Ethics of War- Changing space of the battlefield- Anonymous Killings and moral agency.

Christopher Coker is Professor of International relations at the London School of Economics. In 2008 he published his book- ‘ethics and war in the twenty first century’. This book provides a very original and important narrative towards asking questions such as- why do states go to war? Who are the threats against states? And how in the liberalisation of society, states collectively justify their actions, and provide moral agency?

The biggest point which I have discovered through reading ethics and war in the twenty first century, is the ways in which technological advancements have perpetuated anonymous killings, on the battle field, which within its own structures has changed and to attempt to explore the statement that since the rise of industrialisation and technology, the battlespace has changed, and thus decreased moral agency and increased anonymous killings. This blog aims to explore the factors which have made this statement become true, and to explore the historical, social and political conditions which has fuelled the changes on the battle field, and thus the moral direction in which states possess when taking the decision to go to war against other states or rebel militias.

The first point to consider is around the ‘othering’ of the enemy. The traditional attitudes of dehumanising the enemy, thus removing our moral agency, and converting our subconscious of the enemy to be either animalistic or something so different from ourselves that we need to remove it from our reality. These attitudes have been seen through the events such as the Holocaust, whereby the those human beings who suffered in the holocaust were branded with a narrative which according to the Nazis made them ‘inhuman’ and therefore justified the horrific actions which followed during the holocaust, and the Nazis removed themselves of any moral accountability. It can be argued that these narratives feed into the obsession which society holds around a ‘demon haunted world’. In 1995, Carl Sagan, an astrophysicist at the time, wrote a book called – A demon haunted world’, this book explored the scepticism and suspicion which society holds over those who appear to be different to themselves. In his book, he produces his perspective that the world is full of ‘demons’, and these ‘demons’ are presented In a physical human form of ‘muggers’, ‘rapists’, ‘drug lords’ and ‘terrorists’. This narrative alone condemns the alienation of those who commit crimes and deviancies in mainstream society, and thus justifies any responsive action to be made against them. To draw back to the context of war and ethics In the twenty first century, it can be argued that the increased sophistication of technologies in the battle space, has allowed the West in particular to physically distance themselves from the reality and humanity of conflict, and to increase the rate of kills on the battle field, with a decrease in moral agency. The technologies have distanced military operations even further from those who are being killed. To draw upon a historical comparison of the First World War whereby those who were killed and committed killing on the battle field, were a lot more up close and personal, thus the moral accountability was arguably substantially higher.

Another substantial argument to the decrease of moral agency in the battle space is the politicisation of those who states are going to war against. States in the Top North have typically produced a political agenda and justification for going to war, not just against those ascribed as terrorists, but on societal deviances. Classic examples can include the war on drugs, and the war on crime. The applied labels of ‘war on’ can legitimise the actions which states take, as violence amongst individuals is a crime,  violence amongst states and on those who the state ascribe as being a destructive force can justify the acts committed against them. The politicisation of the enemy can be seen through historical examples such as the new beginnings speech delivered by George Bush following the attacks of 9/11. He spoke to the American people, and the world regarding America and their allies going to war against a newly found enemy, and thus within their own contexts justified the actions and atrocities which would follow in Iraq and Afghanistan in the years to come. The surge in media technologies and the broadcasting of news has allowed these politicised narratives to reach a much wider audience, and of course the media dominates what the public consume, and thus can steer the general ideology and ontologies. It can be argued that this increase of media representation can steer the narratives of the anonymity and othering of the enemy, thus absolving much of the moral agency and accountability. The politicisation of the ‘enemy’ can remove moral agency on the battle field, because the dominant ideology is that the fighting which is taking place is in the interests of the security of the state, and the citizens held within it.

The third argument as to why the moral agency has been significantly impacted on the battle field is the progression of weapon and industrial capability. Exploring through a historical lens, the battle of Agincourt of 1415 between Britain and France saw the usage of swords, lances and poleaxes. These were the most typically used weapons on the battle field. The killing committed by both sides, would have been a lot more up close and personal, in comparison to the methods of killing on the battle space in the twenty first century. Those who fought at Agincourt would most likely have looked in the eyes or near bouts of those who they were killing. Through understanding the comparable methods of killing on the battle field from Agincourt in 1415 and the Battle space in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 onwards, aids us in our understanding of the nature of fighting, which arguably was a lot more up close and personal in 1415. This is in comparison with much of the fighting fought in the twenty first century, through the advancements of technology and weaponry. It cannot be said either way that there was moral agency for the military and state leaders who were organising and delegating during the Battle of Agincourt, however it can be seen as a fair assumption that for the individuals fighting on the ground, the motive for killing would have been mainly for King and country, however could there have been feelings amongst the fighting individuals of morality around the act of killing. This is something which I don’t believe can be answered on a factual basis, but on a basis of assumption and hope. The structure and dynamics of the battle field has long changed between 1415 and the twenty first century. The rise of industrialisation and mass production of weapons, throughout both the twentieth and twenty first centuries has not only helped to provide a consciousness amongst the working classes, who would be at the forefront of this mass production and the formation and growth of their political voice and metaphorical weapons but also the weapons which have been created and produced, are those which allow long distance fighting to take place. Examples include the production of sniper rifles, and air raids such as bombing and missile strikes. Conducting a missile strike against opposing forces doesn’t often require up close and personal contact with the enemy. This is an example of the changing face of the battle field, and thus can contribute to the removal of moral agency and can increase anonymous killings.

To summarise, this blog has aimed to provide evidence which can support the statement – since the rise of industrialisation and technology, the battlespace has changed, and thus decreased moral agency and increased anonymous killings. This statement has been supported through exploring narratives of a ‘demon haunted world’, politicisation of the enemy and the progressions of industrial power and weaponry produced as a product of this industrial hegemony, particularly in the Global North. The Ethics of war in the twenty first century is a must read for anybody studying international relations, Geopolitics, security studies and philosophy, and provides a very well-articulated account of the historical and political changes which has reshaped our understandings, attitudes and ethical considerations when contesting justifications for going to war.