READINGS: JULY 5
The Decision to Drop the Bomb


Description of Situation
It is an easy thing to sit in judgment of historical events. With the perspective of time, including years of research, discussion, reflection, study and complete disclosure of official records, historians and evaluators have the luxury to parse decisions literally until death. Such is the case with the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. From the comfort of 60 years hence, one can easily dismiss the logic of President Truman and his advisers as faulty. Other alternatives were available besides the bomb as it was used. Furthermore, nascent Cold War geopolitical politics may well have influenced their thinking unduly. Other sources of prejudice may have ranged from racial hatred attributable to the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor and to government propaganda. Take into account, however, the actual uncertainties of the situation that Truman faced and the decision could not have been an easy one. The decision is typically defined as a dichotomy:

1. Invade Kyushu in one fell swoop and face at least 30,000 American casualties (with a minimum of 6,000 fatalities) and press for Japanese surrender. These estimates have always been in dispute.
2. Drop the bombs and press for unconditional surrender. The total estimated losses of life for these two military/industrial targets was unknown at the time. It was reckoned that, given the proximity of large numbers of civilian dwellings, the number of deaths would be great (100,000 actual). The point is that there was NO utilitarian basis for comparison with weapons untested in the field of battle.

Note that unconditional surrender was the public face of Allied demands for peace. There was actually wiggle room built into the Allied position to allow for protection of Hirohito's throne. This was not discussed publically, but it was one of the carrots in the Allied arsenal to lure the Japanese into submission. Japan's negotiators were getting mixed signals about this key stipulation that led to their fatal intransigence.

Ethical Issues
The ethical issues of this famous decision are rather complex and go way beyond summation in two pages. Suffice it to say, however, that the dichotomy that Truman and the Allies presented was not representative of the logical range of alternatives. Truman was under a great deal of pressure in that:

1. Objectively speaking, the "buck" stopped with him. As Commander in Chief, he was responsible for the successful conduct and the pressing resolution of the conflict with Japan. This meant such things as strengthening the post-war Allied hand, chastening the Japanese government appropriately and, especially, minimizing American casualties for which he was politically answerable.
2. Subjectively speaking, Truman felt compelled to minimize the loss of human life, especially America's sons and daughters in harm's way. Japan's still commanded a force of approximately 2 million at home. American estimates of Japanese casualties of the Kyushu rout indicated that their losses would have been staggering, including a large number of civilian deaths.

Detailed plans for the invasion were ready to roll well prior to Potsdam and the successful test at Alamogordo. The bomb seems to have become a deux ex machina for Allied planners that seemed to solve all problems, including the high rate of Allied air campaign losses (2 sorties versus hundreds). There was no mention of the Manhattan Project in any of the American plans to end the war prior to that time. This came about despite the fact that there were four sound alternative strategies.

Rational Alternatives

1. Wait for the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan and attack it's northern flank. Completely surrounded and isolated, Japan would have surrendered eventually.
2. Continue the already-successful strategy of naval blockade and air campaign pressure in some form. The Japanese were already making overtures for a negotiated settlement in the face of demands for unconditional surrender.
3. Withdraw all forces multilaterally and negotiate a settlement. Expansionist Japanese hawks would no doubt prefer this alternative, especially if they were not required to withdraw from their territorial gains as part of the agreement to cease hostilities.
4. Demonstrate the power of the atomic weapons on unpopulated areas or totally non-civilian targets and sue for peace.

Discussion
Many American planners and negotiators had serious reservations about the strategic use of atomic weapons. Their use as planned was an obvious and troubling departure from the Code of War concept of minimizing non-combatant deaths. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, however, there was no mathematical basis for mortality/casualty comparisons between the use of atomics and the other alternatives. In any case, deaths and casualties would be unacceptably high by modern standards. Furthermore, the Japanese war machine had to be stopped and fully dismantled to avoid future conflicts. In the context of this ongoing war of attrition, it now seems that there was no decent alternative which would not also weaken the Allied gambit for unconditional surrender and potentially lead to even more deaths in the long run. Besides, how can one morally rationalize the creation of weapons powerful enough to decimate all life in the future? The weapons progenitors were fully aware of this probability but chose to proceed based on the high-minded notion that unleashing of atomic energy would morally require an eventual end to war in a war-weary world. This, of course, was the biggest lie of all.

After all, by that standard, one can take an absolutist position to outlaw their use EVER for non-miliary targets, based simply on the inherent immorality of such use. No such means, using non-combatant casualties as a bargaining chip, could ever be rationally justified under the Code of War. Having ruled out rational explanations for the ultimate decision, that leaves only irrational ones. In this case, trumped-up fear, sinister geopolitics and residual racism lead to a suboptimal result. That is by no means to suggest that it was an easy decision.

Recommendation
If one rules out the use of atomic weapons on a moral basis with respect to non-military targets in keeping with the old Code of War, some measure of integrity could have been maintained. By opening Oppenheimer's bottle, the genie of mutually-assured destruction was unleashed upon the world. This is morally indefensible from any perspective since now every man, women and child in America is now in the crosshairs as a result. This was not an issue of black and white, however, since limited strategic use of the weapons could have been justified under existing standards of conduct in war.

Awful as they may be, atomic weapons could have been used on strictly military or unpopulated targets to demonstrate their power and efficiency. This, combined with the Soviet Union's entry into the conflict, would have certainly been enough, especially with assurances from the Allies for the continuity of the monarchy in an occupied Japan. After all, these were the primary term to which the Allies actually assented. Their public insistence on unconditionality was not only unrealistic and imprudent in the long run, it also backfired horribly when it came time reappraise the situation and redefine what it means to be a superpower.



JULY 5: READINGS
Why Attack Iraq?


Description of Situation
In the rush of current events, perspective is not easy to maintain. After all, America and the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" is still in prosecution of its police action cum war in Iraq. Nevertheless, observers of events have an obligation morally to parse this situation even in the current absence of complete information, quite unlike in the case of Truman's decision to use atomic weapons on Japan. The alternative to simply accept the public accounts of the administration and their justifications is simply not tenable. Too much is at stake in terms of the lives already lost and the human suffering that has resulted to deny the reality of the situation and bury one's head in the patriotic sand as some have recommended. Reality-based decision making requires facts. These are a few of the key facts as we know them about the decision to attack Iraq:

1. Prior to the conflict in Iraq, it is now reported that it was a foregone conclusion within the administration that the President would order the invasion. Moreover, no such large-scale contingencies were seriously anticipated for Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and many of his operatives were hiding under the protection of the Taliban government.
2. Troop estimates from commanders in the field were irresponsibly downplayed by Secretary Rumsfeld and the hawkish administration neo-conservatives, leading to the loss of control in the vacuum created by coalition forces. This planning misstep contributed to anarchy, looting, loss of security containment and lead directly to the rise of the Iraqi insurgency.
3. The cost of military operations was grossly underestimated by a factor of 400 and counting. Even slightly-less unrealistic dissenters from these estimates were maginalized or forced out of the decision making loop. Nearly a billion tax dollars a day has been spent on the effort.
4. The idea that our troops would be greeted with flowers as liberators was, at best, hopelessly optimistic given the divisive ethnic nature of the Iraqi polity. At worst, it was a total sham to pull the wool over the majority's eyes which was being groomed from 9-11 for war. By most ethical standards, the administration appears to range from completely irresponsible for their actions to totally corrupt.
5. A consistent campaign of bad assumptions, disinformation and outright lies was used to magnify the Hussein's obsession with his attainment, use and especially his export of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to terror groups. The evidence presented by administration officials was weak and many now either admit it or at least equivocate about it.
6. The effort to connect Hussein's government to Al Qaeda, was at best, weak prior to hostilities. That was because whatever connections there were were assumed to be tenuous. However, in the withering vacuum of no WMDs found, the administration changed tactics. From calling insurgents "terrorist combatants" to the targeting of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the point has been to distract the public.

Ethical Issues
Certainly, not many Americans would dispute the need to contain the former Iraqi government and its misguided and often aggressive efforts. Certainly Hussein had earned his government's crippling isolation, along with the world's many admonishments and sanctions. This was an evil man by any moral standard. Few would mourn his deposition. However, this judgment is beyond the point. The tendency is to confuse the nobility of the cause with its necessity. Certainly, since the progress of the war has degraded, the administration would have us believe more in the nobility part, especially since the necessity part is a little worse for the wear. Should America have sat on its hands and done nothing to end this horrible regime? Certainly not.

The status quo was unacceptably risky in the long run as Hussein consolidated his power and gained military strength. However, did the status quo actually meet the standard for the concept of the "preemptive" war? The Bush Administration and Congress went out of their way to legally justify their actions as a unilateral response to the many UN Security Council resolutions in favor of reprisals against Iraq. Never mind that the UN charter specifically prohibits such unilateral action. Since when has this administration cared what the rest of the world thought?

Furthermore, no evidence of "imminent threat" has ever been presented that would justify these actions. If we are to believe an appeal for action based on the idea of self-defense, does that not imply imminence? Since no demonstration of both Iraq's ability and intention to attack the United States and its forces has been offered, there can be no rational justification for preemptive war.

Rational Alternatives

1. Continue the successful policy of containment against Saddam Hussein. Expanded sanctions and world cooperation could only tend to serve a positive outcome in the long run.
2. Gain the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors and enforce a trade embargo to further isolate the former Iraqi government. This has the unfortunate result of killing many innocent Iraqis through attrition.
3. Provide economic, intelligence and limited military support toward a coup d'etat and or civil war. This strategy worked very effectively for America in Afghanistan.
4. Encourage separatist movements in areas such as the Kurdish north and the Shiite south where the Hussein government's grasp on power is weakest.
5. Work through the UN Charter to create a multinational force to menace the Hussein government into capitulation. The United States had used this strategy successfully in the 1991 Gulf War. By that virtue, it still had teeth.

Discussion
The Bush Administration has a Constitutional obligation to defend the American people and their interests. All of the alternatives offered above do so to some logical degree. The responses all have humanitarian repercussions, along with serious implications for our use of them. Some are more of a shotgun approach than others. Numbers 1 and 2, for example, would mostly serve to punish civilian populations. That makes their moral justification more problematic, since more focused alternatives are available. Utility would require 1 and 2 be given a lower priority. Encouraging civil war based on ethnic divisions would tend to be highly destabilizing in the long run and lead to even more bloodshed as regions vie for control of disputed areas. Supporting a coup d'etat, might be a relatively bloodless alternative, by comparison to the others, but it still involves much potential for serious ethical breaches and a slippery slope ala Vietnam. Alterative 5 may be the weakest position to assume tactically due to its comparative complexity and slowness. All of these alternatives, though admittedly imperfect, are more rational than preemptive war where no imminent threat exists.

Recommendation
The administrative branch does not operate strictly on the basis of ethicality. If it did, we would not be at war right now. Such considerations as practicality, legality, constitutionality and public mandate go into every decision. Therefore, let us examine these aspects for the most ethically-justifiable alterative, Number 5.

Relying on the UN to enforce its own standards for moral conduct may not be totally practical. Many practical compromises would have to be made toward unifying world opinion. These would be less objectionable to the moral compromises the American people have been asked to bear by this administration. Legally, the government would be on solid ground since it would have an appeal to the rule of law and the UN Charter. Constitutionally, the administration would have the perfect right to conduct foreign policy as it sees fit, short of the absolute boundary of declaring war on another nation. Finally, would the administration have to work so hard to gain public support were the threat from Iraq an imminent one? Probably not. Working through the UN, makes sense given the public's general support of this institution and its ideals. Granted it would not have been a perfect solution to the problem, but would have been in the best interest of the American people. That much is easy to see in the rush.



JULY 5: READINGS
Interrogating Detainees


Description of Situation
A very important set of moral imperatives regarding the treatment of United States detainees has been consistently flaunted by the Bush Administration since 9-11. This is the watershed event to which the administration constantly points when any question of the means versus the ends is raised. The next talking point or two will usually contain the phrase "since 9-11," or "who would have thought that 9-11 would happen?" The upshot is that, at least in the minds of Bush and his buddies, 9-11 justifies most any atrocity short of Abu Ghraib. Of course, it is easy to take the moral high road to condemn torture in every form and under every circumstance. Those sentinels in charge of America's perimeter and the protection of the American people, the reasoning goes, may be seriously hobbled by the law in this matter. Would anyone care to take responsibility for that? I, for one, would. The law in the matter is as clear as day: torture is illegal under both the laws of the United States and the rest of the civilized world. No justification for it can EVER be offered.

Why is this so? The history of the development of these laws is complex and long and way beyond the scope of this analysis. What we have seen is the administration hemming and hawing its way around the laws, despite of its frequent appeals to the rule of law. It has further expressed to the Iraqi government and many others that it expects OUR prisoners to be treated with dignity and respect. What is it called when a government sets a high public standard for others that it has no private intention of keeping itself? Oh, yeah:
cowardice. Or, at least, hypocrisy. Being attacked simply does not justify this kind of moral contortionism, especially with regard to far-removed events, such as the Iraqi insurgency. Like the boy who cried wolf, the administration stretched this 9-11 connection issue to the point of utter incredulity. Moreover, they have turned logic on its head. So it goes: We live in an dangerous world, therefore, we must do unpleasant things. However, the actual effect of Americans mistreating prisoners in their keeping is to create martyrs, inspire resistance, and, ironically, make the world a whole lot more dangerous for our own prisoners.

Let it not be forgotten that Geneva Convention and like-minded codes of justice were born of much blood, suffering and injustice. Should we so quick to dismiss them as "quaint" holdovers from the Old World? Do they not serve an incredibly important stopgap against moral chaos and the decay of civilization as we know it?

Ethical Issues
Clearly, the Bush Administration has ethical and Constitutional objectives obligations to protect the American people using the most effective and efficient means possible. What happens, however, when the need for efficiency outranks the need for effectiveness? Some would say "Oh, don't be so naive! Isn't that always the way in government?" However, it is a serious problem that deserves serious consideration. By choosing efficiency in the form of torture, the administration denies the fact that physical and mental torture are notoriously ineffective as interrogation tools. They generally do not result in usable and accurate information. Victims tell their captors what they think they want to hear, whether accurate or not, simply to stop the pain. Therefore, it is less effective than other more complex means such as deception. Could it be that we want to tell our enemies: "Hey, we just don't care about that whole accuracy thing anymore. We just want you all to suffer based on your incompatible belief system. You might want to reconsider that." Furthermore, if we rule out torture as ineffective based on the principle of blowback, as we should, we would stand to protect American values as well as our people. That would be the true test of those values: whether we could countenance hostile beliefs and still protect human rights. E pluribus unum. We stand together for something more than merely what we oppose.

Rational Alternatives

1. Reinstate the successful policy of against torture in all its forms, in all venues, for ALL persons. Of those to whom much is given, much is expected.
2. Work through the UN to strengthen world unity against torture by adopting a global treaty against torture in all military and onon-military situations.
3. Request that other nations do ur dirty work for us. Keep our collective hands, if not our consciences, clean.
4. Improve and clean up methods of interrogation so as to obviate the use of forbidden or questionable practices of interrogators. Improve training.

Discussion
The Eight Amendment of the Constitution specifically forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment against all persons. It rules it out, period, with no reference to whom it might be used against. The Bill of Rights has been understood to apply to more than just American citizens, but as a general set of negative principles against tyranny. We, as citizens, ignore that only at our own peril. Some have argued that restricting interrogation methods in ANY way puts us at a disadvantage versus desperate nations and groups with few moral qualms about torture.

I disagree. In the final analysis, high standards protect our prisoners and make the world a more civilized place. If anything, what is needed is more international agreement and solidarity on the matter, especially with regard to non-military prisoners (enemy non-combatants are humans, too, no matter how despicable their actions). I will not even attempt to justify Number 3, especially since such shady practices as extraordinary rendition already stand to make this atrocity a de facto American SOP. The cruel reality of such improper procedures is that they bind our own hands and perpetuate injustice. Ethical compromises of this sort are a slippery slope that can only lead us downward. That is why Number 4 makes sense and might be part of a long-term course to improve our intelligence.

Recommendation
Therefore, I would lean toward adopting universal standards of prisoner treatment (Number 2) versus locking in any disparities by legislating unilaterally. Of course, there are many practical considerations that would work against this possibility. It would be a long slow process of consensus building and political arm twisting. Who knows? Perhaps by that time the conflict in Iraq will have subsided. The point is that if, as the President is so fond of pointing out, we are truly in this fight for the long haul, we must act that way. Lowering our standards benefits no one but our enemies, who would enjoy a chance to deconstruct Western Civilization and force our ethical standards back to the good old Medieval days of thumb screws and iron maidens. Let us not forget where we have been as a species or we stand inevitably to wind up where we surely do not want to go.