|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 10 - 05 Mar 2008 - Main.IanSullivan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SandorMarton | |
<
< | | >
> | | | | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 9 - 05 Mar 2008 - Main.IanSullivan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SandorMarton | |
<
< | | >
> | | | | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 8 - 03 Mar 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | However, do we actually want such a change to take place? Current American policy calls for using the military to secure U.S. interests by force of arms worldwide; a policy which many would argue undercuts the foundation of combat ethics (empathy). Further, if Abu Ghraib is any indicator, our government condones the emphasis on the killing ethos in the pursuit of its policy objectives. After all, a more ethics-focused military would challenge orders which, although helpful in supporting U.S. interests, violate rules of war. Creating a workable solution to reduce human rights violations by our military must therefore start with a change in civilian leadership and policy direction. | |
>
> |
- Was there something new here? If, as appears, you are well-informed about military affairs or at least about the current war, surely pretty much everything here is a platitude that has passed under your eye at least once recently. The poor fit between the "close" reading of military culture in the body of the paper and the shoddy rapidity of the conclusion (want to prevent war crimes? change foreign policy) is a further indication of writing on auto-pilot. I'm also puzzled by the peculiar emphasis given to the details of Marine training. As of October 2007, according to the Pentagon, there were roughly 25,000 Marines in Iraq, out of roughly 160,000 all arms deployed. Unless 16% of the soldiers were committing the bulk of the war crimes, we don't need a close survey of the boot camp curriculum at Camp Lejeune. On the other hand, you do miss one important area of inquiry, which is the effect of the military's accelerating success in raising the participation rate in killing over time. Putting, say, Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society together with statistics over time on your two questions might very well produce something new: guidance on whether the conditioning that leads troops to convert themselves by "removing the safety catch" also produces difficulty in securing compliance with the laws of war.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 7 - 14 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
Topic: | |
<
< | The Military Creed and Human Rights Violations (Draft 1) | >
> | The Military Creed and Human Rights Violations | | | -- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008 | | | A. The Problem | |
<
< | Last May, General Patreus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, received a survey that stated that more than half of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq would not report illegal conduct during combat. It went on to say that only 47 percent of U.S. soldiers and 38 percent of Marines interviewed said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. These attitudes result in violations of the rules of war concerning both civilians and combatants which have been an ongoing problem. Why do these attitudes prevail in the face of repeated efforts by the military to retrain service personnel and curtail the problem? Arnold’s article provides us with a possible explanation for the endemic problem and the difficulty of finding a solution. Reducing ethics violations in combat must start with equalizing the respective values military personnel place on the “killing ethos” and “combat ethics”. | >
> | Last May, a survey of U.S. forces stated that more than half of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq would not report illegal conduct during combat. Further, only 47 percent of U.S. soldiers and 38 percent of Marines interviewed said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. These attitudes result in violations of the rules of war concerning both civilians and combatants and have been an ongoing problem. Why do these attitudes prevail despite repeated efforts to retrain service personnel and curtail the problem? Arnold’s article provides a possible explanation for the endemic problem and the difficulty of finding a solution. Reducing ethics violations in combat must start with changing the military creed by equalizing the respective values military personnel place on the “killing ethos” and “combat ethics” ideals. | | | B. Definitions | |
<
< | Throughout what follows I will use the phrase “killing ethos” to describe the ideals ingrained into every Marine which glorify killing for one’s country, defeating the opposition and cause the Marine to self-identify as a warrior and a killer. When I say “combat ethics” I mean the ideals which stress the importance of ethical decision making (treating prisoners humanely, avoiding the deaths of civilians, etc…) in combat. | >
> | Throughout what follows the phrase “killing ethos” describes the ideal of killing for one’s country, defeating the opposition and self-identifying as a warrior and a killer. “Combat ethics” means the ideals which stress the importance of ethical decision making (treating prisoners humanely, avoiding the deaths of civilians, etc…) in combat. | | | C. Conflict Between Ideals | |
<
< | It is hardly surprising that these two ideals of the military creed come into constant conflict in Iraq. When the identity and location of the enemy is clear and when the fighting is taking place outside of civilian areas, that conflict is reduced as the mission of killing the enemy does not run counter to combat ethics. On the other hand, when it is difficult to separate the enemy combatants from the civilians and when the fighting is occurring in the middle cities, our military personnel must often choose between obeying the rules of war (following their combat ethics ideals) and breaking those rules in the name of defeating the enemy (the killing ethos). | | | | |
<
< | The military would argue that combat ethics are an important part of the American military creed. Considerable effort is invested in inculcating this ideal in service people. Company grade officers, for example, are put through live exercises with “civilians” (actors) in the area of operations throughout their careers. Prior to deployment to Iraq, combat units go through extensive training program in dealing with non-combatants, detained enemy combatants and proper interrogation techniques. The first school newly commissioned lieutenants attend provides classes in ethics and morality. | >
> | Both ideals are part of the American military creed. The centrality of the killing ethos to the creed is demonstrated by the symbols used by the services in unit artwork and tattoos, by the indoctrination methods used in boot camp and repeated throughout a service person’s career and the very purpose of the services: the use of violence and death to advance American interests. Marines are taught that they are warriors; killers without remorse.
Considerable effort is also expended in inculcating the combat ethics ideal in service people. Company grade officers, for example, are put through live exercises handling “civilians” (actors) in combat situations throughout their career, beginning with their first training command. Prior to deployment to Iraq, combat units go through extensive training programs in dealing with non-combatants, detained enemy combatants and proper interrogation techniques. The first school new lieutenants attend provides classes in ethics and morality. Marines see themselves as the “good guys”: protectors of the innocent, performing their duties honorably and morally.
It is hardly surprising that these two ideals come into constant conflict in Iraq. When the identity and location of the enemy is clear and when the fighting is taking place outside of civilian areas, that conflict is reduced as the mission of killing the enemy does not run counter to combat ethics. On the other hand, when it is difficult to separate the enemy combatants from the civilians and when the fighting is occurring in the middle of cities, our military personnel must often choose between obeying the rules of war (combat ethics) and breaking those rules in order to defeat the enemy (the killing ethos). | | | II. The Killing Ethos Prevails | |
<
< | In practice, however, the killing ethos dominates combat ethics when the two conflict as evidenced by the survey cited earlier. There are several reasons why this is so. First, where and when personnel receive indoctrination in different ideals of the overall creed plays a large role in determining how one relates to that ideal. In the Marine Corps, the killing ethos is made part of one’s identity upon entering recruit training while the ideal of combat ethics is not introduced until later schools. For the next three months the importance of aggressiveness and killing is stressed daily. Additionally, recruit training is designed to break down the recruit and rebuild him in mind, body and spirit. By making the killing ethos part of the indoctrination process, recruits, whose identities have been stripped away, embrace the ethos and make it part of who they are. No training in follow-on schools can touch the core of the Marine’s being the same way the lessons taught in boot camp can. Since combat ethics is taught after recruit training, it cannot hope to match the killing ethos. | | | | |
<
< | Second, the very process of exercising the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Treating others ethically requires, at a basic level, the ability to empathize with them; to humanize them. Killing, on the other hand, requires the dehumanization of others. Since military personnel in combat exercise the killing ethos ideal much more often than combat ethics, the longer a unit is in combat, the more eroded their combat ethic ideal becomes. This is borne out by history: there is a strong correlation between combat stress and incidents of war crimes. The quintessential example of this is the My Lai masscre. | >
> | In practice, however, the killing ethos dominates combat ethics when the two conflict as evidenced by the survey cited earlier. There are two reasons why this is so. First, where and when personnel receive indoctrination in different ideals of the overall creed seems to play a large role in determining how one relates to that ideal. In the Marine Corps, the killing ethos is made part of one’s identity upon entering recruit training while the ideal of combat ethics is not introduced until later schools. For the next three months of boot camp the importance of aggressiveness and killing is stressed daily. Additionally, recruit training is designed to break down recruits and rebuild them in mind, body and spirit. By making the killing ethos part of the indoctrination process, recruits, whose identities have been stripped away, embrace the ethos and make it part of who they are. No training in follow-on schools can touch the core of the Marine’s being the same way the lessons taught in boot camp can.
Second, the very process of exercising the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Treating others ethically requires the ability to empathize with them; to humanize them. Killing, on the other hand, requires the dehumanization of others. Since military personnel in combat exercise the killing ethos ideal much more often than combat ethics, the longer a unit is in combat, the more eroded their combat ethic ideal becomes. This is borne out by history: there is a strong correlation between combat stress and incidents of war crimes. The quintessential example of this is the My Lai massacre. | | |
III. Resolution? | | |
III. Resolution? | |
>
> | | | | A. Changing the Military Creed | |
<
< | Reducing the number of further violations of the rules of war is not as simple as providing more ethics training to the military. To solve the problem, one would need to make combat ethics as central to the military creed as the killing ethos. If the killing ethos and combat ethics ideals were on par, service personnel would be much less inclined to give into the former over the latter whenever conflict between the two erupted. While combat stress would still erode combat ethics, such erosion would take longer. Organizations have great difficulty changing their creed on their own. However, because one of the central ideals of the American military creed is that it serves the civilian government, if the political will existed, one could force modifications of the creed. | >
> | Reducing the incidents of violations of the rules of war is not as simple as providing more ethics training to the military. To solve the problem, the military needs to make combat ethics as central to the military creed as the killing ethos. If the killing ethos and combat ethics ideals were on par, service personnel would be much less inclined to give in to the former over the latter whenever conflict between the two erupted. While combat stress would still erode combat ethics, such erosion would take longer. Admittedly, organizations have great difficulty changing their creed on their own. However, because one of the central ideals of the American military creed is that it serves the civilian government, if the political will existed, one could force modifications of the military creed. | | | B. Changing Government Foreign Policy | |
<
< | The next question is do we actually want such a change to take place? Current American policy calls for using the military to secure U.S. interests by force of arms worldwide; a policy which many would argue undercuts the foundation of combat ethics (empathy). Further, if Abu Ghraib is any indicator, our government condones the emphasis on the killing ethos in the pursuit of its policy objectives. This makes sense since a more ethics-focused military might challenge orders which, although helpful in supporting U.S. interests, violate rules of war. Creating a workable solution to reduce human rights violations by our military must therefore start with a change in civilian leadership. | >
> | However, do we actually want such a change to take place? Current American policy calls for using the military to secure U.S. interests by force of arms worldwide; a policy which many would argue undercuts the foundation of combat ethics (empathy). Further, if Abu Ghraib is any indicator, our government condones the emphasis on the killing ethos in the pursuit of its policy objectives. After all, a more ethics-focused military would challenge orders which, although helpful in supporting U.S. interests, violate rules of war. Creating a workable solution to reduce human rights violations by our military must therefore start with a change in civilian leadership and policy direction. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 6 - 13 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
Topic: | |
<
< | Preventing Human Rights Violations by the U.S. Military | >
> | The Military Creed and Human Rights Violations (Draft 1) | | | -- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008 | |
<
< | C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing?
1. Analysis of the military under Arnold's theory. Perhaps this is too simple/easy? Maybe make this one part of the larger paper? Can I perform such an analysis in a couple hundred words? Too cursory?
2. Examine effects.
3. Discuss alternatives/solutions. | >
> | I. Definitions and Conflict | | | | |
<
< | Different take on military topic: what happens when two conflicting sets of attitudes/habits that are part of the same creed collide? Consider the "duty to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic " vs. loyalty to civilian control and the national command authority. If the president illegally declared martial law, how would the military handle the order? | >
> | A. The Problem | | | | |
<
< | military needs creed to perform function | >
> | Last May, General Patreus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, received a survey that stated that more than half of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq would not report illegal conduct during combat. It went on to say that only 47 percent of U.S. soldiers and 38 percent of Marines interviewed said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. These attitudes result in violations of the rules of war concerning both civilians and combatants which have been an ongoing problem. Why do these attitudes prevail in the face of repeated efforts by the military to retrain service personnel and curtail the problem? Arnold’s article provides us with a possible explanation for the endemic problem and the difficulty of finding a solution. Reducing ethics violations in combat must start with equalizing the respective values military personnel place on the “killing ethos” and “combat ethics”. | | | | |
<
< | results in inhumane actions by soldiers | >
> | B. Definitions
Throughout what follows I will use the phrase “killing ethos” to describe the ideals ingrained into every Marine which glorify killing for one’s country, defeating the opposition and cause the Marine to self-identify as a warrior and a killer. When I say “combat ethics” I mean the ideals which stress the importance of ethical decision making (treating prisoners humanely, avoiding the deaths of civilians, etc…) in combat. | | | | |
<
< | Assuming we want to prevent such actions (not entirely clear... depends on a nation's national creed), how do we do so?
is this a trade-off between effectiveness and "humanization" of foreign people?
Or can we incorporate good treatment of civilians into our creed. Military has repeatedly attempted this with very mixed results. | >
> | C. Conflict Between Ideals
It is hardly surprising that these two ideals of the military creed come into constant conflict in Iraq. When the identity and location of the enemy is clear and when the fighting is taking place outside of civilian areas, that conflict is reduced as the mission of killing the enemy does not run counter to combat ethics. On the other hand, when it is difficult to separate the enemy combatants from the civilians and when the fighting is occurring in the middle cities, our military personnel must often choose between obeying the rules of war (following their combat ethics ideals) and breaking those rules in the name of defeating the enemy (the killing ethos). | | | | |
<
< | I. The Military fits Arnold's model | >
> | The military would argue that combat ethics are an important part of the American military creed. Considerable effort is invested in inculcating this ideal in service people. Company grade officers, for example, are put through live exercises with “civilians” (actors) in the area of operations throughout their careers. Prior to deployment to Iraq, combat units go through extensive training program in dealing with non-combatants, detained enemy combatants and proper interrogation techniques. The first school newly commissioned lieutenants attend provides classes in ethics and morality. | | | | |
<
< | A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short). One central contradiction: killing ethos vs. combat ethics (define each). | >
> | II. The Killing Ethos Prevails
In practice, however, the killing ethos dominates combat ethics when the two conflict as evidenced by the survey cited earlier. There are several reasons why this is so. First, where and when personnel receive indoctrination in different ideals of the overall creed plays a large role in determining how one relates to that ideal. In the Marine Corps, the killing ethos is made part of one’s identity upon entering recruit training while the ideal of combat ethics is not introduced until later schools. For the next three months the importance of aggressiveness and killing is stressed daily. Additionally, recruit training is designed to break down the recruit and rebuild him in mind, body and spirit. By making the killing ethos part of the indoctrination process, recruits, whose identities have been stripped away, embrace the ethos and make it part of who they are. No training in follow-on schools can touch the core of the Marine’s being the same way the lessons taught in boot camp can. Since combat ethics is taught after recruit training, it cannot hope to match the killing ethos. | | | | |
<
< | II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence
A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible.
B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations.
1. The military would argue that the military creed DOES place value on non-American civilian life.
i. Officers receive extensive training on combat ethics
ii. All Marines receive training (to include simulations) on handling civilians/fighting in a civilian environment.
iii. Thinking that they are the "good guys" helps them to rationalize inflicting violence on others. Ties in with larger American values.
2. In practice, however, combat efficiency dominates decision making and the human rights elements of the creed fall away. Some elements of the creed (in this case, effective killing) appear to have a stronger hold over members than other elements (combat ethics). Why does this happen?
i. WHERE these various creeds are placed in the indoctrination process is telling: the killing ethos is central to recruit training (the first "school" inductees go to). Combat ethics is taught in secondary schools, AFTER the recruit has mostly created his new identity and to a much less extent. Could it be that because the killing ethos is (a) made part of the violent and stressful recruit training process and (b) is the first part of the creed they learn that the killing ethos elements of the creed overwhelm the combat ethics elements when the two come into conflict?
ii. The killing ethos allows members to rationalize violating combat ethics in numerous ways: (1) violation will save fellow Marines, (2) convince oneself that the victim is the "enemy", etc...
iii. The very process of living by the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Killing becomes a tool to solve problems. With repeated use, it becomes difficult to decide when to use that tool and when not to. | >
> | Second, the very process of exercising the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Treating others ethically requires, at a basic level, the ability to empathize with them; to humanize them. Killing, on the other hand, requires the dehumanization of others. Since military personnel in combat exercise the killing ethos ideal much more often than combat ethics, the longer a unit is in combat, the more eroded their combat ethic ideal becomes. This is borne out by history: there is a strong correlation between combat stress and incidents of war crimes. The quintessential example of this is the My Lai masscre. | | |
III. Resolution? | |
>
> | A. Changing the Military Creed
Reducing the number of further violations of the rules of war is not as simple as providing more ethics training to the military. To solve the problem, one would need to make combat ethics as central to the military creed as the killing ethos. If the killing ethos and combat ethics ideals were on par, service personnel would be much less inclined to give into the former over the latter whenever conflict between the two erupted. While combat stress would still erode combat ethics, such erosion would take longer. Organizations have great difficulty changing their creed on their own. However, because one of the central ideals of the American military creed is that it serves the civilian government, if the political will existed, one could force modifications of the creed. | | | | |
<
< | A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results. The problem is that combat ethics are an after-thought to the killing ethos both in training and in practice. As explained above, unless combat ethics are central to the creed- that is, as important as the killing ethos- violations will continue to occur.
B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable?
1. A trade-off between the killing ethos and combat ethics is impossible to avoid.
C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians. Could the military effectively change its creed on its own?
1. If we decided as a country that military really was a purely defensive force (which it has never been... America has been growing by force of arms since the revolution), the trade-offs associated with making combat ethics dominant over or even on par with the killing ethos would matter less. That, however, is a civilian policy decision.
2. Current (and standing) civilian policy is to use the military to assert American interests worldwide. As a servant of the government, the military will try to carry out its duty to the best of its ability. With the current policy stance, the military creed will focus on killing/defeating the enemy.... not on performing ethical military operations.
3. To prevent Abu Ghraibs and My Lais, the government first needs to redefine the role of the military and then push the services to change their institutional creeds. Any other approach may reduce the incidents of violations but will not ensure such violations will never occur. | >
> | B. Changing Government Foreign Policy
The next question is do we actually want such a change to take place? Current American policy calls for using the military to secure U.S. interests by force of arms worldwide; a policy which many would argue undercuts the foundation of combat ethics (empathy). Further, if Abu Ghraib is any indicator, our government condones the emphasis on the killing ethos in the pursuit of its policy objectives. This makes sense since a more ethics-focused military might challenge orders which, although helpful in supporting U.S. interests, violate rules of war. Creating a workable solution to reduce human rights violations by our military must therefore start with a change in civilian leadership. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 5 - 12 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Considering possible topics. | >
> | Topic: | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Preventing Human Rights Violations by the U.S. Military | | | -- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008 | | | is this a trade-off between effectiveness and "humanization" of foreign people?
Or can we incorporate good treatment of civilians into our creed. Military has repeatedly attempted this with very mixed results. | |
<
< | Section I. The Military fits Arnold's model | >
> | I. The Military fits Arnold's model | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short) | >
> | A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short). One central contradiction: killing ethos vs. combat ethics (define each). | | | | |
<
< | Section II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence | >
> | II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible. | >
> | A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | 1. The military would argue that the military creed DOES place value on non-American civilian life. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations. | >
> | i. Officers receive extensive training on combat ethics | | | | |
>
> | ii. All Marines receive training (to include simulations) on handling civilians/fighting in a civilian environment. | | | | |
<
< | Section III. Resolution? | >
> | iii. Thinking that they are the "good guys" helps them to rationalize inflicting violence on others. Ties in with larger American values. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results. | >
> | 2. In practice, however, combat efficiency dominates decision making and the human rights elements of the creed fall away. Some elements of the creed (in this case, effective killing) appear to have a stronger hold over members than other elements (combat ethics). Why does this happen? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable? | >
> | i. WHERE these various creeds are placed in the indoctrination process is telling: the killing ethos is central to recruit training (the first "school" inductees go to). Combat ethics is taught in secondary schools, AFTER the recruit has mostly created his new identity and to a much less extent. Could it be that because the killing ethos is (a) made part of the violent and stressful recruit training process and (b) is the first part of the creed they learn that the killing ethos elements of the creed overwhelm the combat ethics elements when the two come into conflict? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians | >
> | ii. The killing ethos allows members to rationalize violating combat ethics in numerous ways: (1) violation will save fellow Marines, (2) convince oneself that the victim is the "enemy", etc... | | | | |
>
> | iii. The very process of living by the killing ethos erodes the traits which form the foundation of combat ethics. Killing becomes a tool to solve problems. With repeated use, it becomes difficult to decide when to use that tool and when not to. | | | | |
>
> | III. Resolution?
A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results. The problem is that combat ethics are an after-thought to the killing ethos both in training and in practice. As explained above, unless combat ethics are central to the creed- that is, as important as the killing ethos- violations will continue to occur.
B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable?
1. A trade-off between the killing ethos and combat ethics is impossible to avoid.
C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians. Could the military effectively change its creed on its own?
1. If we decided as a country that military really was a purely defensive force (which it has never been... America has been growing by force of arms since the revolution), the trade-offs associated with making combat ethics dominant over or even on par with the killing ethos would matter less. That, however, is a civilian policy decision.
2. Current (and standing) civilian policy is to use the military to assert American interests worldwide. As a servant of the government, the military will try to carry out its duty to the best of its ability. With the current policy stance, the military creed will focus on killing/defeating the enemy.... not on performing ethical military operations.
3. To prevent Abu Ghraibs and My Lais, the government first needs to redefine the role of the military and then push the services to change their institutional creeds. Any other approach may reduce the incidents of violations but will not ensure such violations will never occur. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 4 - 11 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | Paper Title
-- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008 | |
<
< | *
FIRST THOUGHTS*
1000 words.
Goal: Apply the new concepts introduced in class to an issue
Limitation: Ensure subject matter is not too broad. Want to carefully explore one issue. Too broad will probably result in an imprecise essay that tries to do too much.
First Thoughts On Possible Topics:
I. Criminal Law
- Premise: Our current system is incapable of reliably "finding" the facts of a case and then making predictable decisions.
- Question #1: Is this a problem? Certainly it is in conflict with the popular conception of "justice". However, does our mythology effectively mask this fact from the majority? Seems to. If the people believe they are getting "justice", does it matter that the system is almost entirely subjective? Implications for minority groups of all types who are confronted with this subjectivity daily? Perhaps this comes down to the goals of our society? Are we only concerned with stability? Do we really want equality and justice or do these concepts lose their effectiveness when objectively unjust results can be explained away by the national mythology?
-
- Question #2: Could we design a system that incorporates the above premise into its function so as to provide more just results? Would that mean changing the goals of the system? i. Probably way too broad to be properly explored in 1000 words. Fun to think about, though.
II. Organizational psychology
- How could one use awareness of people's propensity to rely on "magic"/"logic" to effect change?
- need to narrow this much further. Perhaps select a specific type of organization... or perhaps one facet of an organization?
B. Can one build an organization which is able to adopt best practices that conflict with the organizational creed used by rival organizations?
-
- Alternatively: if all organizations rely on a set of creeds/attitudes/habits/myths in order to exist and if this reliance severely handicaps their ability to adapt/learn from other groups, how could one design an organization which avoided this handicap?
- How could one change [select some current organization] in order to make it more adaptable?
- How do organizations change their creeds? Example: China's 4 modernizations effectively end communism for much of the country... admittedly the process took 20 some years to carry out. Contrary to what one might assume, could it turn out that a police state run by a dictator or oligarchy is actually MORE flexible in making changes to its creed than a democracy? That is to say, can one simply use force of arms to make the people adopt a new creed?
Is there a non-violent way to induce organizational change of creed? Civil Rights Movement an example? On other hand, even in the civil rights movement there was conflict with the established creed. More refined question: can a change take place merely through a reasoned decision on the best policy decision as opposed to through a violent struggle? If so, does this hold true in a democracy? | | | C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing?
1. Analysis of the military under Arnold's theory. Perhaps this is too simple/easy? Maybe make this one part of the larger paper? Can I perform such an analysis in a couple hundred words? Too cursory?
2. Examine effects.
3. Discuss alternatives/solutions. | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | Different take on military topic: what happens when two conflicting sets of attitudes/habits that are part of the same creed collide? Consider the "duty to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic " vs. loyalty to civilian control and the national command authority. If the president illegally declared martial law, how would the military handle the order? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | military needs creed to perform function | | | | |
>
> | results in inhumane actions by soldiers | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Assuming we want to prevent such actions (not entirely clear... depends on a nation's national creed), how do we do so?
is this a trade-off between effectiveness and "humanization" of foreign people?
Or can we incorporate good treatment of civilians into our creed. Military has repeatedly attempted this with very mixed results. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | Section I. The Military fits Arnold's model | | | | |
>
> | Subsection A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short) | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | | | | |
>
> | Section II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence
Subsection A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible.
Subsub 1 | | | Subsub 2 | |
>
> | Subsection B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations.
Section III. Resolution? | | | | |
>
> | Subsection A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | Subsection B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Subsection C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | | |
|
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 3 - 10 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | >
> | Considering possible topics. | | | Paper Title | | | Is there a non-violent way to induce organizational change of creed? Civil Rights Movement an example? On other hand, even in the civil rights movement there was conflict with the established creed. More refined question: can a change take place merely through a reasoned decision on the best policy decision as opposed to through a violent struggle? If so, does this hold true in a democracy?
C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing? | |
>
> | 1. Analysis of the military under Arnold's theory. Perhaps this is too simple/easy? Maybe make this one part of the larger paper? Can I perform such an analysis in a couple hundred words? Too cursory?
2. Examine effects.
3. Discuss alternatives/solutions. | | | Section I |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 2 - 09 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Limitation: Ensure subject matter is not too broad. Want to carefully explore one issue. Too broad will probably result in an imprecise essay that tries to do too much. | |
<
< | Possible Topics: | >
> | First Thoughts On Possible Topics: | | | I. Criminal Law
- Premise: Our current system is incapable of reliably "finding" the facts of a case and then making predictable decisions.
| | |
-
- How do organizations change their creeds? Example: China's 4 modernizations effectively end communism for much of the country... admittedly the process took 20 some years to carry out. Contrary to what one might assume, could it turn out that a police state run by a dictator or oligarchy is actually MORE flexible in making changes to its creed than a democracy? That is to say, can one simply use force of arms to make the people adopt a new creed?
Is there a non-violent way to induce organizational change of creed? Civil Rights Movement an example? On other hand, even in the civil rights movement there was conflict with the established creed. More refined question: can a change take place merely through a reasoned decision on the best policy decision as opposed to through a violent struggle? If so, does this hold true in a democracy? | |
>
> | C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing? | | | Section I
Subsection A |
|
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 1 - 09 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008
*
FIRST THOUGHTS*
1000 words.
Goal: Apply the new concepts introduced in class to an issue
Limitation: Ensure subject matter is not too broad. Want to carefully explore one issue. Too broad will probably result in an imprecise essay that tries to do too much.
Possible Topics:
I. Criminal Law
- Premise: Our current system is incapable of reliably "finding" the facts of a case and then making predictable decisions.
- Question #1: Is this a problem? Certainly it is in conflict with the popular conception of "justice". However, does our mythology effectively mask this fact from the majority? Seems to. If the people believe they are getting "justice", does it matter that the system is almost entirely subjective? Implications for minority groups of all types who are confronted with this subjectivity daily? Perhaps this comes down to the goals of our society? Are we only concerned with stability? Do we really want equality and justice or do these concepts lose their effectiveness when objectively unjust results can be explained away by the national mythology?
-
- Question #2: Could we design a system that incorporates the above premise into its function so as to provide more just results? Would that mean changing the goals of the system? i. Probably way too broad to be properly explored in 1000 words. Fun to think about, though.
II. Organizational psychology
- How could one use awareness of people's propensity to rely on "magic"/"logic" to effect change?
- need to narrow this much further. Perhaps select a specific type of organization... or perhaps one facet of an organization?
B. Can one build an organization which is able to adopt best practices that conflict with the organizational creed used by rival organizations?
-
- Alternatively: if all organizations rely on a set of creeds/attitudes/habits/myths in order to exist and if this reliance severely handicaps their ability to adapt/learn from other groups, how could one design an organization which avoided this handicap?
- How could one change [select some current organization] in order to make it more adaptable?
- How do organizations change their creeds? Example: China's 4 modernizations effectively end communism for much of the country... admittedly the process took 20 some years to carry out. Contrary to what one might assume, could it turn out that a police state run by a dictator or oligarchy is actually MORE flexible in making changes to its creed than a democracy? That is to say, can one simply use force of arms to make the people adopt a new creed?
Is there a non-violent way to induce organizational change of creed? Civil Rights Movement an example? On other hand, even in the civil rights movement there was conflict with the established creed. More refined question: can a change take place merely through a reasoned decision on the best policy decision as opposed to through a violent struggle? If so, does this hold true in a democracy?
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SandorMarton
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|