Tag: collateral damage

Osama bin Laden: A “just” killing? (Just war, part 7)

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Continuing the series on just war, Dr. Mike Corgan offers some reflections about whether the killing of Osama bin Laden meets the criteria for just war.]

Though details are still being released it seems the raid at Abbottabad and the killing of Osama bin Laden do meet the requirements of just war.

Poster of Bin Laden with words violence cycle
Poster by Eric Gulliver, 2011

Bin Laden certainly made himself a legitimate target for military and even lethal retaliation by his continuing orchestration and advocacy of attacks directed at civilians, and not just military or police, in Muslim and in Western countries.

The raid itself was risky precisely because it was a proportionate use of force and not a dropping of a dozen or twenty 2,000 lb bombs on the compound which certainly would have caused many civilian deaths.

The women and children were unharmed except for the wife who rushed the attackers; she was shot in the leg, not the head. Of course bin Laden was shot in the head, twice, though he appeared to have had no weapon in hand. However, the use of suicide bomb vests by Al Qaeda is well documented and the shooter, who had one or two seconds to make a decision, had no reason to assume bin Laden did not wear one.

There seems to have been no “collateral damage.” It was about as well carried out as these things can ever be.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Using war to stop or undo harm (Just war, part 5)

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for his ongoing series on just war.]

Animated image comparing two columns of dots
Animation by Sbyrnes321; in public domain. From Wikimedia Commons.

The idea of proportionality is one of the more comprehensive notions in both the international laws governing war and in just war theory. Proportionality applies both to the resort to war and the conduct of a war, however justly or legally entered into.

In terms of international law, the only just or legal cause for war is self-defense against aggression. But the UN Charter in particular countenances not just the repulsion of aggression and punishment for its having been used. In just war theory, proportionality places no such requirements on those repelling aggression. War can stop or undo the harm but not be an excuse for vengeance or aggrandizement.

Instead, proportionality in just war theory implies that only war can correct the wrong suffered. The wrong to be corrected must be grave. Insults to national pride or need to maintain reputation are insufficient reasons to use war. So, too, for example would be economic harm that does not materially destroy a national economy.

Weighing scale
Image in public domain

War, even a just war, always involves the loss of innocent life and destruction of things that are simply too near the battle area. The inevitability of this so-called  “collateral damage” means that war is necessarily a blunt instrument. This reality undergirds the just war notion of proportionality.

Consider the current conflict in Libya. In your opinion, would war be justified according to the just war principle of proportionality?

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Euphemistic labeling (Moral disengagement, part 3)

Posted on by kathiemm

Truthful Language NOT!Another moral disengagement mechanism identified by psychologist Albert Bandura is euphemistic labeling. This mechanism refers to the process of sanitizing language in order to detract from the emotional intensity of the reality being referenced.

Some examples of euphemistic labeling:

  • “Friendly fire,” used to describe the accidental killing of soldiers by their own comrades
  • “Servicing the target,” used as a substitute for bombing missions
  • “Collateral damage,” applied to the killing of innocent civilians

Another favorite is “enhanced interrogation”—not exactly the term most of us would use when describing repeated efforts to bring  a 15-year-old boy almost to the point of drowning over and over again.

An excellent example of euphemistic labeling by the U.S. government was changing the name of one of its major executive departments from the Department of War to the Department of Defense.

Consider the 1982 U.S. invasion of Grenada, a tiny Caribbean island. Six thousand U.S. troops bravely took on almost 125 powerful Cuban soldiers (for which 7,000 medals were handed out); U.S. students in a medical school waited to be rescued; and a U.S. newspaper helpfully published a map of the city of Granada in Spain. Sadly, an aircraft bomb hit the wrong target and some children at an orphanage were killed.

And what was the U.S. government “defending” against? The building of a 5,000 foot runway that Soviet jets in Cuba might be able to use to bomb, well, somewhere.

In the next post, we describe the moral engagement alternative to euphemistic language—that is, telling it like it is. In the meantime, please comment and share examples of euphemistic labeling that you’ve noticed.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009, as well as Corgan, M., and Malley-Morrison, K., Operation URGENT FOLLY, International Psychology Bulletin,  Spring, 2008, 28-30.