Introduction
The world has been characterized by conflicts of interest and immense tensions between countries. The global pressures have led to the established policies that guide how countries interact. In addition, countries have developed separate military wings specially trained to curb international conflicts, like the special operations forces (SOF).
The forces are trained to imagine any possible situations that could jeopardize the country’s safety and thus develop a suitable solution to the problem at hand. They are subjected to vigorous training under different conditions to ensure they are ready and adequately equipped to handle any issues that threaten the safety of a country. Furthermore, some principles have been established to guide how special forces perform the operations, such as the ethics of special operations forces. The primary purpose of this work is to analyze and conclude the importance of special forces usage and the ways of working.
Insurgency has been the cause of insecurity in many developing countries in different parts of the world. Usually, insurgents only begin with a few people but later grow to a more significant proportion, thus able to effect changes that meet the grievances. Special forces have been there for a long time; however, the rebellions have evolved and adopted different methods to address the grievances over time.
In recent years, terrorism has been the most prevalent form of insurgency, especially in Middle Eastern countries. As such, some developed countries have responded by deploying special forces to curb the activities of the terrorists. There are some similarities and differences in the principles of operations of the Special Operations Forces and the insurgents.
Ethical Similarities
Insurgencies and special operations forces share some ethical guidelines that facilitate efficiency in the operations. Despite being on opposite sides, the branches mirror each other in the following aspects, obeying orders and reporting all activities. All squad members were responsible for obeying all orders from the seniors without question.
Similarly, special operations forces operate on orders, and each unit member has to obey and execute them without questioning the orders. Furthermore, insurgents must report what they saw, heard, and captured to their superiors after every operation. The same applies to the soldiers; they must write reports detailing the operations and include the details of methods used during their performance, whether ethical or not.
Principle of Last Resort
The principle of last resort emphasizes that conflicting parties develop peaceful methods of resolving the issues instead of going to war at the slightest provocation. Many governments and rebel groups have adopted this principle. Most nations and organizations that have disagreements negotiate to solve the problem amicably. The nations call upon an impartial mediator to help deal with the challenge to remove the possibility of a war. Similarly, the guerrillas present their grievances peacefully; however, after some time, they resort to war because they have been disregarded.
Principle of Reasonable Success
The principle of reasonable success is among the most common codes shared by insurgencies and special operations forces. This principle is simply an inadequate cause of war; however, war can be viable if there is a just cause and the right intentions. The success of a war can be determined by weighing the benefits and the costs of the said war; nonetheless, they are not the only factors that influence a war; other forces are at play.
One must evaluate how the war will benefit a nation and its people and how much effort is required to achieve victory. At the time, the victory was not worth it because more effort would be required only to secure a small victory. In some instances, the SOF has to do whatever it can to ensure the success of its operations. This may involve bending the rules, but it is for the greater good.
Similarly, guerrillas are usually under-equipped and underfunded; as such, they are disadvantaged in performing the operations. Therefore, they must develop strategies that cripple the rivals regardless of the casualties, provided they achieve the objectives.
Moral Character
Though most insurgencies are portrayed as evil, some follow strict laws to ensure they do not cause harm to the same people they are fighting to liberate. They conduct themselves in an organized manner and treat all people with dignity. An example of such an organization is the New People’s Army; the group has set aside ethical guidelines that match those of special operations forces. Those principles are respect for civilians, no destruction of crops, and humane treatment of captives. Similarly, soldiers are obligated by professional ethics to ensure the safety of civilians by providing medical care and coordinating support.
Special operations forces, despite being designed to suppress protesters, should consider the use of humane means of conflict resolution. It is evident that this is not always possible and that it is necessary to use special means designed not only to detain the perpetrators, but in some cases to destroy them. Such situations should rarely arise, as human life is the most valuable and should not be endangered, regardless of the situation. If disregarding the essence of the operation itself, it is essential to follow all the protocols that prevent people from being injured and aim only at suppressing the most active participants by any of the available means.
In a democratic state, intelligence services must make every effort to be effective, politically neutral, impartial, adhere to professional ethics, and operate within the bounds of legitimate authority in accordance with constitutional and legal norms and the democratic principles of the state. Before working to establish democratic control over intelligence agencies, it must be ensured that the aims are understood, as well as the functions and tasks, and the role they perform. Knowing and understanding this is essential to improving intelligence activities and reforming intelligence agencies per the norms and standards of democracy.
Without denying the need for covert operations, there is a danger that intelligence agencies, maliciously or knowingly, may abuse their powers. On the other hand, society sometimes overemphasizes the funding of intelligence agencies. For the intelligence services to work effectively while at the same time not abusing their powers, the control of the activities and their own responsibility for the actions must ensure the national interests of the state without violating the rights and freedoms of its individual citizens. Control, in the narrowest sense of the word, means the existence of specific actions.
In a broader sense, the word means the existence of certain conditions by which the criteria of effectiveness in performance, including the expected results in accordance with the law and the policy pursued, can be ensured. Control can be exercised through both formal and informal means. In general, it can be said that formal controls aim to ensure that the work of the intelligence services is in line with policy, does not go beyond the necessary funding, and that the work of the intelligence services can be monitored and, if necessary, audited. At the heart of informal means of control are questions of ethics, morality, and systems of value orientations.
Goal Oriented
Insurgencies and special operations forces are goal-oriented in that every action aims to achieve the objectives. Despite the differences in perspective, each group is determined to reach its goals in whichever way possible. For instance, Special Forces may be deployed to combat the effects of insurgents in the Middle East and are thus prepared to handle anything thrown at them. The soldiers are guided by duty and service to the home country. On the other hand, the guerrillas are guided by faith and belief in fighting for what is rightfully theirs.
Ethical Differences
Special Operations Forces and the insurgents have varying operational principles. Some of the differences are evident in the following ways: Special Forces are steered by stipulated guidelines that ensure a just war in which the safety of civilians is ensured. For instance, the Special Forces focus on minimizing civilian casualties during wars. Soldiers ensure that all children and women are kept out of harm’s way.
Usually, it is considered dishonorable for trained soldiers they kill unarmed children and women. Though it is difficult to estimate the precise influence that the insurgents have over the people, Special Forces are obliged to leave all civilians unharmed. Nevertheless, the scenario is the exact opposite in the case of the insurrections; they attack all people, provided they have been in contact with the Special Forces. They treat them as spies and thus have to eliminate them to ensure the success of the campaigns. In some instances, the insurgents have been known to kill innocent women and children to instill fear among people and thus scare them from collaborating with the enemy forces.
Using Human Shields
Special Operations forces are guided by international conventions prohibiting soldiers from using civilians as human shields. According to the Rome Statute, using human shields violates international humanitarian law; trained soldiers must ensure the safety at all costs. On the other hand, terrorists and insurgents do not hesitate to use a human shield when fighting against trained soldiers. They are conversant with human shields and are protected by international laws; thus, the soldiers cannot attack. They use this to stall attacks and gain the upper hand over the soldiers. In most cases, human shields are barely effective; as such, they use many people as the shields, but since no regulation to bind them, they can kill them at will.
Principle of Discrimination
Based on this principle, the main target in any given way is the soldiers and the combatant civilians. In addition, the principle helps guarantee medical personnel’s safety in war-torn zones; some people include the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The code aims to minimize casualties while preventing complex warfare, whereby civilians, crops, and buildings are destroyed in the war. As such, trained soldiers are guided by such principles to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm to civilians; further, they ensure the safety of civilians by providing them with a military escort.
On the other hand, insurgents have little regard for the principles, so they are rarely concerned with the actions’ casualties. They believe that if one is not a member of the organization, they are rivals; as such, they treat all foreigners with hostility and violence. Some rebels have been known for capturing impartial parties and demanding payment for the release.
Assassinating Informants
Governments have been known to use informants to infiltrate organizations to be a step ahead of the organizations and thus save a life. Informants have been critical in crippling crime organizations and capturing significant criminals. However, the safety of the informants is not guaranteed in the case of being discovered.
Similarly, the organizations may sometimes plant informants in various government establishments. This enables the insurgents to know all government operations and thus cannot be ambushed. However, one significant difference between the two groups is how they treat discovered informants. Special operations force questions them to know how much they have divulged to the insurgents and then try to turn them against the rebels. On the other hand, rebels will question the insurgents and then kill them.
Cyber Warfare and Non-Violent Resistance
In recent years, cases of cyber insurgency have risen rapidly with improved technology and technical knowledge. Usually, the insurgencies focus on disrupting, weakening, and destroying the operations of vital institutions in a given nation. The institutions include hospitals, military facilities, and even traffic operations. They target essential facilities to cripple service delivery and eventually endanger people’s lives.
In some instances, the insurgents may hack and impale healthcare operations and demand ransom money. They give ultimatums that may result in the death of many civilians if not followed. Conversely, special operations forces are inhibited by human rights conventions and thus cannot curtail any essential social services. Nonetheless, the forces try to cut all forms of communication between insurgents, which, though inadequate, helps to slow down the operations.
Nuclear and Biological Weapons
Special operations Forces are prohibited from using any form of biological and chemical weapons on the targets by the Geneva Conventions. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America, international organizations like NATO banned the member states from manufacturing or using any biological or chemical weapons. This was aimed at avoiding a repeat of the scenario since it resulted in the death and DNA deformation of many people in the region. This ensures that the Special Forces cannot use the weapons on other nations. However, there have been claims that some insurgencies have, on different occasions, used biological weapons on their rivals.
Nevertheless, rebels have been known to use the weapons on their enemies despite regulations because they operate by different rules and principles. They aim at maximizing casualties; an example of the most recent chemical attack was by the Iraqi militia, who used neurotoxins from organophosphates on their rivals. Similarly, the Aum Shinrikyo was responsible for releasing the anthrax virus in the city of Tokyo.
Principle of Proportionality
The rule of proportionality aims at preventing soldiers from conducting activities that are likely to cause adverse harm to civilians and non-combatants. It allows Special Forces to examine and evaluate the extent of the effect of the actions. Based on this principle, soldiers know how to respond to an attack and how much force they have to use.
Soldiers are obligated to retaliate with force proportionate to that used against them. They should not respond with lethal force if the attack were less dangerous. On the contrary, the rebels’ retaliation knows no bounds since they are not under any obligation to observe this principle.
The response to any attack aims to inflict maximum losses without regard for the possible victims. A perfect example is the 9/11 attack in the United States of America. This attack was a result of the US declaring its support for Israel and its continued involvement in the war in the Persian Gulf. This led to the death of approximately three thousand people. Insurgents have no regard for proportionate force.
Accountability for One’s Actions
Some rules and regulations dictate how the special operations forces conduct the operations. The doctrines help keep them in check to avoid human rights violations while in the line of duty. In scenarios where soldiers violate the rule, they are held accountable and must answer for the transgressions. They can be court-martialled in extreme cases or subjected to a different form of punishment.
However, in the case of insurgents, no laws guide the operations. They are free to conduct the activities in whichever way they deem fit, provided it culminates in achieving the organization’s goals. This mode of operation makes it difficult for the soldiers to combat the guerrillas since they have to operate by a given code of ethics or risk being brought to justice for any deviations.
Desired Outcome be Proportional to the Means
Special operation forces are led by the principle that emphasizes the importance of having results proportional to the means of acquiring them. This principle discourages the adage that the ends justify the means since it leaves soldiers unchecked, increasing the chances of misuse of power and authority. In addition, this principle has enabled soldiers to conduct themselves accordingly without violating international conventions, all in the name of accomplishing the missions.
Conversely, insurrectionists are not obligated to adhere to this proportion or any other, for that matter. As such, the morality of the actions is determined by the success of the operations. They believe that the end justifies the means, meaning they have no bounds or limits to how far they are willing to go to achieve the goal. As such, most insurgents have a reputation for violating the people’s fundamental rights.
Conclusion
Over the years, the tension between superpowers has grown exponentially, leading to the establishment of military organizations trained to combat emerging issues. The regiments are referred to as the special operations forces; however, the forces’ operations are guided and dictated by a set of guidelines. The ethics guarantee the appropriate performance and success of the operations.
On the other hand, some organizations were established to enforce changes in how nations are governed. Similarly, the guerrilla groups are organized and operate according to principles. In some instances, there are similarities in the ethical operations of the special operations forces and the insurgents.
Changes in the media’s norms of ethics and morality accompany changes in other spheres of society. The intelligence services’ activities are walled off from the inquisitive eyes of journalists and other outsiders. There is no hope for the media to break through this mass media wall. Moreover, it is unlikely that most citizens would approve that matters relating to state secrets can be so vulnerable.
References
Amstel, I. C. R. C. “A collection of codes of conduct issued by armed groups.” International Review of the Red Cross 93, no. 881 (2019): 103. Web.
Chuang, Yao-Li, Noam Ben-Asher, and Maria R. D’Orsogna. “Local alliances and rivalries shape near-repeat terror activity of al-Qaeda, ISIS, and insurgents.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 42 (2019): 20898-20903. Web.
Gross, Michael L.”TheEthics of Insurgency: A Brief Overview.” Journal of Military Ethics 14, no. 3-4 (2015): 248-250. Web.
Lamb, Christopher, and David Tucker. “United States special operations forces.” In United States Special Operations Forces. Columbia University Press, 2019. Web.
Pfaff C. Anthony Keith R Beurskens and Army University Press (U.S.). Maintaining the High Ground: The Profession and Ethic in Large-Scale Combat Operations. Fort Leavenworth Kansas: Army University Press, 2021.