Air Power, Insurgency and the “War on Terror” - Prof. Joel Hayward's ...

The use of <strong>Air</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Today: Have New Ethical Challenges Occurred?
words such as, “smart bombs,” “surgical attack,” “precision weapons,” “selected military
targets,” “minimal civilian casualty,” “collateral damage” “bombing leadership” etc. 570 When
using such vocabulary are we trying to normalise <strong>the</strong> ugly sides of air power? Is this
somehow ano<strong>the</strong>r kind of war fought by means of language, by creating neutral <strong>and</strong>
“positive” words? Is <strong>the</strong> real vocabulary of war <strong>and</strong> killing too hard to sell to western
societies? Must we keep <strong>the</strong> realities of our conduct of war hidden from <strong>the</strong> citizens? Such
secrecy is ethically untenable while living in a democracy. Therefore, I agree with Ignatieff
that we do not want to get our h<strong>and</strong>s dirty <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is perhaps a long way to go before
we do what is right. We find ourselves near what I will label <strong>the</strong> ethical boundaries in an
attempt to neutralise <strong>the</strong> ugly aspects of war <strong>and</strong> warfare. An example is <strong>the</strong> statements
given by <strong>the</strong> Norwegian Prime Minister in <strong>the</strong> opening stage of <strong>the</strong> Kosovo War, claiming
that Norwegian F-16s participated in a “limited military operation”. When talking in
public he deliberately avoided using <strong>the</strong> word “war”. Later he publicly admitted his choice
of words was politically motivated <strong>and</strong> misleading. 571
Conclusions
It is difficult to say something absolute about ethics, due to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> whole
concept comprises social values rooted in a nation’s culture. Ethical st<strong>and</strong>ards differ
among western states <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong>ir military services. Inevitably, this makes it hard to
have <strong>the</strong> same ethical foundation when working in a coalition. Different views on ethics
add ano<strong>the</strong>r dimension of complexity to <strong>the</strong> conduct of war, raising <strong>the</strong> possibility of
creating ethically challenging situations.
The lack of opponents in <strong>the</strong> air coupled with precisions ability to employ lethal power
over long distances have made air power <strong>the</strong> military instrument of choice for western
politicians. The advantages of air power <strong>and</strong> its technological advance have created a
picture of a nearly risk-free instrument for western forces to use <strong>and</strong> of a weapon what
just hits <strong>the</strong> opponent leaving non-combatants more unharmed <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y used to be. This
may have lowered <strong>the</strong> threshold for western politicians’ willingness to use military force
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore dare to challenge <strong>the</strong> ethical borders.
On today’s battlefields are opponents who have developed <strong>and</strong> employed tactics to
minimise or neutralise western military superiority challenge. The technological ability to
discriminate between combatants <strong>and</strong> non-combatants has never been better, <strong>the</strong>refore
some of <strong>the</strong> ethical challenges in today’s war lie in <strong>the</strong> blurred nature of <strong>the</strong> battlefield
making discrimination difficult.
Different aspects concerning targeting, ordnance, intelligence <strong>and</strong> technical limitations
have <strong>and</strong> are challenging our ethical norms. Reliable information <strong>and</strong> trustworthy
236
<strong>Air</strong> <strong>Power</strong>, <strong>Insurgency</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “War on Terror”