Moral Relativism Has No Place in U.S. Policy

COL John Oakley — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 14:12:11 -0500

In recent weeks, The Bridge has published four pieces relating to the moral and strategic implications of the Afghan practice of bacha bazi where young boys entertain men, sometimes sexually. Each of the authors agrees that this is a heinous practice and is counter to our values. The disagreement arises in determining the impact morality should have on U.S. policy. This is not a question of strategy. The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is to eliminate the existential terrorist threat, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote democracy. It is the policy to pretend that such barbaric practices are of little consequence and addressing bacha bazi would complicate matters. Better to leave well enough alone and focus on the endgame. Besides, Afghans have their own values and it would be disingenuous for the U.S. to proclaim Afghan self-determination while simultaneously imposing our values and will upon them.

This argument is only possible if one believes in relativism. Relativism is the idea that values are only inherently good or bad based on that particular culture or in the extreme, the individual. Relativism works but only when narrowly defined. Taking relativism to the extreme reveals its inherent weakness. In the extreme theft, sodomy, and murder could be good values according to one’s beliefs. Yet with the exception of psychopaths, no culture, race, religion, or person would agree that theft, sodomy, or murder are values to live by.

When policy takes an unbounded and morally relativistic approach, the U.S. loses the moral high ground. Only within the confines of universal values like preserving life, respecting the individual, or respecting personal property can relativism and thus self-determination flourish. In fact, not imposing universal values-based limits on U.S. policy is detrimental to the overall strategy at the international, national, regional, and tactical levels.

Internationally, the U.S. and Afghanistan have signed numerous international human rights declarations and treaties. The practice of bacha bazi is a clear violation of those declarations and for the U.S. to ignore such practice sends mixed signals to entire international community. Nationally, the majority of Afghans find the practice unacceptable, a point supported both by Justin Lynch in an earlier post and the concept of universal values. At the regional level, security is established when the people are free from fear and can live their lives according to universal values. Parents want to know that their children are safe from the dangers in the world. The security force that can provide this physical and mental security is a welcomed and stabilizing presence. Lastly, at the tactical level, a policy that is consistent with our values allows our young Marines and Soldiers to act quickly and decisively without violating the core values instilled by their Service.

In an attempt to achieve the strategic ends by removing self-imposed moral limitations, a morally relative policy creates far more dangers for our military, weakens local security, undermines U.S. partnerships, and decreases America’s moral standing in the world. The U.S. remains a major player on the international stage and must lead by example. Implementing policy grounded in universal moral values ensures that America retains its position of importance and influence.

The U.S. needs to take a firm stand on this issue beyond a simple statement condemning bacha bazi. We must include values as a basis for policy and enforce that policy with action. Both the State and Defense Departments need to collaborate and construct a new policy that aligns universal, national, and the Service’s values with the strategic ends. The new policy must persuade Afghan leaders the importance of ending bacha bazi and if necessary, coerce them into doing so. Field Commanders need to work closely with their Afghan counterparts who can legally detain and arrest Afghanistan citizens or at minimum, report incidents to both governments.

Policy absent a moral compass may seem like the right strategic choice but the inherent dangers associated with such a decision far outweigh the concerns of achieving the desired ends. Reaffirming our commitments to the international community, recognizing our shared values with our partners, promoting peace and security with values-based policies, and modeling our ideals through action will ensure that the world continues to look toward the United States now and in the future.

John Oakley is an Infantry Officer in the Army National Guard. The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 8 at 2015 2:14 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 14:14:39 -0500

Morality is completely subjective/relative. The military doesn't change that...

Response by SGT David T. made Dec 8 at 2015 2:45 PM

SGT David T. — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 14:45:08 -0500

The practice is already illegal under Afghan law. Afghanistan is a sovereign country that is responsible for enforcing its own laws. We cannot dictate that to them anymore than they can dictate we enforce our Federal marijuana laws in states that legalized it.

I would caution you though not to apply American morality and values to people who are not American. Different cultures have different beliefs and they need to be respected as a general rule.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Dec 8 at 2015 7:27 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 19:27:52 -0500

A very well written and reasoned post. Hence the upvote.

That said, I don't believe that it tracks well to any part of our, or world, history. The U.S. has a track record of taking moral relativistic stances at the foreign policy/strategic level on just about every single issue it has ever addressed.

There are many where we have STATED a clear & bright line. Usually for positioning purposes. However, I cannot think of a single one that was AT THE TIME "morally pure."

As an example during the Civil War, the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves IN THE STATES IN REBELLION, but not in the Union states. And THAT only came WELL INTO the war. When it served pragmatic purpose. Likewise, we hate Nazis to pieces during/after WWII, well other than the ones we secretly relocated to this country. And so on, and so forth. Because our history is quite long, I will allow for the possibility that there were a few "pure" acts at some point, but I will maintain a healthy skepticism.

We are very good at spinning the facts in the big history AAR, but a study of the contemporary information always tells a different story.

I AM sympathetic to the position taken, both in general and on this particular issue. But I believe it would be a radical departure from both our entire history and the entire history of any state, at least since the Roman empire.

(For the record, we are IMNSHO hands down the most consistently moral actor on the world stage. I would take our track record over just about anyone else's.)

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Dec 29 at 2015 9:26 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:26:55 -0500

I agree. Every culture in the world has certain moral taboos and social mores that are universal -for instance, don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Another really large one that is universal is the taboo of pedophilia and incest. These behaviors are NOT normal nor are they culturally acceptable anywhere. What you have in Afghanistan is a bunch of moral degenerates who are ignoring the teachings of their own religion and their society and committing these atrocities. In any functional society, these behaviors would be shunned and punished, but the offenders here are also the ones with the guns. We should stop thinking this is a part of Afghan culture and start thinking that these offenders are more like bandits and pirates then real members of society --scumbags that are in control only because of intimidation.