Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:53:27.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double standards in US warfare: exploring the historical legacy of civilian protection and the complex nature of the moral-legal nexus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2009

SEBASTIAN KAEMPF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates how – by breaking with the historical double standards regarding civilian protection in conflicts – by the end of the twentieth century, US warfare has come to comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Yet, civilians are still being killed. This has sparked controversies over what constitutes legitimate targeting practices and as to whether higher levels of civilian protection could be achieved. Through an engagement with these debates, including an exploration of the evolution of the norm of non-combatant immunity with specific reference to US warfare, the article argues that IHL does not provide fully satisfactory answers to these issues as it is too permissive in relation to the killing of civilians. The article proposes that more stringent moral guidelines, such as those underpinning the idea of ‘due care’, have the potential to go much further in providing protection for the innocent in war.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 651 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

2 The article focuses exclusively on the American (rather than a general ‘Western’) conduct of war for the reason that the US has become the most dominant contemporary military actor, not only possessing unprecedented military capabilities but also being able to project them globally. More importantly, the US, conceiving of itself as a unique historical actor, has tended to project its military capabilities in the language of norms and law – including the exception-less respect for the principle of non-combatant immunity.

3 Christopher Coker, Waging War without Warriors? The Changing Culture of Military Conflict (London: Lynne Rienner, 2002), p. 62.

4 Michael Howard, George J Andreopoulos and Mark R Shulman, (eds), The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (London: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 13.

5 Victor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of Warfare: Infantry Battles in Classical Greece (Bercley: University of California Press, 2000), p. 37; Geoffrey Parker, (ed.), The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 22–7.

6 Colin S Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 275–6; Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing (London: Granta Books, 2002). Although the terms Bellum Romanum and Bellum Civile were coined after the wars waged by the Roman Empire (in particular following Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gallicia), the existing literature tends to use them equally in reference to the wars fought by the ancient Greek city states. According to this view, the Romans merely formalised what the Greeks had already practised.

7 Howard, Andreopoulos and Shulman, The Laws of War, p. 3.

8 Michael Ignatieff, The Warrior's Honour: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience (London: Vintage, 1999), p. 117.

9 Leo Braudy, From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2003).

10 John M Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993).

11 Adam Roberts and Richard Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Geoffrey Best, Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflict (London: Methuen, 1983).

12 Philip K Lawrence, Modernity and War: The Creed of Absolute Violence (London: Macmillan, 1999), pp. 6–34.

13 Andrew J Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 122; Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

14 Douglas Porch, The Wars of Empire (London: Cassell & Co, 2001), p. 55.

15 Julie R Jeffrey and Gary B Nash, (eds), The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 427–8.

16 John Grenier, The First Way of War: American War Naking on the Frontier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Dower, War Without Mercy, pp. 148–9.

17 Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 150.

18 Cited in Russell F Weigley, The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy (London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1973); p. 158.

19 Weigley, The American Way of War, pp. 153–14.

20 Chris H Gray, Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 117.

21 Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States: 1492 – Present (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), pp. 152–69; Gray, Postmodern War, p. 115; Weigley, The American Way of War, pp. xxi–xxii.

22 Cited in Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 151.

23 Lindqvist, A History of Bombing, pp. 30–1.

24 Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War, pp. 53–7.

25 Zinn, A People's History of the United States, pp. 312–3; Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 2002), pp. 106–7.

26 Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 151.

27 Jeffrey and Nash, The American People, pp. 685–7.

28 Jonathan Lewis and Ben Steele, Hell in the Pacific: From Pearl Harbour to Hiroshima and Beyond (London: Channel 4 Books, 2001), pp. 38–9.

29 Porch, The Wars of Empire, pp. 176–7.

30 William D Rubinstein, Genocide (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, 2004), pp. 54–124.

31 Hans Joas, War and Modernity: Studies in the History of Violence in the 20th Century (Cambridge: Polity, 2003).

32 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985).

33 Michael Howard, The Invention of Peace (London: Profile Books Ltd, 2000); Max Horkheimer and Theodor W Adorno, Dialectics of Enlightenment (London: Allen Lane, 1973).

34 Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981).

35 Christopher Coker, The Future of War: The Re-Enchantment of War in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 1–45.

36 Howard, The Invention of Peace; Coker, War and the Twentieth Century (London: Brassey's Lts, 1994).

37 Mark Mazower, Dark Continent (London: Penguin Books, 1999), p. x.

38 Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War (London: Virago Press, 1998), pp. 200–3.

39 Martin Shaw, War and Genocide: Organised Killing in Modern Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003), pp. 54–144.

40 Daniel Pick, The War Machine: The Rationalisation of Slaughter in the Modern Age (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).

41 Edward Hagerman, The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988); Theo Farrell, The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict (London: Lynne Rienner, 2005), pp. 76–7.

42 Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War, pp. 12–3.

43 Weigley, The American Way of War, pp. 128–52.

44 Ibid., pp. 139–41.

45 Gray, Postmodern War, p. 116.

46 Cited in Weigley, The American Way of War, p. 149.

47 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1992), pp. 32–3.

48 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, pp. 32–3.

49 Howard, Andreopoulos and Shulman, (eds), The Laws of War, p. 8.

50 Shaw, War and Genocide, pp. 126–44; Lawrence, Modernity and War, p. 87.

51 Omer Bartov, The Eastern Front, 1941–1945: German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).

52 Reid Mitchell, ‘The GI in Europe and the American Military Tradition’, in Paul Addison and Angus Calder, (eds), Time To Kill: The Soldier's Experience of War in the West 1939–1945 (London: Random House, 1997), p. 312; Farrell, The Norms of War, p. 89.

53 Dower, War without Mercy, p. 84.

54 Farrell, The Norms of War, p. 87.

55 Mitchell, ‘The GI in Europe and the American Military Tradition’, p. 312.

56 Lewis and Steele, Hell in the Pacific, p. 144.

57 Dower, War without Mercy, p. 11; Farrell, The Norms of War, p. 89.

58 Mitchell, ‘The GI in Europe and the American Military Tradition’, p. 313.

59 Farrell, The Norms of War, pp. 84–9.

60 Tami D Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press: 2004), p. 253; Ward Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations (London: Cornell University Press, 2001), pp. 131–3.

61 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, pp. 134–5.

62 Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 311; Lindqvist, A History of Bombing, pp. 267–75.

63 Trevor B McCrisken, American Exceptionalism and the Legacy of Vietnam: US Foreign Policy Since 1974 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 21–2; Robert S. McNamara, James G. Blight, and Robert K. Brigham, Argument without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy (New York: Public Affairs, 1999), p. 22.

64 Charles E Neu, After Vietnam: Legacies of a Lost War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), p. 11.

65 George C Herring, America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975 (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1986), p. 144.

66 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, p. 151.

67 Martin Shaw, The New Western Way of War: Risk-Transfer War and its Crisis in Iraq (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), pp. 18–9; John Mueller, Retreat From Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War (New York: Basic Books, 1990), pp. 117–31.

68 Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War.

69 Farrell, The Norms of War, p. 155.

70 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, p. 151.

71 Farrell, The Norms of War, pp. 106–10; Nina Tannenwald, ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The US and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-use’, International Organisation, 53:3 (1999), pp. 433–68.

72 Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace, p. 291.

73 Harry G Summers, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1982), pp. 87–8.

74 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, pp. 147–56.

75 Fredrik Logevall, Choosing War: The Last Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam (London: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 375–414.

76 Summers, On Strategy, pp. 83–6; Herring, America's Longest War, pp. 170–7.

77 Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace, p. 301.

78 Daniel Moran, Wars of National Liberation (London: Cassell, 2002), p. 200.

79 James W Gibson, The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2000), pp. 93–154.

80 Michael Walzer, Arguing About War (London: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 7.

81 http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html, accessed on 5 July 2006.

82 Zinn, A People's History of the United States, pp. 450–1.

83 Jeffrey and Nash, The American People, pp. 957.

84 Zinn, A People's History of the United States, pp. 450–1; Jeffrey and Nash, The American People,pp. 956–7.

85 Christopher Coker, Humane Warfare (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 30–1.

86 Jeffrey Record, ‘Vietnam in Retrospect: Could We have Won?’, Parameters (Winter 1996–97), p. 55.

87 Herring, America's Longest War, p. 203.

88 Coker, Humane Warfare, pp. 30–3.

89 Neu, After Vietnam, p. 19.

90 Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, p. xvi.

91 Coker, Humane Warfare, p. 5.

92 Ibid., p. 5.

93 Walzer, Arguing about War, p. 9.

94 Ibid., p. 9.

95 Here, the Peers Report (which had investigated the underlying causes of the My Lai massacre and located the disrespect for civilian immunity in the systematic failures of military training) led to the 1974 Department of Defence Directive (‘DoD Law of War Program’) which had a profound impact on the internalisation of the principle of non-combatant immunity in the military. For more details, see Bacevich, The New American Militarism, pp. 148–74.

96 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, pp. 158–9.

97 Ignatieff, Virtual War, p. 199; Gray, Postmodern War, pp. 31–7.

98 Walzer, Arguing about War, p. 9.

99 Ibid., p. 9.

100 Ignatieff, Virtual War, p. 199.

101 Kenneth P Werrell, ‘Air Force Victorious: The Gulf War vs. Vietnam’ Parameters, 22:2 (Summer 1992), p. 46.

102 Andrew J Bacevich, ‘Morality and High Technology’, National Interest, 45 (Fall 1996), p. 45.

103 Walzer, Arguing About War, pp. 10–11.

104 James Der Derian, Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Nework (Oxford: Westview Press, 2002), pp. xv-xvii.

105 Farrell, The Norms of War, p. 179.

106 Thomas W Smith, ‘The New Law of War: Legitimizing Hi-Tech and Infrastructural Violence’, International Studies Quarterly, 46 (2002), pp. 355–74.

107 Coker, Humane Warfare, pp. 1–45; Farrell, The Norms of War, pp. 177–79.

108 Bacevich, ‘Morality and High Technology’, pp. 37–48; Ignatieff, Virtual War, p. 197.

109 James Turner Johnson, ‘The Idea of Just War: The State of the Question’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 23 (Winter 2006), pp. 167–95.

110 ‘Additional Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)’, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm, accessed on 3 March 2006. Although the US has neither signed nor ratified the Additional Protocol, US forces have nevertheless officially aimed to adhere to it. Thus, the Additional Protocol is generally interpreted as the standard law of the American military and more generally regarded as customary international law. See Smith, ‘The New Law of War’, p. 360.

111 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 153.

112 James Turner Johnson, Morality and Contemporary Warfare (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 119–20.

113 Shaw, The New Western Way of War, p. 134; Nicholas J Wheeler, ‘“Dying for Enduring Freedom”: Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties in the War Against Terror’, International Relations, 16:2 (2002), p. 208.

114 Nicholas J Wheeler, ‘The Kosovo Bombing Campaign’, in Christian Reus-Smit, (ed.), ‘The Politics of International Law’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 210.

115 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, pp. 162–8.

116 Ignatieff, Virtual War, pp. 197–8; Farrell, The Norms of War, pp. 159–60.

117 This figure is disputed by the Yugoslav Government, NGOs, and some researchers who have claimed the number of non-combatant deaths to range from 1,200–5,000. Most sources, however, have come to agree to the figure of 500 civilian dead during NATO's Kosovo campaign. For further details, see Martin Shaw, ‘Risk-transfer Militarism, Small Massacres, and the historic Legitimacy of War’, International Relations, 16:3 (2002), pp. 343–60; Human Rights Watch, ‘Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign’, available at www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/, accessed on 1 June 2006; Carl Conetta, ‘Disengaged Warfare: Should we make a virtue of the Kosovo way of warfare?’, available at http://www.comw.org/pda/0105bm21.html, accessed on 13 Sep 2006.

118 Johnson, ‘The Idea of Just War’, p. 189; Farrell, The Norms of War, pp. 159–62.

119 ‘Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’, available at www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm, accessed on 1 June 2006.

120 Wheeler, ‘The Kosovo Bombing Campaign’, pp. 189–216.

121 Ibid., p. 214.

122 Peter Rowe, ‘Kosovo 1999: The Air Campaign – Have the Provisions of Additional Protocol I Withstood the Test?’, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 837, 31 March 2000.

123 Neta Crawford, ‘Just War Theory and the US Counter Terror War’, available at www.apsanet.org, accessed on 11 June 2005.

124 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 153.

125 Wheeler, ‘Dying for “Enduring Freedom”’, p. 209; see also Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 153.

126 Alex J Bellamy, ‘Is the War on Terror Just?’, International Relations, 19:3 (2005), p. 288.

127 Ignatieff, Virtual War, p. 199.

128 Max Boot, ‘Sparing Civilians, Buildings, and even the Enemy’, The New York Times, 30 May 2003.

129 Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction, p. 88.

130 Cited in Rick Atkinson, Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1993), p. 288.

131 Bacevich, ‘Morality and High Technology’, p. 45.

132 Patricia Owens, ‘Accidents Don't Just Happen: The Liberal Politics of High Technology Humanitarian War’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 32:3 (2003), pp. 595–616.

133 Bellamy, ‘Is the War on Terror Just?’, pp. 287–89; Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, pp. 151–159; Wheeler, ‘Dying for “Enduring Freedom”’, pp. 208–10; Steven Lee, ‘Double Effect, Double Intention, and Asymmetric Warfare’, Journal of Military Ethics, 3:3 (2004), pp. 235–6.

134 Bellamy, ‘Is the War on Terror Just?’, p. 288.

135 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 156.

136 Johnson, Morality and Contemporary Warfare, pp. 132–3.

137 Shaw, The New Western Way of War, p. 134.

138 Paul W Kahn, ‘The Paradox of Riskless Warfare’, Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 22:3 (2002), pp. 2–9.

139 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 156.

140 Ibid., p. 155.

141 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 156.

142 Walzer, Arguing about War, p. 73.

143 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 156.

144 Walzer, Arguing about War, p. 17.

145 Unfortunately, Walzer leaves the term ‘marginal’ undefined (Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars,pp. 152–9).

146 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, pp. 152–9; Herbert L A Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 130.

147 Shaw, The New Western Way of War, p. 134; Lee, ‘Double Effect, Double Intention, and Asymmetric Warfare’, pp. 239–41.

148 Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 129–30.