Wrong to Kill Enemy Civilians

¶ … wrong to kill enemy civilians in time of war?" (Ruggiero 23)

Throughout history, organized conflict has been commonplace and in that regard; issues revolving around morality and ethics have been raised in wartime situations. In this text, I discuss whether it is wrong or not to kill civilians at the time of war. I also analyze Robert S. McNamara's views while concerning myself with the role ethical issues play in wartime scenarios.

During the Vietnam war, Robert McNamara came across as one of the most significant figures due to his position as J.F. Kennedy administration's secretary of defense. Through McNamara's startling revelations and candid discussions in the "Fog of War" documentary, most specifically in regard to the World War II and the Vietnam War, one gets a rare glimpse into the nature and conduct of war.

Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the Vietnam War (which McNamara largely managed as Secretary of Defense) was the brutality which was meted out on civilians with incidences like the My Lai Massacre leaving the U.S. Troops on the spotlight. In this particular incident, unarmed villagers including women and children were rounded up and shot at for being NLF (National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam) sympathizers. This raises the question, "Is it wrong to kill enemy civilians in time of war?" (Ruggiero 23). Indeed, in what seems like an admission of the war crimes U.S. troops committed in the World War II and probably in the Vietnam War where enemy civilians were largely on the receiving end, McNamara states that there is a high likelihood that he would have been charged for war crimes alongside Curtis Le May (a U.S. General during the World War II) had the United States been on the side that lost (Fog of War). I agree with him.

According to Ruggiero, in conflict situations, there is always an existing need to choose the course of action which shall bring about not only the greater good but also the lesser evil (32). Killing enemy civilians goes against this moral postulation. During the Second World War, the decisions made largely leaned on teleological ethics where the end justified the means. Victory was the end in this case. However, according to Waller, morality is founded on the concept of duty (64). Indeed, critical to deontological ethics is the ability of an individual to do his duty. Duty in this case may be regarded to as the general rule in regard to morality. In war time situations, this includes self-evident rules including protection of unarmed civilians.

Further, it is important to note that the jus in bello concept (morals adhered to at the time of war) which is rather deontological declares that war must be fought with the right intention. Hence in that regard, military tactics which are inherently immoral like the killing of civilians at the time of war are unacceptable.

In one of his lessons (part of the eleven lessons), McNamara states that "proportionality should be a guideline in war." In my opinion, the principle of proportionality which is largely embedded in not only the national but also the international legal and ethical order should always be invoked at the time of war. My argument is based on its applicability when it comes to evaluating the reasons or morality of undertaking the war (jus ad bellum) and how the war is actually fought (jus in bello).