5 ms·

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 subjectiv

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.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  >So the Americans are evil to impose Karzai's regime on Afghanistan and maintain it by winking at massive election fraud? That situation is actually much more morally and ethically complex than you seem to imply. Let's consider the alternatives: 1: If the Americans had forced Karzai to concede, or otherwise directly interfered in the election process, it would have destroyed the sovereignty of Afghanistan, and been no more democratic than the election fraud it would have displaced. 2: If the Americans had instead withdrawn support completely from Karzai and allowed his regime to collapse, it would not have been his electoral competitor who would have taken power, it would have been the Taliban. And then there would have been no more elections. The situation there is far from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was before, and there is at least a chance of a legitimate election in the future, which brings me to: >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. After the American withdrawal, once the pressure of communist conquest was (temporarily) alleviated, the South had a legitimate election that rejected communism. Then we allowed them to be conquered by the communist NVA. >It didn't matter. Then why did you say it? >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. You have mixed up a sampling of real war crimes, apocryphal incidents, and legitimate actions. The fact that war crimes are sometimes committed does not invalidate the principle of proportionality. >By a strict interpretation, everyone from GW Bush down is a war criminal Only if waterboarding is torture, a point over which there is considerable disagreement. In my profession, everyone must undergo training which includes being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques, up to and including waterboarding. This training is facilitated by individuals who have been subjected to acts that are indisputably torture. The general consensus among my peers is that waterboarding is not torture. YMMV >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." You obviously missed this point: >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. So I'll elaborate a little bit more: there is a clear and precise factor that distinguishes what I am calling "honorable" from what I call "dishonorable:" whether or not civilians are respected as illegitimate targets. This is completely independent of who happens to be dominant at the time. >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. I have no such illusions. Even the best-run fighting forces include at least a small but significant minority of individuals who do illegal and/or dishonorable things, both on and off the battlefield. This does not mean that we shouldn't honor and respect the overwhelming majority who serve with professionalism and honor. As I said elsewhere: >[Your] statement also seems to imply that we should judge the merits of military service on the basis of our political views about the particular wars fought, and on the degree of success achieved. In reality, we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people). The fact that some individuals fail to uphold these ideals, or that even some entire wars arguably do not serve them, does not change the fact that all members of our military are sworn to uphold them and that the overwhelming majority do so honorably.

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.

lucasjung 15y ago
>So the Americans are evil to impose Karzai's regime on Afghanistan and maintain it by winking at massive election fraud? That situation is actually much more morally and ethically complex than you seem to imply. Let's consider the alternatives: 1: If the Americans had forced Karzai to concede, or otherwise directly interfered in the election process, it would have destroyed the sovereignty of Afghanistan, and been no more democratic than the election fraud it would have displaced. 2: If the Americans had instead withdrawn support completely from Karzai and allowed his regime to collapse, it would not have been his electoral competitor who would have taken power, it would have been the Taliban. And then there would have been no more elections. The situation there is far from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was before, and there is at least a chance of a legitimate election in the future, which brings me to: >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. After the American withdrawal, once the pressure of communist conquest was (temporarily) alleviated, the South had a legitimate election that rejected communism. Then we allowed them to be conquered by the communist NVA. >It didn't matter. Then why did you say it? >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. You have mixed up a sampling of real war crimes, apocryphal incidents, and legitimate actions. The fact that war crimes are sometimes committed does not invalidate the principle of proportionality. >By a strict interpretation, everyone from GW Bush down is a war criminal Only if waterboarding is torture, a point over which there is considerable disagreement. In my profession, everyone must undergo training which includes being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques, up to and including waterboarding. This training is facilitated by individuals who have been subjected to acts that are indisputably torture. The general consensus among my peers is that waterboarding is not torture. YMMV >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." You obviously missed this point: >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. So I'll elaborate a little bit more: there is a clear and precise factor that distinguishes what I am calling "honorable" from what I call "dishonorable:" whether or not civilians are respected as illegitimate targets. This is completely independent of who happens to be dominant at the time. >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. I have no such illusions. Even the best-run fighting forces include at least a small but significant minority of individuals who do illegal and/or dishonorable things, both on and off the battlefield. This does not mean that we shouldn't honor and respect the overwhelming majority who serve with professionalism and honor. As I said elsewhere: >[Your] statement also seems to imply that we should judge the merits of military service on the basis of our political views about the particular wars fought, and on the degree of success achieved. In reality, we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people). The fact that some individuals fail to uphold these ideals, or that even some entire wars arguably do not serve them, does not change the fact that all members of our military are sworn to uphold them and that the overwhelming majority do so honorably.