2008/10/01 00:00:00
One way MOAA attempts to fulfill our goal of being the professional association of choice for all military officers and their families is by promoting enduring values of military professionals, including the highest ethical standards.
Each month, this page will feature a different ethics case study provided by Capt. Rick Rubel, USN-Ret., distinguished Professor of Ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy. With each case study, Rubel will provide suggested questions, and readers will be able to discuss and comment. Whether you are currently serving, in a second career, or retired, there will be something here that makes you think. Unlike rules of engagement or standards of conduct, remember there is not necessarily a right answer to an ethical dilemma.
We hope you find this series interesting, but more important, we hope to promote discussion and thinking about ethical challenges facing people in uniform, whether in combat or in the normal course of duty. Be sure to check back Nov. 1 for the author’s comments on this case study.
By Capt. Rick Rubel, USN-Ret.
While Congress and the president constitutionally decide when the U.S. goes to war and where we fight, the military most often decides who lives and who dies in war.
These decisions are complex and must be looked at from various views. Although the laws of armed conflict address these decisions, they are not always clear, especially in complex situations of targeting.
In the world of military ethics we look at discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Proportionality is the evaluation of the benefits versus the losses of each action.
In the situation below, given the information you have, you are asked to make a decision on targeting. In many difficult cases, the decision maker (the reader) often wishes he or she had more information. Unfortunately, in life we often have to make decisions given the information we have available at the time.
You are in early stages of the war in Iraq. In the combat information center on your Aegis cruiser, you are loading the data for a high-value target into the Tomahawk launch console for a missile launch in 12 minutes. According to procedures, you double-check the GPS coordinates with the digital chart. When you zoom in on the target coordinates, you see your target, an enemy ammunition depot, is next to a mosque and a boarding school that primarily serves parentless children. The programmed “time on target” is 0950 local, on a Tuesday. Looking at the size of the building, you estimate the school houses 100 to 150 children. You also estimate — based on intelligence reports you previously read — 25 to 45 people might be in the mosque at that time in the morning.
With only a short time before launch, you wonder: Did the staff that assigned your ship this target know about the mosque and the boarding school? They must know about this stuff, and they probably had a JAG lawyer look at it, too.
You consider: Should I bring this to the attention of the captain?
There probably will be a secondary explosion of the ammo depot that likely will obliterate the school and mosque. If I don’t say something, then it will be on my head that we will kill these civilians and children.
You now only have nine minutes to launch.
Questions for the reader:
- Do you think this is a permissible target? How do you determine proportionality?
- Do you have a moral responsibility to say something to the captain, or do you just push the button and launch on time?
- If you decide to tell the captain, should he challenge the staff that assigned the target, or just launch?
- What are your considerations in this decision?
About the Author: 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).
Copyright Capt. Rick Rubel, USN-Ret., and Military Officers Association of America. All rights reserved.
Read the author's analysis and tell us what you think.
Rate This Item:
Please Sign in to rate and comment this page
 |
Mr. Kepner |
2/26/2009 1:49:34 PM |
According to the scenario, this takes place during the early stages of the invasion. If I remember correctly, we were trying to "win hearts and minds" at that stage. This wasn't WWII where the Axis Powers had declared war against us. The two wars are not even remotely similar.
The target was not going anywhere and hitting it, at that time of day, would have handed "Baghdad Bob" (remember him?) the propaganda coup he was looking for. Asking the Captain is not only the right thing to do, it's the sensible thing to do.
 |
Colonel Howard |
2/2/2009 7:57:45 PM |
Apparently many people have forgotten World War II. All the cities in Germany were decimated. Many in Japan even Britain also. No one ever mentioned something called "collateral damage". Every German and Japanese was an enemy. War is devastating, finish it quickly with the least casualties to your side. Colonel Bob Howard, USAF
 |
Colonel Maclaren |
10/20/2008 11:01:13 AM |
It could be a permissible target. However the captain should be notified. The ammo depot will still be there even if there is a delay in firing since, presumably, the target personnel don't know they're the target. It's quite plausible the targeting staff doesn't know about the school or the mosque or is insensitive to the timing of prayers in the mosque. If your the captain, you must challenge the targeting staff. A.J. MacLaren Co USAF Ret
|
Colonel Atwater |
10/10/2008 2:51:47 PM |
"Captain, I am launching in nine minutes on an ammo dump next to a mosque and a school." Lacking a direct order to hold fire I'm launching. I have a responsiblity to inform, not question the captain. In combat you follow direct orders unless illegal. Is Bin Laden visiting the amo dump? Is the school a terroist training facility?
Is the mosque safe haven for 100 insurgents? You have to believe the people above you have done their jobs. If you don't, the command structure falls apart.
|
Colonel Costin |
10/9/2008 12:47:07 PM |
Another vivid example of the horror of war and the life determining/altering decisions involved with it. Given, our enemy has little or no regard for the lives of fellow citizens. Assume specific target value, targeting criteria/options and likely collateral damage from CM strike have been considered by ordering authority in accordance with prevailing ROE. However, as CO I would question that authority at the highest level, and not with some CP Battle Commander, before executing a strike with such potentially dire consequences. IMO, depending on the size of the munitions dump, time constraints aren't that critical. Munitions/armament didn't get there in a day and can't be removed in a day. That said, I would question the weapons system/ordnance chosen for the strike. Air delivered/guided ordnance, unless dropped from very high altitude (which appears to be the current norm), achieves higher CEP with selectible energy yields. Thus less collateral damage. No mention of AD order of battle. No threat...no problem. High accuracy low level attack. Threat…night strike. Seen this one before..another time and place. Col. Jim Costin, USAF (Ret)
|
Chief Warrant Officer Sturgill |
10/9/2008 9:56:05 AM |
Law of War holds that the mosque and school are not legitimate targets but the enemy is obviously using them to shield the ammo dump which obviously is legit. If the decision to shoot or not was left up to me, I'd delay and consult with the CO. Never assume (it makes an ASS out of U and ME). I have a moral obligation to consult. The CO needs to determine proportionality and give the order.
If the CO challenges the staff he is doing it for good reason, i.e. the "I was only following orders" defense doesn't stand up in a Court Martial. The other facet of the proportionality argument is the question of how much damage will I do to the war effort by making the deliberate decision to sacrifice innocents, especially the children. Coalition Warfare and winning the peace are undeniable components of modern politico-military reality.
During the NEO of Mogadishu, Somalia in Jan 1991 I was an Intel officer asked to make the decision whether the helicopters should fly directly over a SAM site to get Marines and SEALS on the ground at the US Embassy in time to repel rebels attempting to scale the compound. Among the Marines aboard were friends and a classmate. I judged the site inoperable and recommended to proceed. The force made it in the nick of time to repel the assault.
CWO Sturgill USMC (Ret)
|
Lieutenant Lilly |
10/9/2008 6:27:56 AM |
It's a viable target and I'd fire upon it. The weapons stred there would take more lives and cause more damage if left alone to be used. I am assuming that any and all possible ground options have been exhausted. As a former paratrooper and Naval Officer, I always considered what's best for both my troops and those I support and defend.
|
Lieutenant Peterson |
10/8/2008 10:57:06 PM |
I use to be a Tomahawk shooter back in the early 90's on a DD-963 class (TWCS BL3). Back then it was shoot and forget. After I planned the over water flight to the FPLFWP it was on it's own. The only way that we would know if it hit its intended target was when we got a BDA much later.
...and by the way, you will push the button and launch on time or you will be removed and someone else will.
|
Commander Agresti |
10/8/2008 9:56:06 PM |
War is abhorent and obscene. When our leaders send us into war, they are accepting that innocent people will die. Those making the decision to hit the ammo dump may have more intel than we do. It is a legitimate target and needs to be taken out. But the key to this question is whether the ammo dump needs to be taken out at the currently prescribed time? There are times when the opportunity to offer/obtain additional information to tactical commanders can present tragedy. There are times when it the tempo of ops does not premit it. In this case twelve minutes is a lot of time during which back channel commmunications can be undertaken to share the information about the school/mosque. This is a very similar situation as was faced during the Vincennes Incident in July 1988. The CO of USS Sides (20+ miles closer and with a different aspect) claimed to know that the target of Vincennes' missiles was a commercial airliner but he held his tongue and disaster ensued. In that case there was only 186 seconds afforded the CO of USS Vincennes, but even though engaged with seven Iranian gunboats at the time, a "check fire" comment would have likely been respected.
|
Colonel Reich |
10/8/2008 9:54:58 PM |
Tell your bosses! This happened to me at USCENTCOM when we went after Bin Laden in 1998. As Chief of Targets, we had a very sound and well-vetted target list. I sent my special programs target officer off to the "Tank" one Friday to present the target list; he returned with an "add-on" that baffled all of us -- the Pharmacuetical plant in Khartoum, Sudan! I hit the data banks and could find no connection with Bin Laden. I briefed my chain of command on this concern, who asked me to find the source of the add-on. All the calls made to D.C. were fruitless -- someone "higher-up" placed it on the list with a very weak rationale that I was able to explain away. I lost the challenge, my bosses told me to press ahead, accomplish the TLAM targeting on it, and send its coordinates along with the others to the "shooters" in the AOR.
Days later the strike was executed. We missed Bin Laden but hit numerous caves in Afghanistan. We also crippled the pharmacuetical plant in Khartoum, although one TLAM missed the target, hit a candy store, and possibly killed someone. I found out later the Clinton Administration, who placed the plant on the list, paid damages to the Sudanese government. Yes, it was a bad target; at least I did what was right.
Col Joe Reich, USAF (Ret)
Days later
