I’m not in favor of killing either, but neither civilians or conscripts want to be shot at or go to war, but neither has a choice. True the conscript fights back, but he is forced to do so against his will. Why is killing someone who is a civilian who is fighting against his will considered moral and acceptable but someone who doesn’t fight at all is considered immoral (at least it is now, in WWII both sides intentionally targeted civilians). If there are levels of unethical conduct, killing civilians would be worse than killing conscripts, but not by much.
Not everyone would agree that it is. War is one country attempting to impose it’s political will on another. Some (like Gen Sherman) would argue that a battle between military forces is simply a duel and that the way to end a war quickly is to bring the horror of war to the people so they pressure their leaders to sue for peace. There are a number of practical reasons why we avoid targeting civilians in modern warfare:
-A desire to limit destruction and death
-To create less resentment for the eventual peace
-Limited strategic value
-Avoid political fallout
Well, provided we assume that the war itself is moral and being fought for a moral reason (which we pretty much have to in order to be able to discuss this question; if the war is immoral, killing anyone in its name is immoral), then killing conscripts becomes moral because it helps win the war. Not killing conscripts would amount to automatically losing the war.
I think that you are asking for a rationalization of war which is an irrational undertaking in the first place. If you are attacked forget rationality and defend yourself by any means possible. If you are not attacked then war should be avoided.
It seems to me that the basic command to everyone in war is, “Shut up and row.” I think the more wars and the more frequently wars are undertaken by a nation the more propaganda rules the scene and the less likely its citizens are to adhere to the idea of independent thinking.
I know this isn’t really responsive to the question asked but I don’t see how it is possible to sort out the various “rules of war” regarding this and that and still be rational.
Hold on, now. Someone who is conscripted is no longer a civilian. And if the conscript is shooting at another side, the other side has no means to tell whether those bullets are being fired willfully or not. Plus, it doesn’t matter: a bullet fired by an unwilling combatant will kill someone just as dead.
Plus, if a civilian is shooting at a military force, the law of war fully allows the military force under attack to defend itself against the armed civilians.
You’re comparing apples and oranges: rather than comparing soldiers and civilians, you should be asking whether why a distinction should be made about killing combatants and non-combatants. A civilian can be a combatant.
Its not about combatants and non-combatants, it is about comparing those willing to fight and those not willing to fight. At the end of the day neither the civilian or conscript wants to fight, and neither had any say in whether they would be subjected to being fired on. Although this is true even of people who voluntarily join the military, people who are conscripted against their will are essentially slaves, and killing the members of a slave military is not much more ethical than killing civilians.
You can kill any soldiers - any enemy soldiers - because otherwise they’d kill you, or someone you’re responsible for. Circular logic, I know, but that’s the way it is. Think of it this way - the more efficiently you kill your enemy, the quicker the war will be over, and the better it will be for everyone.
Besides, how do you know if the man pointing a gun at you is “willing to fight” or not? Conscripts often find motivation. Giving him the benefit of the doubt will award you a nomination for a Darwin Award.
I’m not sure I agree. The conscript isn’t necessarily unwilling to fight.
If they were they could simply choose not to fight and suffer whatever penalty their nation state imposes (If they truly do not believe in fighting.) But there are some conscrpts who may not have volunteered but accept their role once in the army. Once they begin firing on your army they are a legitimate target.
I’d adopt a looser standard than that, meself. If they look like they might begin firing on my army, I’ll blow them away. Quick and the dead, and all.
In the US judicial system if someone kidnaps a family member and holds them hostage, then asks you to either break the law or they will be harmed it is my understanding that short of murder you will not be punished for your acts.
What is the difference between killing a conscript and killing Brian Douglas Wells, who was forced to rob a bank by having a bomb placed around his neck. Neither chooses to be in that situation, and both are only going along for fear of punishment. At least a voluntary military recruit joins willingly.
The problem is I have never heard any talk of it being evil to attack conscripts in military. There is talk of it being evil to attack civilians, but attacking people who fight against their will isn’t very noble either. True, you have to kill them or be killed by them, or at the very least (hopefully) disable their machinery so they can’t fight but i’ve never heard anyone make a distinction between killing unwilling conscripts who only fight out of fear of what will happen to them or their family and say, special forces who voluntarily join the military.
Because it isn’t evil to attack conscripts. How would a soldier know whether or not the enemy was conscripted or a volunteer? If someone is shooting at me I don’t really care at that moment whether he was drafted, a partisan, or some 13 year old kid with an AK-47. In a war you kill the enemy, whether he was drafted or volunteered doesn’t really matter.
Marc
The line between conscript amd volunteer is never that clear, anyway. Conscripts often become very loyal to their comrades and very motivated for their cause; volunteers often serve out of a feeling of obligation that is as strong as any gun pointed to their family’s heads. Killing both is neither evil nor noble, it’s just a fact of life.
When you talk about those who are “not willing combatants,” I take it that we are talking about combatants who would rather not be fighting, but they are fighting, possibly because they fear the consequences of either being thrown in jail for being a draft dodger or shot for being a coward and a traitor.
If this is indeed the type of person you’re talking about, I note that Tolstoy wrote in War and Peace, the great battles of mankind were not the result of the decisions made by a small number of kings or generals. The decision to engage in war was made by each of the thousands of soldiers on each side, who, for whatever reason, chose that picking up arms to kill their enemy was the lesser of two evils, regardless of whether those supposed “evils” were the immorality of war or the fear of the consequences for NOT fighting. If conscripts make the decision that they’d rather fight the enemy than risk being shot as a traitor, then so be it, they have made their bed. I don’t think anyone here is making the point that disarmed combatants who are fleeing the field of battle or who are attempting to surrender should be shot.
To illustrate, if a combatant wants to surrender, the law of war provides that those attempting to surrender should be given protection. Indeed, back in 1991, huge numbers of unwilling Iraqi combatants waived the white flag and were given care, shelter, and three squares per day.
Contrast that with the kind of combatant you’re talking about: he’d really much rather not be shooting at, say, the US armed forces, but he is doing so anyway. How the hell can one of our troops tell from 200 yards away whether that enemy would rather not be fighting us if he is, indeed, shooting at us? How could our military possibly determine that the soldier hiding behind the bush over there is a willing combatant, but the guy shoot at us from behind the tree is a conscript that would rather be at home?
To make an analogy. what is a cop to do when he’s faced with a drug dealer pointing a 9mm at him? Inquire whether the drug dealer felt like he was forced into the job because of his poor upbringing? Or should the cop shoot first to save his life? Or should the cop allow himself to be shot, because shooting a drug dealer who might feel like he had no choice but to pursue his profession could possibly be construed as wrong by armchair philosophers?
You’re attacking this problem from the wrong end. The root of the problem here is policies of conscription that do not allow for consciencous objection.
I’m not talking about not firing on enemy combatants in a war zone as that is unrealistic and too late to do anything about the situation by then. I am talking about the fact that I have never heard anyone condemn the fact that many militaries are made up of unwilling participants. I know its necessary to kill conscripts, but I have never heard of it being condemned as immoral (although it is necessary) or unfortunate.
With wars against terrorism in Israel, Russia, the US, etc both sides are usually in the fight voluntarily. You have insurgents who fight willingly and special forces who fight willingly. Many other wars involve conscripts forced to fight under fear of penalty facing other conscripts in the same situation.
I agree though that conscription that does not allow consciencous objection is a major problem. I am just saying that I haven’t heard condemnation for the fact that militaries end up killing unwilling soldiers. People seem to draw no distinction between a conscript forced to fight and a willing volunteer. True, when they have a gun it doesn’t matter what their motives are but the process leading up to that point is totally different.
So, if a bunch of soldiers are sitting in their barracks, having a nap or shooting the bull, and someone drops a bomb on the barracks, killing them all, do you think that dropping that bomb is an immoral act?
If you think it’s okay to bomb the barracks, do you think it is morally justified to kill the willing conscripts, but not the unwilling conscripts? If we somehow magically learn that a barracks has both professional soldiers and conscripts in it, should the bomb not be dropped because conscripts might be hurt?
Let me be clear: I would tend to agree that if a hard working young man with a family was forced to join the military and was killed in the line of duty, it may well be a tragedy. In such circumstances, I’d probably feel sympathy for his family. But simply because his death can be called a tragedy does not make it immoral for the opposing forces to shoot another soldier.
I think this is pretty much the bottom line; however I don’t doubt that, in a non-combat situation, a reflective soldier probably does have a lot more sympathy with a conscript. A freind who dealt with POWs was in Gulf War 1 told me with sincerity how he felt sorry for the regular Iraqi troops, but when he spoke about the Republican Guards, his tone was significantly different.
Cannonfodder
Uhmm…no. Both Israel and Russia massively rely on conscription.
I’m talking about their special forces units, not their regular army units.
It’s just an accepted fact of life that militaries use conscripts. There are many who feel it’s wrong to draft someone into a war they either don’t understand or find immoral. There were draft riots in New York during the 1860’s and of course many people protesting the draft during the Viet-Nam conflict. I suspect you can find a lot of people who say it’s wrong to draft someone into any conflict.
If something is necessary then I don’t see how it can be immoral. I can see how it might be unfortunate but then again I see it as rather unfortunate that a volunteer is being killed.
Israel uses conscripts in their actions against other nations and “terrorist.” It isn’t just special forces volunteers who are sent into harms way.
Marc