You're a military man. I bet you're familiar with the term collateral damage. Suppose in trying to ultimately save the lives of thousands, you kill a few hundred enemies. In the process, you know that at least a few innocent civilian deaths are unavoidable. Would such a course of action be wrong?
The fact that you are soldier already makes me think that your own practical morality is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. It must be really difficult to be one while being such a staunch liberal.
First of all, my liberal politics covers the relationship between the state and the citizen. Again, in longhand, what I mean by 'rights' is the trade-off we expect from handing over licence to use coercive power to the state. In saying I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I am saying that the state must protect these rights in order to continue to enjoy the legitimacy that it has. What I'm about to say below isn't really covered by liberal theory; the relationship between an individual soldier or officer - as distinct from the government's orders - and his enemy is a matter for private morality or international law.
You're right that we at times expect collateral damage. As an individual soldier it is your responsibility to minimise it as much as you can; you've probably heard my quick ethical assessment that if you can justify everything you do before your God, you're probably doing alright. With that in mind, I don't believe you can ever take a shot
knowing that civilians will be hurt by it. We often get reports of civilian buildings being mistakenly targeted by drone or missile strikes in Afghanistan; we never get reports of houses known to contain both civilians and enemy fighters being deliberately targeted. To do so is not only militarily unsound, since it writes the enemy's propaganda for them, it's also deeply immoral. This is all within the remit of your mission, however: you have to minimise collateral as far as possible while doing what you're told to do, since your duty as a soldier is to the mission first, assuming that your orders do not directly and clearly contradict international law.
I remember the final phases of the Battle of Goose Green, when our new CO - a profoundly religious man - sent a dispatch to the enemy informing them that if they did not surrender, he would order the bombardment of the town, which was still occupied by its inhabitants, and the Argentines would be held responsible. I've often wondered since then if he would actually have done it, and my inclination is that he would not. I know I certainly would not have been able to use civilian lives - particularly
our own civilians, whom we were sent to the Falklands to liberate and protect - as a bargaining chip, although I might have had the sheer
cajones to bluff like Keeble did.
Intent matters a lot, for example there is a world of difference between shooting back at a twelve year old who attacked you first and gunning down an unarmed twelve year old
Indeed. I happen to be of the school of thought which says that, on a moral level, actions should only be judged on intent and forseeable consequences.
