Paul Bryant's Reviews > The Ethics of War

The Ethics of War by A.J. Coates
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
416390
's review

liked it
bookshelves: politics

I was interested in how ordinary soldiers very often commit terrible atrocities during wars and if the military command condones these events and performs a standard shrugging insincere handwringing exercise if they’re discovered but fundamentally doesn’t care. It was difficult to find a book discussing what soldiers actually do during actual battles (got any recommendations?) and the nearest thing, or so I thought. was this mighty tome. But of course I got something different to what I wanted.

This is a very highfalutin very intricate discussion about the whole smorgasbord of ethical conundrums warfare throws up. Well, I probably should have read the blurb, it didn’t lie : will appeal to both an academic and professional readership meaning that us “general” readers are considered too lowly to get an invite. Hmph, what an insult. I ploughed on regardless. And there is a lot of very interesting stuff here, delivered in a style that makes your eyes bounce off the sentences.

FOREVER WARS

When Joe Biden said of Afghanistan “I was not going to extend this forever war” he got a deluge of harsh disagreement as the Taliban immediately took over. This is a neat example of the issue A J Coates raises on page one : utopians versus realists.

Utopianism has grossly inflated expectations about the world of international politics. Wedded to an abstract image of a just and perfect order, it concludes that the world at large must find its ideal constructs irresistible.

Utopians know their ends are good and disregard their means. Joe wanted to terminate the hopeless conflict in Afghanistan and so withdrew immediately. Realists were saying that this was naïve, that however nasty American involvement was it had to continue. Joe was optimistic, the realists were pessimistic. Joe’s optimism must have lasted for about five minutes. Was it the right decision? I can sure see why he did it.

This book is explicitly against “utopians” :

The utopian claims the moral high ground, accusing the realist of moral duplicity and even of rank immorality, while the realist regards the utopian or moralist at best as a dangerous if well-intentioned fool, at worst as a self-indulgent hypocrite, more concerned with the preservation of a spurious moral purity than with the avoidance of conflict or the alleviation of human distress.

Well, that’s fightin’ talk!

This does not, of course, mean that the realists think war is an ethics-free zone, even if they appear by their conduct to believe that. The lumbering but smooth machinery of the rest of these chapters discusses the intricacies of the ethics of many horrible realities, - one example from many is : what is a non-combatant anyway? It seems obvious, but not so fast.

Most people would think that the military should be targeting the enemy army, and that it’s illegal to target civilians. Which is true, but – is it okay to target the factories that are building your enemies’ planes and tanks? If so, is it okay to target the oil refineries providing fuel to the enemy army? Where do you draw the line?

Most of the questions discussed in The Ethics of War are very interesting (even though he hardly glances at the conduct of soldiers in battle) BUT it may be the blurb is doing us a great favour by warning off the non-academic reader because this is the kind of obstacle-course sentence you will have to clamber over to get to the raw meat :

In considering the morality of area bombing with the aid of the principle of double effect a distinction needs to be drawn first of all between a strategy of “selective” area bombing, that is, of area bombing that has as its sole objective the destruction of an important military target (or targets) and is resorted to out of military necessity alone (that is, because of the involuntary absence of an alternative, more discriminate and therefore more acceptable means of attack) and a strategy of “general” area bombing that involves deliberate targeting of non-combatants and non-military installations or structures (either solely or as an accompaniment of military targeting) as a way of undermining the capacity and will of the enemy to fight.

My head, my head!

26 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Ethics of War.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

September 20, 2021 – Started Reading
October 20, 2021 – Shelved
October 22, 2021 – Shelved as: politics
October 22, 2021 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dianna (new)

Dianna Have you read Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell? I just started it and finding it very interesting.


Paul Bryant no, it's on the list...one of these days...


message 3: by Dave (new)

Dave Schaafsma The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane has a lot about the atrocities of war from a solder's perspective


message 4: by Dianna (new)

Dianna Dianna wrote: "Have you read Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell? I just started it and finding it very interesting."

I highly recommend it based on what you are looking for.


Paul Bryant I did read that one. But I'm after a study of modern soldiers' actual actions in battle. It seems to be something no one wants to talk about much. Maybe only in fiction.


message 6: by Malola (new) - added it

Malola So... is it basically the academic view what you didn't like?
If the author is bringing into the conversation the principle of double effect, my two cents are that he pondered the oldie "utilitarianism v. kantian morality"... That sounds like fine wine to me. *drools* But, of course, it can be very dense.


Paul Bryant I didn't dislike this at all, but it ws very bloodless and dry as dust. Maybe you gave to talk about war and its attendant horrors like that if you are debating its morality.


message 8: by Leftbanker (new)

Leftbanker War doesn't work. Carl von Clausewitz was wrong. War is always wrong, at least for the aggressors. Biden was 100% right in ending America's hopeless engagement in Afghanistan. The generals who have spoken out against him are simply denying the American military's failures since WWII.


message 9: by Malola (new) - added it

Malola lol Yeah... Some academic books feel like such a draaaaaaag.

I'm a lot more patient with dry academics books with topics I like. (And even so, sometimes it can be too much.) But topics I don't just feel awful.
A while ago I was starting to read Cataract and Refractive Surgery: Progress III in order to familiarise myself with the topic (ATM, my mom was about to get the surgery), Geezus Christ... I couldn't pass the first chapter. I was just slowly dying.


message 10: by Paul (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul Bryant ha that does sound truly awful! some poor people have to read that stuff and remember it too for their jobs!


message 11: by Alan (new)

Alan Gerstle I recommend War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges.


message 12: by Paul (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul Bryant thanks for the suggestion


back to top