The Red Wings Dilemma
In late June 2005, a four man Navy Seal Reconnaissance team was inserted into the Kunar province of Afghanistan as a part of Operation Red Wings where they were tasked to track down and confirm the presence of known Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. While conducting the reconnaissance mission the team’s location was compromised by three civilian goat herders, including a young boy. The team had to make a choice of releasing the goat herders, killing them or restraining them and leaving. Knowing that the goat herders would likely inform the Taliban in the nearby town of the team’s presence, the team leader, Michael Murphy, decided to release them regardless (Berg, 2013). By releasing the goat herders, Michael Murphy made the correct moral decision in terms of upholding The Fourth Geneva Convention, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, The Department of Defense Law of War, the mission rules of engagement (ROE) and his …show more content…
In the Law of War, the non-violent detention of civilians can be justified by military necessity (Office of General Counsel Department of Defense, 2015, p. 129). However, in the situation of Michael Murphy and his team, the option to detain the civilians without sufficient knowledge could have had negative second-order effects including the abandonment of other civilian family members that depend on the goat herders and the risk that the civilians would slow down travel to the exfiltration site leaving the team to be attacked to the same effect of the impending real events. The resources available to the team also restricted their ability to detain the civilians in a humane manner. The option to detain the civilians would also be subject to the situational definition of military necessity which is a legal risk for the
In late June 2005, a four man Navy Seal Reconnaissance team was inserted into the Kunar province of Afghanistan as a part of Operation Red Wings where they were tasked to track down and confirm the presence of known Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. While conducting the reconnaissance mission the team’s location was compromised by three civilian goat herders, including a young boy. The team had to make a choice of releasing the goat herders, killing them or restraining them and leaving. Knowing that the goat herders would likely inform the Taliban in the nearby town of the team’s presence, the team leader, Michael Murphy, decided to release them regardless (Berg, 2013). By releasing the goat herders, Michael Murphy made the correct moral decision in terms of upholding The Fourth Geneva Convention, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, The Department of Defense Law of War, the mission rules of engagement (ROE) and his …show more content…
In the Law of War, the non-violent detention of civilians can be justified by military necessity (Office of General Counsel Department of Defense, 2015, p. 129). However, in the situation of Michael Murphy and his team, the option to detain the civilians without sufficient knowledge could have had negative second-order effects including the abandonment of other civilian family members that depend on the goat herders and the risk that the civilians would slow down travel to the exfiltration site leaving the team to be attacked to the same effect of the impending real events. The resources available to the team also restricted their ability to detain the civilians in a humane manner. The option to detain the civilians would also be subject to the situational definition of military necessity which is a legal risk for the