The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military by Martin L. Cook. State University of New York Press (http://www.sunypress.edu), 90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, New York 12207-1707, 2004, 175 pages, $54.50 (hardcover), $17.95 (softcover).
Martin Cook, professor of philosophy at the Air Force Academy, begins this book with a fascinating comparison of the situation of the United States in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse to that of imperial Athens in the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars. He argues that, like Athens then, America now finds herself in a “world-historical moment” with an opportunity to change the world’s geopolitical landscape—and a responsibility to do so wisely. Cook sees the end of the Cold War and the simultaneous rise of international humanitarianism and of terror (nonstate or state sponsored) as signaling the decline of the Westphalian international system and the need for a new world order to replace it. As he summarizes his purpose, “I will explore the moral directions I believe these challenges will point us toward and the revisions in our thinking about the nature and role of the profession of arms these challenges will entail for the United States and its military” (pp. 17–18).
Part 1 of the book, “Moral Facets of Military Service,” addresses aspects of military service that, in the West at least, form a fairly constant framework. The first chapter discusses the growth and character of the principles of just-war theory, to which the US military is committed by law, treaty, and American constitutional principles. The second chapter takes up the question of the justification of military service, given the imperfect justice of modern states. The third considers the normative dimensions of military professionalism: the responsibility of the military to sustain mission-essential expertise in a changing environment, to maintain professional cohesion and unity, and to foster a sense of professional identity and motivation commensurate with mission requirements. The fourth chapter considers the responsibilities of the military professional in advising civilian superiors, particularly in the areas of military necessity and feasibility, but also regarding such just-war categories as proportionality, reasonable hope of success, and discrimination.
Part 2, “Moral Soldiers and Moral Causes: Serving the Needs of Justice in the New World Order,” applies just-war principles to new—or newly important in the post–Cold War era—aspects of the application of military power. Chapter 5 takes up the issue of humanitarian intervention and the idea of “just peacemaking.” Chapter 6 considers resistance to international terrorism and the challenges to Westphalian thinking presented by a “war” against nonstate actors who may be sheltered by sovereign states. Chapter 7 explores the tension between noncombatant immunity and force protection (when stretched to a zero-casualty “immaculate war” mentality as in Kosovo). Chapter 8 takes up moral issues raised by the theory and practice of strategic bombing, noting that while technology has made discrimination feasible, strategic focus on some infrastructural “centers of gravity” (especially dual-use targets such as power grids) is inherently nondiscriminatory.
The idea that we occupy a world-historical moment in which the international community is breaking the mold of the Westphalian system and moving toward the “new kind of universalism” (p. 155) heralded by the establishment of the United Nations and drawing its impetus from horror at the Holocaust, has been a leitmotif for Cook throughout; in the final chapter, “Transcending Westphalia,” it takes center stage. The Kosovo campaign, he contends, was clearly contrary to the Westphalian understanding of just war because it violated the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of a recognized state. Defenders of such campaigns must look to that new universalism which sees protection of human life and rights as the responsibility of the international community.
This liberal internationalist theme—with its attendant call for diminished national sovereignty—is likely to be the most controversial aspect of the book. When Cook speaks of the justice of defending the “globalized civilization grounded in democracy, human rights, free trade, communication, technology and science” (p. 36), I find myself wondering if that is really the best account of ourselves that we heirs of Moses and Christ, Aristotle and Augustine, and Thomas More and Abraham Lincoln can give. Does globalized civilization leave room for tradition, honor, faith, home rule, and the laws of nature and of nature’s God? It is, however, a virtue of the book that it treats this theme without succumbing to the whitewashing optimism of many defenders of the modern order. It is no part of his argument, Cook insists, to idealize our civilization: we must ask, “If this civilization fails, what comes next?” (p. 114). This is the same question, he notes, that Augustine posed to Christians wrestling with the morality of serving the Roman Empire. When what comes next is barbarism, whether in ancient or modern varieties, the justification for defending civilization seems clear. But still I have to wonder, are our choices limited to the options Benjamin Barber calls “Jihad” and “McWorld”? I wish Cook had said more on this.
He realizes that defending our civilization—and as part of this, conducting the war on terror and various humanitarian operations—will require tactics, force reorganization, and international political structures not currently available. At a few points, he makes concrete suggestions as to how to proceed (e.g., the idea of “just peacemaking teams” to work on root causes of instability, in tandem with the military’s provision of security [see chap. 5]). Other of his ideas will be much more controversial: for example, allotting to the United Nations (or other organizations such as international courts) greater authority over internal affairs of states and possibly even its own standing military force. But even if we disagree, it is worthwhile to measure our ideas and arguments against his. He does not merely assert his positions but argues for them, and does so in a way that is broad-minded and fair. For example, when he contends that the commitment to force protection must be tempered by the commitment to noncombatant immunity, Cook notes that those who resist this often do so primarily for moral reasons rooted in the nature of the contract between soldier and society.
This is a fine book and a timely one (although readers should not expect an in-depth analysis of recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq). It raises and explores more issues than it tries to settle definitively, but that is no vice in itself, especially if it leads its readers to begin thinking these issues through themselves. The author shows familiarity with military culture and doctrine that goes well beyond what one will find in most philosophical treatments of military ethics, and introduces enough detail into his discussions to avoid too high a degree of abstraction. The Moral Warrior is clear, readable, and, even when controversial, not unreasonable. I highly recommend it.
Dr. Christopher Toner
Maxwell AFB, Alabama
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Book Reviews | Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor