Chapter 1: The Nature of War

Is there a place for idealism amidst the harsh realities of war?

The phrase "War is hell," attributed to General William Sherman during the U.S. Civil War, resonates with anyone who has experienced combat. Despite this grim acknowledgment, historical norms have allowed certain combatants to evade the most brutal consequences of our intrinsic impulse to harm one another over abstract concepts like honor, religion, or national identity. For instance, during the so-called "age of chivalry," noblemen rarely faced the same fate as the commoners they commanded into battle. A defeated knight might anticipate a comfortable captivity while his family gathered the ransom, while others in nobility often met with much milder consequences.

In contemporary society, we lack a gentleman's agreement for sparing nobility; instead, we operate under international law. This legal framework, which began locally, has significantly evolved over time. The Lieber Code, established in 1863, aimed to mitigate the horrors of the Civil War by implementing rules intended to make warfare more humane than the chaos of unregulated conflict.

The intentions behind these regulations are commendable: to establish a combat framework that minimizes suffering. However, the disparity between theory and practice is often stark. The objective of warfare is to defeat the enemy, and achieving this goal humanely amid the chaos of battle presents a daunting challenge.

Historically, the architects of international law have seldom set foot on a battlefield. Lawyers operate within a safe and comfortable environment, where the gravest concern is the temperature of their soup. In contrast, soldiers endure existential threats and an ever-evolving landscape of weaponry that complicates their reality. The gap between good intentions and actual conditions is therefore inevitable.

This discrepancy has been glaringly evident in recent conflicts. Following the misguided "war on terror" initiated by President Bush, U.S. forces quickly found that adversaries like the Taliban and ISIS were indifferent to international warfare rules. Every major tenet of NATO's military doctrine proved perilous for Western troops deployed on the ground.

For instance, NATO's adoption of 5.56mm rounds was based on the belief that wounding an enemy would incapacitate more soldiers than outright killing them. However, this approach failed to consider that enemy fighters often disregarded such doctrines, leading NATO troops to expend numerous rounds on a single combatant to neutralize threats.

As the Taliban and ISIS ignored international protocols regarding the treatment of captives and the targeting of medical facilities, NATO forces faced a significant disadvantage. Back home, civil rights advocates sought to prosecute soldiers for perceived violations of the very laws that hostile forces blatantly disregarded.

The same troubling dynamics are unfolding in Ukraine, where Russian forces employ torture and violence as standard tactics, often receiving commendations for such actions. Ukrainian forces are constrained by international law, even as they face an enemy that flouts these rules entirely.

The Ethics of War | This TEDx talk by Thomas Gregory explores the moral implications of warfare, questioning how ethics can be applied in such chaotic environments.

Chapter 2: The Role of Technology in Modern Warfare

As technology evolves, so too does its impact on warfare. The integration of AI and machine learning in combat scenarios is becoming increasingly critical. Algorithms are rapidly interpreting data from extensive sensor networks, allowing for swift decision-making in combat. AI systems are proving to be more reliable than human judgment in high-stress situations, as demonstrated by their superior performance in identifying medical conditions compared to trained professionals.

This shift raises concerns among ethicists and legal experts. While they fret over the potential biases and unpredictability of AI, they often overlook the limitations of human decision-making under pressure. In reality, AI can yield more consistent and effective outcomes than its human counterparts.

The disparity between the idealistic visions of legal frameworks and the harsh realities of combat is growing. New conventions may emerge, but they will likely be exploited by adversaries who disregard established laws, as seen in historical contexts.

In addition, the geopolitical landscape is shifting. Countries like Russia and China have no intention of adhering to Western norms. Their strategies prioritize achieving tactical advantages, often at the expense of ethical considerations.

As we navigate this intricate intersection of war and ethics, it's essential to recognize that idealized codes of conduct must account for the realities faced by soldiers. The ultimate goal should be to develop rules that reduce dehumanization while empowering forces to combat unyielding enemies effectively.

Jeff McMahan on the Morality of War | Philosopher Jeff McMahan discusses the ethical dilemmas of warfare, emphasizing the need for a realistic approach to moral codes in combat.

In conclusion, the complexities of modern warfare demand a reevaluation of how we approach ethical frameworks. Laws that apply selectively only serve to exacerbate the challenges faced by those on the battlefield. To ensure the safety and effectiveness of our forces, we must confront the uncomfortable truths about the nature of war and the implications of our legal structures.