An Interesting Question

[Dozer]

I'm answering this based on the grounds of the original post, you either kill or you don't, you have no ther options.

1. If you were in their position, without knowing what the farmers would do, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
I would. My purpose of being in that country is to serve my country and it's people as best as I can. I, as a soldier, could not even chance the risk of letting these people take off. This act would not go without feeling but I would act on the grounds (and the mindset) that my counrty knows everything and these people need to die because they are a risk.

2. If you knew that they were innocent farmers, but would be tortured by the Taliban to reveal your location, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
Same again, I would kill them. The death would surely be a better thing than being tortured (lets face it, they wouldn't tickle you and call it torture, they'd damn well hurt you bad). Some would ask for death instead of the torture (I assume).

3. Do you think it's acceptable to use the utilitarian approach, and suggest that killing three goat herders to save the lives of the group of four or so soldiers is morally acceptable?*
The answer to that question would hinge entirely on what side you're on I guess. The herders could attempt to communicate and make some arrangement to not reveal their location in exchange for their lives / well being.

To play outside of the rules of the original post, I would try to leave one, maybe two of the soldiers with the herders and see what progress can be made with the two remaining soldiers. That qradruples the chance of every soldier getting killed but conflict isn't a game of exact numbers.
A soldier may make the choice to wound the herders enough so that they can't go for help (break their legs for example). That would be just as risky as letting them off but it may slow them enough that the soldiers can do their recon and get the hell out of there.


Imagine being in that situation, a situation that thousands of soldiers would face everyday. No wonder they spin out as they age, what terrible things you'd have in your head. We're bloody lucky they do the nitty gritty for us.

 

[SteveC22]

its pretty funny because we know the full story of what happened, so everyone who answered 'I would let them go' would actually be dead right now (or have the guilt of knowing all of your mates are dead because of you)..

I wonder if this actually makes anybody who would have let them go becuase of 'moral reasons' or whatever to re-think this situation...

 

[dinosaur_mtb]

Interesting post. The Military Officers Association of America raises the same question and there are a few responses in a military sense on that webpage wrt professional ethics.

"One of the characteristics that distinguish US forces from our (current) adversaries is that we will not abandon principle in favor of pragmatism. Although the mission is primary as an objective, it must be pursued morally and ethically. That does not include the murder of unarmed non-combatants, whether Geneva Convention signatories or not. This is not a case of civilian casualties being a collateral result of legitimate military operations (strategic bombing of factories, for example). Regrettably, the morally correct decision in this case resulted in compromise of the mission and the tragic loss of numerous combatant lives. Putting the matter to a vote was a shirking of responsibility by the officer in charge. It was his duty and responsibility to make the difficult decision."

Captain Dean 6/5/2008 2:11:51 AM I first became aware of this incident via a National TV news spot. The decision to me is quite easy. Shoot the so called "goatherders". This is a war zone. The prime objective is to day alive. For the Seal Team leader to take a vote is out of line with war time military leadership. Is this waht they teach in Seal School consensus leadership ?? Trying to out think the press and to fear non suport from the chain of command, but that is the least of the worries considering the total loss of US life. This is war. In the condouct of mortal comabt there are no rules, no laws when ones life is concerned.

Lieutenant Hughes 6/5/2008 1:51:54 AM Ethically correct. It is hard to live with the results but it would of been harder to live with the execution. Brave men all.


Chief Warrant Officer Whitman 6/4/2008 7:41:07 PM As it turned out, the goatherders were the enemy and so killing them would not have been wrong. But they did not have proof and they knew they would not have the full support of our nation w/o this proof. Now we know what they did not and so we as a nation are responsible, but they did the right thing, just wish they all had made it back.


Colonel Apfel 6/4/2008 6:28:02 PM Killing the unarmed non-combatants would be wrong, despite the possible mission compromise and the possibility that the non-combatants, if released, would disclose their presence to the enemy. I believe one of their implied if not stated mission conditions should have been "If discovered by indigenous personnel, you are to immediately contact this headquarters for immediate extraction."

Captain Sauer 6/4/2008 2:40:55 PM They should not have been sent there with out some backup plan to extract them.This mission was doomed from the start, and killing the goat herders would not have saved them unless they were extracted asap.




Read the whole story at above link.

 

[for those about to rock]

I'm not a very violent person and I have been taught very high standards morals and ethics. However, had I been in this situation, I would have killed the farmers. It would not be without hesitation or any forethought though. It would cause me to question my religion and myself as a human. I possibly would have kept them alive but knowing that they might reveal our position I would have made the decision that had my squads best interests in mind. Providing I was of superior rank that is.

Although, as I am writing this, if I was just one of the lesser ranked soldiers on the mission I would maybe advise the soldier in command to let them go as it wasn't my full responsibility for my team, only myself, so I would only have my best interests in hand.

As I aspire to become an officer in the Navy my Mum asked me about that I would do if I was in the same situation that happened no too long ago, when a naval officer chose to save his team mate instead of a refugee. I said that I would too help my team mate at any cost.

As far as I know, there is a strong bond between servicemen and women. They are like family to each other. And me personally, I'd rather ensure the safety of my family (team) over that of some people, of the opposing side, that I have never met. Civilian or not.

 

[Arete]

its pretty funny because we know the full story of what happened, so everyone who answered 'I would let them go' would actually be dead right now (or have the guilt of knowing all of your mates are dead because of you)..

I wonder if this actually makes anybody who would have let them go becuase of 'moral reasons' or whatever to re-think this situation...

Interesting that Mr dinosaur's link provides commentary from many supposed military personnell - not one of which agree with you.

Consensus seems to be that
a) Ultimate failing is the fault of the mission planning which left the men with no directives or extraction method given the circumstances at hand.
b) The commanding officer should never have put it to a vote.
c) The men made the correct, ethical decision given the difficult circumstances at hand, and that the murder of the goat herders would not have necessarily prevented the end outcome in any case.

 

[for those about to rock]

Interesting that Mr dinosaur's link provides commentary from many supposed military personnell - not one of which agree with you.

Consensus seems to be that
a) Ultimate failing is the fault of the mission planning which left the men with no directives or extraction method given the circumstances at hand.
b) The commanding officer should never have put it to a vote.
c) The men made the correct, ethical decision given the difficult circumstances at hand, and that the murder of the goat herders would not have necessarily prevented the end outcome in any case.

Boom, say no more. Even after voicing my opinion, which I stick too, I would have to agree with Arete. The points raised right there are entirely what should have or was done.

There is, however, one variable we are leaving out. These men are trained for such a situation. They know how to handle things like this. I think you will find that military training in both Australia and America is so scrupulous that all risk is virtually eliminated. Of course, there are unforeseen problems which may occur whilst on a mission but the training soldiers recieve prepares them for virtually every scenario.

 

[3viltoast3r]

I find it interesting how there is a lot more sympathy for this civilian than Abott from the "A tragic near miss" thread.

IRL I would try and find an alternative, but although black-and-white thinking says to me to kill the poor chap, even if it brings about my death, I dont think I could bring myself to do it.

 

[Spanky_Ham]

Its interesting that the ROE (rules of engagement) have not been brought up (well, as far as the pig can see).... The ROE of any mission is critical, and no armed forces are taught to think/confer **... just follow orders... failing to have complete ROE's means there's been a clusterf*ck of mamoth proportions by the numpties at their desks...

so, Spec Op's behind enemy lines..... the ROE's would have been completely defined before ingress.... esp behind enemy lines.

s

** OK, nuclear subs have the whole "confirm/concur" chain of command....

 

[3viltoast3r]

Its interesting that the ROE (rules of engagement) have not been brought up (well, as far as the pig can see).... The ROE of any mission is critical, and no armed forces are taught to think/confer **... just follow orders... failing to have complete ROE's means there's been a clusterf*ck of mamoth proportions by the numpties at their desks...

so, Spec Op's behind enemy lines..... the ROE's would have been completely defined before ingress.... esp behind enemy lines.

s

** OK, nuclear subs have the whole "confirm/concur" chain of command....

Are the ROE different for SF than normal military? My understanding for the normal military is generalised to 'only shoot back', But would a mission compromising scenario render a war crime as acceptable? Particularly for high priority missions such as the special force

 

[for those about to rock]

Are the ROE different for SF than normal military? My understanding for the normal military is generalised to 'only shoot back', But would a mission compromising scenario render a war crime as acceptable? Particularly for high priority missions such as the special force

Would it be on a mission by mission basis? Also would it be possible to have ROE's changed during mission. Also, why couldn't they radio superiors at base to attain the right course of action? Unless I missed that.

 

[dinosaur_mtb]

Again: Read one version of the account here.

Capt. Rick Rubel, USN-Ret., currently is the distinguished military professor of Ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. After a 30-year career in the Navy, he has taught the Core Ethics Course for 10 years and has served as course director for the past six years. He is coauthor and coeditor of Case Studies in Military Ethics (Pearson Publishing, 2006).


Here is an extract of above paper. It raises the ethical bar a notch higher considering how to engage in what are huge cross-cultural conflicts.

Pashtun hospitality
Bleeding, thirsty, and numb, Luttrell crawled on his hands and knees for hours, looking for water. Some local Pashtun tribesmen, apparently not Taliban, found him. In an unusual tribal custom, the town elders not only took him into their houses to heal his wounds and feed him, but they also invoked a tribal custom (unique to that area) called “lokhay.” Lokhay literally means “put on a pot,” and this goes far beyond normal hospitality. Because the Pashtun region is remote and tribal, recognizing no central government, the people have maintained this extraordinary “all or nothing” custom when encountering strangers for hundreds of years. If they vote to let you go, you are on your own. But if they extend this ultimate hospitality of lokhay, you essentially have become part of their “family” and will be protected even if they have to fight to their deaths. The village that was sheltering Luttrell was surrounded by Taliban for days during his recovery. His hosts made good on their promise to protect him, as they moved him from house to house.
After days of recovery with food and medicine, Luttrell was able to put together a makeshift battery arrangement for his distress radio. He sent a one-way message asking for rescue. After dodging the Taliban for a few more days, he was rescued by Army Rangers.
​

>>>>
Overall a damned if you do:damned if you don't situation.

 

[Bjorn]

1. If you were in their position, without knowing what the farmers would do, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
2. If you knew that they were innocent farmers, but would be tortured by the Taliban to reveal your location, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
3. Do you think it's acceptable to use the utilitarian approach, and suggest that killing three goat herders to save the lives of the group of four or so soldiers is morally acceptable?*

There are only TWO solutions, to kill or not to kill. (i.e. there are no other ways out of it) Also, try to think of what YOU would do, if you were one of the soldiers. This might mean assuming that you have taken all the training and have changed your mindset, or that you still have the same mindset as you would right now.

*Story taken from Michael J Sandel's book Justice

Nice one olly1oo6,
I love a good moral quandry.

Placing myself in the position of the U.S. soldiers.

1. We are at war, the goat herders are "Collateral Damage". I would rely on my (U.S.) government's oft demonstrated reluctance to allow it's troops to be tried in an International War Crimes Tribunal and dispatch the two men and the boy. Gunfire would attract attention, so it would need to be done with a knife.

2. As above. Maybe I would justify it to myself as, "They are better off with a clean death." Any justification is purely an exercise in abbrogation of personal responsibility.

3. Any attempt to justify murder in a situation other than self defense in the face of a direct attack is morally indefensible. War is morally indefensible except in the face of genocide.

 

[Jon]

Killing the herders will make no difference.
You think the taliban are not going to notice 100 or so goats wandering around aimlessly?

Keep the boy as a hostage and send the adults on their way with a very clear indication of the consequences of divulging the SF location. At that point the SF should GTFO to some other locale and take the kid with them.

On the moral issues, the goat herders had no trouble in answering your question Olly.
They rolled over in a heartbeat.\

Them or me, me every time.
Then leave asap.

 

[Tomas]

I find it interesting how there is a lot more sympathy for this civilian than Abott from the "A tragic near miss" thread.

Why can you not understand the difference between having a dig at a politician and a black and white ethical question game? Had Abott got cleaned up, the thread would have been a whole lot different. Apples and oranges.

 

[harmonix1234]

If I were the soldier, I would probably be under the order of some superior and have to carry out whatever order I was given regardless of my moral fibre, otherwise risk being court marshalled.

However, If I had a choice I vote strongly for the setting them free option as I am an optomist.
The strangest and most unbelieveable things can happen, and sending someone free then gives the individual the option of doing good, or not, which in turn can affect a million things that could still end to you getting out safely.

There are so many war stories of what would seem an impossible turn of events occurring which lead to unpredictable, great, and tragic outcomes.

It is nobodys place to steal a man of his right to fulfil his destiny.

Keep in mind, I have absolutely no military training, I have no idea of the degree of mental conditioning ingrained in these soldiers, and so I cannot truly answer 'If it were me what would I do'.
Because if it were me I wouldn't be there, and if I was there, I wouldn't be me.
I would look like me but be military-grunt-jarhead-harmonix1234 and hence probably kill them.

 

[johnny]

Kill them, of course.

But you'd have to either bludgeon/butt-stroke them to death or cut their heads off.


Being that you're on a recon patrol you wouldn't be able to shoot them or you'd give yourselves away. Might have to do the same to all the goats too, don't want them to start bleating and give you up either.


In all seriousness though (and I haven't read the other posts) why not just keep them sitting down under the gun until you're done in your OP? Then when you leave they leave. Also, I find it hard to believe that an SF or even basic infantry team would deploy without rope or zip ties. Zip them up, fill their mouths with food and say goodbye. They'll be found before they starve.

I cannot follow a totally unrealistic hypothetical though, sorry. There are too many other options available here. But if you ask the question "would you kill some one if there's a 50-50 chance of letting them live results in you/your mates dying", I think that answer is easy for most. You'd kill them.

 

[jackmac91]

nevermind..

 

[Ryan]

In my American Special Forces commander hat I say;

Given the situation, in both instances I think you'd have to calculate that there's a better than 50% chance that they reveal your position to the enemy. I say that in both instances you kill them. Granted you're probably, technically, leaving yourself open to war-crimes prosecution so to be totally realistic you probably stab all three of them and then bury the bodies. No-one gives enough of a shit about three Afghan goat-herders to go looking for the bodies and prosecute you over that. They couldn't even successfully prosecute Milosevic and besides, you're American and that makes you immune to all of that International-Criminal-Court-Hague war-crimes bullshit anyway

But seriously, a Special Forces team set out on a "secret reconnaissance mission" with no rope, no zip ties and no plan for rapid extraction if things got hairy? And the CO put it to a vote?

Really?

Really?

 

[daever]

It's a tough one. I would probably have let them go too, especially with a 14 year old kid there.

 

[Ivan]

1. If you were in their position, without knowing what the farmers would do, would you let them go, or would you kill them?

I would let them go because I believe in not making others pay for my own mistakes. If you're special forces on a recon mission, and farmers find you, you weren't alert or prepared enough. You landed the farmers in the shit, and they shouldn't loose their lives for your mistake.

2. If you knew that they were innocent farmers, but would be tortured by the Taliban to reveal your location, would you let them go, or would you kill them?

As above, although I can't ever imagine soldiers being stuck in this situation without other alternatives.

3. Do you think it's acceptable to use the utilitarian approach, and suggest that killing three goat herders to save the lives of the group of four or so soldiers is morally acceptable?*

It's not morally acceptable, but depending on the situation, it may be necessary. Rarely are things so black and white, which is why answering a question like this is difficult.