To Attack or not to Attack

 Enemy aircraft have been placed near culturally significant sites. At the present, the primary ethical considerations made in assessing these targets include rules-based thinking and care-based thinking. The commander’s attorney has advised that the onus of responsibility for the placement of these aircraft is solely on the enemy. As such, any collateral damage inflicted to the culturally significant sites is their doing. However, another officer considering care-based ethics asserts that video imagery showing any damage sustained by these sites will cause the sympathy of viewers to be on the side of the enemy. These opposing arguments must thus be balanced utilizing results-based ethics. The commander should assess available intelligence on these targets and determine the impact their elimination will have on the outcome of the conflict. Considerations to make include determining whether any of these aircraft represent a center of gravity for the enemy and what tactical advantage gained by the target’s elimination. For example, intelligence might reveal that certain aircraft are not mission capable. These would be lower in priority and could potentially be avoided sparing some collateral damage to sensitive sites. My recommendation is to place a weighted value on each of the targets and attack them in the order of highest to lowest tactical value so as to bring a swift conclusion to this conflict.

Anti-aircraft weapons have been placed in close proximity to hospitals. While the principle of discrimination protects non-combatants, the principle of double-effect provides additional consideration. The enemy has intentionally violated long-standing international law by their placement. Thus, these anti-aircraft weapons represent lawful military targets. Not all military targets are of equal value. The commander should primarily consider care-based ethics in this scenario. If the targets present no military threat to our personnel, then they can be ignored while other targets of greater value are eliminated. Additionally, the commander can look to the principle of last resort. Utilizing a range of non-kinetic options, perhaps the enemy can be persuaded to remove these anti-aircraft weapons on their own volition.

Families have moved into high value military targets. In this circumstance, rules and results-based ethics both identify that these targets must be eliminated. The rules on this issue are clear, combatants cannot use non-combatants to make their targets of military value off-limits.  Further, these have been identified as high value targets. They are centers of gravity for the enemy, and the elimination of them will likely sway the outcome of the conflict. Armed conflict is a necessary evil, and it is through the swift termination of hostilities that human life can be best preserved. Yet, when applying care-based ethics, it becomes apparent that the toll of attacking these targets will have on people will be significant. Because of the actions of the enemy, civilian casualties in this instance are unavoidable.

In this instance, it becomes apparent as to why it is necessary that war only be based on just causes. Conflict results in tragedy. As such, decision makers must ensure that armed action only be used as a last resort, that the right intentions are clearly driving the necessity, and that the right authorities make the decision to engage. Further, it must be clear that the conflict can result in a lasting peace. Many of the conflicts that we have witnessed in recent years have failed in this consideration, and it has prolonged the suffering associated with conflict. Assuming that all these considerations have been made, the commander should attack these targets. While the principle of double-effect is applicable in this situation, the commander should devise an engagement that still seeks to minimize non-combatant casualties.

Each of these scenarios presents an ethical challenge for commanders to weigh. The provided recommendation for all three was to engage the enemy in a manner that pursues a swift termination of armed hostilities. This will limit unnecessary loss of life and property. Commanders should prioritize targets as not all lawful military targets are of equal value. Priority should be given to centers of gravity. Additionally, when the loss of civilian life and property is anticipated steps should still be taken to ensure that these damages are kept to as minimal of level possible while still completing the mission. Finally, conflicts such as this leave lasting wounds for all involved regardless of affiliation. Decision makers should only engage in conflict when it has been determined to be for a just cause.