Why this book:  I spent a whole semester in seminar studying this book at the Naval Academy and was stunned to learn so much about the ethics of my profession at the end of my career.  I wanted to provide the opportunity for those still ‘in the fight’ to have that same opportunity, and so offered to run a condensed version of the seminar for active duty Seals.   Alas, few came – all too busy.  But it was a good session for me, and those who were able to come.

My Impressions: It was  good for me to re-read Walzer with other warriors and discuss some of his ideas.    I learned a lot in the discussions, and I believe so did those who participated.   Our discussions were all over the map – because the Walzer readings touched on related issues that are of concern to each of us, in different ways, today.    There is still so much more discussion that we left on the table –  75 minutes for two of these chapters was hardly sufficient – but we’re all busy, and that 75 minutes was of much greater value (to me) than re-reading the book and having no discussion. 

The book and our discussions covered the basis for and against military ethics, Preventative and Pre-emptive War, justifications for humanitarian interventions,  the moral equality of soldiers,  what it means to ‘fight well,’ terrorism, and guerilla warfare.   Some of the key points that came out of the book and our discussions : 

     – The morality of any single action in combat is very much a function of context.

     – There are no (or very few) ‘rules’ that appear to apply in ALL circumstances.  Walzer’s supreme emergency argument can even over-ride non-combatant immunity, which is the fundamental principle of military ethics. 

     – He argues against the ‘sliding scale’ which is used to justify much immorality in war.  The ‘sliding scale’ is the argument that the greater the injustice that would result from my defeat, the more latitude I have to break the rules in order to prevent my defeat.

     – The obligation of assuming risk to protect non-combatants is an important part of military ethics.  He especially argues against transferring risk onto non-combatants to improve the survival odds of soldiers, or increase the odds of victory.

     -The only thing that ALWAYS seems to be a moral prohibition, is killing for any reason that cannot be somehow tied to ‘military necessity.’ 

This book should be read, and re-read by anyone in the military who claims to be concerned with the moral aspects of their profession.

“ The destruction of the innocent whatever its purposes, is a kind of blasphemy against our deepest moral commitments.  This is true even in supreme emergency, when we cannot do anything else. “ Michael Walzer