Military Review English Edition March-April 2015 | Page 75

ETHICS IN COMBAT

Unfortunately, a group’s norms can lead to individuals conducting extreme violations of ethical
standards derived from jus in bello. The group and
the leaders can also emphasize immoral behavior that
leads to disengagement of a soldier’s moral sense.13
If the leadership of a unit begins to fail in addressing even minor infractions of discipline, especially
those related to human dignity, soldiers can easily
lose their core moral beliefs. The type of conduct that
should proceed from moral beliefs can become lost
as well. This process can quickly change the moral
atmosphere of even the best units, making them susceptible to moral disengagement and the war crimes
that follow.
Justin Watt, who served in the Black Hearts
platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry
Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne
Division, describes how his leaders, after nine months
in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq, stopped caring
about discipline in regard to the little things:
They stopped correcting soldiers when they
used terms like “rag head” in reference to the
Iraqis. It was in their attitude. They just did
not care anymore. It sent an immediate signal
to the soldiers that certain attitudes and even
actions were now permissible. It all started
from there and quickly got worse.14
Some members of Watt’s platoon would go on to
commit one of the worst atrocities of the Iraq War,
involving rape and murder. Similarly, a soldier who participated in the infamous massacre of My Lai during
the Vietnam War describes his actions after his leadership abandoned all moral guidance:
You didn’t have to look for people to kill,
they were just there. I cut their throats, cut
off their hands, cut out their tongues, and
scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were
doing it, and I just followed. I just lost all
sense of direction.15
Base and cruel natures hidden in the depths of
the human soul can surface during the stress of
combat, surprising those who believe such natures
do not exist in themselves. Some acts of cruelty proceed naturally from character flaws, while others are
a side effect of the state’s mechanized brutality that
is intrinsic to war. Without an outside authority
reemphasizing and holding to standards, even those
MILITARY REVIEW  March-April 2015

who enter combat with a sense of moral principles
can lose their way.
Leaders, officially sanctioned or chosen by consensus of the group, are key to the moral conduct of a
unit. Moral leadership of those in command, exemplified by virtue and strengthened by the moral principles established in jus in bello, can steady those around
them assaulted by the horrors of war.
However, that does not mean that soldiers hold
special immunity to perpetrating atrocity in units
with virtuous leadership. Even with the support of
moral codes and good leadership, soldiers must confront the dissonance within them and master it. At
times, some choose to value priorities such as victory or survival over convictions about what is right.
Others simply fail their own sense of honor when
confronted by the extremes of combat and when
overcome by strong emotion. These soldiers disengage
their moral belief system in favor of other priorities
they value more highly in the moment.

Victory Over Honor
Practical concerns for victory drive some soldiers to
put their consciences and rules of war aside. In offensive maneuvers, the speed and superiority of firepower
can mean the difference between victory and defeat,
and the management of prisoners can hinder a unit’s
effectiveness. Sending soldiers to secure prisoners’
transfers to the rear leaves combat units weaker and
more vulnerable to counterattack. Diverting vita