The "don't ask, don't tell" policy and military performance

This paper is a response to Schumm's 2004 critique of Belkin's 2003 article, dealing with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military. Schumm's critique specified four reasons for continuing to exclude homosexuals from military service: military effectiveness, sexual asymmetries, Christian soldiers' dilemma of "living a lie" and skewed opinions of policy makers and military elites. Each of these categories is analyzed and discussed.     

WAS THE GULF WAR A JUST WAR?

In the early months of 1991, the United States—in alliance with a number of other nations—fought a large scale air and ground war to evict Iraq's occupying army from the emirate of Kuwait. In this paper, I will consider the question of whether this U.S. military campaign was a just war according to the criteria of traditional just war theory—the only developed moral theory of warfare that we have. My aim, however, is not so much to reach a verdict about the morality of the Gulf War, as it is to identify relevant moral issues, and to reveal certain serious problems of application that are inherent in just war theory itself. Just war theory divides into two parts concerning, respectively, the question of whether or not to fight a particular war (justice of war), and the question of how the war is conducted (justice in war). I begin by considering whether it was just, according to the justice of war criteria, for the U.S. to fight the Gulf War at all. I then turn to the question of whether the way the war was conducted satisfied the criteria of justice in war.     

Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.     

Promoting aggression and violence at Abu Ghraib: The U.S. military's transformation of ordinary people into torturers

The torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib has been characterized as an isolated incident and blamed on a few “bad apples.” However, as similar reports of war crimes throughout Iraq continue to surface, it seems increasingly apparent that in the anxious post-9/11 context, the low-level agents who carried out such violence were designed to function in this way. This paper suggests that the U.S. military transformed ordinary soldiers into the cruel and ruthless guards at Abu Ghraib through the use of basic recruitment and training strategies, general authorizations for increased aggression and violence after 9/11, specific authorizations for more aggressive interrogations, a range of pressures and protections, and the dehumanization of prisoners. While the legitimate needs of an effective Army must be preserved, this paper offers several specific ways we might reform the U.S. military and prevent such abuses in the future.     

Limits to Confidentiality in U.S. Army Treatment Settings

A number of reports detail ethical concerns of behavioral health providers in the U.S. Military regarding limited confidentiality. This article provides a review of limits to confidentiality in behavioral health settings as outlined by U.S. Army regulations and Department of Defense directives. Specific limits are discussed under seven categories, including: medical treatment and oversight, command notification, threats to safety, public health purposes, judicial or administrative proceedings, law enforcement investigation, and specialized personnel programs. Specific attention is given to war crimes reporting, special duty, and command involvement. Lessons learned for best practice across service branches are provided as a collaborative model for resolving perceived conflict between the APA Ethics Code and military regulations.     

Psychology in the public sector: addressing the psychological effects of combat in the U.S. Navy

The response of military psychology in times of war or other great public crises may presage the success of the profession in less perilous times. The ability of public-sector psychologists to provide assistance and improve the common welfare during conflict or turmoil is generally followed by an increased demand for psychological services. This likely reflects the success of the psychological response during those crises, and it underscores the fact that psychological consequences of war or disaster require both immediate clinical attention and long-term policy development. The U.S. Navy serves as a model for public-sector psychological service provision. A brief history of Navy psychology is provided, followed by an examination of how Navy psychologists are responding to the issues raised by the current conflict in the Middle East and the problems associated with stigma in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder.     

Pre-Entry Expectations,Attitudes, and Intentions to Join Predict Military Tenure

The objective of this study was to examine pre-entry expectations, attitudes, and intentions as predictors of tenure among military members. Data from nationally representative (U.S.) samples of youth on attitudes toward military service, expectations about the effect of joining the military on quality of life, and intentions to join the military were linked to tenure among those who later joined the military as adults. Results from survival analyses indicate that those who initially had no desire to join the military and did not expect military service to have positive effects on their quality of life, but ultimately joined the military nonetheless, tended to have shorter military careers. Explanations for these findings are offered along with implications for military staffing.     

Is this America? Unfinished business with the U.S. national imaginary,religion and violence

This article first proposes definitions and raises questions about what it means to be a nation. I then analyze the national imaginary of the United States, and suggest that at its deepest core we find “substitute ultimates” regarding America's sacrificial war‐culture. This cultural violence perpetuates destructive consequences, including the phenomena of “U.S. war‐culture,” and “moral injury” among military servicemembers and veterans. But widespread legitimation of the imaginary largely inhibits citizens from awareness about their own reality. Lastly, I inquire about the role of prophetic public theology to address nationalism, and engage in a thought experiment with an imagined community of diverse partners.     

Suicide and the military justice system.

The United States military is sensitive to suicide. There are military policies that direct the formation of active suicide prevention programs. The U.S. military emphasizes a humanitarian approach. Modern military law, however, may view suicidal behavior as deviant. The prosecution of this behavior, although theoretically possible, has never occurred until recently. The U.S. military has now convicted soldiers for attempted suicide and assisted suicide. This article reviews these recent court decisions and suggests revisions in the military law.     

Unit Social Cohesion in the Israeli Military as a Case Study of “Don't Ask,Don't Tell”

U.S. military policy “Don't Ask Don't Tell” (DADT) restricted integration of gays in the U.S. military based on the premise that knowledge of gay peers would decrease interpersonal bonds among unit members. Despite the heated debate over DADT, this social cohesion thesis, reflecting the tensions of homosocial desire, has not been tested empirically. The Israeli military provides an operative case‐study for this thesis, given its nonexclusionary policy and intensive combat experience. Measures of perceived social cohesion and knowledge of gay peers were obtained from a sample of 417 combat and noncombat male soldiers using an inventory of interpersonal emotions towards unit members. A MANOVA of social cohesion by knowledge of gay peers and combat/noncombat unit yielded the hypothesized increase in cohesion in combat versus noncombat units. Yet contrary to the DADT premise, knowledge of gay peers did not yield decreased social cohesion. Comparisons with the U.S. military are presented, suggesting in both cases a loose coupling between stated policies and soldiers' experience on the ground. Implications of these findings for the reassessment of DADT and its repeal are discussed.     

Toward Modeling and Automating Ethical Decision Making: Design, Implementation, Limitations, and Responsibilities

One recent priority of the U.S. government is developing autonomous robotic systems. The U.S. Army has funded research to design a metric of evil to support military commanders with ethical decision-making and, in the future, allow robotic military systems to make autonomous ethical judgments. We use this particular project as a case study for efforts that seek to frame morality in quantitative terms. We report preliminary results from this research, describing the assumptions and limitations of a program that assesses the relative evil of two courses of action. We compare this program to other attempts to simulate ethical decision-making, assess possibilities for overcoming the trade-off between input simplification and output reliability, and discuss the responsibilities of users and designers in implementing such programs. We conclude by discussing the implications that this project highlights for the successes and challenges of developing automated mechanisms for ethical decision making.     

Preemptive War, Americanism, and Anti-Americanism

Abstract: The war against Iraq unleashed in March 2003 spawned an attempt to silence the protest movement by accusing it of anti‐Americanism. This essay argues that the theory according to which right‐wing anti‐Americanism and left‐wing anti‐Americanism coincide is a myth. A new issue appears now, a paradox that characterizes the United States, where democracy developed within the white community concomitantly with the enslavement of blacks and the deportation of American Indians. In the American “Herrenvolk democracy,” a line of demarcation between whites and people of color fosters the development of relations based on equality within the white community. Furthermore, U.S. history is marked by the fundamentalist tendency to transform the Judeo‐Christian tradition into a sort of national religion that consecrates the exceptionalism of the American people and the sacred mission with which they are entrusted (“Manifest Destiny”). Europe is unable thoroughly to comprehend the American mixture of religious and moral fervor, on the one hand, and overt pursuit of political, economic, and military world domination, on the other. But it is this mixture, or rather this explosive combination, this peculiar fundamentalism, that constitutes the greatest threat to world peace today.     

The role of authoritarianism, perceived threat, and need for closure or structure in predicting post-9/11 attitudes and beliefs

The authors examined relationships among authoritarianism, personal need for closure or structure, perceived threat, and post-9/11 attitudes and beliefs. Participants were 159 undergraduate students in the Southeastern United States. The authors collected data 1 week before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Correlation and regression analyses revealed that right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were significant predictors of support for restricting human rights during the U.S.-led War on Terror, support for U.S. President George W. Bush, and support for U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Right-wing authoritarianism and perceived threat emerged as the strongest predictors of the belief that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism.     

Chinese teenagers' concerns about the future: a cross-national comparison.

Teenagers in the U.S., U.S.S.R., Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and New Zealand have consistently rated death of a parent and nuclear war as their greatest concerns about the future. In the present study, however, Chinese teenagers rated overpopulation and environmental pollution as their greatest concerns; these were usually rated quite low by teenagers in other countries. While still of concern to Chinese teenagers, nuclear war seemed more remote to them than it did to U.S. and U.S.S.R. teenagers and therefore more survivable. Speculation is offered as to how teenagers' concerns reflect those of a country's general population.     

Militarism,Human Welfare,and the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists

A case study is presented of the American Psychological Association (APA), as a health care organization that promotes human welfare. APA includes policies on human welfare in its Ethical Principles of Psychologists and even lists the advancement of psychology "as a means of promoting human welfare" on its letterhead. Nevertheless, APA has other policies and activities based on military and weapons work that appear to conflict with its promotion of human welfare. Although military work in and of itself may not necessarily be problematic, work that contributes to people purposely being harmed or killed should be squared with the association's ethical guidelines. The results presented here show that this may not be the case: There currently appears to be little justification in the Ethical Principles for work intended to harm people. APA's active lobbying, research, and development for the military are documented here, in relation to an analysis of the Ethical Principles. APA's uncritical support for Operation Desert Storm is examined specifically, with regard to weapons technology and therapeutic treatment of U.S. soldiers on the battlefield. This one-sided support for victims of the war is not in keeping with a Hippocratic health care ethic to treat patients needing care, and to do so with neutrality and impartiality. Similarities to a historical example of nationalistic mental health ethics are discussed, with a review of the development of the German Institute for Psychological Research and Psychotherapy and of the German Society for Psychology in the Nazi wartime effort and the Holocaust. The results here show similar deficiencies in APA's ethical standards, not the least of which is that the code applies to individual members but not to APA policies, committees, or activities. This article concludes with suggested criteria for the Ethical Principles that would at least (a) recognize the ambiguities in systematically developing and using weapons to hurt people and (b) provide an initial rationale of potential justifications.     

Militarism, human welfare, and the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists

A case study is presented of the American Psychological Association (APA), as a health care organization that promotes human welfare. APA includes policies on human welfare in its Ethical Principles of Psychologists and even lists the advancement of psychology "as a means of promoting human welfare" on its letterhead. Nevertheless, APA has other policies and activities based on military and weapons work that appear to conflict with its promotion of human welfare. Although military work in and of itself may not necessarily be problematic, work that contributes to people purposely being harmed or killed should be squared with the association's ethical guidelines. The results presented here show that this may not be the case: There currently appears to be little justification in the Ethical Principles for work intended to harm people. APA's active lobbying, research, and development for the military are documented here, in relation to an analysis of the Ethical Principles. APA's uncritical support for Operation Desert Storm is examined specifically, with regard to weapons technology and therapeutic treatment of U.S. soldiers on the battlefield. This one-sided support for victims of the war is not in keeping with a Hippocratic health care ethic to treat patients needing care, and to do so with neutrality and impartiality. Similarities to a historical example of nationalistic mental health ethics are discussed, with a review of the development of the German Institute for Psychological Research and Psychotherapy and of the German Society for Psychology in the Nazi wartime effort and the Holocaust. The results here show similar deficiencies in APA's ethical standards, not the least of which is that the code applies to individual members but not to APA policies, committees, or activities. This article concludes with suggested criteria for the Ethical Principles that would at least (a) recognize the ambiguities in systematically developing and using weapons to hurt people and (b) provide an initial rationale of potential justifications.     

直觉在军事决策中的应用

直觉决策是以决策者经验为基础的无意识的决策过程.现代战争的动态性、不确定性、复杂性和模糊性要求指挥员在战场当中要善于利用直觉进行快速决断.受到决策的双系统理论以及再认启动决策模型思想的影响,美军从20世纪80年代后期开始重视直觉决策在制定作战计划中的作用,相关研究机构积极探索培养指挥员直觉决策能力的方法,作战条令中也逐渐融入了直觉决策的理念.美军的研究发现和实践结果不仅揭示了基于经验的直觉决策过程的内在心理机制,而且对我军培养适合于未来战争的优秀指挥人才具有启示作用.     

Humanitarian Intervention, Altruism, and the Limits of Casuistry

This essay argues that the ethics of humanitarian intervention cannot be readily subsumed by the ethics of just war without due attention to matters of political and moral motivation. In the modern era, a just war draws directly from self-benefitting motives in wars of self-defense, or indirectly in wars that enforce international law or promote the global common good. Humanitarian interventions, in contrast, are intuitively admirable insofar as they are other-regarding. That difference poses a challenge to the casuistry of humanitarian intervention because it makes it difficult to reason by analogy from the case of war to the case of humanitarian intervention. The author develops this point in dialogue with Michael Walzer, the U.S. Catholic bishops, and President Clinton. He concludes by showing how a casuistry of intervention is possible, developing a motivational rationale that draws on the Golden Rule.     

How Many Casualties Are Too Many? Proportional Reasoning in the Valuation of Military and Civilian Lives1

People frequently judge saved lives as less valuable and deaths more acceptable when they are characterized as small fractions of larger “at‐risk” groups. Two studies with U.S. college students demonstrated this effect in judgments concerning acceptable numbers of U.S. military and Middle Eastern civilian casualties. At the beginning of the current U.S.–Iraq conflict ( Study 1 ), priming cost–benefit reasoning produced greater proportional devaluation for Iraqi civilian than for U.S. military lives. In a hypothetical armed intervention in Iran to halt weapons development ( Study 2 ), women but not men showed greater proportional devaluation for U.S. military than for Iranian civilian lives. In both studies, proportional reasoners were willing to accept more casualties. Implications for public perceptions and attitudes are discussed.