Categorized | Politics

Ethics on the Killing Field?

Posted on 24 February 2010 by Warren Adler

The plight of a Marine K Company slugging it out in Afghanistan under hardships and conditions of which we sitting here comfortably in the States haven’t a clue, puts me in mind of another Marine K Company, cited in one of the greatest combat memoirs ever written, With the Old Breed by E.B. Sledge.

Sledge’s account of his ordeal as a nineteen year old combat Marine in the bloody battles against the Imperial Japanese Army while taking the islands of Pelelui and Okinawa in the closing weeks of World War II offers startling insights into the bloody nature of war and the horrific sacrifices required of those we send into battle. The comparison of then and now is essential if we are to make any sense out of what the “new breed” of Marine must face in the baffling revised rules of combat.

“With the Old Breed” was published twenty years after the events took place and republished twice since then, the last time with an impassioned introduction by Victor Davis Hanson which is a mini masterwork in its own right. Known by his Marine buddies as “sledgehammer”, Eugene Bondurant Sledge, this slight 135 pound sensitive and observant young man chose to enlist in 1943 as a Private in the Marine Corps and was assigned to a mortar company that confronted fanatical Japanese defenders with arguably superior weaponry and zealous suicidal tactics that decimated the American invaders.

Both the islands were taken, but at a horrendous price in American lives and the necessity to kill almost all the Japanese defenders. Some Japanese prisoners were taken, much to the chagrin of their comrades who considered capture a humiliating gesture of cowardice. Sledge describes an orgy of barbarism and hatred on both sides on a corpse strewn battlefield where Marines lived in foxholes for long periods of time, often unable to be reinforced and provisioned and slugging it out in circumstances of unbearable hardship and suffering.

Sledge’s descriptions of the battlefield spare no details. One can sense that each observation was carefully chosen by him to graphically illustrate the hellishness and waste he was determined to convey. He described the noxious all pervading and perpetual stink of dead and rotting flesh, the armies of maggots that infested the corpses and spilled over to the living troops, the disgust at living in a swamp of human feces, the rot of disease-inducing rain soaked shoes, socks and clothing, enduring the Japanese strategy of shooting at medical corpsman and stretcher bearers, the night time raids by lone snipers, the sudden gruesome death of a bonded buddy beside you, the screams of pain, the thirst and hunger when it was too dangerous to re-supply food and ammunition, the terror of friendly fire which accidentally killed many of our own, the endless cacophony of bursting shells and bullets, the disgusting mutilation of dead bodies by both sides, the ugly thirst for souvenirs, the savagery of hand to hand combat, the horror of exposed wounds and entrails, the rivers of blood, the agony of mental breakdowns and the devastated, eerie and ghost-like landscape.

How does a good young man like teenager Sledge, religious, moral, honest, loving and decent cope with such sights and smells, such barbarism and brutality? He takes great comfort in the camaraderie of his fellow Marines, the old fashioned sense of friendship and honor towards his fellow warriors to whom he has given his deep trust and loyalty. It is all there in this book which cannot be read without shedding copious tears and knowing that these young men were engaged in a conflict not only for themselves but for all Americans.

There is little mention of civilians caught in the line of fire, except what one must imagine were almost certain casualties caused by the pre-invasion bombardments that gave cover to the invading Marines who stormed the island beaches. There were, after all, native populations on these islands, perhaps less clotted than in the European theater but nevertheless subject to damage which did not have the distinction of being dubbed “collateral.” The objectives were clear and single-minded; destroy the enemy, secure the territory. Winning “hearts and minds” had not yet been factored in as an essential weapon in offensive warfare.

Sledge’s observations are profound and moving and he concludes that “war is brutish, inglorious and a terrible waste. Combat leaves an indelible mark on those who are forced to endure it. The only redeeming factors were my comrade’s incredible bravery and their devotion to each other. Marine Corps training taught us to kill efficiently and try to survive. But it also taught us loyalty to each other…and love. That esprit de corps sustained us.”

Fast forward to modern times and here we are in Afghanistan once more engaged with a fanatical suicidal foe but the combat tactics of our Marines have undergone a radical change. Armed with the most destructive weapons in the history of warfare, our Marines and soldiers must cherry pick their enemy combatants who, knowing the new avoidance tactics employed, use the flesh of civilians to shield them from harm.

It is, of course, obvious that I am looking at this from the point of view of the combat Marine, who has voluntarily put his life on the line to fight what has been declared the “necessary war” by America’s political overseers. He has been ordered not to shoot unless he actually sees a weapon in the hands of an enemy combatant. He must avoid shooting this combatant who, instead of sandbags and barbed wire of previous wars, uses the flesh of women and children to assure his safety from return fire.

What is he to think if the buddy beside him is ripped apart by a bullet that comes from behind these “sandbags” made from the living flesh of civilian men, women and children? Must he hold return fire because the shooter fights and kills behind his human shield? How would Sledge and his buddies have reacted if the Japanese had lined their defenses with island natives?

We are told by the Generals who have created this strategy which has been approved by our political leaders that this tactic is an essential part of the “hearts and mind” strategy that will eventually stabilize Afghanistan and win them over to our side. In Iraq, they tell us, this strategy has worked and we are able to declare victory at last and extract our troops from the country.

I know I have a weak hand in this discussion. Having been trained as an infantryman during the Korean War and never seen combat service in Korea, I have little credibility, except the knowledge that soldiers with my training were thrown into the line in Europe, the Pacific theater and Korea, many as replacements, and quickly killed or maimed by enemy fire. Nor am I second-guessing our political and military leaders. I hope they’re right.

Still, I am conflicted by the ethical dilemma posed by how warfare is to be conducted against an enemy who uses the human flesh of civilians as armor. The Israelis have been paying a heavy propaganda price for their conduct in the Gaza war where the enemy clearly pursued its defense behind forced barriers of civilians. Apparently our Marines in the Helmand province of Afghanistan are being confronted with exactly the same tactic.

I would hate to see a young Marine die because he has been prevented from defending himself from an attack by a murderous combatant hiding behind a wall of civilians.

I’m certain that the issue will be the subject of much debate in the future whether the tactic of “hearts and minds” is successful or not. It will take time to see if the ethical standard was worth the candle.

As for me, I am haunted by Sledge’s final assessment that war is essentially a barbaric enterprise where ethical standards cannot apply. What Sledge and many others have termed the “insanity of war” cannot be subjected to any humane codification. It is a bloody killing enterprise where ethics, mercy and morality are, however rationalized, absent from the equation.

But if our young men and women must be combatants, for whatever reason, it seems cruel and unjust to leave them defenseless against a ruthless enemy on the possibility that any illustration of our compassion and selective offensive tactics will convince them to throw down their arms and join a humane society.

1 Comments For This Post

  1. Daniel Davis Says:

    Wonderful piece, as always.

    The answer, of course, to the question you posed, about ethics in war… is that they are using these tactics because they work. War is, as you stated, a brutish, barbaric enterprise. It is, quite simply, the goal of, for purposes either noble or vile, crushing an enemy to the point where they no longer have the capacity and the will to fight.

    War has always been that way- from the first moment a caveman picked up a stick. And the moment that one’s opponent gets a whiff of a limit one will restrain oneself to… that opponent will use that avenue at every opportunity to gain an advantage. We didn’t win “hearts and minds” in World War II, as you so aptly described. By the time it was over, Germany was literally a smoldering pile of rubble and Japan had succumbed to the chaos of two nuclear bombs. In every instance where a soldier has defined his limits- from the redcoats in their formal lines during the Revolutionary War to the jungles of Vietnam and now to the conflicts we are in… those who allowed their opponent to draw where their line lay lost the war. Nations have throughout history tried to “civilize” war, and the reality always has come back to bite them.

    The more we emphasize that we will not engage in barbaric tactics of war- laying waste to towns, allowing citizens to be harmed, and so on- the more that we will discover that limit being taken advantage of. Innocent civilians will be placed in every militant shelter and their bodies broadcast to the world. IEDs will be present at schools, shopping malls, and every local road.

    It’s a terrible, terrible reality to have to face… but it is reality… and that reality is that war is life-or-death, a struggle for victory that, at least for those we are fighting against, transcends morality.

    Is the fight we are waging important enough that morality must take a back seat?
    That is the question we must ask ourselves. Because our enemies have already asked themselves that, and the answer is an unequivocal yes.

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments

  • Warren Adler: Thank you both for your comments. Yordan, that would be great.
  • Kid Kreplach: Saw this headline this morning: Stieg Larsson, author of the “Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,”...
  • Yordan: Thanks for sharing this very thoughtful and valuable observation! Would you mind if I distribute your text...
  • cheap Lv handbags: The abundant host’s opinion analysis is unique, lets me have the new understanding to this...
  • Microwave Ovens: The Zune concentrates on being a Portable Media Player. Not a web browser. Not a game machine. Maybe...
stonehouse press