Engaging in the Righteous War

Engaging in the Righteous War
by Mike Madias, Clinical Sociologist

Guest Columnist

July 22, 2002

Columnist Mike Madias Opposing combatants in the theaters of belligerence claim that they kill each other in righteous wars. Angry and vengeful enemies each claim the moral high ground and the blessings of their respective deities. The governments of warring states seek support from unaligned nations by claiming that their struggling armies represent the greatest good, while their enemies are the armed manifestation of evil.

Governments of unaligned societies are asked to take sides with the angels, the freedom fighters - and back the destruction of the demons, the criminals. But who holds and defends the actual moral high ground? Who really fights the righteous war?

There are at least two factors that define a righteous war. First, the purpose for which a war is fought. But foremost, is the way in which a war is conducted.

Righteousness of combatants is demonstrated in their military strategy and their battlefield tactics. Are prisoners taken? Is torture employed as a means of developing unreliable intelligence? Are civilian casualties and refugees marginalized with euphemisms like "collateral damage"?

Just as both sides in a war can be motivated by noble purposes; both can commit barbarian atrocities; crimes against humanity. But there are hallmarks that demonstrate the righteous conduct of war.

One of these is restraint. There are situations where one side of a conflict has superior firepower when compared to its opposition. This is a time when an overwhelming show of power need not be an overwhelming exercise of force. Superior military strength and skill with arms imbues upon its possessor the moral responsibility of exercising restraint, no matter the provocation calling for violent reaction.

The crude ethical principle of justice, "An eye for an eye," also condemns excessive use of force. It is not a prescription of a life taken in exchange for an eye.

Another hallmark is the accountability of the military to the society it represents. It can foolish to violate security concerns by pronouncing details of what the military will do, before it engages in conflict. But when the battle and war is done, the society should be informed by an honest government and an inquisitive press.

Finally, is the realization that war is a process leading, ultimately to peace. For that reason, the demand for unconditional surrender should not be made, especially if the unwillingness to accept a suit for peace unnecessarily prolongs the suffering of war.

The strategic priorities for righteous warfare may be these:

1) Courage - combatants accept responsibility for the actions required by the mission.

2) Survival - get all the troops back home, nobody gets left behind.

3) Honor - obey the laws of warfare and commit no atrocities. Mistakes will be made in the heat of battle. This happens. But there is an all too human tendency to become Sadistic and to use excessive force; such force that is unnecessary in completion of a mission. The righteous soldier does not surrender, ever, to this bloodthirstiness.

4) Victory - get the goods - that is, achieve the mission objective.

5) Mercy - treat the captured enemy as prisoners of war, according to international conventions, and offer succor to injured and dispossessed civilian populations, and finally,

6) Healing - help rebuild the communities ruined by combat. Beat swords into plowshares. ***

Photo of Mike Madias courtesy of the author

A clinical sociologist living in the Metropolitan Detroit area, Mike's work has appeared in The Detroit News. He may be reached by e-mail at News4629@aol.com.