civilian casualty causing way to do that is via ground troops. You claim the assumption is that the insurgent leader is doing this out of cowardice when he occupies the building? No one said that, it is a practical but yet immoral choice, not cowardice.

"First of all, in all the time I have spent among Iraqis and Afghans, I haven't once heard a complaint that insurgents were using them as human shields. Really, not once in years of day to day contact."- I almost cracked up at this comment. In my multiple deployments to the same place, we did not really ask that question nor did we hear about it either, usually it was about how they had no "taliban", no "al queda" but wanted medical and vet aid. Odd huh that they would say that? No taliban or AQ but yet IEDs all around, strange. We still none the less provided medical and vet aid and worked on getting them roads and involved if we could and then oddly again, there was indeed taliban in the area. Strange huh?

"Let's alter one assumption for a moment and see how it changes the game. Let's say that the insurgent or, more likely, his commander, is a wily bastard who sites himself within the community, not in order to save his own ass but to draw a violent response from the counterinsurgent. He may also have pre-planned his exit route. If he's done his reading (and you really should assume that he has) then he will know that to elicit a reaction that favors force protection over mission success, is another step - for him - on the road to victory."- Really? I never would have thought of that MOTO. ;) Also, he is in the community, eventually you will have to go in and get him, maybe you can go at night? Ooops...nope, can't do that unless you have really good cause, it might insult the home owner, but let's say you do so to minmize casualties on both sides. You start with a tactical call out and when that fails you are back to using small arms and men to clear him out of a home there, a home which by the way is set up like a fort. Next hypothetical please.

"Your overall analysis is skewed toward self-preservation (and I'm sympathetic to that) but that doesn't get you where you need to go. I think I've said it before here but it's worth repeating my mangling of a Rummy quote: You go to war with the enemy you have, not the one you wished you had."- One, yes, it is but it is also geared towards the big picture. If you really think that dis-engaging from the enemy every time in a situation like that will somehow lead you to "where you need to go" I can only hope you were not leading men in combat. Using troops on the ground, providing support and protection for the villagers and minimizing civilian casualties as best as possible go to getting us where we "need to go" and our information operations campaign is getting better at getting the word out. As for the Rummy quote, these guys and their tactics are nothing new, to quote another poster "read history".

"I am not saying that your underlying assumptions are wrong - though I haven't seen them particularly well tested either and I've heard the same arguments from both sides in a number of conflicts."-I have seen them tested, we are doing pretty well at the tactical level, which is what this mini-debate has been about, it also goes to the helping at the stategic level by using ground forces vice air units when clearing villages but those villages have to be cleared none the less.

Last point, what we are talking about here mostly relates to small units in a COIN environment, it becomes even less clear cut when doing straight urban assault in a place like the second battle of Falujah for example. Again, your view sounds great on paper, does not cut it when you are on a two way range.

Just about all the rest of the stuff too ; ) (I just sent you my first draft Doug, look for it on AKO).

What we do not expect is for people who are not shooting or being shot at to think we are cops, should wait till we are shot at before returning fire or many of the other classics people ignorant of reality cry about-"he shot him in the back!" , "the guy was already wounded, why did they shoot him again?!", "Why did they shoot him so many times?!", etc...etc...none based on actual combat realities, how humans react or perform in combat, the laws of land warfare yet still so many naive views that are taken seriously. Those type of public opinion "morals" based on TV, the movies or whatever silly media source the ideas may come from are what most in the military consider a hinderance.

You did not say that "My own point is that, for example, if a shooter decides to waste a bunch of folks on mere suspicion, I think we have a serious moral problem. After that extreme example, things get trickier, but the example serves to make my point that right and wrong do exist." or use that as an example in prior posts and I have seen people over and over again, to include those in the military advocate for a use of force more akin to policing in the US than in a combat zone. Usually those people who advocate such things have never been in combat and more often than not have not even been in the military. So while you may think that "No one is trying to shackle the shooter here. No one is arguing for moral sainthood or perfect control in combat.", far too often they are and our leaders, GOs and many others gear ROEs more towards perception than reality, more towards the news than what works and will keep our guys alive. Recall the uproar over the shooting of the wounded Iraqi in Fallujah that was caught on camera? The guy was wounded already but an SOP was to lure our guys in and detonate and IED or other explosive device, on camera it looks clear cut and I am sure many folks, to include those who have served would consider that a bad shooting if they did not know all the facts. Heck look at some of the things people on here have posted in regard to ROEs and moral concepts and still explain to me how I should not shudder at the thought of those same types of people having control over my ROEs? That is my problem with non-line folks making those types of calls and far to often the ideals of morals on the battlefield surpass the reality of what needs to be done on the battlefield in order to stay alive and win. As I have repeatedly said, a lot of this stuff sounds great on paper, in articles, on blogs, etc...but it often does not cut it when you are charged with taking a building down that has both civilians and insurgents in it waiting.

As another moral choice hypothetical for you, if killing large amounts of civilians meant you could actually save both up to 500k of your own troops and perhaps as many as 3 million of the civilians but you had to wipe out two whole cities to do so, would you do it? Think about that for a second, it is the deliberate killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians but in the big picture you save more of your own people and possibly end a war, would you still do it? All of these moral ideals that people have and talk about on here come off as very black and white when that is just not the case always, even at the macro level.

If you want to say we shouldn't just kill people for no reason, say that, NO ONE will disagree with that concept. If you want to say that we should avoid civilian casualties as much as tactically feasible, NO ONE will disagree with that concept either.

Here is what should dictate your actions in a moral sense-

The Situation as it presents itself-a hostage rescue? a total war? COIN? assaulting a position? defending a position? etc...
The Goal of the mission, battle or war
The Enemy and their style of fighting (Yeah folks, it effects it, see the above note on the Fallujah example)
The Men you have-don't expect an Army Convoy Troop to perform or act like a Marine Rifleman for example.

All these things have influence on the choices that are made in the heat of the moment, as they should.

I think that is a pretty fair view with this comment-"That's a great point and the largest part of the "problem"--hell, it sounds like that IS the problem." Pryer however to me is re-inventing the wheel. The incidents that have happened are so few in number that they do not merit a review of the ROEs and are not really effecting the locals view, at least in Afghanistan. Discipline and sloppy leadership are to blame in some incidents but in cases like the Stryker Brigade, I do not believe anything would have prevented that except keeping Sgt. Gibbs out of the military, he is a sociopath. The big moral lapse strategy wise was the use of CAS via planes or UAVs, that was something that the locals were not pleased about and was killing us on the information campaign, now we have over corrected but at least if need be we can still use organic weapons. I do think you are forgetting the rule of unintended consequnces though when it comes to ROEs and what you want. You may not want more restrictive ROEs "necessarily" but that is what always happens, kind of like Congress when they pass a new law that "will help everyone feel (pick your favorite) safer, more free, more competitive, etc..." but they forget about all the other laws piled on from the past, he cumlative effect and how things actually work in the street. Anyway, we are getting into details and those darn shiny objects are getting my attention again....

Morality is something that has never been dropped in the military conversation, we are all still Americans and that is part of who we are and we want to be seen as the good guys. I can't remember who posted the line on this blog about not understanding Americans because one minute we are killing people and the next handing out candy, then someone else commented on that as an apt description of us. Even in WWII war crimes happened but again, just like today, most American's acted with great restraint and morality. Now, how they treated Japanese troops or the SS, well....that is another story.