A new war doctrine on innocence abroad

A Pentagon plan to instill better values in soldiers to protect civilians in a conflict will require a shift toward reverence for innocent life.

|
AP
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at a news conference in August.

American soldiers will soon receive new marching orders. Last week, the Pentagon released an “action plan” that, in the words of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, will help ensure that the protection of noncombatants in a conflict becomes “a strategic priority as well as a moral imperative.” 

In other words, as members of the world’s most powerful fighting force, U.S. military personnel on the front lines will be trained on how to better protect the most powerless people in a conflict: innocent civilians.

The moral part is this: The innocence of those not directly participating in a war is a value unto itself – one as important as military victory. The United States has learned the hard way, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that it must respect a rising global norm for civilian protection in order to achieve its combat aims, such as winning support from people in a foreign land.

“Hard-earned tactical and operational successes may ultimately end in strategic failure if care is not taken to protect the civilian environment as much as the situation allows,” reads the Pentagon report, the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan.

Under the plan, the Pentagon will, for the first time, dedicate staff members – about 150 – toward preventing and reporting on both intentional and unintentional harm to civilians in conflicts. While the U.S. has taken such tragedies into account in the past, “it’s just trying to apply a consistent approach across the department so that this becomes a matter of how we do business,” a Pentagon spokesperson said.

At the soldier level, that means training to avoid what is called “confirmation bias,” or clinging to certain beliefs about a potential targeting situation or disregarding contradictory facts. Such bias was cited in a Pentagon investigation of a U.S. drone strike in Kabul last year that killed 10 Afghan civilians – three men and seven children. That mistake helped push Secretary Austin to order the new plan.

To protect noncombatants, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, armed forces must be encouraged “to internalize the values” of humanitarian law, such as the Geneva Conventions, that aim to limit the scope of war, especially the killing of civilians.

The key to improving such laws, writes scholar David Traven at California State University, Fullerton in a 2021 book, “lies in using our abilities for perspective-taking and empathy.” Such values must be practiced by “average citizens,” he adds, while governments should use war tactics that they “could rationally accept being used against their own civilian population.”

This golden rule approach to civilian protection is “relatively universal” across cultures and history, he writes. Respect for the moral autonomy and rights of civilians in conflict requires a military to ensure “a more equitable distribution of risks between their armed forces in the field (and in the air) and the civilian population.”

For soldiers, a reverence for innocent life during war takes practice. “We need to change how we think about the ethics of killing in war,” Dr. Traven concludes. And if the Pentagon fulfills the promise in its new plan, it will be thinking right along with him.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A new war doctrine on innocence abroad
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2022/0831/A-new-war-doctrine-on-innocence-abroad
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe