Role of Ethics in U.S. Military Humanitarian Intervention

摘要

Moral discourse and ethical debate in America's 'public square' are not lacking whenever U.S. statecraft and the potential of military force is contemplated. Whether the armed forces are to be sent into harm's way in a conventional use of force, amidst unambiguous circumstances, and in an unequivocal ('politics by other means') manner, or whether the armed forces are to be used in what has become known as 'military operations other than war' (MOOTW), usually a spirited moral/ethical debate ensues. All sides begin with moral presuppositions about the use of American instruments of power in general, and the prudence and efficacy of military force in particular. The moral debate is never quite distinct from the political debate-although one would be hard- pressed to conduct an effective exegesis of consistent moral tenets inherent in much of the political dialogue. It is the contention of this essay that, although moral content is not lacking when MOOTW is considered as the primary political alternative in the face of crisis, there may be the absence of a systematically applied ethical construct. Because all moral discourse is essentially a social enterprise, it matters how moral judgments are arrived at and what moral/ethical criteria are consciously employed when contemplating the use of military force-and when evaluating whether the armed forces were dispatched appropriately, for what reasons, under circumstances and by whose authority, and to what ends/consequences. Similar to the moral component within interpersonal relationships, international relationships also are influenced by what can be summarized in the question, how then shall we (collectively) live.' or-more to the point of intervention-'what ought we to do.' In an era of globalization, our neighbor-it can be argued-is no longer the nation(s) that shares a border with the United States. 'Who is my neighbor.' therefore is no longer a question confined to an ancient biblical injunction.