War is Hell

I understand this expression ("War is Hell") originated with Sherman.  No doubt he used it as an excuse for his atrocities, not descriptively, but as a rationalization.  Nevertheless, it expresses a reality that people don't appreciate, until they think about the more traditional understandings of perdition.

Irving Berlin, in his song "This is the Army" got it I think right on (for those who listen to the words carefully) with this verse:

Do what the buglers command.
They're in the army and not in a band.

This is the army, Mister Brown.
You and your baby went to town.
She had you worried
But this is war and she won't worry you anymore.

On the battlefront one forgets other worries.

Since the last few days I've been on an ethics kick, it seems I should address the most serious ethical question of all that the ordinary person is likely to encounter -- war.

There is the concept of a just war and all the others, and in history there have been few just wars, but they do exist.  The Romans built their empire on "just wars," and even had silly rituals they went through to persuade themselves (or somebody) that their going out and conquering someone and pillaging their property and enslaving the population was "just."

One of the Ten Commandments is against stealing, and I have to wonder how it is that this never occurred to the Israelis as they conquered and displaced the Canaanites.  I could insert a snide comment here but I will let the readers insert their own.

I think it is pretty clear that wars conducted to occupy territory and take slaves and property can be ruled unjust.  What about a war to resist someone else doing this?  The right of self defense is questionable as a right, certainly not without boundaries and conditions (such as one has no right to engage in unnecessary brutality in such cases).  Still, the rule of minimizing harm seems to say one cannot allow bullies and aggressors to do their thing with impunity.  The have to be resisted if at all possible and with war if necessary.  Otherwise such types would rule the world and the harm from that would be immeasurable.

Now, what if you have reason to conclude that another country is preparing an invasion -- are you allowed to act preemptively?  Well it seems reasonable that if this will prevent an even worse war later on, then again by the rule of minimizing harm, it would be ethical.

Now we get into some deep politics -- what if the preemptive action is worse than the war, or results in conquest (not all conquests involve outright annexation -- just changing the regime in power to one more to one's taste is a form of stealing).  The outcome of war is highly unpredictable and may (usually does) far more harm than anticipated by the study institutes.

The personal ethical question, of whether or not to be a soldier, and whether or not to support one's nations' military actions, is complicated.  For the most part the attitude obviously should be pacifistic -- oppose war and support measures to reduce its likelihood (ironically that almost always includes supporting defensive military preparation).

Patriotism, when not taken too far (as is the case with all virtues) is a virtue.  One loves one's country, one wants it to persist, one wants it to prosper.  Being at war is counterproductive to these desires, but may be unavoidable.

There is also the horrible set of questions as to one's personal behavior when on the battlefront?  I know myself I could never kill another person, no matter what, so I guess I am lucky I was never in that position.  Still, it is not for me to judge what others may decide to do.  I would just ask that they mindfully review the options in advance.