The current administration’s repeated threats
to have the United States seize control of Greenland and the Panama Canal Zone
create a potential moral dilemma for American soldiers. If ordered to
participate in military actions against those countries, soldiers would be
forced either to disobey legal orders or to kill innocent defenders.
This dilemma is created by the undeniable injustice of any U.S. military action against Greenland or Panama. For a war to be justified legally and morally, it must have a just cause. There are only three just causes for wars: national self-defense against aggression; support to another country that is defending itself against aggression; and intervention in another country to stop a large-scale slaughter of civilians that their government is either perpetrating or unable to stop. Given that Greenland and Panama are not aggressing against the United States, any other country, nor their own citizens, those countries still fully possess their rights to national sovereignty. Any military action against them would be illegal and unjust.
The administration has publicly stated
that its “causes” for intending to seize control of Greenland and the Panama
Canal Zone are to advance America’s geo-strategic power and economic growth. Those
are unjust causes for waging war. Therefore, if the United States employs
military force against Greenland or Panama, the U.S. would be the unjust
aggressor, just as Germany was in World War II, Iraq was in 1990-91, and Russia
is against Ukraine today.
Even though U.S. military
operations against Greenland or Panama would be unjust, our soldiers would
still be legally required to participate in them. According to both U.S. and
international law, soldiers are not responsible for determining whether a particular
war is just. That responsibility—and authority—is held by their political
leaders. Soldiers’ legal and moral obligations are to “obey the orders of the President
of the United States” and to fight justly the wars that their political leaders
commit them to. Soldiers fight justly when they abide by the laws of armed
conflict on the battlefield, regardless of whether their country is an unjust
aggressor or a justified defender in the war.
There are good reasons for not
holding soldiers legally and morally accountable for participating in unjust
wars their political leaders commit them to. Typically, soldiers lack the accurate
information they would need to assess the justice of their country’s cause. It
has been said that “truth is the first casualty of war” because the aggressor’s
political leaders nearly always propagate falsehoods about the situation to obscure
the unjustness of their actions. In most wars, soldiers on both sides believe
that their cause is just.
In the case of U.S. military action against Greenland or Panama, however, American soldiers would know unequivocally that their cause is unjust (if they do any research), because the administration has been open and honest about its unjust motives.
Soldiers kill on behalf of their country. In a just war, they kill morally. In an unjust war that they reasonably believe to be just, they kill blamelessly. Their acts of killing are morally excusable—not right, but also not their fault. In an unjust war that they know to be unjust, however, soldiers kill immorally. They are killing people who are justifiably defending their country. If soldiers know they are killing in support of an unjust cause, they are guilty morally of committing murder, even if they are acting within the law.
If the administration
decides to act militarily against Greenland or Panama, American soldiers will have
to decide whether to disobey their legal duty to fight or disobey their moral
obligation not to kill innocent human beings. If soldiers choose the former, they will lose
their careers and likely their freedom. If they choose the latter, they may
lose their souls.
No comments:
Post a Comment