The
fog of war shows no signs of lifting.
Instead of throwing on our headlights and inching forward until the road
clears, security professionals are doing their best to draw a new road map that
will offer clear direction based on the measurements of morality and
justice. Moral cartography was the theme
of the day at the Institute for National Security (INSS) conference on urban
warfare here in Tel Aviv, Israel.
If
there was consensus among the presenters it was that the rules must be
changed. We are traversing terrain for
which all the rules of the road harken back to the times of conventional
warfare. Armies fighting armies in uniform
with internationally understood just war precepts. The onset of terrorists and insurgents
fighting in civilian clothing amongst an innocent civilian population proves
that the rules of engagement have not adapted to the times. General Stanley McChrystal (Ret.) reminded
the audience that urban warfare is not a unique or new phenomenon, but our
missions in these urban areas require overcoming evolving challenges. This will only worsen as the world becomes
more and more urbanized.
The
second consensus of the day involved the idea of balance. We must find the balance between the security
of our soldiers and protecting the lives of the enemy’s civilians. Major General Amos Yadlin described the
question of what to do as a tragic dilemma between action and inaction. Decision makers are pulled between two polls,
at one end the willingness to harm civilians in order to hit terrorists and protect
our citizens, and on the other allowing terrorists to escape for fear of
harming civilians.
General
McChrystal also spoke of balance and what he called the paradox of urban
warfare. He described the recent wars in
Afghanistan and in Iraq as struggles for the support of the people. The civilians there had a choice between
supporting insurgents and the security forces.
In order to win their support, the forces had to balance being credible
and capable in their efforts to increase security with demonstrating care and
concern for the innocent population.
Insurgents try to tip this balance, which is why military conduct in
urban areas requires great discipline. In
this way fighting ethically is strategic, but both McChrystal and Yadlin
emphasized that moral conduct is equally philosophical.
In
keeping with the discussion of balance, Major General Yadlin posed the question,
to whom are we more obliged, our own soldiers or the enemy’s civilians? Professor David Enoch called upon us to
remember that the innocents on the opposing side are no less innocent as the
ones on our side. He argued that we must
demonstrate a willingness to accept casualties of soldiers on our side in order
to save civilians on the other side. McChrystal too spoke of the willingness to
sacrifice stating that it would go a long way in demonstrating the importance
of mission.
The
key to ethical conduct in urban warfare and counterterrorism is to let moral
principles guide strategy and tactics so as both to minimize the loss of life
and God willing justify the losses that are unavoidable. Fighting terrorists and insurgents ethically
is an ongoing challenge, one made especially difficult by the lack of roadmap. As we prepared to inch forward through the
ethical fog, Professor Enoch left us with a sobering but important point, that
in war the price is paid in blood.
Today
a new definition is needed to understand what it means to fight justly in these
irregular times, because judging from the past stretch of road, there are
curves ahead.
