"All War Is A Crime"

One of my all-time favorite television shows was the very smartly written and expertly performed program, The West Wing. It depicted the fictional White House of President Jed Bartlett and his closest White House staff. I always admired the intelligent and fast paced dialogue between the characters as they grappled with nearly every dilemma that could befall a sitting President and those around him. It was compelling to me on every level.

As I see the flood of news about our methods of warfare that have risen to our national view over the last week or two, I’m reminded of a scene in that program that always stuck with me. I think it has application for the national debate that’s roiling just under the surface of our national conscience now. It goes like this: Leo McGarry is President Bartlett’s principled, but pragmatic Chief of Staff. Leo is in his office with General Adamle who is on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was formally one of Leo’s superior officers when Leo was a combat pilot in the Viet Nam war. Leo is discussing advising the President to launch a unilateral military attack against some foreign dictator who used deadly weapons against a civilian target. Leo is angry and believes that American principles require the U.S. to retaliate against this dictator to show that America will not tolerate “war crimes” perpetrated against innocent civilians. The General stops Leo from ranting on with his indignation over war crimes and asks Leo if he remembers a particular mission he flew during his time in Viet Nam. Leo tells his old friend that he did remember the mission to bomb a strategic target in North Viet Nam. Leo remembered that it was a high altitude bombing of a bridge. Adamle takes a long pause, then he tells Leo that the mission was classified (even from the pilots that flew it) and that the target was not a bridge at all- in fact it was a civilian target the CIA has selected to send a very specific message to the enemy. Leo was shocked- then sickened to know the truth about his mission. He now knew that he too had committed a “war crime” by his own definition, even though he didn’t know it at the time. Then Leo turns to his old friend and asks, “Why are you telling me this now- why do I need to know this now?” Again General Adamle takes long pause and says, “because I wanted you to know that all war is a crime”.

The lesson that Leo learned from his conversation with this life-long, professional warrior and friend is that war itself is a crime, and that even those who believe that what they do in the cause of nobility-are guilty, because the very act of war itself is a crime against humanity. Yet my understanding of human history points to the fact that the unifying behavior of humans for many thousands of years is the waging of war.

Even though war is a constant occurrence in recorded history, the methods of war have changed and evolved through the centuries. As man’s quest for more of everything has increased, so has our penchant to take it from others- to conquer in the name of expansion and growth. As resources grow more rare and finite the need to control the world’s resources gives us the rationale to go to war. And as our ideologies, both political and religious, become more hardened into our national or regional characters we feel the need to go to war to impose that which we know is “right”, and vanquish the ‘evil” of those who believe differently. I think these are the same reasons that war has always happened. It’s just that means of doing it have changed.

 Before the advance of technology war was waged by throwing large hoards of people against each other, colliding in close combat, until attrition determined the outcome. It wasn’t until the time of the American Civil War that big technological advances in weaponry began to change the nature of war around the world. By WWI nations were now waging war in the air and developing chemical weapons. By WWII we were still using the hoard method, but added massive artillery, bombs, and advanced air and sea war technology to the arsenal. By the end of the war atomic weapons were developed and the overall result was 50 million dead world-wide-the most deadly war in man’s existence.

The other aspect of war that is evolving is the idea of warring nation-states battling each other, versus the current configuration of militant terrorist factions who commit random acts of war wherever they believe they can cause the most havoc, then disappearing into the population. Americans came to believe after WWII that our military power was irresistible and American military might always guaranteed victory. Viet Nam showed us that isn’t true. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our war there showed us that ancient peoples in harsh territories can outlast even the greatest armies, thus changing the way we even think about war.  

I mention all these things about war because I have been thinking quite a lot about our behavior of using un-manned aircraft (drones) with incredible technology to strike with pin-point accuracy, for targeted kills. The implication is that we now have (and use) these weapons for a very different kind of warfare than we’ve even engaged in before- and it begs the question of whether that constitutes warfare that is morally acceptable.  The question was brought into sharp focus by two pieces of news that surfaced this week. The first was that Justice Department legal opinions justified the Obama Administration killing an American citizen living in the Middle-East who was now an enemy plotting against us. The second news item told us of nearly fifty (50) countries that cooperated with the Bush/ Cheney Administration to render prisoners to other countries for illegal confinement and torture. In both cases, our Presidents had the full cooperation of The Justice Department who provided legal opinions justifying their behavior.  The killing of US citizens (or anybody for that matter) without due process of law (even if they are very bad guys) and the use of torture by us or our surrogates should be cause for extreme concern and examination. They are not the same thing- but the common thread in these two issues is that they are a departure from traditional policy about our behavior in war. I’m very troubled by these behaviors.

This new behavior by American governments (both Bush and Obama lately) does not seem to be political. I believe this is not an issue for the individual Presidents as much as it is an issue for the Presidency itself. Every President since Hoover has used the American military in another sovereign country to wage war (except Carter). But no President since Roosevelt has done it with a declaration of war. The trend over the last seventy years in America is to cede the power of war to the executive, while Congress washes its hands of responsibility- only to snipe about it later. It is only natural then that when the power of war is given to one person, the potential for abuse is increased- even with good intentions. Both parties, it seems, have engaged in traditionally immoral practices, or war crimes. Is it the times, or the nature of the enemy that has driven us to this path? Is it pain we felt on 9-11-01 that compelled us to veer from our ethics? Is it vengeance, or desperate frustration with an elusive enemy who doesn’t fight fair?

These questions are complicated and multi-faceted. But I have noticed that since the attacks on our soil on 9-11-01 when three-thousand of us were killed by terrorists, we have adopted a very different way of thinking about our national war ethics. Perhaps we found these attacks so vile that we simply allowed ourselves to say “the ends justify the means”. Perhaps we were so shocked, hurt, and in need of vengeance we almost immediately gave up many of our own liberties by way of the Patriot Act, then told our leaders through our silence “go ahead and torture- imprison without trial- use drones to bomb and kill in any country you want- kill Americans if you think they hate the rest of us” So our government did just that, and got their lawyers to say it was all legal. But if we really examine our basic beliefs about ethics, and the values we were founded on, we know it is not legal or ethical. How can we lecture the world on liberty, lawfulness and human rights while we have given in to the temptation to abandon these sacred principles ourselves. If we truly are the beacon of freedom which, by definition, includes human rights, then we are always bound by the founding principles those notions are based on. The ends never justify the means if the means are in direct conflict with our values. As much as I support President Obama, his use of these new weapons and his tactics of killing without the due process of law is wrong- just as wrong as the last President was wrong to lie us into war, and practice rendition and torture of prisoners.

If, “all war is a crime” as fictional General Adamle said, then at least we must endeavor to set limits on ourselves for the way we wage it. If we recognize war as (a sometimes) necessary evil, it is incumbent on us to establish rules of conduct to reduce the evil. If we are true to our values, then I believe it is a duty to seek the path of lesser evil - and only the voice of the people demanding it can make it happen.

Thanks for looking in.