As I do not watch television, it will not disturb the networks to discover that this or that new show does not appeal to me. However, this review of the pilot for "Commander in Chief" does merit some comment. Among other things, the show apparently attempts to demonstrate to viewers that a good liberal President would not be a pacifist, but would use the military vigorously in defense of proper principles. In particular, what interests me is the test case they set up for the righteous use of arms:
Liberals are serious about human rights in this world too. Working out a subplot, Allen’s aides keep reminding her about the Nigeria situation: In accordance with sharia, Nigeria is about to put a woman to death for committing adultery. Allen is concerned.So, this is what a proper use of force looks like in the liberal Hollywood imagination. There is a problem, however.
Throughout, Allen is shown confidently ordering around generals and positioning aircraft carriers (see, this is why stereotypes are bad). And as Commander limps through its 38th minute, she brings the Nigerian ambassador to a Joint Chiefs’ meeting and proceeds to illustrate how the Marines will storm his country if the woman isn’t released immediately.
“I can’t believe the U.S.A. would take such a unilateral action,” the ambassador mumbles.
“If you think I’m going to sit by while a woman is executed, tortured, for having sex, you’re sorely mistaken,” retorts Allen.
It is not a proper use of force.
Deploying the military, particularly in an invasion by Marines, is going to result in loss of life and social chaos. These are bad things, which always inevitably result on the occasions that the military is used.
If a war is just, however, there may be some good ends that will result as well. It is important to see that the good ends and the bad results balance, in a way that favors the good. You cannot morally use force if you don't attend to that balance.
"Just War" theory, which is the backbone of Western ethical thinking about military force, addresses the issue using a technique known as "the doctrine of double (or dual) effect." The doctrine originally arises in Medieval Catholic thought, but applies very nicely to questions of morally using force. (This is true for liberals as well as conservatives, by the way -- one of the finest books on the subject, and indeed my original textbook when I was first studying the concept of Just War, was written by liberal thinker Michael Walzer.)
The doctrine of double effect holds that, when you contemplate an action that has both a good and a bad effect, you can morally take that action if:
1) The action is "discriminate," by which they mean that the bad effect is neither your goal, nor the means to the good end you hope to achieve. The way to test this is by imagining that the good end could, by miracle, be achieved without the bad things coming to pass. If you would be happy with that result, the act is discriminate.
An example: You wish to bomb a weapons' factory, but there will be workers there who will be killed. The workers are forced labor; it's not their fault they are making weapons for the enemy. Is the act discriminate? You imagine that the bombs fall and by miracle destroy the factory, but the workers all escape unharmed. Would you be satisfied? Of course! Therefore, the act qualifies under the first test.
2) The act must also be "proportionate," meaning that the good accomplished must be at least equal to the harm caused. This has to be tested before the fact -- one can't be blamed for harm that one could not have reasonably imagined.
An example: You invade a country to stop a genocide in progress. In the process, your advancing troops disrupt the tribal social order far more completely than anyone expected, thus touching off a revenge genocide that kills far more people than the original one would have done. Your original action (trying to stop the first genocide) qualifies as proportionate because the greater harm was neither expected nor probable. Now, you must choose whether to try and stop the new genocide -- for which you are partially responsible.
In our Hollywood dream scenario, we have a liberal President planning to invade Nigeria with Marines in order to rescue a single person. Rescuing the single person from torture and execution is a good effect (at least, it's a good effect if one doesn't believe, as the people in that part of Nigeria do, that "having sex" in this context is an offense against God that has a divinely mandated punishment). Well enough. What are the bad effects of invading Nigeria?
* There is, to start with, the loss of innocent life that will unavoidably happen when you deploy Marines to secure a city.
* If one has taken the line that the Iraq war is a bad thing because it pits Americans against Muslims, then this war is far worse. It pits America against, not "some Muslims," but Islam itself. We are undertaking to enforce a Western notion of justice over, not a socialist-fascist tyranny, but over sha'riah.
* A major nation state in Africa is disrupted. Given the regional instability, this could have fearsome consequences -- for which we will be unprepared, because our national commitment, both in terms of force levels and political will, is only up to the task of rescuing a woman.
Thus, the good to be accomplished is not in anything like a proportionate relationship to the harm caused. While discriminate -- we don't have to imagine the scenario where no harm is caused, because Hollywood does it for us, with the Nigerians backing down -- the act is not at all proportionate. The action is improper, and immoral.
The supposed President's actions are also, I can't help but notice, shocking to the degree that they are unaware of basic military realities. She went to the enemy and told them what her plans for invasion were?
Pity the poor Marines who are asked to take those landing zones. They'll do it, of course, but it would have been a good idea not to "illustrate" the plan beforehand.
In addition, given the size of the mission objective, it was very unwise. As we have seen from the time it took to capture Saddam, and the continuing inability to find Zarqawi, it is not hard to hide a single person from an army in a large nation. This is true even if, as in Saddam's case, absolutely everyone can recognize him on sight.
The "woman" in question could easily be hidden from the American forces or, more likely, sent back to them in pieces. If the goal was to rescue this woman, the goal will not likely be accomplished in the fashion imagined.
If you had to imagine military action in this context, the thing to do was to send an unannounced commando raid backed by light infantry to secure the area. Navy SEALs acting in concert with Army Rangers, as in the Jessica Lynch raid, might work. Such an action might indeed be proportionate, although it would still have the bad effect of casting America as the enemy of sha'riah -- but only for an evening, rather than committing to months and years of fighting to prevent the implementation of sha'riah. It would, at least, avoid the more major type of disruptions.
They might actually get the woman back, too. President Geena's plan was not too likely to manage that.
No comments:
Post a Comment