This is more than a matter of
too little, too late:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
I give credit to the armed forces for thinking about this, but there is an element of closing the barn doors after the horses escape. A (bear with me)quick and by no means comprehensive primer on Western ethics below:
The top commanders in response to the
coverage of the Haditha massacre,
rather than the act itself, have decided to implement what they are calling -values training- for the troops. If you'll forgive a short review by someone who teaches ethics. There are more qualified people to talk about this, but here goes:
There are four basic ways that Western societies look at ethics. Aristotle's taught that living the good life meant becoming a good person, by essentially repeating good acts. His methodology involved modeling oneself after socially recognized 'good people' and recreating their virtuous behavior until it became one's own. The idea that 'excellence is a habit' became the foundation for much modern character building, including Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
Two millenia after Aristotle, Kant imparted that, while the aim of becoming good, or feeling virtuous, may produce 'good' acts, it is not necessarily a moral system. To Kant the idea is that rational beings do the right thing because it is the right thing, regardless of the benefit one derives from it. To do one's duty and to not stand in the way of any individual's attempt to do the right thing, are the foundation of much Kantian thinking. Think 'code of ethics' and you have the idea that Kant was driving at - we don't establish such codes to please ourselves, or others, but to set out rules of right behavior.
After Kant, John Stuart Mill opened up the idea that all of our actions have consequences so we must keep in mind the effect of our individual actions on the many. What Mill aims for is a wider social understanding of the ideas of good and right, and how they inform our systems of governing.
Finally, 100 years after Mill, feminist ethical theory pointed out that while each of the previous theories could have merit, they failed to sufficiently take into account how individuals react in ethical ways in terms of the context of the relationships involved. For instance, all of us may agree that while stealing medications from the drugstore is wrong, and while we can find support for such a view in the previous theories, we would toss such theories aside to save the life of a loved one.
What does all this mean? Well, not much in terms of military efforts. First, each of the theories above can be tested in most life cases in which an instant decision is not required.
The heat of battle combines two elements that fly in the face of ethical theory: the raw surge of emotions and the conditioned application of mortal force.
Second, while such training may appeal to those higher in the chain of command, such training would have to be of a sufficient duration and quantity (like arms training) to be almost second nature and thus called up instantaneously.
Finally, those calling for this type of military ethics training will almost never be called upon to use it. Can the military's top brass ever be expected to find themselves in a situation that the Haditha Marines faced? Not likely.
Unless the armed forces are prepared to equate ethical decision making with such repetitive skills like arms training, they should expect that these massacres will occur.
I'll end with something a colleague told me. He used be in an ethics officer in the civilian branch, responsible for creating ethics curriculum at one of the most venerable military academies in the U.S. Shortly before the war, I asked him what kinds of advice the top brass were seeking from ethics experts such as he. His response:
"Once they decided to go to Iraq, they didn't want to talk about ethics anymore. It just gets in the way of their thinking."