Ethics in combat

Ethics is defined as the science of moral duty. The issue of "Ethics in Combat" is more complicated than it might seem at first blush. War is a nasty business. Atrocities occur frequently when armed forces are exchanging fire with modern weapons in populated areas. Unethical behavior can occur between soldiers fighting one another, between soldiers and the civilians with whom they come into contact, and even between governments. While there are many instances of possible ethical problems which we might cover in any examination of the Vietnam War, I would like to concentrate on three:

Operation Phoenix, a CIA-directed program to damage the Viet Cong infrastructure from 1967 to 1972

My Lai, a 1968 massacre of civilians in the hamlet of the same name by U.S. troops

The use of the herbicide Agent Orange from 1965 to 1970

Click on the underlined topic noted above for a brief overview and a list of suggested readings. I have chosen three topics for which the United States seems to have created the problem. This may be difficult for some of you to face, as Americans are supposed to be the "good guys" and in each case here the actions would suggest otherwise. Note well that these topics have become embedded emotionally in American history and life, making it difficult to approach them by a purely logical path. When you have examined each of these three topics, consider the questions below.

Questions for consideration and further discussion:

1. Is there such a thing as "ethics" where war is concerned? Or does war excuse unethical behavior?
2. Is assassination an acceptable method of control? Is torture?
3. What do the actions of the U.S. troops at My Lai suggest about the "thin veneer" of civilization?
4. Can herbicides be considered a "weapon of mass destruction"?
5. Have Americans grown cynical when it comes to military/govermental actions, accepting anything that succeeds?
6. Did Vietnam, as a country or a war, have any elements that contributed to these topics?