Rules of Engagement: Ethics in Warfare
The Gatling Gun patent drawing (1865). The gun was patented on May 9, 1865, and was officially adopted by the U.S. Army on August 21, 1866. Courtesy of the National Archives.
America’s use of targeted drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere raise questions about what is—and is not—an appropriate means of waging war. In this episode, the American History Guys look at how previous generations have answered these sorts of questions. They explore the shockingly violent battle tactics of Europeans in comparison to original Indian ways of war. And, at a time when many fear that chemical weapons may be deployed in Syria, the History Guys consider what made the use of chemical weapons taboo in the first place.
Guests Include:
- Caroline Frank, Brown University, on American Indians’ evolving tactics in warfare.
- John Fabian Witt, Yale University, on how a new set of wartime laws helped legitimize Emancipation.
- Crystal Feimster, Yale University, on the role that the laws of war played in protecting victims of sexual assault.
- Richard Price, University of British Columbia, on how chemical weapons became taboo.
Show Segments:
Listen to individual segments from the episode.
Further Exploration:
Resources galore! Peruse a list of outside sources compiled by the BackStory team to provide a more complete picture of the history of gun ownership in America, and consult a bibliography of works used in the making of this episode.
Music from the Episode:
A full listing of the tracks, and links to buy them yourselves.
Even Further:
The listener discussion that helped shape the show.
terrific and valuable discussion on the legal side of war. semi-related and fyi, john stealey is coming out with a 1,000 page book on west virginia statehood this summer. i am starting to think that the fall 1862 and spring 1863
Quotefor the world, and even more for west virginia and even more for my county jefferson county (that sued to be taken back by virginia after the war) – was an incredible, complex and important moment of precedent-setting. terrific contribution. you guys are brilliant and informed.
Two points from your recent show on the law of war in U.S. history:
1. Although frequently misused, the term “rules of engagement” refers to a commander’s orders specifying when armed force may or may not be used. Although rules of engagement must comply with the laws of war, they are not themselves statements of the law. Rules of engagement usually incorporate strategic, operation, or tactical considerations in addition to the legal restrictions on when, where, and against whom deadly force may be used. For example, the famous line “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes” incorporates many considerations — ammunition conservation, optimal use of firepower, etc. — that would be found in modern rules of engagement.
2. During your show, a caller asked about the legality of the raid to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The discussion following that question compared the raid to U.S. interventions in various Latin American countries in the 20th century. I think that comparison was a less than accurate discussion of the current legal issues surrounding intervention. There is a growing body of law suggesting that states have the right, or even the obligation, to militarily intervene when a state harbors known terrorists and refuses or cannot prevent those individuals from committing further crimes. U.N. intervention in Yugoslavia and Somalia, as well as various actions against international terrorists demonstrate that state sovereignty is no longer a barrier to intervention. No doubt, this is a controversial issue and I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. Some have argued that this is appropriate in failed states only, while others have argued that — in the case of operations against terrorists — no state should be allowed to harbor terrorists. The so-called “right to intervene” is and will remain a contentious issue intermingled with discussions about sovereignty, power, and politics. But it invokes different issues than the imperialist interventions of the 19th and 20th century.
Thank you for a great show and I look forward to the next one.
Quote