|
Re: The Morality of Surrender
|
Connor-@aol.com
|
Jan 27, 2004 16:43 PST
|
Andrew,
Thanks for sending this thoughtful piece. I have spent a good deal of
time reflecting on the "Just War" theory over the past couple of years. I agree
with tough bar that the "Just War" theory sets to initiate hostilities.
However, there is a problem with the idea of discontinuing the fight when
resistence appears futile and counter-productive. Continuing the fight, even when
victory appears impossible (or defeat inevitable) has proven the right/moral choice
at different times in history. Any rationale observer, following the "Just
War" philosophy, would have told the UK to surrender after the fall of France
in WWII. The German Army was clearly superior, and resistance appeared to
prolong the inevitable, with destructive results. Probably would have held true
with the 101st at Bastone. There are a number of other examples. The German
Army in WWII was quite adept at getting units to surrender when the odds
appeared in their favor (as at Bastone). Sometimes, certain death may be the proper
moral choice to make (depending on the enemy). At times in history, groups
have surrendered to clearly superior but evil forces only to be forced to their
death without a fight. The Jews in WWII come to mind. The other problem is
that surrender is contagious. Sometimes the "fight to the death" ethos in an
Army is appropriate.
I guess it's a tough call. Robert E Lee had the option of continuing
guerrilla warfare before his surrender, yet made the moral choice in ending
hostilities when he did. Others have been in the same boat. In the GWOT, I
believe we must not give in. The ideology of our enemy is such that the morally
preferable choice would be to go down fighting. On a practical level, once they
see this kind of committment, the War will be shortened. Iraq is now part of
this War, so I believe we must not retreat from this battle. Once again,
thanks for sending this.
Bill
|
|
 |
|
