By Steven Magnusen

The film American Sniper has sparked debate in the media about the morality of using snipers in combat. Logan Isaac recently reflected here in Cicero on “Just War” theory and rightly pointed out its inclusion has been notably lacking in such conversations. There is no reason why when considering Just War theory, sniping and other means of modern war should be considered inherently wrong. It is the “ends” of wars that are more important than the “means” used to fight them.

Isaac claims that sniping belongs in a category with submarines, bombers, drones, artillery and other long range weapons that protect the attacker from reprisal. “For war to be moral,” he writes, referring to traditional Just War theory, “ it must be something like a social contract in which combatants expose themselves openly on the field of battle to equal chance of being killed or injured.”

But these are criticisms of the “means” of modern warfare. When put into practice, this idea fails to make significant distinctions for the moral analysis of combat. At what distance does it become immoral to engage the enemy? One kilometer? Two kilometers? Ultimately one is just picking an arbitrary number. If it is morally acceptable to shoot an enemy combatant from 100 meters, then there is no reason why it should be wrong to shoot the same combatant from 600 meters or more.

If we follow through on the “equal footing” claim, the only morally justifiable fighting would be single combat in the tradition of Paris and Menelaus, David and Goliath, or jousts and pistol duels.

A situation of “equal footing” is also immeasurable and non-existent in combat. How does one determine equal footing? Who should determine it? One side may have an advantage in one category and the other side in another. One might point to equal technology, equal numbers, or similar tactics, but there is no situation in combat in which neither side has an advantage. If both sides deploy snipers does that not mean the two sides are on equal footing and their use justified? The U.S. deployed snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan and its opponents did as well.

If one side has more troops, one might argue that the side with fewer soldiers could use snipers to level the playing field. If both sides of a conflict must face equal risk, then any advantage one side has over another would render combat immoral. Further, if concealment in war is immoral because of the advantage it creates, then every soldier who seeks it is guilty, whether they are a sniper or not.

Ultimately, if we follow through on Isaac’s equal footing claim, the only morally justifiable fighting would be single combat in the tradition of Paris and Menelaus, David and Goliath, or jousts and pistol duels. If one is to claim that the use of snipers is inherently immoral, one cannot do so on the basis of an unfair advantage gained from distance or concealment.

Ends and Means in War

The idea that an equal chance of being killed or injured is necessary for a war to be just is foreign to the Just War tradition, and even to many of the authors Isaac cites in his argument. Augustine argued that “provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes.” The political theorist Michael Walzer has argued that covert assassinations and the shelling of enemy command posts can also be morally justified. The primary concern of Cicero, Augustine, and Walzer is the moral end toward which the action is aimed, and whether those ends are truly good. Again, the ends of war matter more than the means.

One can think about moral ends in war on three levels. First, the “ultimate end” of war is achieving peace. Second, we should consider the “political ends” for which a war is fought. For example, in WWII the Allies fought to defeat Nazi oppression. Third, we need to consider the “immediate ends” of a particular action in a war, such as bombing a bridge to limit the enemy’s mobility.

Governments, militaries and individual soldiers must continually choose between “good” or “bad” ends at all three levels in war. When the ends being pursued are not good ends, their actions will become unjust. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq was an action directed at an immoral immediate end: The humiliation and dehumanization of captured enemy combatants. That immoral action also harmed progress toward the political and ultimate ends of the Iraq War, which still remain unclear and controversial. If one is truly pursuing peace as the ultimate end of a war, then abusing prisoners will inevitably prevent that goal from being attained.

The questions we ought to ask ourselves regarding snipers is: Can their use in war achieve morally good ends? What immediate ends are being pursued when snipers are deployed in combat? Using snipers for good immediate ends, such as protecting fellow soldiers from a suicide bomber, can advance the goal of peace and the political ends being pursued in a war. Using them for bad immediate ends, such as indiscriminately killing unarmed noncombatants out of anger, can hinder them. It is the ends that matter more than the means. A soldier’s action is not rendered immoral simply by the distance of the shot or because they were hiding in cover or on a submarine or watching from a drone’s camera thousands of miles away when they pressed the trigger.

One also must consider what effect the action has on the political and ultimate ends being pursued in the war. Immediate ends are the most important for a sniper because it is the immediate end for which he is directly responsible. The sniper cannot decide what political ends an army fights for, but he does control his own actions in pursuit of those greater goals.

Matt Victoriano expressed this well in his recent Cicero essay. He explained how his decision not to shoot a young rioter but rather to scare him off advanced the goal of peace as much as killing an enemy combatant. Snipers should be—and are—trained to understand when killing is or is not the right decision. There should be an ongoing conversation in the military about educating all soldiers in such moral decision-making. On the surface, the use of snipers may seem wrong to some. However, using snipers and other modern tools of war that place distance and the element of surprise between combatants can be morally justified as long as they support the accomplishment of “good,” moral immediate ends without hindering the accomplishment of good political and ultimate ends. There is nothing unjust about that.

[Photo: Flickr CC: Vassilis]

Steven Magnusen holds a Master of Arts in Historical and Systematic Theology from The Catholic University of America. He currently works as a writer for Zantech IT Services.