The Changing Ethics of Accidental Killing in Military Operations

Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us. For the second time in less than a year, the commander of NATO forces, U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, has apologized to the Afghan government and people for killing civilians during a massive offensive strike.

Strangely, just a few decades ago during the Vietnam War, civilian casualties were euphemistically called ‘collateral damage' to avoid the spotlight. Is this change in attitude a sign of changing ethics, a public relations ploy or both?

Desperate to keep as much of the Afghan population on NATO’s side (rather than the Taliban’s), McChrystal’s stern address yesterday had all the marks of a bad actor in a role that doesn’t suit him. Yet, the fact that he was even playing it speaks for itself. The U.S. Department of Defense’s definition of collateral damage is “Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack.”

If what happened during the massive offensive last week wasn’t collateral damage in this sense, nothing is.

But the shift from "collateral damage" to "we're sorry" is exactly what makes McChrystal’s statement all the more shocking, not to mention that he has so far done it twice in this war, indicating that it is part of a change of public ethics even if also part of a public relations strategy. Here is where the common law definition of accidental killing can be insightful: (1) accidental killings resulting from unlawful acts of violence not directed at the victim were punishable as Manslaughter (killings resulting from unlawful acts directed at the victim were punishable as murder); and (2) accidental killings resulting from lawful acts of violence were excusable as homicide by misadventure.

McChrystal’s boss, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, told reporters that this, like all wars, is "messy" and "incredibly wasteful." Less apologetically than McChrystal, but to the same point, he added, “But that doesn't mean it's not worth the cost."

Though the actual lawfulness of the war in Afghanistan according to international law is debatable at best, according to the U.S. government it is lawful. It follows that if the violence of the massive attack is lawful and people are killed in its way, those killings are not criminal. So why apologize for them? Because regardless of killing’s criminality, it is unethical. And if NATO, among the biggest military coalitions ever assembled, and its leader, the U.S., start to admit and even publicize the unethicality of killing, surely a new era in warfare (‘military morality’ instead of just morale?) is upon us, and may it never leave.

Photo credit: isafmedia