14 ms·

Soldiers have always held worthy adversaries in high regard, respecting them even more highly than allies perceived as unworthy (i.e. allies who are craven, wea

Soldiers have always held worthy adversaries in high regard, respecting them even more highly than allies perceived as unworthy (i.e. allies who are craven, weak, incompetent, etc.). However, the key word there is "worthy." I don't see a lot of vets coming back with a lot of respect for the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. At most, there is the kind of "respect" you give to a dangerous animal: you know it's not just a "dumb" animal, and you know it could strike at any moment without warning, so you have to keep your guard up without fail. I think a big part of this has to do with how they fight: deliberately targeting civilians in order to create terror, killing entire families who are suspected of American sympathies, etc. So if the question is: >Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause? I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably.

plinkplonk 15y ago
"I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably." So an Englishman of the 18th century were to judge an American militiaman as a "dangerous animal" for (a) committing treason to his king to whom he had sworn an oath (b) bushwhacking officers from a forest without standing in straight lines, within gunshot range s in full view of the enemy,- thus fighting "dishonorably" as per the prevailing notions of "honor", he would be right? Whether a cause is "noble" or not depends on who is doing the judgement. An Islamic fanatic who joins the Taliban can sincerely believe that he is fighting on the side of virtue and killing hellbound infidels who disobey God's word. To you his cause isn't noble. As for deliberately targeting citizens, that is precisely what bombing German cities, or Hanoi was. Was dropping the Atom bomb or Hiroshima "honorable"?(Not saying Americans are particularly ignoble. Every army in history does what it takes to win and calls it "honorable", while the oppositions effective, uncounterable tactics often get called "dishonorable". ) What "fighting honorably" means, evolves over time and is almost always out of date. Knights called muskets dishonorable because a peasant could kill a knight from afar. Oh the horror. As did the Samurai. Hey Afghan insurgents think drones are dishonorable. American soldiers think IEDs and suicide bombers are dishonorable. Hmm. English commanders complained that the American soldiers in the American War of Independence didn't fight "honorably" or 'like gentlemen'. Targeting officers was considered dishonorable and criminal. Wellington refused an artillery officer under his command permission to fire his battery at Napoleon because it was 'dishonorable'. Of course, Americans paid no heed because the tactic was effective. Sherman burned Georgia,and after the Civil War used the same tactics against the remnants of the American Indian tribes. These days, incinerating a city full of civilians from the air is "honorable". Poor Sherman was accused of barbarism for burning one city. Coming to modern times, how is a drone attack blowing up a house full of civilians to target one insurgent commander "honorable"? You can argue it is effective. But honorable? You are fighting people with a technology they can't fight back against. Should the Afghan insurgents fight F16s and Abrams with AK 47s while wearing distinctive uniforms so they can be picked off? That doesn't make any sense. As a thought experiment, if you were an Afghan whose family were killed because drone operators half the world away mistook a wedding party for an insurgent group, would you be worried about conforming to the invaders notion of "honor"? Martin Van Creveld has written a whole book, aptly titled "The Transformation of War" where he gives dozens of examples of practices that switched from "honorable" to dishonorable and vice versa with the passage of time. (From Wikipedia). The book's significance is attested to by the fact that until the middle of 2008, it was included on the list of required reading for United States Army officers, and (with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) the third non-American entry on the list.. Well worth reading. Here is a sample of his writing. "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle" http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ I don't always agree with Van Creveld but he makes me think.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  I agree to a certain extent that the definition of "noble" is subject to a degree of interpretation. However, I reject the idea that it is completely subjective. You might make an argument either way that fighting to impose representative government is noble or not (or effective or not, etc.), but fighting to impose an oppressive regime is always evil. In regards to fighting "honorably," you set up a huge strawman there. Note that I never said anything about ambushes or roadside bombs. I agree that particular tactics and weapons are, for the most part, orthogonal to the concept of "fighting honorably." When I talked about "dishonorable combat," I talked about the deliberate targeting of civilians. Other examples might include perfidy (e.g. wearing the enemy's uniforms), fighting without any sort of uniform or identifying insignia, using human shields, or fighting from a protected location (e.g. a sniper in a hospital or church/mosque). War should be fought between combatants, and acts that either deliberately target non-combatants, or which deliberately make it harder for your enemy to tell you apart from non-combatants are dishonorable. As an aside, I doubt very highly if your notional American militiaman had sworn any oath to the King of England. The closest you get to actually addressing my statements about honor are your examples of collateral damage. One example (the wedding party) is easy to refute: it was not deliberate. The others all involve the destruction of civilian targets in concert with legitimate military targets. This has always happened, and will always happen, in war. Whether or not a particular instance is justified must be judged by the criterion of proportionality[1]. Interestingly, your examples show how, under this concept, acceptable levels of collateral damage of lowered with the improvement of technology in recent history: in WWII, it was sometimes necessary to destroy entire cities in order to achieve legitimate military goals. Today, precision weapons can take out individual structures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#International_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#Internati...
  - plinkplonk 15y ago
    "You might make an argument either way that fighting to impose representative government is noble or not (or effective or not, etc.), but fighting to impose an oppressive regime is always evil." So the Americans are evil to impose Karzai's regime on Afghanistan and maintain it by winking at massive election fraud? ;). No elections were held in South Vietnam because it was widely known in the American Administration that Ho and co would have won hands down. "I doubt very highly if your notional American militiaman had sworn any oath to the King of England." It didn't matter. For a subject (and pre independence, the people who lived in America were the subjects of George 3) to take up arms against his sovereign was treason, by the laws in place at the time, and the notions of honor in place at the time. Kings had "God given" rights to rule as they pleased. Of course,in practice, rebellions happned all the time, noble or not, legal or not and if you won, you weren't a traitor anymore. viz the Shakespearean quote about how treason never prospers because if you prosper in treason then you can redefine the meaning to make yourself a hero. The Americans won. So they are "freedom fighters". If they had lost they would be mutinous traitors. "in WWII, it was sometimes necessary to destroy entire cities in order to achieve legitimate military goals. " And it was sometimes necessary to destroy Vietnamese villages to save them. Or waterboard and torture people to get information. Or drop an atom bomb on civilians to avoid casualties to your own armies in "honorable" combat against uniform wearing (but stubborn) foes. Use napalm against unarmed villagers. etc etc. Rendition and torture innocents. Protect mercenaries from prosecution etc. If the people who do the defining of what a "legitimate military goal" is , can break the "laws of war" at will (the Geneva Conventions, which you quote also ban torture for example. By a strict interpretation, everyone from GW Bush down is a war criminal), and quote "military necessity" then they have no meaning any more except as political fig leaves. All your examples of "dishonourable" fighting serves to illustrate my point that tactics which are effective against the dominant powers of the day are 'dishonorable' and as soon as they are adopted by them they become "honorable." However if it makes you uncomfortable not to think of the US Army as some kind of paragons of honor and virtue fighting the forces of evil, go right ahead. To each his illusions.
astine 15y ago
I agree with most of what you've said here, I don't know why folks have voted you down for it.

plinkplonk 15y ago

"I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably." So an Englishman of the 18th century were to judge an American militiaman as a "dangerous animal" for (a) committing treason to his king to whom he had sworn an oath (b) bushwhacking officers from a forest without standing in straight lines, within gunshot range s in full view of the enemy,- thus fighting "dishonorably" as per the prevailing notions of "honor", he would be right? Whether a cause is "noble" or not depends on who is doing the judgement. An Islamic fanatic who joins the Taliban can sincerely believe that he is fighting on the side of virtue and killing hellbound infidels who disobey God's word. To you his cause isn't noble. As for deliberately targeting citizens, that is precisely what bombing German cities, or Hanoi was. Was dropping the Atom bomb or Hiroshima "honorable"?(Not saying Americans are particularly ignoble. Every army in history does what it takes to win and calls it "honorable", while the oppositions effective, uncounterable tactics often get called "dishonorable". ) What "fighting honorably" means, evolves over time and is almost always out of date. Knights called muskets dishonorable because a peasant could kill a knight from afar. Oh the horror. As did the Samurai. Hey Afghan insurgents think drones are dishonorable. American soldiers think IEDs and suicide bombers are dishonorable. Hmm. English commanders complained that the American soldiers in the American War of Independence didn't fight "honorably" or 'like gentlemen'. Targeting officers was considered dishonorable and criminal. Wellington refused an artillery officer under his command permission to fire his battery at Napoleon because it was 'dishonorable'. Of course, Americans paid no heed because the tactic was effective. Sherman burned Georgia,and after the Civil War used the same tactics against the remnants of the American Indian tribes. These days, incinerating a city full of civilians from the air is "honorable". Poor Sherman was accused of barbarism for burning one city. Coming to modern times, how is a drone attack blowing up a house full of civilians to target one insurgent commander "honorable"? You can argue it is effective. But honorable? You are fighting people with a technology they can't fight back against. Should the Afghan insurgents fight F16s and Abrams with AK 47s while wearing distinctive uniforms so they can be picked off? That doesn't make any sense. As a thought experiment, if you were an Afghan whose family were killed because drone operators half the world away mistook a wedding party for an insurgent group, would you be worried about conforming to the invaders notion of "honor"? Martin Van Creveld has written a whole book, aptly titled "The Transformation of War" where he gives dozens of examples of practices that switched from "honorable" to dishonorable and vice versa with the passage of time. (From Wikipedia). The book's significance is attested to by the fact that until the middle of 2008, it was included on the list of required reading for United States Army officers, and (with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) the third non-American entry on the list.. Well worth reading. Here is a sample of his writing. "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle" http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ I don't always agree with Van Creveld but he makes me think.

lucasjung 15y ago
I agree to a certain extent that the definition of "noble" is subject to a degree of interpretation. However, I reject the idea that it is completely subjective. You might make an argument either way that fighting to impose representative government is noble or not (or effective or not, etc.), but fighting to impose an oppressive regime is always evil. In regards to fighting "honorably," you set up a huge strawman there. Note that I never said anything about ambushes or roadside bombs. I agree that particular tactics and weapons are, for the most part, orthogonal to the concept of "fighting honorably." When I talked about "dishonorable combat," I talked about the deliberate targeting of civilians. Other examples might include perfidy (e.g. wearing the enemy's uniforms), fighting without any sort of uniform or identifying insignia, using human shields, or fighting from a protected location (e.g. a sniper in a hospital or church/mosque). War should be fought between combatants, and acts that either deliberately target non-combatants, or which deliberately make it harder for your enemy to tell you apart from non-combatants are dishonorable. As an aside, I doubt very highly if your notional American militiaman had sworn any oath to the King of England. The closest you get to actually addressing my statements about honor are your examples of collateral damage. One example (the wedding party) is easy to refute: it was not deliberate. The others all involve the destruction of civilian targets in concert with legitimate military targets. This has always happened, and will always happen, in war. Whether or not a particular instance is justified must be judged by the criterion of proportionality[1]. Interestingly, your examples show how, under this concept, acceptable levels of collateral damage of lowered with the improvement of technology in recent history: in WWII, it was sometimes necessary to destroy entire cities in order to achieve legitimate military goals. Today, precision weapons can take out individual structures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#International_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#Internati...
- plinkplonk 15y ago
  "You might make an argument either way that fighting to impose representative government is noble or not (or effective or not, etc.), but fighting to impose an oppressive regime is always evil." So the Americans are evil to impose Karzai's regime on Afghanistan and maintain it by winking at massive election fraud? ;). No elections were held in South Vietnam because it was widely known in the American Administration that Ho and co would have won hands down. "I doubt very highly if your notional American militiaman had sworn any oath to the King of England." It didn't matter. For a subject (and pre independence, the people who lived in America were the subjects of George 3) to take up arms against his sovereign was treason, by the laws in place at the time, and the notions of honor in place at the time. Kings had "God given" rights to rule as they pleased. Of course,in practice, rebellions happned all the time, noble or not, legal or not and if you won, you weren't a traitor anymore. viz the Shakespearean quote about how treason never prospers because if you prosper in treason then you can redefine the meaning to make yourself a hero. The Americans won. So they are "freedom fighters". If they had lost they would be mutinous traitors. "in WWII, it was sometimes necessary to destroy entire cities in order to achieve legitimate military goals. " And it was sometimes necessary to destroy Vietnamese villages to save them. Or waterboard and torture people to get information. Or drop an atom bomb on civilians to avoid casualties to your own armies in "honorable" combat against uniform wearing (but stubborn) foes. Use napalm against unarmed villagers. etc etc. Rendition and torture innocents. Protect mercenaries from prosecution etc. If the people who do the defining of what a "legitimate military goal" is , can break the "laws of war" at will (the Geneva Conventions, which you quote also ban torture for example. By a strict interpretation, everyone from GW Bush down is a war criminal), and quote "military necessity" then they have no meaning any more except as political fig leaves. All your examples of "dishonourable" fighting serves to illustrate my point that tactics which are effective against the dominant powers of the day are 'dishonorable' and as soon as they are adopted by them they become "honorable." However if it makes you uncomfortable not to think of the US Army as some kind of paragons of honor and virtue fighting the forces of evil, go right ahead. To each his illusions.

astine 15y ago

I agree with most of what you've said here, I don't know why folks have voted you down for it.