The Warrior’s Code

[TTEscrima]

It seems some people have trouble grasping the difference in Warriorship and thug behavior so I thought perhaps this piece from an instructor at the US Naval academy might shed some light on the subject:


Prof. Shannon E. French, Ph.D.

U.S. Naval Academy

Dept. of Leadership, Ethics, and Law

2001

“Warrior” should not be used to describe every individual who now fights, has ever fought, or prepares to fight a war. The term would have more strength if we reserved it to apply only to those war fighters who meet other important criteria, which may be less tangible, but ultimately more significant, than that of having taken up arms against an enemy. Before we call any collection of belligerents a culture of warriors, we should first ask why they fight, how they fight, what brings them honor, and what brings them shame. The answers to these questions will reveal whether or not they have a true warrior’s code.

On the first day of the philosophy course I teach at the U.S. Naval Academy called, “The Code of the Warrior,” I ask my students, who are midshipmen preparing for careers as officers in the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps, to reflect on the meaning of the word “warrior.” To facilitate this, I give them an exercise that requires them to identify whether any of a list of five words are perfect synonyms for “warrior.” They are then asked to write a brief explanation of why each of the five succeeds or fails as a synonym. The time constraint keeps their responses relatively raw, yet they are often surprisingly earnest or even impassioned.

The words I offer my students for their consideration are “murderer,” “killer,” “fighter,” “victor,” and “conqueror.” I have found them consistently to favor the rejection of all five. The reasons they offer to account for why they wish to dismiss each of these as synonyms for “warrior” regularly stress the idea that a true “warrior” has to be in some way superior to those who might qualify for the other suggested labels. Consider these representative comments from a variety of midshipmen:

MURDERER

“This word has connotations of unjust acts, namely killing for no reason. A warrior fights an enemy who fights to kill him.”

KILLER

“A warrior may be required to kill, but it should be for a purpose or cause greater than his own welfare, for an ideal.”

FIGHTER

“Simply fighting doesn’t make a warrior. There are rules a warrior follows.”

VICTOR

“Warriors will lose, too – and the people who win aren’t always what a warrior should be.”

CONQUEROR

“A conqueror may simply command enough power to overcome opposition. He can be very lacking in the ethical beliefs that should be part of a warrior’s life.”

Almost without exception, my students insist that a “warrior” is not a “murderer.” They can even become emotional in the course of repudiating this (intentionally provocative) potential synonym. It is very important to them to be sure that I understand that while most warriors do kill people, they never murder anyone. Their remarks are filled with contempt for mere murderers:

Ø “Murder is committed in cold-blood, without a reason. A warrior should only kill in battle, when it is unavoidable.”

Ø “Murder seems to me something that is done for an individual motive: a motive that has no real purpose or cause.”

Ø “Murderers have no noble reason for their crimes.”

Ø “While a murderer often kills innocent or defenseless people, a warrior restricts his killing to willing combatants. He may stray, but that is an error, not the norm.”

Ø “This word has connotations of unjust acts, namely killing for no reason. A warrior fights an enemy who fights to kill him.”

Ø “A murderer is someone who kills and enjoys it. That is not a warrior.”

Ø “This term has very negative connotations associated with it because a murderer is one who usually kills innocent, unarmed people – while a warrior has honor in battle and does not take advantage of the weak.”

Ø “A murderer murders out of hate. A warrior does not. He knows how to control his anger.”

Ø “Murdering involves taking an innocent life, which does not make someone a warrior.”

Ø “A warrior is not a murderer because a warrior has a code that he lives by which is influenced by morals which must be justified.”

Ø “Warriors fight other warriors. Therefore they kill, not murder.”

Ø “A murderer acts out of hate or personal selfishness.”

Ø “‘Murderer’ lacks any implication of honor or ethics, but rather calls to mind ruthlessness and disregard for human life.”

Ø “A murderer kills for gain, or out of anger. He does not allow victims a fair fight.”

Ø “The term ‘murder’ represents an act done with malice. Warriors killed people in an honorable way.”

Ø “‘Murder’ implies senseless and unjustified killing.”

Ø “A murderer has no honor.”

[TTEscrima]

The Warrior’s Code PT 2

Clearly, my students do not regard the distinction between a warrior and a murderer as a trivial one. Nor should they. In fact, the distinction is an essential one.

Every human society on earth deems some behavior to be morally unacceptable, and murder is a good example of an act that is cross-culturally condemned. Whatever their other points of discord, the major religions of the world agree in the determination that murder (variously defined) is wrong. According to the somewhat cynical 17th-Century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, the fear of our own murderous appetites is what drove us (humans) to form societies in the first place. We eagerly entered into a social contract in which certain rules of civilized behavior could be enforced by a sovereign power in order to escape the miserable, anarchic State of Nature where existence is a “war of every man against every man,” and individual lives are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In other words, people want to live under some sort of system that at least attempts to make good the guarantee that when they go to sleep at night, they will not be murdered in their beds.

Unfortunately, the fact that we abhor murder produces a disturbing tension for those who are asked to fight wars for their tribes, clans, communities, cultures or nations. When they are trained for war, warriors are given a mandate by their society to take lives. But they must learn to take only certain lives in certain ways, at certain times, and for certain reasons. Otherwise, they become indistinguishable from murderers and will find themselves condemned by the very societies they were created to serve.

Whatever additional martial activities they may engage in, such as conquering foreign peoples, acquiring booty or expanding territory, warriors (even the so-called “barbarian” warriors) exist for one primary purpose. That purpose is to defend their communities from any forces that may seek to undermine the security of the social contract: from the “Barbarians at the Gate.” The trick is that they must find some way to accomplish this goal without become the barbarians themselves.

Most projections into the haze of our prehistoric past suggest that early human societies were tribal, and that within these tribes a hunter class, charged with providing food for the tribe and protection from predatory animals, evolved into a warrior class having a broader mandate to protect the interests of the tribe generally against all threats, animal or human. Alterations in population sizes, migration, and the strained carrying capacity of certain regions of the earth caused more tribes to come in contact with one another and vie for resources. Inevitably, serious inter-tribal conflicts arose. Before long, a successful warrior class became essential to each tribe’s survival. As more complex social-political systems developed and civilization advanced, the composition and exact duties of warrior classes around the globe underwent some changes. But their primary role remained constant: to protect and promote their culture’s survival.

The survival of a society does not depend just upon the rescue of citizens or the retention of land. The survival of a culture depends as much, if not more, on the continued existence, recognition, and celebration of a coherent cultural self-conception – on the preservation of cultural identity – as it does on the continued existence of a sustained population or physical boundaries. Several cultures persist in the absence of any physical boundaries (e.g. nomadic cultures), and a culture can be destroyed or supplanted by other means than genocide or territorial conquest. A culture’s identity is defined by its deepest values: the values that its citizens believe are worth defending, worth dying for. These are the values that shape a society’s “way of life.” And it is that “way of life” that warriors fight to maintain.

Warrior cultures throughout history and from diverse regions around the globe have all constructed codes of behavior, which establish that culture’s image of the ideal warrior. These codes have not always been written down or literally codified into a set of explicit rules, yet they can be identified as they are carefully conveyed in some form to each succeeding generation of warriors. These codes tend to be quite demanding. They are often closely linked to a culture’s religious beliefs and can be connected to elaborate (in some cases, death defying or excruciatingly painful) rituals and rites of passage. And in many cases they seem to hold the warrior to a higher ethical standard than that required for an ordinary citizen within the general population of the society that the warrior serves. The warriors themselves frequently police strict adherence to these standards; with violators being shamed, ostracized, or even killed by their peers. [One relevant historical example comes from the Roman legions, where a man who fell asleep while he was supposed to be on watch in time of war could expect to be stoned to death by the members of his own cohort.]

But why to warriors need such a code? Why should a warrior culture want to restrict the actions of its members and require them to commit to lofty ideals? Might not such restraints cripple their effectiveness as warriors? What’s wrong with, “All’s fair in love and war?” Isn’t winning all that matters? Why could any warrior be burdened with concerns about honor and shame?

One reason for such warriors’ codes may be to protect the warrior him- (or her-) self from serious psychological damage. The things that warriors are asked to do to guarantee their culture’s survival are not always pleasant. There is truth in the inescapable slogan, “War is hell.” The combination of the warriors’ own natural disgust at what they must see in battle and the fact that what they must do on the battlefield seems so uncivilized, so against what they have been taught by their society, could make warriors feel tremendous self-loathing.

Warriors need a way to distinguish what they must do out of a sense of duty from what a serial killer does for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it. Their actions, like those of the serial killer, set them apart from the rest of society. Warriors, however, are not sociopaths. They respect the values of the society in which they were raised and which they are prepared to die to protect. Therefore it is important for them to conduct themselves in such a way that they will be honored and esteemed by their communities, not reviled and rejected by them. They want to be seen as proud defenders and representatives of what is best about their culture: as heroes, not “baby-killers.”

By setting high standards for themselves, warriors can create a lifeline that will allow them to pull themselves out of the hell of war and reintegrate themselves into their society. A warrior’s code may cover everything from the treatment of prisoners of war to oath keeping to table etiquette, but its primary purpose is to grant nobility to the warriors’ profession. This allows warriors to retain both their self-respect and the respect of those they guard.

The question can then be asked, if a warrior’s code is indeed crucial to the warrior’s moral psychology, is enough being done at today’s U.S. service academies to present our warriors-in-training with such a code and promote their internalization of it? Certainly, there are honor codes and honor concepts, character development seminars, ethics classes and core values. All of these efforts seem aimed in the right direction, but do they in fact add up to the successful transmission of a true warrior’s code?

I have asked many midshipmen and cadets this question in a variety of contexts. The answer they typically give is a mixed review. They do believe that they are given a code to follow; however, they are not necessarily certain either that it is an adequate warrior’s code or that they are sufficiently inspired to take it on board as their own personal credo (a way of life, not mere memorized words). I believe one of the reasons for this was captured by Mark Osiel in his book Obeying Orders, in which he argues that the modern military too often relies on a rule-following approach to character training, rather than employing a more Aristotelian method of promoting key virtues and providing strong role models so that young warriors can form deeply ingrained habits of excellence. A second problem I believe can be traced to changes in the educational approach at the academies, that may be lumped under the broad umbrella of “political correctness.” For example, there is a push these days to avoid any lessons that might give our young warriors a sense of superiority over their civilian counterparts. This is driven by a well-intentioned concern over tension in civilian/military relations (the “widening gap”), but it can undermine the critical formation of confidence among our students. Midshipmen and cadets are exhorted not to regard themselves as an elite group, distinct from other cadres of the population. While I certainly agree that those who serve in the military should show (and, more importantly, feel) respect for those who achieve great things in the civilian world and make their own contributions to society out of uniform, I see no reason why such respect should be thought incompatible with feeling elite themselves. There is nothing odd about feeling immense pride in being, say, an excellent fire-fighter, and yet still having great respect for those who are, for example, excellent coaches, artists, or scholars. A warrior may take tremendous pride in the fact that he is among those few best qualified to defend his nation and still think very highly of those civilians who are best qualified to teach in urban high schools or run successful businesses or write an immortal sonnet.

On the moral side, I see nothing wrong with withholding respect from persons, in or out of uniform, who make no real attempt to adhere to ethical standards. If warriors do in fact live up to the high standards they set for themselves, it is not unfair or hypocritical of them to expect the same from others. On the other hand, warriors who are justifiably proud of the ethical components of their own code should not assume that all civilians lack any equally demanding code, simply because a civilian’s code, unlike the UCMJ, may not be backed by the threat of formal punishment. There are plenty of civilians who firmly believe that adultery is wrong and will remain faithful to their marriage vows, even if no laws required them to do so.

With regard to their martial abilities, warriors-in-training should be encouraged to feel that they are capable of things that most civilians (by choice or nature) are not. What is the point of training if, at the end of it, you do not feel that you can do or withstand what those not similarly trained cannot? Unfortunately, many rites of passage (events intended to prove to the participants that they can do or withstand what others cannot) have been softened to the point that they now carry little emotional significance. This was done to prevent a negative form of hazing, but it seems that the baby may have been thrown out with the bath water. Some hazing is nothing more the foolish exercise of petty power by one group over another. Hazing that claims the status of a rite of passage but in actuality does nothing to make the warrior feel more prepared to face the demands of his or her future career of service should indeed be avoided. True rites of passage, in contrast, are carefully designed to allow those who endure them to prove something to themselves. Even if they involve lessons in humility, they are ultimately intended to make the warrior feel more like a warrior, not to make those administering or observing the rite feel better about themselves. Well-conceived rites of passage enhance individual dignity; they do not damage it. It should be noted that in historical warrior traditions, many of the most powerful rites are entirely self-administered. Sioux braves willingly pierced their pectoral muscles and attached themselves by cords to a tall pole, dancing around it until the cords ripped loose out of their torn flesh. The Chinese monks of Shaolin entered the Corridor of Death of their own free will, knowing that even if they survived its deadly gauntlet of booby-traps, they could not escape without lifting a 300-pound, red-hot cauldron away from the exit, using only their bare arms (which would be permanently branded in the process with the images of a dragon and a tiger). Such rituals may seem unnecessarily savage, but a similar criticism has been raised in modern times against mere blood pinning. I think it is both ridiculous and cruel to “protect” future warriors from rites of passage that may give them the confidence they will need to survive a genuine conflict, on the grounds that such rites may cause them physical or emotional distress, when we have no intention of protecting them from much greater physical and emotion distress in their careers or in combat. It is equally ludicrous to use the inclusion of women in warrior training as an excuse for watering down training. The desire to face real challenges, to demonstrate competence, and to build confidence by mastering trials is not gender-specific.

True rites of passage, along with other lessons and experiences conducive to making young men and women feel like warriors, have to be maintained at this country’s most prestigious service academies and other centers of military training. We must not send our defenders off to hunt through the caves of Afghanistan or subdue warlords in Somalia without first arming them with the internal strength and confidence that comes from struggling to live up to the demands of a warriors’ code. The specific skills and abilities that warriors need to succeed in responding to modern threats will continue to evolve, but as long as war involves killing and dying, there will be a need for warriors who feel like warriors. It is doing them a disservice to pretend that their jobs are no different than those of businesspeople, computer specialists, or engineers in the civilian world. They certainly need to know the difference between a warrior and a murderer. But they also need to know the difference between a warrior and a bureaucrat.

The Warrior?s Code

[jubaji]

Your copy-and-paste-fu is strong, Grasshopper.

[sikal]

Good article.

I would guess that many (most) here are familiar with the "Warrior's Creed" by Robert L. Humphrey.

Wherever I go,
everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.

Wherever I am,
anyone in need has a friend.

Whenever I return home,
everyone is happy I am there.

"It's a better life!"

I have always felt that this summed it up well. Being a "warrior" isn't about fighting. It isn't about maiming or killing. It is about protecting oneself and others out of compassion and love.

I would argue that this is part of what distinguishes a "warrior" from a "soldier" as well. A soldier may do all the things a warrior would do but the soldier acts out of duty to his government/nation/etc. A warrior is motivated from within.

This is not to say that there aren't warriors who serve as soldiers. There are. I know some. I think "warrior" transcends job description, though.

There's quote (from J. T. Wright) that I like, "Character is doing the right thing when no one is looking." I think "warriors" have character.

Mike

[TTEscrima]

Good article.

I would guess that many (most) here are familiar with the "Warrior's Creed" by Robert L. Humphrey.



I have always felt that this summed it up well. Being a "warrior" isn't about fighting. It isn't about maiming or killing. It is about protecting oneself and others out of compassion and love.

I would argue that this is part of what distinguishes a "warrior" from a "soldier" as well. A soldier may do all the things a warrior would do but the soldier acts out of duty to his government/nation/etc. A warrior is motivated from within.

This is not to say that there aren't warriors who serve as soldiers. There are. I know some. I think "warrior" transcends job description, though.

There's quote (from J. T. Wright) that I like, "Character is doing the right thing when no one is looking." I think "warriors" have character.

Mike

Great post!

[Tom Yum]

Good post!

I'll be coming back to re-read.

[darrianation]

Deleted Deleted

[kingoftheforest]

It's a matter of honor not bullshit bragging rights.

No their not your right. It takes the balls to do whatever is needed to protect what you believe in. It takes heart and commitment to do the things that all the weak spine individuals of the world find disgusting and repulsive.


It takes even more guts to find out you did these things for a government that didn't have the best interest of your people in mind. That you protected someone else's pocket book and were duped into being gung ho so that the commies or terrorist or whatever enemy dejour you had to fight this time.


It takes even more heart and soul to live with yourself after the fact and come back home to see the clueless idiots around you and listen to the people who think they know it all tell you you're a piece of shit for doing those things. For fighting for what you believe in and protecting a large majority of witless assholes who were too pussified to go do it themselves.

It takes a real man to go be a warrior and fight in the military when you know there are security contracting jobs that pay a hell of a lot more but you are doing it for your country, your family and your beliefs and not for a paycheck.


Mercenaries murder indiscriminately and for money , warriors fight for their beliefs. I know a lot of people who are retired from the military. My Great Grandfather joined up (wasn't drafted) for WWI because he belived in what we were fighting for, my grandfather fought and was wounded in Korea, for his beliefs. My Uncle fought in 'Nam not drafted but joined and later continued to serve. I have several close friend who fought in combat for this country and their beliefs and I know every last one would have done it for not a f-ing penny if they had too.

Why?

Because that's what a warrior is.

[TTEscrima]

AH...such young impressionable minds. Warriors aren’t always shining knights in armor riding to the rescues of young damsels in distress on white steeds either.

That's an article written by an instructor at the Naval Academy where it's used and taught. In other words it's the opinion of the NAVY that it's essential for the men who go to the US Naval Academy to understand it. I'm fully aware that you and several others on THIS board have different opinions of what constitutes warriorship and honor and that's why I posted an article from THE experts in the field. You're saying you're right and the instructors and those who choose the curriculum at the US Naval Academy are misguided, your ego eclipses your stupidity.

A lack of proper training and an understanding of Honor and warriorship is what caused the torture, rape and general bandit behavior that strengthened our enemies and benefited them by providing money and new recruits for their war against us, If you can't comprehend this you're part of the problem.

[TTEscrima]

Why Do Warriors Need A Code? Defining the Warrior

Scott Farrell Comments:

In war, more than in any other endeavor, common sense dictates a “win by any means” approach. Yet throughout history the greatest warriors have always held themselves to codes of honor, like the Code of Chivalry, which restrain them from excessive, brutal actions against their enemies. In this three-part essay (excerpted from her book Code of the Warrior), Professor French considers why warriors would bind themselves to voluntary restrictions in times of war — including a war against ruthless terrorists and murderers who themselves follow no such code. She reminds us that “stepping over the line” has far-reaching consequences, and her conclusions hold an important message for anyone who thinks going beyond the borders of ethics is harmless in the realms of business, sports, school or politics.

"Warrior cultures throughout history and from diverse regions around the globe have constructed codes of behavior, based on that culture’s image of the ideal warrior. These codes have not always been written down or literally codified into a set of explicit rules. A code can be hidden in the lines of epic poems or implied by the descriptions of mythic heroes. One way or another, it is carefully conveyed to each succeeding generation of warriors. These codes tend to be quite demanding. They are often closely linked to a culture’s religious beliefs and can be connected to elaborate (and frequently death defying or excruciatingly painful) rituals and rites of passage.

In many cases this code of honor seems to hold the warrior to a higher ethical standard than that required for an ordinary citizen within the general population of the society the warrior serves. The code is not imposed from the outside. The warriors themselves police strict adherence to these standards; with violators being shamed, ostracized, or even killed by their peers. One historical example comes from the Roman legions, where if a man fell asleep while he was supposed to be on watch in time of war he could expect to be stoned to death by the members of his own cohort.

The code of the warrior not only defines how he should interact with his own warrior comrades, but also how he should treat other members of his society, his enemies, and the people he conquers. The code restrains the warrior. It sets boundaries on his behavior. It distinguishes honorable acts from shameful acts. The Homeric hero Achilles must seek vengeance for the death of his friend Patroclus, yet when his rage drives him to desecrate the corpse of his arch nemesis, Hector, he angers the gods. Under the codes of chivalry, a medieval knight has to offer mercy to any knight who yields to him in battle. In feudal Japan, samurai are not permitted to approach their opponents using stealth, but rather are required to declare themselves openly before engaging combat. Muslim warriors engaged in offensive jihad cannot employ certain weapons unless and until their enemies use them first.

But why do warriors need a code that ties their hands and limits their options? Why should a warrior culture want to restrict the actions of its members and require them to commit to lofty ideals? Might not such restraints cripple their effectiveness as warriors? What’s wrong with, “All’s fair in love and war?” Isn’t winning all that matters? Why should any warrior want to be burdened with concerns about honor and shame?

Medieval war was hell too One reason for such warriors’ codes may be to protect the warriors themselves from serious psychological damage. To say the least, the things that warriors are asked to do to guarantee their cultures’ survivals are far from pleasant. There is truth in the inescapable slogan, “War is hell.” Even those few who seem to feel no revulsion at spilling another human being’s guts on the ground, severing a limb, slicing off a head, or burning away a face are likely to be affected by the sight of their friends or kinsmen suffering the same fate. The combination of the warriors’ own natural disgust at what they must witness in battle and the fact that what they must do to endure and conquer can seem so uncivilized, so against what they have been taught by their society, creates the conditions for even the most accomplished warriors to feel tremendous self-loathing.

In his powerful work, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman illuminates the process by which those in war and those training for war attempt to achieve emotional distance from their enemies. The practice of dehumanizing the enemy through the use of abusive or euphemistic language is a common and effective tool for increasing aggression and breaking down inhibitions against killing. Grossman notes:

It is so much easier to kill someone if they look distinctly different than you. If your propaganda machine can convince your soldiers that their opponents are not really human but are “inferior forms of life,” then their natural resistance to killing their own species will be reduced. Often the enemy’s humanity is denied by referring to him as a “gook,” “Kraut,” or “Nip.”(1)

Warfare in Vietnam Grossman has interviewed many U.S. veterans of the Vietnam War. Grossman found that some of the men he interviewed had never truly achieved emotional distance from their former foes, and seemed to be the better for it. These men expressed admiration for Vietnamese culture. Some had even married Vietnamese women. They appeared to be leading happy and productive post-war lives. In contrast, those who persisted in viewing the Vietnamese as “less than animals” were unable to leave the war behind them.

Grossman writes about the dangers of dehumanizing the enemy in terms of potential damage to the war effort, long-term political fallout, and regional or global instability:

Because of [our] ability to accept other cultures, Americans probably committed fewer atrocities than most other nations would have under the circumstances associated with guerrilla warfare in Vietnam. Certainly fewer than was the track record of most colonial powers. Yet still we had our My Lai, and our efforts in that war were profoundly, perhaps fatally, undermined by that single incident.

It can be easy to unleash this genie of racial and ethnic hatred in order to facilitate killing in time of war. It can be more difficult to keep the cork in the bottle and completely restrain it. Once it is out, and the war is over, the genie is not easily put back in the bottle. Such hatred lingers over the decades, even centuries, as can be seen today in Lebanon and what was once Yugoslavia.(2)

The insidious harm brought to the individual warriors who find themselves swept up by such devastating propaganda matters a great deal to those concerned with the warriors’ own welfare. In a segment on the “Clinical Importance of Honoring or Dishonoring the Enemy,” psychologist Jonathan Shay describes an intimate connection between the psychological health of the veteran and the respect he feels for those he fought. He stresses how important it is to the warrior to have the conviction that he participated in an honorable endeavor:

Restoring honor to the enemy is an essential step in recovery from combat PTSD. While other things are obviously needed as well, the veteran’s self-respect never fully recovers so long as he is unable to see the enemy as worthy. In the words of one of our patients, a war against subhuman vermin “has no honor.” This is true even in victory; in defeat, the dishonoring absence of human themis [shared values, a common sense of “what’s right”] linking enemy to enemy makes life unendurable(3).

Jonathan Shay, psychologist and author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, finds echoes of these sentiments in the words of J. Glenn Gray from Gray’s modern classic on the experience of war, The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle(4). With the struggle of the Allies against the Japanese in the Pacific Theater of World War II as his backdrop, Gray brings home the agony of the warrior who has become incapable of honoring his enemies and thus is unable to find redemption himself:

The ugliness of a war against an enemy conceived to be subhuman can hardly be exaggerated. There is an unredeemed quality to battle experienced under these conditions, which blunts all senses and perceptions. Traditional appeals of war are corroded by the demands of a war of extermination, where conventional rules no longer apply. For all its inhumanity, war is a profoundly human institution(5).

By setting standards of behavior for themselves, accepting certain restraints, and even “honoring their enemies,” warriors can create a lifeline that will allow them to pull themselves out of the hell of war and reintegrate themselves into their society, should they survive to see peace restored. A warrior’s code may cover everything from the treatment of prisoners of war to oath keeping to table etiquette, but its primary purpose is to grant nobility to the warriors’ profession. This allows warriors to retain both their self-respect and the respect of those they guard."

http://www.chivalrytoday.com/Essays/French/Warrior-Code-1.html

[TTEscrima]

Part 2: Warriors and Society

Scott Farrell Comments:

In the second part of her essay, Professor French points out that the warriors’ code allows soldiers to maintain an internal sense of dignity and respect for themselves and their own actions — an important part of remaining sane in an insane environment. She also explores the hazards of becoming “too detached” from the struggles of war.

"This brings us back to my earlier line of reasoning. It is not enough to ask, “Can our warriors still get the job done if they do not have a code?” We must also consider the related question: “What will getting the job done do to our warriors if they do not have a code?” Accepting certain constraints as a moral duty, even when it is inconvenient or inefficient to do so, allows warriors to hold onto their humanity while experiencing the horror of war — and, when the war is over, to return home and reintegrate into the society they so ably defended. Fighters who cannot say, “this far but no farther,” who have no lines they will not cross and no atrocities from which they will shrink, may be effective. They may complete their missions, but they will do so at the loss of their humanity.

Those who are concerned for the welfare of our warriors would never want to see them sent off to face the chaotic hell of combat without something to ground them and keep them from crossing over into an inescapable heart of darkness. A mother and father may be willing to give their beloved son or daughter’s life for their country or cause, but I doubt they would be as willing to sacrifice their child’s soul. The code is a kind of moral and psychological armor that protects the warrior from becoming a monster in his or her own eyes.

Bombers in VietnamNor is it just “see-the-whites-of-their-eyes” front-line ground and Special Forces troops who need this protection. Men and women who fight from a distance – who drop bombs from planes and shoot missiles from ships or submarines – are also at risk of losing their humanity. What threatens them is the very ease by which they can take lives. As technology separates individuals from the results of their actions, it cheats them of the chance to absorb and reckon with the enormity of what they have done. Killing fellow human beings, even for the noblest cause, should never feel like nothing more than a game played using the latest advances in virtual reality.

In his book Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond, Michael Ignatieff airs his concerns about the morality of asymmetric conflicts in which one side is able to inflict large numbers of casualties from afar without putting its own forces at much risk (e.g. by relying primarily on long-range precision weapons and high-altitude air assaults). In such a mismatched fight, it may be easy for those fighting on the superior side to fail to appreciate the true costs of the war, since they are not forced to witness the death and destruction first-hand. Ignatieff warns modern warriors against the “moral danger” they face if they allow themselves to become too detached from the reality of war:

Virtual reality is seductive. …We see war as a surgical scalpel and not a bloodstained sword. In so doing we mis-describe ourselves as we mis-describe the instruments of death. We need to stay away from such fables of self-righteous invulnerability. Only then can we get our hands dirty. Only then can we do what is right.(6)

I have argued that it can be damaging for warriors to view their enemies as sub-human by imagining them like beasts in a jungle. In the same way, modern warriors who dehumanize their enemies by equating them with blips on a computer screen may find the sense that they are part of an honorable undertaking far too fragile to sustain. Just as societies have an obligation to treat their warriors as ends in themselves, it is important for warriors to show a similar kind of respect for the inherent worth and dignity of their opponents. Even long-distance warriors can achieve this by acknowledging that some of the “targets” they destroy are in fact human beings, not demons or vermin or empty statistics.

More parallels can be drawn between the way that societies should behave towards their warriors and how warriors should behave towards one another. Societies should honor their fallen defenders. Warriors should not desecrate the corpses of their enemies, but should, whenever possible, allow them to be buried by their own people and according to their own cultural traditions. Among his therapy patients, Jonathan Shay found several veterans suffering from “the toxic residue left behind by disrespectful treatment of enemy dead.(7)” And while societies must certainly show concern for the after-effects of war on their own troops, victorious warriors can also maintain the moral highground by helping to rebuild (or in some cases create) a solid infrastructure, a healthy economy, an educational system, and political stability for their former foes."

http://www.chivalrytoday.com/Essays/French/Warrior-Code-2.html

[TTEscrima]

Part 3: Honor and Terrorists

Scott Farrell Comments:

In conclusion, Professor French explores the most difficult and frustrating part of her thesis: How (and why) do you maintain honor against an opponent who has none? No matter what sort of “battle” you find yourself in — military, professional, political, academic, athletic or social — her answers are a wonderful reaffirmation of the principles of chivalry and honor.

"These imperatives I have put forward apply to relations among warriors and nations defended by warriors. The moral requirements become much murkier when warriors must battle murderers.

The warriors of today will increasingly find themselves pitted against adversaries who fight without any rules or restraints. Because they see no other way to advance their objectives, these desperate men and women are likely to employ methods that are rightfully viewed as horrific and appalling by the rest of the civilized world, such as terror attacks on civilian populations. They will take “fighting dirty” to unimaginable depths, and since they are already willing to die, they will not be deterred by any threat of punishment for continuing to disregard the laws of war.

As Ariel Merari, director of the Project on Terrorism at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University points out in his essay, “The Readiness To Kill and Die: Suicidal Terrorism in the Middle East,” old ideas about tit-for-tat and the applications of rational decision theory are worthless when dealing with those who are ready – if not anxious – to sacrifice their lives for The Cause. Merari quotes Lord Chalfont, an authority on counter-terrorism:

The whole time that I have been involved in terrorist operations, which now goes back to 30 years, my enemy has always been a man who is very worried about his own skin. You can no longer count on that, because the terrorist [today] is not just prepared to get killed, he wants to get killed. Therefore, the whole planning, tactical doctrine, [and] thinking [behind antiterrorism measures] is fundamentally undermined(8).

How should stronger sides in asymmetric conflicts respond when their weaker opponents resort to terrorist tactics? One perfectly understandable reaction would be for the stronger sides to want to “take off the gloves,” too, especially when the terrorists seem to be banking on the fact that they will not. It seems natural to say, “If they will not respect the rules of war and use some restraint, then neither will we.”

Of course, one of the most serious “cons” that the West must consider before “taking the gloves off” is that it would be a violation of our own values to engage in a war with no rules. It is beyond infuriating that some of the people who claim to hate who we are and what we represent are yet able to benefit from our commitment to restraint. The more they push us and the more suffering we endure, the harder it is for us to fight with one hand tied behind our back rather than unleashing the full extent of our power to wipe them from the earth. But if we give up who we are in order to destroy our enemies, what sort of victory will we have secured for ourselves? Even the noblest of ends can be tarnished if base means are used to achieve them.

It is truly disturbing to consider how easy it may be for a person to rationalize the terrible transition from warrior to murderer. An individual may be persuaded to become a murderer by a single charismatic personality, by a group or movement that answers some psychological need, or by the effects of a traumatic event (such as witnessing the death of a close friend or family member). I must stress that the line between a warrior and a murderer is profoundly important, but very thin. Once it has been crossed, the harm to the individual may be irrevocable.

It is easier to remain a warrior when fighting other warriors. When warriors fight murderers, they may be tempted to become the mirror image of the evil they hoped to destroy. Their only protection is their code of honor. The professional military ethics that restrain warriors – that keep them from targeting those who cannot fight back, from taking pleasure in killing, from striking harder than is necessary and that encourage them to offer mercy to their defeated enemies and even to help rebuild their countries and communities – are also their own protection against becoming what they abhor.

Honor Brings Soldiers Home from WarEveryone who cares about the welfare of warriors wants them not only to live through whatever fighting they must face, but also to have lives worth living after the fighting is done. The warriors’ code is the shield that guards our warriors’ humanity. Without it, they are no good to themselves or to those with whom and for whom they fight. Without it, they will find no way back from war."

http://www.chivalrytoday.com/Essays/French/Warrior-Code-3.html

About the author: Dr. Shannon E. French teaches in the Ethics Section at the U.S. Naval Academy. Her book, The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values, Past and Present (2003, Rowman and Littlefield) features a foreword by Senator John McCain. In 2000 she was awarded USNA’s campus-wide Apgar Award for Excellence in Teaching. This essay is reprinted by permission of the author.

[darrianation]

Deleted Deleted

[Tant01]

Indeed.......

[darrianation]

Deleted Deleted