May 11, 2010--Courageous Restraint

With a good friend who knows a lot about military history and strategy, I had the following email exchange.

It began with an article he sent about a new medal that the Army is thinking about establishing--one to encourage and reward appropriate kinds of restraint when troops are in battle. He attached a note of his own--"I thought this was a joke but apparently it is not."

In part the article says:

A proposal to grant medals for "courageous restraint" to troops in Afghanistan who avoid deadly force at a risk to themselves has generated concern among U.S. soldiers and experts who worry it could embolden enemy fighters and confuse friendly forces.

"The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."

However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men. They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies."

Sholtis disputed that the award would limit troops' ability in the battlefield. "We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves," he said. "Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary."

I responded:

Done the right way this makes sense in asymmetric warfare situations, which are now more an more the kinds in which we find ourselves. We "lose" by "winning" when a disproportionate number of civilians are killed and wounded. It's no longer OK to just bomb when the battles are as much cultural and political as they now are. So rather than condemn this kind of thinking out of hand (which of course is quick and easy to do) it would be more helpful to struggle with how best to think about valuing appropriate kinds of restraint.

In turn my friend added:

Actually Steve, we already restrain ourselves to the point at some times of killing our own soldiers unnecessarily. It's part of being a professional soldier. I think the idea we bomb, kill, or shoot needlessly has pretty much been put to bed as a myth. Our poor soldiers are put in many no-win scenarios and they practice incredible restraint daily. This "medal" is a moot point. Restraint is a part of the profession without which a military career will end prematurely.

As usual, I tried to have the final word:

Fair point. Our soldiers do tend to be remarkably restrained, though there are too frequent exceptions that cause us great harm. So to place an extra benefit and reward for restraint in the kinds of situations they face is a good idea. If thought through and done well.

For me, the actual final word was in an article in Sunday's New York Times. About how our use of unmanned drones along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, though effective in hunting and killing Al Qaeda leaders, because they also kill and wound so many civilians, they are so incensing the population that increasing numbers of them are joining Al Qaeda or minimally providing increased support for their efforts. (Article linked below.)

This is reminiscent of how the military came to conclude that our invasion of Iraq, though it toppled the heinous Saddam Hussein regime, also was used by insurgents as an incentive to recruit more fighters.

Thus, perhaps this medal that the Army is considering to acknowledge courageous restraint (quite a remarkable concept) should not only be available for our bravest troops but also might be awarded to our political leaders, including Commanders-In-Chief, who keep their macho under control when acting on it does more harm than good.