Hierchal value of life in wartime. What should be the order?

Great Debates
21

I realize the question lends itself to discussions of overall human life and the measures thereof. Maybe we should re-focus a bit.

You are a head of state. You are at war. Aggressor/defender, doesn’t matter right now. You are charged with crafting policies, broad-ranging policies, for the conduct of this war. Your advisors evaluate each policy and give you feeback based on the amount of impact these policies are likely to have on the five groups in discussion. Your civilians, your troops, neutrals, their civilians, their troops. If a policy is in front of you and your advisors tell you it is likely to increase the danger to one of these groups(such as moving troops in to block an advance) and decrease the danger to another group(such as the civilians which would be protected by the troop movement), and they give you estimated body counts(with no numbers smaller than a few hundred) of each group based on each policy. It is your job to weight each of these numbers based on how important protecting these groups are relative to each other.

So you’ve got numbers, but how do you assign the weights?

Enjoy,
Steven

22

One thing we’re overlooking here is what kind of war we are talking about.

If we’re talking about a traditional, stand-up fight between two nations’ armies, then at some point, the enemy’s civilians should be considered part of what makes the enemy capable of continuing the war. World War II is replete with examples of this doctrine.

However, in a lopsided fight or insurgency, then civilian casualties should be minimized as much as is reasonable.

As for me, I’m firmly on the side of my side, then their side, in the decreasing order of worthiness:

[ul]
[li]Our Civilians[/li][li]Our military[/li][li]Their civilians[/li][li]Their military[/li][/ul]

23

But civs aren’t cogs in a machine. Sure, they may be manufacturing weapons to use against us, but it’s just their jobs; most people have no true feelings about a war one way or another, they just want it to end. And in many cases, civs don’t want to do their jobs, they don’t want to build tanks or manufacture propaganda, but they have no choice. If they don’t do it they’ll DIE. They certainly didn’t sign up to be part of the war machine, as soldiers (both ours and theirs) did.

Basically, for me it comes down to “who do I have more in common with?” I sure feel a lot more kinship with the average Iraqi worker, a man or woman trying to live their life the best way they can, than I do with an American commando who voluntarily signed up to kill and die in a war (something I can’t comprehend doing). Why do you (or anyone) feel more emotionally connected to someone just because they’re American? Or does emotional connection have nothing to do with it?

24

Maybe, but in a “total war” as described in WWII, the civilian population is what enables the troops at the front to continue fighting. Eliminate them, or their desire to continue producing war materiel and new troops, and you eliminate the nation’s ability to fight, thereby ending the war.

I suspect that most of the US and British civilians in World War 2 did not have the attitudes you describe- nobody forced anyone to work in our factories- it was voluntary and they were paid. There are plenty of stories about extraordinary efforts by workers to improve production and effect repairs in record time to help the war effort. Things that peacetime workers would not do.

Do a thought experiment and consider the situation if we had not started systematically destroying Japanese cities and war production through B-29 raids. It’s likely that the war would have gone on longer, and been far bloodier, probably overall, but for sure on the Allied side.

As for whether I feel any emotional connection, sure I do. It’s just that for me, Iraqis are people living thousands of miles away, who have a foreign language, foreign customs, and who probably hate me for no reason other than where I was born.

That American volunteer soldier, however, could be my friend’s brother, my co-worker’s son, a friend of mine, a guy who went to my high school, etc… At least in my part of the country and my social circles, it’s not uncommon to know people whose sons, daughters and spouses are in the military.

While I don’t feel a particularly large amount of kinship with the soldiers themselves, I sure do feel a lot with their families.

Iraqis… well, I don’t feel any more or less kinship with them than anyone else who isn’t part of my sphere of influence.

25

**All life is equal.
**
From the blue whale to the smallest microbe. Even life we cannot understand. Until we understand this, we will continue to kill each other. Maybe we can get it right next war and smoke the whole lot of us. The planet would be better off.

26

Yeah, but the same thing is true of soldiers. They’re not just cogs in a machine, they generally want the war to end too, and if they don’t do their jobs, there’s a chance they’ll die too. And a lot of soldiers (although not US soldiers since Vietnam) didn’t voluntarily “sign up”…most soldiers are conscripts who are fighting because they have to, and, when their term of service is up, will go back to being civilians.

27

I’d have to say that the list, in the order in Steven’s op is the way that most national leaders would follow.

Depending on the nation which is currently on the offensive (as opposed to agressor,) the numbers of people in group 3 (enemy civilians) who bleed will vary. More technologically advanced and socially responsable forces (NATO and even a few former Pact nations) will limit civilian casualties because, as noted in one reply, many civilians on the opposite side of the lines aren’t doing anything to really further the war effort, and carpet bombing is both expensive and counter productive. Depending on sentiment, it will sap the will or galvanize it. 50/50 chance.

The one problem I have with the op is the fact that he states that this is at the level of the nation-state. Most of us would be more able to understand the level of say, fire team leader, squad leader, platoon commander. Somewhere between four and sixty men. I had nine guys under me when I was in Iraq. At that point my view with regards to protecting people was:

My men.

That’s it. We did not go on bloody rampages through civilian houses and we did not intetionally attack civilians. But if we were drawing sniper fire from the top floor of what was nominally a civilian home, we’d rip it with a .50, break in the door, and mop up the place. Rarely were there civilians involved. Once, there was an older fellow who took a fragment to his hip. We cleaned him up and he was payed personal damages by the CPA. Anyway, the sensable commander realizes that the farest fight is the one in which all of his men come home whole and healthy. I would not want to serve anyone who’d trade my life to prevent the risk of harming a civilian on the other side of the wire (now, if we’re actively trying to protect that ‘enemy’ civilian, that’s another story.)

28

Can we assume for the sake of the argument that “my side” is waging a just war? That is to say, the war is in furtherance of some morally justified end.

In that case, I think the ultimate end of winning the war needs to be considered.

Assuming that bringing about an end to the war, with victory for my side, will save lives overall, the rank ought to be:
[ul][li]The mission[]My civilians[]Neutral civilians[]My soldiers[]Enemy civilians[]Neutral soldiers[]Enemy soldiers[/ul][/li]
But, as has been mentioned, there is going to be overlap. One might consider sacrificing a hundred neutral civilians to save a thousand of my soldiers.

Regards,
Shodan

29

Thank you for your service.

Regards,
Shodan

30

The reason I scoped the OP as I did was because that is the level at which civilians have some input into shaping policy in a western-style democracy, via communication with the executive and voting. People don’t vote for fire team, squad, or platoon leaders, nor should they. The chain of command needs to be independent of the whims of voters except at the very top strategic level where the executive is responsible to his constituents. The executive should be responsible to the people, but the chain of command should be independent except for that position.

I think this is a necessary demarcation to give the distance needed to make the kind of decisions the commander in chief has to make. A small unit’s commander would, out of love and friendship for his unit, probably not have the kind of detatchment from the men which would be necessary to order them into danger. The personal attachment from daily interaction would be almost impossible to overcome. This is as it should be. I’m not sure any psychologically healthy individual could have a daily relationship and maintain enough detatchment to initiate(versus merely follow) an objective which would put his men in danger. The strategic decisions have to be made by someone with distance from the troops on the ground, not without empathy for them of course, but with enough distance to be able to weigh their lives versus the strategic objectives.

I think this is implicit in the parameters of the OP. Every national leader thinks they’re they one which is justified, unless they’re insane(like some ancient Roman emperors) and that case isn’t really worth talking about. So from the PoV we’re considering, yes it is a “just” war as an axiom.

Enjoy,
Steven

31

I don’t think your list logically results from this assumption. Putting the mission first makes sense, but why putting “my civilians” above “neutral civilians”, for instance?

32

Mostly because I am assuming a just war. Therefore, there is (to some extent) a moral duty to cooperate in bringing about the just end, which is not accomplished by remaining neutral.

I am assuming that “my civilians” are cooperating with the rest of the country in waging the war to the extent that civilians should - industrial production, moral support, etc. - and that neutral civilians are not.

In individual cases, this might not be true - the US was officially “neutral” before Pearl Harbor, but still had a Lend-Lease program with Great Britain.

I also think you owe a greater moral duty to your own countrymen, particularly in wartime, than to others. Enough, in other words, to bump “my civilians” ahead of “neutral civilians”, but not enough to bump “my soldiers” ahead of “neutral civilians”.

Not that it won’t usually end up a judgment call anyway. You might even want to sacrifice a large number of neutral civilians (thru inaction, say) to bring their country into the war on your side and thus end the war and achieve its goals sooner.

Regards,
Shodan

33

Except when you can’t tell the difference between their civilians and their soldiers. In that case, you class them all as their soldiers and act accordingly.

34

Civilians in a democracy are pretty responsible for what their governments do, I think.

I despise George Bush’s actions in Iraq, but I am responsible for them all the same.

35

I’m not sure I buy this. I think citizens of a democracy are only responsible for their own actions, and when they have some reasonable way to change the situation but don’t take it.

I would say that if you voted against Bush, you have done what you can to distance yourself from his actions. The fact that a majority of your fellow citizens overruled your part of that decision more or less absolves you. It’s not like you could do much more.

I suppose you could renounce your citizenship, but that may not be reasonable. Neither would attempts at impeachment. Which leaves, what, assassination? Not reasonable, I think - especially since Cheney would continue the same course (as would the Speaker of the House), probably hardened in their resolve as the US was after 9/11.

I am not accusing you of this, but your position reminds me too much of the idea that we were responsible for 9/11.

War-like action against civilians might be unavoidable, they might be justifiable, but that is not because they are responsible.

Regards,
Shodan

36

To move to the actual war the US is fighting now, there are no enemy civilians, right? We’re there to help them. And since we can’t tell the difference between the civilians and the soldiers, maybe we shouldn’t kill any of them. Or do you think we should kill them all?

37

We all heard that one before.

When ObL declared war on US and the West in 1998 and called on his supporters to kill all Americans anywhere, he justified himself by saying that US already invaded and oocupied Muslim world long time ago. So no pity for “little Eichmanns”.

Ward?

38

Well I heard all the crap in this OP before…

Hmm, we are killing civilians.
Wasn’t that wrong?
Hmm, we can’t be doing something wrong, that’s impossible.
So, let’s redefine what is wrong so that we come out with that sometimes isn’t wrong to kill civilians.

Hmm, we are waging a war of agression…
Wasn’t that wrong?
Hmm, we can’t be doing something wrong, that’s impossible.
So, let’s redefine what is wrong so that we come out with that sometimes it’s all right to invade others without cause.

Hmm we are torturing POW’s…
Wasn’t that wrong?
Hmm, we can’t be doing something wrong, that’s impossible.
So, let’s redefine what is wrong so that they are no longer POW’s

etc

Or we could just cry 'Well at least we are not as bad as the Nazi’s so we are still OK.

39

If you are Dutch, seeing your location, I’d think a bit about our own war history before being sarcastic [if that’s what it was] about someone else’s.

40

I was wondering if I should write ‘Well, we are not as bet as them (insert other bad doer), so we’re still OK’

But that usually devolves into ‘Well, we’re still not Nazi’s’

Next you will come with Realpolitik, yes?