Abstract

This article examines what it might mean for officers to be held responsible for safeguarding not just the lives of their troops, but also the humanity of their troops. How should such a charge be understood, and can it be justified? Arguably, any experience of combat is an assault on the participants’ humanity. The idea that officers should try to shield their troops from combat altogether, however, is untenable, for reasons that are discussed (including the danger of selective conscientious objection). Nor, it is argued, can officers guarantee or ensure that they will never lead troops in conflicts that violate jus ad bellum criteria. If officers are to be held responsible for protecting their troops in any way beyond the physical, it must be against specific, severe threats to their humanity that occur in the course of waging war. Candidates for threats of this kind are considered, leading to the conclusion that the greatest threats arise from jus in bello violations that dehumanize the victim and degrade the perpetrator. The question is then raised whether officers in fact can protect their troops from committing such violations, and the argument is advanced that the command climate officers create in their units plays a significant role in encouraging or deterring serious transgressions of the warrior's code.