Between Nihilism and Utopianism: Military Intervention, the Tragic and Rescuing the Human Daniel M. Bell, Jr. General Hugh Shelton Chair of Ethics U.S. Army Command and General Staff College CGSC 2016 Ethics Symposium
Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interested in survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to the need. Niccolo Machiavelli1 Introduction: What Matters More? Humanitarian intervention. Should we undertake it? Should the military be engaged for humanitarian purposes? As an entry into the topic allow me to pose a question. I know it is an extreme question and that it can be emotionally manipulative; although that is not my intention. I raise the question because sometimes extremities can bring clarity – perhaps not unlike military training that tests you to your core and clarifies who you are and the stuff of which you are made. So, the question is, What matters most? Let me rephrase it. What matters more? More than preventing or stopping genocide? In the passage quoted above, Machiavelli, that Renaissance thinker often placed near the fount of the modern realist tradition of politics, offers us one answer: preservation, survival. If you wish to survive, he says, in this world and not some imaginary republic of the virtuous, then you must be prepared to abandon the good when the need arises. Assuming that intervening to prevent the suffering and slaughter of others is a good, it is a good that should be set aside when upholding it endangers our preservation or survival. I must admit that it always feel rather odd discussing realism with soldiers. After all, when you put on that uniform you made a very public statement that you think there are more important things than survival, that there are things for which it is worth dying and for which it is worth those you care about and even love dying. In other words, the uniform is a reminder that there is such a thing as a good death, or what military traditions often call an honorable death. Conversely, and perhaps less explicitly but no less important, the uniform suggests there is likewise such a thing as a dishonorable life, that is, a life that refuses to give the last full measure of devotion for the good and instead chooses self-preservation or survival over the good. To be fair to the modern realist tradition, it is not always as nakedly amoral as Machiavelli suggests. Rather, modern realism represents a consequentialist moral vision that, at least when it comes to international affairs and the interactions of states, is very clear about what matters most, what the end is that should guide one’s actions and that justifies intervention or non-intervention. In what follows, I want us to think about what matters most, what is most important when contemplating military humanitarian intervention. Rather than argue for or against humanitarian intervention I am going to argue for a particular way of approaching the question, of framing the issue. I am going to encourage us to reflect on intervention in terms of the best that we claim to be