The first is that the “act is good in itself or at least indifferent, which means for our purposes, that it is a legitimate act of war.”[7] The My Lai Massacre is certainly not good in itself as killing non-combatants should not be. Killing can, however be a legitimate act of war, which is the point of using this doctrine, but the beating to death of the villagers and the raping are not legitimate because they only cause harm.[8]
The Second is that “the direct effect is morally acceptable-the destruction of military supplies, for example, or the killing of enemy soldiers”[9]
“3) The intention of the actor is good, that is he aims only at the acceptable effect; the evil is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends.”[10]
“4) The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for allowing the evil effect; it must be justifiable under Sidgwick’s proportionality rule”[11]
Under DDE the My Lai massacre comfortably fails these conditions making it an atrocity, but how it fails each condition is important to show how war could be fought without atrocity.
3) The intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims narrowly at the acceptable effect; the evil effect is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends, and, aware of the evil involved, he seeks to minimize it, accepting costs to himself.
What is war? Just War.
Paraphrasing Lord Kitchener some argue that “all war is an atrocity”[12], perhaps arguing for a pacifist stance[13] which as a generalisation argues that there is no justification for war.[14] However even if ideally they would be no war in the world, the fact is that war is still a regular occurrence in the world today and it is better to have a system that encourages just conduct in war and just cause to go to war namely a just war theory.[15] Although Clausewitz may view war as limitless[16] or guided by a Hobbesian “necessity of nature”[17] it is in fact guided by rules made up through international law such as the Geneva Conventions (1949) and other treaties and agreements between nation states. Nevertheless war is still hell most of the time,[18] because it involves killing and there is no coming back from being killed. This state encourages us to break with restraints.[19] Therefore there is a need to protect from atrocity, whereby non-combatants are killed as per the above definition. It is important to know whether a political community is fighting a just war, because if it is not just then even if they fight in a just way the aggressor is responsible for all the consequences including and especially the death of non-combatants.[20] Therefore philosophers have developed principles that govern the rules for starting a war. These principles are: just cause, competent authority, comparative justice, right intention, and limited objective, and as a last resort, reasonable hope of success, proportionality and lastly discrimination.[21] This essay is more concerned with just conduct in war, but the point to take from here is that if a conflict is not just then all killing by the aggressor is unjust and therefore an atrocity, so atrocity is integral to all unjust wars.
Nevertheless we still condemn criminal acts in unjust war[22] as well as in just wars.
Targeting Non-combatants in Just wars
Pg 127 argues duties are the same whether fighting wars of aggression or defense.
Pg 127 moral equals believe wars are just !!
Pg 128 so long as they fight in accordance with the rules of law, no condemnation is possible
Pg 129 rules of war rule out only purposeless or wanton violence.
Pg 132 so long as defeat follows from what are widely regarded as legitimate acts of war, it is at least possible that it will leave behind no festering resentment, no sense of scores unsettled, no deeply felt need for individual or collective revenge.
Pg 134 rape is a crime
Pg 143 soldiers letters describing not killing lone enemies . "But perpetual harassment, sniping, ambush, surprise attack-all these would be ruled out. Wars have indeed been fought this way, but the arrangements have never stable."
When do non-combatants turn into combatants?
Pg 146 when engaged it an activity that is soley a military activity. Like making weapons. Cannot be attacked at home.
Therefore My lai
Pg 36 level of hatred high in the trenches as if the enemy soldiers were personally responsible
Pg 37 crime of fighting on the evil side therefore don't deserve respect
Pg 42 2nd set of rules of war. Set certain classes of people outside the permissible range of warfare.
Pg 47 greatest kindness is to end war quickly. Employ all means except those that are absolutely objectionable.
Pg 76 Preventative war and the balance of power
Pg 80 hence the moral necessity of rejecting any attack that is merely preventive in character, that does not wait upon and respond to the willful acts of an adversary.
Pg 85 force maybe used whenever failure to do so... Pre-emptive strike...
Pg 105 searching for a level of conflict at which our technological superiority could be brought to bear, we steadily escalated the struggle,
Pg 97 Vietnam could have been defended as assistance to a legitimate government and secondly as counter-intervention
Vs response to aggression.
Pg 101 humanitarian intervention
Pg 107 HI justified in response to acts ... Shock moral conscience of mankind
Causes of Atrocities
Although atrocities can happen in civilian life such as where serial killers like Harold Shipman or Ted Bundy try to avoid detection of their crimes, in war it can often be done more openly. Realists apologise for atrocity in war by saying “yes, our soldiers committed atrocities in the course of the battle, but that’s what war does to people, that’s what war is like”[23] and that atrocity is results from “duress and necessity.”[24] However that is an unsatisfactory answer because it does not explain why some wars have more incidents of atrocities such as My Lai[25] in Vietnam[26] compared to others. If wars have differing amounts of atrocity surely it is possible to encourage conditions that reduce the incidence and maybe to have a war without atrocity. Osiel argues that “the social organization of military life and the experience of combat have fostered atrocities”[27] and shows how they have fostered atrocities in 4 ways:
“(1) by stimulating violent passions among the troops ("from below"); (2) through organized directed campaigns of terror ("from above"); (3) by tacit connivance between higher and lower echelons, each with its own motives; and (4) by brutalization of subordinates to foster their aggressiveness in combat.”[28]
The first cause of atrocity “from below”[29] happens when individual soldiers, as creatures of desire, are able to indulge their passions: for women, alcohol, food, revenge of lost comrades, or simple blood lust.[30] These base desires may be easier to conceal under the confusion of war as opposed to in civilian life, but they are more atrocities committed in war especially in Vietnam then there are incidents of serial killers in society. Therefore this cause may account for the serial killer or rapist who seeks to take their anti-social criminal opportunity where they can, but does not wholly explain the extent of rape and murder in My Lai. However the context for My Lai gives motivation for “revenge of lost comrades” , since in the preceding months the Tet offensive was launched by the North Vietnamese which caused “American losses [that] reached 4,114 dead, 19,275 wounded, and 604 missing.”[31] On top of that Clouse argues that the “South Vietnamese felt that the Americans were planning to desert them, and the U.S. servicemen, frustrated by a war they could not win, began to show hatred toward all Vietnamese.”[32] Which exploded in atrocity at My Lai.
Atrocity by connivance often occurs by means of what the official Report on the My Lai massacre referred to as "a permissive attitude" on the part of commanders "toward the treatment and safeguarding of noncombatants." For instance, Vietnamese strikers who accompanied Special Forces units were often allowed "to catch the chickens and pigs that were running loose" during destruction of a village, "since plunder was accepted as part of their payment for fighting."[33]
In atrocity by connivance, troops are simply given to understand, through winks and nods of acquiescence, that spontaneously-initiated atrocities will not be penalized.
This was the experience of the United States Army in Vietnam. As an historian of that episode observes, "[s]oldiers sufficiently angry and vengeful, who are frustrated in their efforts to retaliate against the enemy itself, sometimes vent their aggressions on whoever is available." He suggests that atrocities such as the My Lai massacre almost inevitably result.[34]
The value of Vietnamese life was systematically cheapened... Further brutalized by the cycle of meaningless violence that was Westmoreland’s war of attrition and full of hatred because his comrades were so often killed and wounded by mines and booby traps set by local guerrillas and the peasants who helped them, he naturally came to see all Vietnamese of the countryside as vermin to be exterminated. The massacre at Son My was inevitable
Conclusion
Bibliography
Books
Amstutz, M.R, (1999) International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and cases in Global politics, 3rd Ed. United States Rowman & Littlefield
Brule, C, M, (2011) Our Bravest Young Men. 1st Ed. United States, Author House
Sheehan, N, (1989) A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, 1st ed. London, Jonathan Cape,
Walzer, M, (2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. United States. Basic Books,
Wells, R. A and others (1981) The Wars of America: Christian Views, 1st ed. United States, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Journals
Lichtenberg, J, (1994) War, Innocence, and the Doctrine of Double Effect, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 74, No. 3 pg. 347-368
Oliver, K, (2003), “Atrocity, authenticity and American exceptionalism: (ir)rationalizing the massacre at My Lai”, Journal of American Studies, vol. 37, no.2, 247-268
Osiel, M. J (1998), “Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline and the Law of War” California Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 5,
Miscellaneous
Fiala, A. "Pacifism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/pacifism/>. (03/05/2012) 23:08pm
McIntyre, A (2011) "Doctrine of Double Effect", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/double-effect/>. Accessed: (03/05/2012) 22:16pm
[1] Sheehan, N, (1989) A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, 1st ed. London, Jonathan Cape, Pg 689-90
[2] Oliver, K, (2003), “Atrocity, authenticity and American exceptionalism: (ir)rationalizing the massacre at My Lai”, Journal of American Studies, vol. 37, no.2, Pg 247
[3] Walzer, M,(2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. United States. Basic Books. Pg 41
[4] Osiel, M. J (1998), “Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline and the Law of War” California Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 5, Pg 952-3
[5] McIntyre, A (2011) "Doctrine of Double Effect", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/double-effect/>. Accessed: (03/05/2012) 22:16pm
[6] Lichtenberg, J, (1994) War, Innocence, and the Doctrine of Double Effect, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 74, No. 3 pg. 364
[7] Walzer, M,(2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. United States. Basic Books. Pg 153
[8] Sheehan, N, (1989) A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, 1st ed. London, Jonathan Cape, Pg 689-90
[9] Walzer, M,(2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. United States. Basic Books. Pg 153
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Brule, C, M, (2011) Our Bravest Young Men. 1st Ed. United States, Author House Pg. 291
[13] Fiala, A. "Pacifism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/pacifism/>. (03/05/2012) 23:08pm
[14] Ibid.
[15] Walzer, M,(2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. United States. Basic Books.
[16] Ibid. pg. 23
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid. Pg 28
[19] Ibid. Pg. 32
[20] Ibid. Pg. 23
[21] Amstutz, M.R, (1999) International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and cases in Global politics, 3rd Ed. United States Rowman & Littlefield Pg. 100-104.
[22] Walzer, M,(2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. United States. Basic Books. Pg.33
[23] Ibid. pg 4
[24] Ibid.
[25] Sheehan, N, (1989) A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, 1st ed. London, Jonathan Cape, Pg 689-90
[26] Osiel, M. J (1998), “Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline and the Law of War” California Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 5, Pg 1023
[27] Ibid. Pg 1029
[28] Ibid. Pg 1029
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid. Pg 1030
[31] Wells, R. A and others (1981) The Wars of America: Christian Views, 1st ed. United States, Wm. B. Eerdmans pg 190
[32] Ibid. pg 190-191
[33] Ibid. Pg. 1037-1038
[34] Ibid. Pg. 1041