Friday, January 30, 2009

Ethics of War, part 2

In continuing the discussion of ethics in war, I want to now focus on the decision to enter war. War by definition causes loss of life, usually both civilian and military. So when is it justifiable, and when is it not?

I initially looked for a definition to post for why a country has a military to begin with, but definitions available are either vague (e.g. webster's) or uncited (e.g. wikipedia). Given that, all that follows is from my head, so feel free to disagree as you see fit.

Almost every country has a military of some sort, with the number 1 goal of protecting it's people from outside attackers. Thus, there's usually a Department of Defense or such put in charge. So, if a country is attacked by invading forces on its sovereign territory, it seems necessary to engage in war to defend itself. Yet this is only a clear cut decision when there's an immediate threat on your home turf that must be stopped, with a recognizable foreign army playing by a set of international rules. What happens when you're attacked on foreign soil, such has been the case with embassy bombings of the US throughout the world? If you're being attacked sporadically, does it still count as an imminent threat? And if you knew your country was going to be attacked tomorrow, would it be morally justifiable to preemptively strike?

Now, there's also the diplomatic approach to solving conflict, without engaging in an all out war. Obviously, diplomacy takes fewer lives than war, and thus a quick diplomatic solution would be preferable. Yet in the case of an invading army, talking will do little if they gain control of your cities. In the case of isolated attacks, how long does one hold off military response while pursuing diplomatic pressure? Even in negotiations, prior military restraint might decrease your country's standing and thus negotiating ability. Depending on the point in history and location in the world, willingness to negotiate may be seen as a strength or a weakness. Additionally, if your "enemy's" goal is to destroy your country, can you really even negotiate?

Lastly, when living in a country with one of the world's strongest military powers, don't we have a responsibility to use our might to protect those who cannot defend themselves? With genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, etc, one might see us obligated to be engaged around the world, as a moral police force of sorts, even though it risks the lives of our citizens. If we take this premise of moral responsibility, yet the need for our intervention exceeds our ability, how do we decide where to deploy our soldiers? In deciding between two equally justified engagements, is it ethical to be selfish and choose the one that might bring financial benefit to us? Or does that cross the line of risking our lives for financial gain?

Monday, January 12, 2009

The ethics of war, part I

While the majority of my recent comments/posts have been in support of Israel's actions in Gaza, it's mainly a protest against the double-standards applied to Israel when compared to the rest of the world, in the media, at the UN, and around the world. If one is a pacifist, and anti-war at all times, while I disagree with you, I can respect your current criticisms of Israel. You are consistently applying ethical principles to Israel as you do every other country in the world.

However, for those of us who believe that war is sometimes necessary, yet do not like the conditions of war, there are much harder questions to answer about the morality of war. How do we decide what is moral in war? When is it moral to enter into war, and what defines ethical behavior during it?

Let me be entirely clear, by international law regarding war, Israel has every right to defend its citizens as it is currently doing. There is no definition of proportionality in war, a country keeps a strong army as both a deterrent and to defend itself to its utmost ability if necessary. Yet the violence and harm to civilians in Gaza currently is deeply unsettling for me. This blog is therefore not about legality and justification, but how a military in general should handle morality. The very nature of a war means that you value the lives of your soldiers and citizens more than the lives of your enemy. But what is the exchange rate?

From a sheer numbers game, you risk the lives of your soldiers less when you have an air attack, bombing the crap out of anywhere the enemy combatants may lie. Yet in doing so, the risk of injury to their civilians increases dramatically, particularly when armed militants use human shields. If you truly value life in general, do you send your troops in on the ground, where their lives are more at risk but the damage to the opposition's civilians will be decreased? How do you balance the two?

With guerilla warfare, one has to decide in a split second whether the woman running toward you needs medical attention, or has a bomb strapped to her chest. For an individual soldier, the mere definition of war is bound to have psychological impact, so I find it hard to imagine not being trigger happy in such a scenario, and in most encounters. How does a country advise/instruct ethical behavior of its soldiers with such a scenario?

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Sickness and courtesy

So I figured I'd break up the political posts with something everyone can relate to at this time of year: being sick. I write this from home, where I was sent to take care of myself by my labmates. Funny thing is, in comparison to the way I was feeling on New Years day, I feel great. Until they said something about it, it would never have occurred to me to take today off. This got me thinking: what do we owe ourselves and others to do when we're not feeling well?

When it comes to ourselves, the majority of my friends and I are workaholics to some degree or another: we invest time into our professions because we somewhat enjoy them and enjoy the feeling of productivity in general. So when it comes to ourselves, we often fight to work through whatever currently ails us to make progress on the never-ending to-do lists. For me personally, I tend to set the threshold of a sick day at when the sickness actually impedes my ability to do work, which is very rarely. The downside to setting a threshold so high is that it inevitably takes me longer to fight off the disease when I'm running constantly.

The other unintentional side effect is our ability to transmit the disease to others. Obviously no one wants to make their friends/co-workers ill, but often our desire to "tough it out" increases our risk of transmission. When I first started feeling sick in new york last week, it didn't even occur to me not to stay with friends and family I had come to visit. Now looking back on it, should I have? What is the ethical and responsible behavior choice here? Should we remove ourselves from all social activity while we are sick, or is there some middle ground?

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Civilians and the media

As the media likes to show coverage of, a great number of palestinians have been caught in the crossfire of the latest fighting. It's a terrible shame that innocent men, women, and children are injured or killed during the fighting, and I empathize with their feelings of anger and frustration. Yet the media would have you blame the Israelis. The common argument goes something like this: if more innocent palestinians are injured/killed than innocent Israelis, obviously we need to support the side fighting for the palestinians, Hamas.

There are multiple flaws with this reasoning. First off, there is no moral equivalency between indiscriminantly shelling civilians, and targeted strikes on terrorists with civilian collateral. If your goal is to maim as many civilians as possible, how can the international community sympathize with your cause? This is an entirely different tactic than the goal of the Israelis, who have been phoning their targets to warn the residents to evacuate in advance of an airstrike, to try to minimize the harm to civilians.

This leads me to the second flaw: who is to blame for palestinian civilian deaths? Israel has a number of unmanned aerial vehicles that have been monitoring Gaza, which they use to look for the sites of rockets launched (usually from the backs of trucks), and rewind the videos to find the origin of the trucks (i.e. the site of rocket storage). When terrorists choose mosques, schools, and hospitals as their base to store or launch rockets, they purposely endanger the lives of all the civilians in these locations in exchange for media sympathy. They alone bare the responsibility for the innocents injured.

Compare this to the Israelis. The residents of Sderot and other cities being targeted are largely not losing their lives. Why? Because Israel's government does everything it can to prevent it, created a warning system, built shelters for the people, and has technologically savvy medical care that saves lives. The efficacy of its warning system and emergency care does not negate the intended threat of Hamas rockets.

Lastly, let's not forget the violence on the palestinians directly at the hands of Hamas operatives. In recent days, a number of suspected Israeli "collaborators" have been killed or tortured. Fatah (Hamas' rival political faction) leaders have been kept on house arrest, have had limbs broken, and otherwise threatened by Hamas. This is all in the name of maintaining political control of Gaza.

When an organization is so willing to take and risk the lives of their citizens, the international community needs to stop showing them sympathy. Feel sorry for the palestinians indeed, but realize it's at the hands of a morally reprehensible leadership that they suffer.

Gaza and the Media

By now most people have heard about the "Crisis in Gaza" from the various news outlets. On CNN, the story went something like this: Israeli airstrikes kill hundreds of palestinians, including many civilians... and oh yeah, Hamas is firing some rockets into Israel. How on earth is one to get the full picture from this nonsense?

Let me be perfectly clear: since 2005, when Israel withdrew its presence in Gaza, over 7,500 rockets have been fired into southern Israeli. The rockets are indiscriminant, and have equal chances of hitting a school, hospital, or someone's kitchen, and are packed with shards of metal and glass with the aim to injure as many Israelis as possible. For the past few years, residents of the Israeli town of Sderot have grown accustomed to daily warnings from the rocket detection system, which gives them about 30 seconds to run for cover. Outdoor playgrounds are unused, because teachers can't round up a classful of children and bring them to shelter in time. Residents often shower with a door open so they can hear the alarm, rarely go outdoors, and over 50% know someone who has been injured or killed by a rocket attack. A large percentage of children are now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

In the past 6 months, Egypt brokered a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. In contrast to what most would consider to be a cease fire (i.e. all fire ceasing), the cease-fire decreased rockets being fired, down to about 2-3 a day, and in return Israel did not target Hamas operatives. The latest airstrikes and ground operations came because Hamas refused to renew this cease fire. Let me ask you, how many rockets fired from Mexico would the people of California be willing to put up with before urging the government to respond? Why does the international community pressure Israel to show restraint, when no country would be willing to put up with daily attacks on its civilian population without responding?