Proportionality of military actions

[CharonY]

In other threads the issue of proportionality of military responses to terrorist  attacks were discussed. One argument was that responses to attacks have to be disproportionate to ensure deterrence.

However, the issues with such a framing is that it leaves the door open for open-ended retaliation. I came across an article that contextualizes proportionality which suggests one should not focus proportionality of the actual attacks (as one might do in cases of conflict between two persons), but frames it in the context of the overall military goals that the response is supposed to accomplish relative to the cost (https://theconversation.com/why-all-civilian-lives-matter-equally-according-to-a-military-ethicist-218686)

 

Quote

But one of the arguments given by defenders of Israel’s actions is that, tragic though these deaths are, the harm inflicted on civilians is proportionate because it is outweighed by the importance of destroying Hamas.

But what does “proportionate” mean in the context of civilian deaths? And how should we assess Israel’s claims of proportionality against critics who argue that Israel’s actions have caused disproportionate harm to civilians? As a scholar of war crimes and military ethics, I argue that to assess these claims requires careful thought about what it really means to value civilian lives. If all civilian lives are morally equal, as international law holds, then the lives of civilians on both sides of a conflict should be treated with the same degree of respect.

[...]

The condemnation of Hamas’ crimes is based on the same moral principle as the laws that protect noncombatants in war: All innocent people deserve protection.

However, scholars and legal experts disagree about how the legal framework laid out in the Geneva Conventions should be applied in war zones.

For example, in 1987 the International Committee of the Red Cross argued that the definition of “military advantage” – the advantage against which potential civilian harm must be weighed – should only include “ground gained” and “annihilating or weakening the enemy armed forces.”

But the 2016 U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual claimed that “military advantage” should also include other goals such as “diverting enemy forces’ resources and attention.”

There is also disagreement about what counts as “civilian harm.” For example, scholar Emanuela-Chiara Gillard argues that “civilian harm” should include psychological and physical harms; legal expert Dr. Beth Van Schaack argues that long-term harms should also be considered.

In short, there are no easy answers to questions about how to weigh harms against civilians against the value of military objectives. But while answers are difficult, there is a different way to frame this question: What does it mean – not just legally, but morally – to treat all civilian lives as equal, as the law requires?

From this argument the authors make the following example regarding the Shifa hospital, where Hamas hid a control base.

Quote

In applying the principle Talbert and I proposed in our paper, the question would be phrased as follows: If Hamas was hiding a control base under an Israeli hospital and it was Israeli civilians at risk, would Israel think that attacking the hospital would be justified? If the answer is “no,” then the attack against Shifa hospital is also not justified.

This is because if the risk to Israeli lives outweighs the benefits of capturing a Hamas command base, then the risk to Palestinian lives should be given the same weight and lead to the same conclusion. Under IHL, all civilians are legally entitled to the same protection, regardless of their nationality.

Obviously, no moral argument is perfect, but this argument of moral equality frames the issue as a neutral with consideration of civilian lives, which is a slightly more dispassionate argument than e.g. outrage at the brutality of the actions themselves. I.e., it becomes a cost-benefit argument, rather than one justification. I think it is an interesting argument, as it removes the emotional issues surrounding arguments of whether which civilians deserve more protection (and the other side of the coin: which ones should be less protected from deaths).

The original article of the author discusses drone strikes from the US as another narrative (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_11)

What are you thoughts on this argument, and would you agree/disagree?

[StringJunky]

Why is one a "terrorist attack" and the other a "military response"? Why can't it be a military attack or offensive, which it was. You can even argue it was a counteroffensive response to a century-long systematic siege against a native population. Also, not in this post though, but generally,  the rather hypocritical notion of calling Hezbollah a proxy for Iran, isn't the IDF a military proxy for western interests? 

Edited September 25 by StringJunky

[exchemist]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why is one a "terrorist attack" and the other a "military response"? Why can't it be a military attack or offensive, which it was. You can even argue it was a counteroffensive response to a century-long systematic siege against a native population. Also, not in this post though, but generally,  the rather hypocritical notion of calling Hezbollah a proxy for Iran, isn't the IDF a military proxy for western interests?

I don't believe the IDF is a proxy for any western interests. If it ever was, it most certainly is not now. No western country actively supports what is being done and many of them have expressed either grave reservations or even condemnation. No western interest is served by stirring up yet another Middle East war. In fact it doesn't serve even the interests of Israel, when these are considered dispassionately. This whole inhumane operation will simply sow dragons' teeth, while eroding what remaining  international support there is for Israel.   It does keep Bibi out of jail though..........  

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Why is one a "terrorist attack" and the other a "military response"? Why can't it be a military attack or offensive, which it was. You can even argue it was a counteroffensive response to a century-long systematic siege against a native population. Also, not in this post though, but generally,  the rather hypocritical notion of calling Hezbollah a proxy for Iran, isn't the IDF a military proxy for western interests? 

My argument for classifying October attack is that it targeted specifically civilian venues and had civilian deaths as an explicit goals without military benefits, regardless of underlying motivations.  

Israel's response had a strategic value, though the underlying cost is what the article tries to evaluate. As in many military attacks, including from the USA, there is at least the assumption that killing civilians is not (overtly) the primary goal of the action. 

[StringJunky]

58 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't believe the IDF is a proxy for any western interests. If it ever was, it most certainly is not now. No western country actively supports what is being done and many of them have expressed either grave reservations or even condemnation. No western interest is served by stirring up yet another Middle East war. In fact it doesn't serve even the interests of Israel, when these are considered dispassionately. This whole inhumane operation will simply sow dragons' teeth, while eroding what remaining  international support there is for Israel.   It does keep Bibi out of jail though..........  

I agree this is true now, since Oct 7th, where Israel has gone renegade. 

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

My argument for classifying October attack is that it targeted specifically civilian venues and had civilian deaths as an explicit goals without military benefits, regardless of underlying motivations.  

OK.

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

What are you thoughts on this argument, and would you agree/disagree?

There are various ethical systems that could be applied.  One is Rawlsian ethics, based on John Rawls "veil of ignorance."  The core idea is that any ethical society should seek justice with regards to a random person's birth, i.e. the womb you happened to pop out of should in no way confer a worse life upon you.   Any ethics should work towards that goal, that you are not treated worse, nurtured less, or capriciously murdered simply owing to a particular social group you were born into.  A Rawlsian approach then is to seek justice for all civilian populations, giving equal value to any innocent life.  The notion that Palestinian civilians are somehow expendable because they happen to reside in a place with a terrible governance and a terrorist military wing is then deemed insupportable.  The rights of a Palestinian child are no less and no more important than the rights of my children or the children of Charles III.  Military attacks that target civilians in any way, then, are unethical and should be viewed as a criminal violation.  Civilized nations should join together to condemn and ostracize nations that commit such a violation.   

[MigL]

Absolutely, and since Oct 7 did just that, lets condemn and ostracize the government of Gaza for committing such a violation.
BEFORE moving on to condemn and ostracize the Israeli government.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

the womb you happened to pop out of should in no way confer a worse life upon you

And how has that worked out for Jews through the ages ?

[TheVat]

But then the question of the thread is one of how much retaliation can be ethical with respect to the non-combatant, i.e. two million people who are not terrorists.  There is no question that the international community DID condemn Hamas.  The question is how should Israel seek to end hostilities which kill so many innocents, without elevating revenge as the highest valued among all the instruments of foreign policy.  Revenge, done sloppily, only increases the number of their enemies and ergo the potential for more future carnage.  If you have a good opinion of Israel as a modern liberal democracy, then you should want them to be functional adults and promoters of a two state solution that defuses the rage and reprisals.  The day Israel starts showing a Rawlsian compassion for their neighbors is the day that real peace would start to advance.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

The question is how should Israel seek to end hostilities which kill so many innocents

I would think that a method which targets mostly enemy combatants, say with a shipment of exploding pagers specifically purchased by Hezbollah militants maybe, that lessen the risk of innocent civilians and children being killed by 2000 lb bombs, would be seen as a step in the right direction.
Not the 'cruel and cowardly' act of terrorists.
( although if it does inspire terror for Hezbollah members, and prevents them from doing their own version of the Oct 7 massacre of strictly civilians, that's a step in the right direction also )

Edited September 26 by MigL

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

In other threads the issue of proportionality of military responses to terrorist  attacks were discussed. One argument was that responses to attacks have to be disproportionate to ensure deterrence.

However, the issues with such a framing is that it leaves the door open for open-ended retaliation. I came across an article that contextualizes proportionality which suggests one should not focus proportionality of the actual attacks (as one might do in cases of conflict between two persons), but frames it in the context of the overall military goals that the response is supposed to accomplish relative to the cost (https://theconversation.com/why-all-civilian-lives-matter-equally-according-to-a-military-ethicist-218686)

 

From this argument the authors make the following example regarding the Shifa hospital, where Hamas hid a control base.

Obviously, no moral argument is perfect, but this argument of moral equality frames the issue as a neutral with consideration of civilian lives, which is a slightly more dispassionate argument than e.g. outrage at the brutality of the actions themselves. I.e., it becomes a cost-benefit argument, rather than one justification. I think it is an interesting argument, as it removes the emotional issues surrounding arguments of whether which civilians deserve more protection (and the other side of the coin: which ones should be less protected from deaths).

The original article of the author discusses drone strikes from the US as another narrative (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_11)

What are you thoughts on this argument, and would you agree/disagree?

The ethical argument is very different to the moral one:

The moral argument is "an eye for an eye", which is justice when we can clearly see who took my vision.

The ethical argument is "how do you know who took what, with only one eye?".

Proportionality lies somewhere in between and I don't think the military is best placed to judge...

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The moral argument is "an eye for an eye", which is justice when we can clearly see who took my vision.

Alternately, the moral argument could be “turn the other cheek”

 

Anyway, I think the “proportional response” is about how others view your actions. Not how your target does, so it’s not about deterrence. It’s about not being labeled a pariah by nations that might be moved to take action.

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

The core idea is that any ethical society should seek justice with regards to a random person's birth, i.e. the womb you happened to pop out of should in no way confer a worse life upon you.   Any ethics should work towards that goal, that you are not treated worse, nurtured less, or capriciously murdered simply owing to a particular social group you were born into.  A Rawlsian approach then is to seek justice for all civilian populations, giving equal value to any innocent life.  The notion that Palestinian civilians are somehow expendable because they happen to reside in a place with a terrible governance and a terrorist military wing is then deemed insupportable.  The rights of a Palestinian child are no less and no more important than the rights of my children or the children of Charles III.  Military attacks that target civilians in any way, then, are unethical and should be viewed as a criminal violation. 

This argument is in the same line as the article in OP, with the difference that instead of an argument of absolute morality (i.e. any harm to civilians) it has a bit more utilitarian (and potentially more realistic) viewpoint of harm in relation to benefits. This is obviously a tricky ethical discussion and often leads to a slippery slope where civilian lives eventually become expendable. The first part- i.e. equivalency of civilian lives is the element that tries to slow down the slope, so to speak. The obvious issue of course that the "benefit" can be interpreted in many ways and some may have no qualms sacrificing either their own civilians. I.e. if adhering only to the ethical argument of equivalency of civilian lives, Hamas has few qualms sacrificing their own, so while internally consistent, it is a deplorable stance. Even acknowledging the issues of asymmetric warfare, the lack of constraint, including specifically targeting civilians (which are crimes against humanity), as well as internal rivals makes it difficult for me to justify their actions as a legitimate armed struggle.

Conversely, Israel's position is hypocritical from an ethical standpoint, as they clearly and systematically diminish the lives of Palestinians over their own citizens (there are also conflicts with the Arab-Israeli community, but that might be another discussion). The Gaza and West Bank policy has made it clear in the past and since the October attack there is but the thinnest veneer of acknowledgement of the endangerment of civilian lives through the military actions. I suspect that if the targeted bombing attacks were conducted instead of flattening Gaza, it may have been perceived somewhat more positively. But with the lack of moral clarity on full display, it taints every action.

And ultimately that is where what Swansont said is important.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Alternately, the moral argument could be “turn the other cheek”

 

Anyway, I think the “proportional response” is about how others view your actions. Not how your target does, so it’s not about deterrence. It’s about not being labeled a pariah by nations that might be moved to take action.

As demonstrated on this forum, it is not the individual action per se or the view of the victims of those actions that determines whether a group is seen as moral or not (the whole terrorist vs freedom fighter argument). But going further, I think it is worthwhile to investigate the moral imperative that guides their decisions, as it would provide a glimpse as to how far these groups will go to reach their respective goals.

 

 

[zapatos]

I believe that ethics (my ethics at least) demand that I value those close to me higher than I value those who are not close to me. This may even be an evolutionary trait. While we can dispassionately agree all civilians are equal, if I see my son and your son in front of a speeding car, my son's life will take priority over your son's life.

If I am in the Israeli military I will feel obligated to pull an Israeli to safety before I pull the Palestinian to safety. From the perspective of the Israeli government, I suspect they would accept 10 Palestinian civilian deaths before they accept one Israeli civilian death, and if that means 10 Palestinian civilians must die to kill the Palestinian terrorist who might kill one Israeli civilian in the future, then they will believe they are justified.

In the US during Covid, we vaccinated our population with a first dose, but rather than giving vaccines to countries who had not vaccinated at all, we gave our citizens a booster. Clearly we thought our responsibility was to limit American deaths, even if that meant a greater number of total deaths worldwide.

I think Israel is wrong in the way they are executing this war, although I do think I understand where the motivation comes from.

And to preempt any objections, yes I do think Hamas was terribly wrong in what they did. However, Hamas is no longer in the act of killing concertgoers in the park, but Israel is still bombing Gaza, which means Israel is the one keeping itself open to ongoing criticism.

[CharonY]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I believe that ethics (my ethics at least) demand that I value those close to me higher than I value those who are not close to me. This may even be an evolutionary trait. While we can dispassionately agree all civilians are equal, if I see my son and your son in front of a speeding car, my son's life will take priority over your son's life.

It see your motivation, but I would take a step beyond that. Is this attitude the right way to negotiate and govern things? I am thinking about it with a view on the overall outcome. To take your COVID-19 example, the selfish responses of the respective governments might be understandable, but the lack of a strategic, likely caused more excess deaths, and certainly contributed to making it an endemic disease that continues to put stress on health care systems world wide.

Similarly, while the motivation of Israel is understandable, I wonder (in addition to ethical concerns) how much it really contributes to overall safety vs the continuation of this long conflict. I.e. pushing a peaceful solution further out of reach.

 

[zapatos]

50 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Is this attitude the right way to negotiate and govern things?

I think it is from the perspective of the government's constituents. Simply put, "we voted you in to take care of us, not to take care of them at our expense". The government is doing what the people indirectly asked them to do. Leaders perhaps see things more clearly than the average constituent, but if they don't tow the line they will not be in office for long.

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Similarly, while the motivation of Israel is understandable, I wonder (in addition to ethical concerns) how much it really contributes to overall safety vs the continuation of this long conflict. I.e. pushing a peaceful solution further out of reach.

People supported Israel 100% early in the conflict. As deaths and suffering of civilians has increased support for Israel has waned. I personally feel that Israel has moved well past diminishing returns to their actions and are digging deeper and deeper into the red. Unfortunately it seems as if Netanyahu has abandoned both ethics and the demands of his constituents and is now focusing on personal gain.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I think it is from the perspective of the government's constituents. Simply put, "we voted you in to take care of us, not to take care of them at our expense". The government is doing what the people indirectly asked them to do. Leaders perhaps see things more clearly than the average constituent, but if they don't tow the line they will not be in office for long.

That suggests that ethical actions are not feasible within a democratic system, if they are not intuitive. I wonder though, shouldn't governments have a duty to help folks make informed decisions? Even counterintuitive ones? Because otherwise it will perpetuate a system that chases myopic goals at the cost of long-term benefits. For sure, this is how the world seems to work right now, but I do see serious ethical perils with that approach.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That suggests that ethical actions are not feasible within a democratic system, if they are not intuitive. I wonder though, shouldn't governments have a duty to help folks make informed decisions? Even counterintuitive ones? Because otherwise it will perpetuate a system that chases myopic goals at the cost of long-term benefits. For sure, this is how the world seems to work right now, but I do see serious ethical perils with that approach.

Was my decision to put the safety of my child at a higher priority than yours unethical? 

That doesn't mean I should act myopically. Circumstances may tell me that I should change the evaluation if, for example, saving your child might benefit my family.

A problem with ethics is that they can only be a guideline. Not everyone will agree that THIS is the cutoff; that all things less than this are ethical and all things more are unethical. 

Leaders should certainly help people make informed decision, or even make the decision themselves if they feel strongly enough about it. But just because you think we have reached the limit on how many Palestinian civilians can die in our attempt to make Israeli civilians safe, doesn't mean I agree. People of equal goodwill may still have a difference of opinion. A set of ethics developed today may be wildly different than a set of ethics made up tomorrow.

If my decision to put the safety of my child first is ethical, then I don't see why we cannot not scale those ethics up to government levels. No government decision can be made in a vacuum without looking at the broader picture, but I see nothing wrong with the first question being "is this in the best interests of my people?" Similar to the way doctors may evaluate a care plan by first asking "will this harm my patient?" Sometimes the best interests of my people will result in a negative outcome for your people. This is not meant to suggest free reign just because it is better for my people, but that to some degree, looking out for yourself first is ethical.

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Was my decision to put the safety of my child at a higher priority than yours unethical?

This is in fact, a big philosophical question and I am not sufficiently well-read to make a clear argument here (perhaps Eise could chime in). I am reminded of Kant's categorical imperative as an objective and rational principle to follow regardless of individual desires. 

The issue here would be that if wanted to universalize the position of let's say prioritizing your own child, even at the cost of others, it would create inherent contradictions. I.e. it is impossible prioritize everyone's child over everyone else's. I will need to find some time to think about this aspect a bit longer.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The issue here would be that if wanted to universalize the position of let's say prioritizing your own child, even at the cost of others, it would create inherent contradictions. I.e. it is impossible prioritize everyone's child over everyone else's.

What I was suggesting was that I prioritize my child and you prioritize your child. That is possible and I imagine would probably result in an overall positive outcome, similar to the way companies all prioritize their own best interests and we all benefit with cheaper or more innovative products. Scaled up to government level simply means each government looks out for its own people as a priority over the people of other countries. It does not mean we should take it to extremes like America First, or indiscriminate bombing in populated areas.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

similar to the way companies all prioritize their own best interests and we all benefit with cheaper or more innovative products

Um, what? We’ve seen many recent examples of companies price-gouging because they were prioritizing their own interests. 

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Um, what? We’ve seen many recent examples of companies price-gouging because they were prioritizing their own interests. 

I guess I was lied to in all my business courses.

[MigL]

We are territorial animals.
Our own family, our friends, our neighborhood, our city and our country are prioritized.
I may not know the person who lives three houses down the street, but if he passes away it will affect ne more than 75 people perishing in a landslide in China.
We would like to think that we are 'moral' people, but that is a made up word to describe how we believe we should think.
But if that isn't a trait that helps us survive, and do what is best for us, what makes it 'moral' ?
We cannot see the big picture, and can only work with the information we have.

Is this strived for 'morality', that we can never achieve, the new religion ?
A kind of thinking that the 'morality priests' preach to the followers, knowing full well that they themselves don't think that way, and the followers will never achieve that state either.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is this strived for 'morality', that we can never achieve, the new religion ?

There are those who believe it can be achieved and will result in Nirvana. I believe most people use morality as a target to strive for, knowing it is unlikely to be achieved.

[MigL]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

There are those who believe it can be achieved and will result in Nirvana.

I don't believe that, as I cannot weigh, or balance, losing someone you care for with someone you have no emotional attachment to, even if all lives should have equivalent value.
That is not who we are, or can ever be.
Nor do I want to be; you stated your son's life is more important to you than my son's, and my son's is more important to me than your son's.
That is what makes us human.
Maybe our definition of 'morality' needs amending.

[LaurieAG]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Alternately, the moral argument could be “turn the other cheek”

Anyway, I think the “proportional response” is about how others view your actions. Not how your target does, so it’s not about deterrence. It’s about not being labeled a pariah by nations that might be moved to take action.

You must also consider the subtle differences between 'do unto others as others do unto you' and 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you' with respect to the future, wild west or rule of the jungle otherwise.