Ethical aspects of military leadership in modern warfare (Memoirs of the Commanders-in-Chief in Afghanistan and Chechnya)

IF 0.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2298/fid2204777m
A. Menshikov
{"title":"Ethical aspects of military leadership in modern warfare (Memoirs of the Commanders-in-Chief in Afghanistan and Chechnya)","authors":"A. Menshikov","doi":"10.2298/fid2204777m","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While modern normative approaches to ethics of war (just war theories) stumble over theoretical aporia of legitimating ?collective organized violence? such as the war, anthropological approaches to the practical ethics of the military servicemen focus on the lived moral experience and the enacted values of individuals who were placed in the situation of ?total violence?. Drawing on the memoirs of two generals who were Commanders-in-Chief in Afgha?nistan (B. Gromov) and in Chechnya (G. Troshev), the article explores the ethos of military leadership in modern warfare. The article demonstrates that strategic planning of military operations is inseparable from political goals and, therefore, involves military leadership in reflection on whether political goals are legitimate, whether national (and international) civil society should give its support to the military, whether military means are the best option for solving the crisis, and whether there is a viable exit strategy. Both generals declare the fundamental principle of sparing as many lives of their troops as possible in achieving their military objectives. But this principle, in the first case, leads to various attempts at ?freezing? hostilities between opposing forces, whereas in the second step it requires ultimate destruction of the enemy no matter the cost. Thus, the text argues that the ethics of war and the ethos of the military leadership are determined by the way their opponent is framed by the political leadership. In both generals? view, military hostilities ultimately result from political failures.","PeriodicalId":41902,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2204777m","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While modern normative approaches to ethics of war (just war theories) stumble over theoretical aporia of legitimating ?collective organized violence? such as the war, anthropological approaches to the practical ethics of the military servicemen focus on the lived moral experience and the enacted values of individuals who were placed in the situation of ?total violence?. Drawing on the memoirs of two generals who were Commanders-in-Chief in Afgha?nistan (B. Gromov) and in Chechnya (G. Troshev), the article explores the ethos of military leadership in modern warfare. The article demonstrates that strategic planning of military operations is inseparable from political goals and, therefore, involves military leadership in reflection on whether political goals are legitimate, whether national (and international) civil society should give its support to the military, whether military means are the best option for solving the crisis, and whether there is a viable exit strategy. Both generals declare the fundamental principle of sparing as many lives of their troops as possible in achieving their military objectives. But this principle, in the first case, leads to various attempts at ?freezing? hostilities between opposing forces, whereas in the second step it requires ultimate destruction of the enemy no matter the cost. Thus, the text argues that the ethics of war and the ethos of the military leadership are determined by the way their opponent is framed by the political leadership. In both generals? view, military hostilities ultimately result from political failures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现代战争中军事领导的伦理方面(阿富汗和车臣总司令回忆录)
当现代战争伦理的规范方法(正义战争理论)在合法化?集体有组织的暴力?例如战争,对军人实践伦理的人类学研究侧重于生活的道德经验和被置于“完全暴力”情境下的个人制定的价值观。根据两位在阿富汗担任总司令的将军的回忆录?这篇文章探讨了现代战争中军事领导的精神。本文表明,军事行动的战略规划与政治目标是分不开的,因此,军事领导需要反思政治目标是否合法,国家(和国际)公民社会是否应该支持军方,军事手段是否是解决危机的最佳选择,以及是否存在可行的退出战略。两位将军都宣布了基本原则,即在实现军事目标的过程中,尽可能多地保全自己部队的生命。但是这个原理,在第一种情况下,导致了各种“冻结”的尝试。敌对力量之间的敌对行动,而在第二步中,它需要不惜一切代价最终摧毁敌人。因此,文章认为战争伦理和军事领导的精神是由他们的对手被政治领导框定的方式决定的。两位将军?军事敌对行动的最终结果是政治失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Women’s education, knowledge and competence in Ancient Greece The role of education in Aristotle’s Politics The roman stoics on the emancipatory potential of the philosophical paideia The writing of existence in the latest work of Alberto Moreiras Recognition as a counter hegemonic strategy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1