Pentagon’s MHAT IV Survey Questions Troops’ Battlefield Ethics

Last Friday, the Pentagon released the findings of the fourth Mental Health Advisory Team survey, MHAT IV. This survey is used to keep an eye on damage combat does to the human mind, and especially those in uniform fighting Mr. Bush’s war. For the first time, the MHAT asked about battlefield ethics, in particular the treatment of Iraq-Namese civilians. The findings suggest that some US troops are losing the hearts and minds of those they ostensibly are meant to help.

According to a news story on the Pentagon’s own website by Sergeant Sara Wood of the American Forces Press Service, “Of those surveyed, 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating noncombatants or damaging property when it was not necessary, [said Army Major General Gale Pollock, the acting surgeon general of the Army]. The survey also found that only 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. More than one-third of all soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine, and less than half of soldiers or Marines said they would report a team member for unethical behavior. In the report, mistreating noncombatants was defined as either stealing from a noncombatant, destroying or damaging property when it wasn’t necessary, or hitting or kicking a noncombatant.”

As disturbing as this is, there are a few points that need to be made. First, it is difficult to imagine very many other military establishments in any other country being quite so open about this sort of unpleasantness. Despite the plain ugliness of the data, they are sitting there on the Pentagon’s own website for all the world to see. Second, those who have spent 9 or 10 months fighting in Baghdad and Anwar province, watching their friends get maimed or killed, may justifiably have their milk-of-human kindness supply teetering on “empty.” Violence begets violence, and that’s just as true for the insurgency as it is for the occupation. Third, stealing from noncombatants sets the bar pretty low historically speaking – after all, foraging parties existed as part of the European combat standard well into World War II.

Be that as it may, these attitudes bump up against the mission of winning Iraq-Namese hearts and minds to the coalition’s cause. Treating noncombatants with dignity is the basic difference between a liberator and an occupier. The French cheered as the western allies marched into Paris. Damn few Poles cheered when the Red Army entered Warsaw. Liberation is usually not what the civilian on the street sees when armed men (and women) march through the neighborhood.

Sergeant Woods’ news story also said, “Since the MHAT IV report was presented to the Multinational Force Iraq commander and service leaders in November, the Army and Marines have implemented changes to improve behavioral health care, Pollock said. The Army has revised teaching curriculum and operational training to include more focus on Army values, suicide prevention, battlefield ethics, and behavioral health awareness in all junior-leader-development courses.” It may be too late to fix the situation in Iraq-Nam, but there will always be next time.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home