100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 7 pages.
tricked into believing that their fight was just, and that they were doing the right thing. Propaganda and a sense of duty would fool any brave person. Operating with the assumption that the German soldiers were misled by their government, and that all aggressors mislead their soldiers, means that both sides of an engagement are on the same moral plane. German and Allied soldiers believed that they were fighting the good fight. This is in contrast to a bank robbery scenario. A thief kills a guard because the guard was reaching for his gun. The thief in court claims that he was only acting in self defense, so he should be acquitted. The court overrules this argument because the thief had no right to rob the bank in the first place, and that the guard was only doing his duty and trying to stop the thief. This is not the case with soldiers. While some might feel that the aggressors troops are murdering
the defenders, like the thief, this is not the case. The combatants are required to be involved in the engagement, unlike the bank robbery, the soldiers have to fight, to protect their country, their homes. Even the aggressor is engaging in war for a reason, and the fighting itself becomes a life or death situation. Even in a situation that has a soldiers life depending on the outcome, there are rules. These rules tell us what is morally acceptable, and what is not. A bank robbery has no rules which is why the thief must be punished, but the moral equality of soldiers, who adhere to the rules of warfare, separate combatants from criminals. An excellent example of Jus in Bello is with the case of General Rommel in World War Two. General Rommel was seen by many, and especially the allies as an honorable man. Many of the Generals under Hitler were blindly following his orders, committing war crimes and dismissing the teachings of Jus in Bello. However Rommel did not act this way. Hitler sent him an order, to kill captured commandos, and anyone who crossed the German line. Rommel ignored these orders, and furthermore his division in north Africa was never accused of a war crime. Walzer asks why, even though Rommel was fighting an unjust war, how come his actions are seen as memorable. Walzer continues to define the difference between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Walzer says "We draw a line between the war itself, for which soldiers are not responsible, and the conduct of war, for which they are responsible, at least within their own sphere of activity" (Walzer 39). This distinction shows that the solider does not lead, but follows, and that he must make the best decisions he can, within the boundaries that are set by the country or group that he is fighting for. The actions of Soldiers are not always infallible, hiding behind a moral shield of their government. In the case of the Italian Women during World War Two. In Italy, Moroccan mercenaries were fighting Free French Forces around 1943. These Mercenaries had signed a
contract, or a license, which allowed them to rape and plunder the enemy territory. The Utilitarian argument for allowing soldiers to rape and plunder states that soldiers need the