What it Means to be a Soldier Now

Something that stuck out to me during this lecture was what it means to be an American soldier. It is certainly something that changes from when we look at conscription to the idea of a volunteer service member. The idea of the soldier in the minds of the American public has been something fluid over the course of history. Not only does it change within the context of a war, but it also changes depending on the viewpoint. Protesters spit on returning soldiers from Vietnam while servicemen coming home from the Middle East have been received by parades.

It seems that Simmon’s idea of the rational individual was the framework by which the American public viewed soldiers in Vietnam-and of course this is a generalization; there was a wide spectrum of views on the war. At the time it was a shame that these young kids were being sent abroad as puppets of the state fighting an unjust and futile war. But now there is much more of a ‘support the troops’ mentality. To speak negatively of a soldier in Iraq-a largely unsupported war- will find flak in casual conversation. Is it possible that we as a nation are moving away from an individualist frame of mind and more towards collective thinking? This would be a hard point to argue, but I do believe there is something to glean from the way we view our soldiers nowadays-fighting for ‘freedom’ and ‘country’ even during an unpopular war. 

Redefining the Relationship Between Citizen and State

The idea of owing a duty to serve your nation is one that I believe a lot of people would agree with.  What is unsettling is that it may come at the cost of their life. Furthermore, individuals may not agree with the reasons for why their nation is in a conflict to begin with. Thoreau’s piece, On Civil Disobedience touches on the duty of a citizen to his state to both obey and disobey.  Many other political thinkers share Thoreau’s belief that we have a duty to obey just laws and to “disobey” unjust laws.  But the only way that such an outlook is possible is if you understand the relationship between citizen and state to be like the child-parent established in “Conscripts and Volunteers”.  Those that believe you have a duty to always obey or to serve your nation in the armed forces might agree with the idea that the citizen-state relationship should be more like a romantic relationship; a relationship where you stand by your partner unconditionally.  Even though you may not agree with everything they do, you support them.  You support them, “in sickness and in health…till death do us part”.  In the United States I can see why the relationship is not understood to be this way.  Americans have so much individual liberty that they don’t feel like they have an obligation to the state because all the state ever does is get in the way of their individual liberty.  Those that don’t serve don’t understand what it means.  Those that serve do understand and they might look at the citizen-state relationship as a romantic one. 

            I don’t agree with Fullinwider’s analysis of the child-parent relationship in that the children actually have no obligation to obey the parents. In fact, to me I find the relationship to be very similar to that of the citizen-state one.  The results may be different but the situation is the same.  Every day you see the benefits that your parents give to you: a house, food, clothes, etc.  When you get to a certain age you have to take on some of that responsibility; you have to clean your house, do your chores, get a job, etc. And eventually you move out and have to do it all yourself. I find this point to be much like the relationship between citizen and state.  Once you get to a certain age you pay your taxes and you receive benefits.  No teenager wants a job much like how citizens don’t want to pay taxes or don’t want to serve in the armed forces.  Someone in your household has to have a job in order to pay for the house.  Citizens have to pay taxes for the construction of roads, bridges, stoplights, etc.  We have to have an armed force for certain situations.  Does everyone need to serve in it? Maybe not, but we should be willing to if our name is called because your nation is like your parents or your partner, there for you so long as you are there for them

Private Militarized Firms

In Singer’s article, he explains reasons why private military firms are sometimes useful to a country in war. Before this, I have always regarded PMFs as morally ambiguous companies that can be bought and have no moral code and are only focused on the end result. After the article, my belief hasn’t changed and my stance remains the same on PMFS. The fact is any nation rich enough can seek the service of these firms to eliminate a threat.

It is an outsider to a conflict, taking a side due to a contract without any background knowledge or care just only on outcome is a terrible way of conducting a just war. Take the Iraq war for example; the media had often made accusations about the conduct of PMFs in Iraq. During the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2003-2004, reports claimed that the contractors hired were involved also the trophy video in 2005 showing these contractors shooting Iraqi civilians.

It is clear these PMF are all money based operations while their conduct can often create ethical debates of their provision. Despite these reports, the United States government cannot hold them responsible for their actions. Human rights violation such as the case in Bosnia where scandal arose when contractors hired women for sexual favors and behave in other illicit activities is an example of non accountability. Accountability is important; if a firm is not accountable then it can get away with so much. These PMFs are not often accountable to military justice code; they are only subject to the laws of the market.

They often hire people without sufficient screening. Insufficient screening to check a soldier’s character to see whether they are fit to fight is often overlooked or not checked at all. Legal recourse are often slim, as per the claims and ongoing investigations to the crimes committed by some PMFs in Iraq since 2004. As the war in Iraq came to a close, the U.S. States department planned to increase the number of firms. Even though, this can help reduce the tendency toward conflict in some areas and also increase the chances of peace. However, it will create what it is supposed to prevent, due to their interests. They have little incentive to encourage a resolution that motivated their hire in the first place. When it comes to military responsibilities, the incentives of these firms to make profit and may not always be in line with the client’s interests or those of the public good.

AVF vs. PSC, which better suits the USA?

In the debate over whether or not it is better for the United States to rely on the all-volunteer force as it does now, or rely on Private Security Companies during times of war, I personally believe that we should still rely on the all-volunteer force, and that using PSCs could potentially be very dangerous.

The use of PSCs brings up similar concerns that Machiavelli makes in his writings on the use of who princes should use to fight wars for them.  Machiavelli believes that paying others to deal with peoples’ and states’ problems of security is detrimental. PSCs are motivated by money and have no true loyalties to any group, much like mercenaries. Since PSCs are motivated by personal incentives and money, this poses the concerns that Singer brings up, that there is “the possibility that direct market incentives may encourage a firm to go ‘rogue’”. Or even worse, the possibility that if the enemy decides to pay a large sum for their services PSCs would change sides, since there are no ties to either country. Another major issue is that firms “maintain an interest in making sure that the client is satisfied”, and this might be harmful because not all buyers care about morality and human rights. Therefore, when human rights are violated in a war fought by PSCs there might be no accountability for these actions.

In the use of the pre-existing all-volunteer force in the United States, there would be little risk in soldiers switching sides during a war. This is due to the fact that these soldiers are motivated to fight for their country, a single identity under the unity of patriotism or a capable leader. Patriotism and being a citizen of the United States strengthens the soldiers’ ties to the goal of a war in protecting their country, giving them more of an incentive to fight and win. Unlike PSCs, these soldiers have other motivations besides monetary gains, which wouldn’t allow market incentives to sway their loyalty. An example of this would be the spike in military enrollment and enlistment after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Many citizens were motivated to sign up for the military in order to protect their country, and were united by patriotism after the United States was attacked. The motivation to protect one’s own against a common threat or enemy and avenge the deaths of innocents was incentive enough for new soldiers to enlist and old ones to sign up for more tours. Furthermore, even though human rights aren’t always respected during war, there are international guidelines for all countries and their military, which provide liability for violations of human rights, most of the time.

I believe that Machiavelli’s argument that a soldier or PSC is one that is ineffective because there is nothing really for them to lose, only to gain. Therefore, it is better for the United States to fight with soldiers that are citizens of the country since there are more loyalties and incentives to win. While I believe that the current all-volunteer force is the most appropriate for the present day, I realize that the PSC industry is still changing and the future of this industry is unclear. Maybe with more guidelines PSCs may turn out to be an alternative source of soldiers for nations, such as the United States to use in the future, as time and war changes with time. 

Machiavelli vs. Mercenaries

An interesting topic in this sections readings was the writings of Machiavelli on the topic of who should fight for us. In chapter twelve of the Prince Machiavelli makes it clear that he is not in favor of hiring outside forces to help fight for a country. Machiavelli states that “Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful” (Machiavelli, The prince, ch 12). It can be interpreted that Machiavelli believes that the mercenaries have no personal ties to the country and because of this feel no true commitment towards keeping it safe. In having this thought process the mercenaries put the country at great risk, because they are not willing to sacrifice everything to protect the country. In fact Machiavelli says that “The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you” (Machiavelli, The prince, ch 12). 

Soldiers that only fight for a country because they are being paid are not soldiers that should be protecting the country; it is because of this that Machiavelli states “that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of a captain; the republic has to send its citizens” (Machiavelli, The prince, ch 12). The only way to ensure that a country is protected at all cost is if the citizens and the rule themselves fight the war. In order to protect their friends and families the citizens will risk their lives to fight off any enemies that threaten the country. I believe that Machiavelli makes a very compelling point because a soldier with nothing to lose in war is an ineffective soldier. A country that fights with ineffective soldiers is a country that is doomed to fall. 

The Market for Security: Implications for the Fight on Terror

The rising prominence of private security companies (PSCs) is certainly transforming the traditional military landscape and giving rise to important questions regarding the future of force and security, especially whether defense, usually considered a public good falling under the responsibility of the government, can and should be privatized. Though our first instinct may be to distrust and disregard PSCs as valuable to the war effort, Singer warns that, "making a blanket, normative judgment about the entire privatized military industry is analytically incorrect and ethically unfair" because "just as the public institutions of the state have served both good and evil ends, so too can the privatized military industry." Private security companies present both benefits and risks, and I believe that the use of PSCs, deemed unconventional by some, could provide a feasible way to address terrorism, an unconventional threat.

            PSC's can transform warfare in the sense that privatization (and in turn, competition) encourages new ideas about how to deliver a service that requires fewer inputs, thus products and services can become cost-effective while still remaining efficient. Furthermore, PSCs can more easily recruit internationally and provide specialized forces, hiring people with particular experiences such as peacekeeping, or particular skills such as language proficiency. In addition, solely crunching the basic numbers presents a huge advantage to the U.S. government: contracting PSCs adds to the overall manpower and aids in achieving missions abroad. For example, PSCs could be used in the aftermath of U.S. missions to assist with nation-building, especially as the U.S. may not be able to uphold a long-term commitment politically. PSCs thus have the potential to transcend bureaucratic and political hurdles and even international borders without sacrificing quality and quantity, which may be essential in the fast-paced and unpredictable fight on terror- a fight that is hardly geographically contained. However, it is important to note the grave challenges and risks posed by private security companies. As Singer discusses, the use of PSCs is certainly not very transparent as there is less accountability and regulation. Private security companies could serve to completely undermine democratic control, leading to less public order, and unilateral resort to PSCs can influence states to take actions which its citizens may find objectionable. For this reason, in order to utilize PSCs for good in the fight on terror, cooperation among states, private companies, NGO's and citizens at the global level is a must. This kind of cooperation could generate professional, ethical and legal standards that PSCs could adhere to and be held accountable for. These standards would serve to enhance the legitimacy of PSCs as well as global security in the age of terrorism. What the future holds for reputable PSCs is uncertain; however, they certainly present vast potential for the global War on Terror, and perhaps for Glennon's paradigm.

Moral Gray Areas in the Justification of Torture

            Torture is a concept that evokes incredibly strong feelings. There are times it inspires patriotic rancor in those who view it as a justifiable response to sub human enemies who are not worthy of moral consideration. In others it is a deplorable act that debases our status as a developed nation. I find myself pulled towards the use of torture when the ends justify the means- for example the highly unlikely ticking time bomb scenario. But I have to remind myself that torture is an archaic, barbaric act. I am not entirely dismissing its use, but I believe that the use of torture damages our reputation and lowers our status as a reputable global superpower.

            Krauthammer works on the idea that some deserve torture because they have given up their humanity by engaging in despicable acts. This is an exceptional view that counts the United States as the benevolent policing hegemon and terrorists as the riffraff that we must deal with. But it’s important to remember that when terrorists are considered rational actors when analyzed. Krauthammer writes as if they lack any ability to reason and have resorted to a subhuman method of achieving an irrational goal, and this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a terrorist really is that fails to justify torture.

            Yoo’s commentary that terrorists are not conventional soldiers and thus do not receive the benefits of the Geneva Convention is tricky. Why are they considered less than soldiers? Does one being under the banner of a state absolve them of the risk of being tortured? United States soldiers have certainly done things in the past that are morally despicable from an objective standpoint-indiscriminate burning of villages, torture and humiliation of prisoners. Does this mean that these soldiers are not conventional and could be apt to torture? I think that to justify torture through the debasement of terrorists is a fallacy. It views our role in the world as righteous and the role of all terrorists as despicable. Sometimes these roles are not so clear cut.