English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

: Combating irregular threats has challenged the American "way of war" in a number of ways. Not only does it challenge how U.S. forces fight, it also brings into question the ethical norms they employ to govern the fighting. The resulting confusion is especially evident in the public debate over the rules of engagement used in Afghanistan. On the one hand, many are concerned that restrictions on the use of force have placed Soldiers' lives needlessly at risk. On the other, many are concerned that risking civilian casualties is not only immoral in irregular war, but undermines the war effort. The rules of war entail balancing three competing imperatives: (1) accomplishing the mission; (2) protecting the force; and (3) minimizing harm. Determining that balance entails determining where one should accept risk. Accomplishing missions risks Soldiers and civilians; protecting the force risks mission accomplishment and civilians; and minimizing harm risks mission accomplishment and force protection. Where risk should be accepted depends on the ends the use of military force is intended to achieve, as well as the character of the adversary. To understand why the ends and adversaries associated with combating irregular threats pose special challenges to ethical decision making, one must first grasp the complex relationship these competing imperatives have with the amount of risk Soldiers may accept or the amount of risk to which they may assign to others. Confronting such threats emphasizes populations rather than military forces and capabilities. In doing so, it expands the ends and means of war, requiring Soldiers not only to defend the state, but to impose civil order outside the state as well. These complications fundamentally change the character of warfare, requiring Soldiers to rethink where they may incur and assign risk when balancing the ethical demands of their profession.

Resolving Ethical Challenges in an Era of Persistent Conflict