A need for standards and landmarks in a changing world

In today’s environment, several new factors are having an impact on the soldier’s profession which, according to Eric de La Maisonneuve, ‘is above all concerned with the situation and has reality only in relation to the moment’.(1)

The decline of ideologies has been accompanied by an increase in moral expectations, and international relations are governed by law to a much greater extent than before. The increase in the influence of law in society has overflowed into the military world. For this reason, the use of force is now subject to a greater demand for legitimacy and justification.

The nature of conflicts has also changed. Nowadays, these generally involve crises in which the soldier has no declared adversary. The enemy on a given day may be someone with whom he will cooperate the next. The solutions appropriate to asymmetrical tactics (bomb attacks, the use of crowds as shields, the use of child soldiers, etc.) now routine, often pose moral dilemmas. More importantly, the amorality of some participants must not lead the soldier to abandon moral constraints himself. He has the obligation to use force with judgement, primarily in order not to descend to the level of those he is fighting. This asymmetry of ethics is not new, but the problems posed are more acute in such a context.

Developments in technology form an additional factor in a Western world which rejects physical contact with suffering. Modern weapons permit the use of dehumanising technology with which strikes are carried out at a distance without seeing the result, and without contact with death.

In France, leaders at lower levels traditionally benefit from considerable operational latitude. This autonomy, as much doctrinal as cultural, has proved to be highly appropriate in recent engagements. None the less, such delegation requires orders to be perfectly clear, a complete understanding of them by subordinates and appropriate adaptation of the mission by each echelon in the chain of command. This is only possible in a spirit of mutual confidence and genuine cohesion, underpinned by a high degree of shared values.

The media also have a growing influence. Their omnipresence means that the smallest action is liable to be reported. A fault on the part of one person can thus rebound on everyone and discredit the action under way or the institution itself. In addition, the soldier has access through the media to a point of view sometimes different to his own, which can lead him to doubt his own understanding, and possibly the legitimacy of his actions. It is therefore necessary that every soldier understands the aim of his mission and can judge and act with discrimination.

Finally, the need for a common body of knowledge is reinforced by the growing sociological diversity of the armed forces.

The law, a partial answer

The law is the standard which comes most naturally to mind in regulating relations between states, or between states and individuals. The laws of war have expanded considerably (jus ad bellum and in bello, humanitarian law, etc.); this has resulted in the creation of legal adviser posts in the armed forces and the International Criminal Court.

The law meets part of the need very well because it contributes to the legitimisation of military action by laying down its limits. But rules and regulations come from experience and are primarily functional. The laws of war have been developed in the course of history in the mutual interest of belligerent states. They seek to limit losses and reduce the cost of conflict. They constitute a kind of ‘rules of the game’, founded on the reciprocity which has had to regulate the inevitable friction between states. International law, on which the laws of war are based, has long reflected only the balance of power. If it has gradually taken on an element of embodying values, this does not mean that a system of values exists. In addition, this largely declaratory development, without real prescriptive force, is difficult to apply in the face of the ‘universal competence’ which some countries claim.

The law is complex, multiple (international, national, local) and, moreover, ever-changing. The aid of specialists is often required, and yet the soldier needs to make decisions quickly and correctly. Law defines the general rules whose application to the complexity of a real situation is sometimes difficult. The volume and complexity of the legal corpus can even inhibit the combatant.

The law does not have all the answers, especially in the current climate of ambiguous situations involving peacemaking. Recourse must be had to collective codes of practice and especially to individual ethics, which are based on conscience and constitute a more universal reference than the law, a reference which is more demanding but more accessible. Although the law provides a framework and reference points, ethics provides sense.

The foundations of ethics

In action, it is relatively easy to choose between good and bad. To choose between a greater and a lesser good is more difficult. But the soldier, who frequently has a choice only between two bad courses, must be able to return to some soundly-based fundamentals if he is not to lose his own dignity, or even his reason.

Ethics enables action to be directed and can help to avoid finding oneself in a situation where one seeks a ‘good’ objective by means which are not good. Military action is an area where the moral intent and the act should converge, whatever the hazards of an uncertain environment. Faced with violence, ethics leads to a mastery of force so as not to exceed the aims sought.

Very often, presentations of ethics rest on anthropological hypotheses—philosophical or theological—that it would be difficult to adopt without analysis. A universal system of ethics would have to be based on a fundamental principle, easily accessible and shared. Yet what is the ultimate value that is obvious to everyone, if not the affirmation of the universality of man with, as its corollary, the respect of his integrity and freedom? Human dignity is thus the rock which we must cling to in all circumstances. It is the property of all people, whatever their physical, intellectual or moral qualities, their social status or their personal merits. With this to sustain him, the soldier can seek to overcome his adversary but will always respect him (e.g. when wounded or prisoner) and will never demonise him.

Ethics and law

The coexistence of these two frames of reference leads us to question their relationship, their hierarchical order.

Although, as we have seen, law has gradually come to be inspired by a moral code, it does not replace it and does not encompass it, the moral code being broader and more demanding. The law has the advantage of being recognised by all and of being less easily open to contradictory interpretations. The similarity of the moral and the legal is also very pronounced in some countries, especially in France where ethical obligations have a legal dimension. This way of looking at things is not universal; according to Pierre Hassner, in some countries (for instance the United States) the moral code is identified with liberty, while in others the moral code is founded on religious precepts.

So what does one do when the law and ethics prescribe different behaviour? The law, subject to changes and interpretation, cannot be perfect and cannot foresee every situation. It can even have appalling consequences. The massacres carried out by many totalitarian regimes were legal. On the other hand, always giving primacy to a code of ethics is not acceptable either, since this attitude also leads to excesses: holy wars are implacable. The tension between law and ethics has always existed, but the risk of conflict between a code of ethics founded on respect for human beings and Western systems of law is lower. One can thus propose that, as a general rule, states should normally observe the rule of law, whereas individuals can reasonably adhere to ethical principles.

Ethics and operations

Ethics and operational effectiveness are often seen as conflicting. For some, the adoption of moral behaviour could reduce the chances of military success. Conflicts of this kind may arise from time to time but, in the long term and in a collective sense, there is no real contradiction. Thus, the use of torture during the war in Algeria, whatever the conditions at the time, has had catastrophic consequences in the long term. Moral force has always been a major element in gaining ascendancy over an adversary. Less resort to violence can be more than adequately compensated for by a clearer conscience.

On the other hand, negative examples abound which show that an obsession with efficacy can lead to the exact opposite of the objective sought—the worsening of violence instead of its reduction. This is so in the fight against terrorism, in which a lack of discrimination and control could contribute to fuelling this same terrorism, since it feeds on hatred.

Finally, in present-day operations, strategy is often aimed at gaining the confidence of the population, and here a moral attitude is useful, even essential. This requirement is all the stronger since the presence of a force is long-term, a frequent situation nowadays. To head off hostile reaction and avoid giving ammunition to critics, the conduct of the force must be irreproachable. The success of many military operations has largely been due to the image created, especially in moral terms. Effectiveness thus calls for the adoption of ethical behaviour.

On operations, the soldier is confronted by a tension, possibly significant, between moral (and hence ethical) imperatives, which are permanent whatever the nature of the conflict and the type of engagement it leads to, the reality of the situation and the urgency of the actions required. It matters to the soldier not only that the cause is just, but that the means employed are too. This is not straightforward, and the tension between the cause and the means is constant.

The process of political legitimation of an intervention (ad bellum), notably by the definition of the desired end-state, and the conditions of the intervention (in bello), is becoming an essential condition for effectiveness. It determines the moral, political and legal acceptability of military action by the soldier. This degree of acceptability must be neither too influenced by the law or international moral opinion, which could be open to misinterpretation and lead to excesses, nor too partisan of the political line, in order to avoid leading the soldier (who, like other citizens, has a political view) to subordinate his duty to political preferences. Acceptability also requires effective communication within the formations involved, before and also during the deployment period. A loss of understanding of the action by the soldier in a theatre (the fundamental reasons for his presence and a clear perception of the operational objectives) can occur as the mission progresses and contact with the population blurs his judgement. This communication is based on a detailed analysis by the commander (the aims of the intervention, the desired end-state, the ways and means employed, the constraints on and imperatives of the mission, rules of behaviour, etc.), and its downward dissemination in terms which are clear and understandable by all. This effort to promote coherence and instruction is the price for maintaining confidence in the chain of command (and hence avoiding the temptation for the soldier to conduct his private war, on the ground as well as in the public and private media), and ensuring that the force is prepared for the demands of its mission.

Ethics training

The responsibility of each combatant for his actions, including those carried out in obedience to orders, in particular the obedience of commanders to orders from their political masters, entails an informed habit of obedience in which each soldier tries to understand the reasoning behind the order so that he can execute it better. Obviously, this requires real confidence in his commander as well as an ability to exercise authority on the part of the latter.

The soldier’s combat mission is not to add violence to violence; he must, on the contrary, act to avoid an escalation in violence, and reduce or avoid violence by the controlled use of force. For force to be kept in check, self-control is necessary on the part of those who use it. The perception that a mission is to some extent inappropriate must not lead to involvement beyond the stated objective, which should not be open to personal interpretation. The ethic of responsibility takes precedence over the ethic of conviction.

Ethics is therefore an imperative for any soldier in action. This supposes the identification, instruction and practice of a sound corpus founded on a genuine education. Ethics must move from the realm of the philosophical or moral to become part of a state of mind. Consequently, it is not merely the responsibility of the training system but also of commanders, through a practice that has yet to be developed.

Athough it comes from the deepest roots of our conscience, ethics is not innate. Like physical or technical education, or training, it must be inculcated. This instruction must be wide-ranging, given the immense responsibilities borne by the soldier. Ethics is a necessity in a military commander, because he structures and motivates the group. The preparation of the soldier is not only practical and physical, it is also moral. This process begun in basic training could without doubt be taken forward.

To produce results, ethical thought and training must not be restricted to simply suggesting a few examples of behaviour; at best this would only help in resolving yesterday’s problems. Intellectual training should preferably be accompanied by moral education, concentrating on individual conscience, which will help the soldier to judge, come to a correct decision and then implement it.

Conclusion

Ethics is not just a module in a course: it is designed to enrich the conscience rather than the brain, to strengthen the link between the moral justification for an action and its execution. Ethics training should not be confined to a special course but must be at the heart of the training system and preparation for action. Training should be based on a study of reference texts, supplemented by studies of real cases at all levels, illustrating real experiences, whether they ended in success or failure, as well as artificial situations in exercises.

This is not a matter of acquiring knowledge but of attaining a state of mind so that the soldier, unexpectedly confronted with a difficult situation, can find the resources within himself to act appropriately.

(1)  Le Métier du Soldat (Paris: Economica, 2002).