By General Henry Shelton
Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs and Georgetown University
November 13, 2001


General Henry Shelton (ret.) was chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1997 to 2001.

The U.S. needs new rules of force to fight President Bush's "war on
terror" and 21st century threats, says General Shelton in his
keynote address for the first Carnegie-Georgetown Forum.

A couple of months ago, a letter from this fine University's
president crossed my desk at the Pentagon. Doctor DeGioia asked for
my thoughts on the ethics of military force, suggesting that the
decades I've spent in American uniform might give me some unique
insight into the issue.

It was a nice vote of confidence. And, yes, I do have some combat
experience, as well as some thoughts that may stimulate discussion.
So I eagerly accepted the invitation. That was on the 5th of
September. Now, in light of the events of the 11th of September, the
issue takes on a whole new meaning.

As I was preparing for this evening's remarks, I reread John's
letter, and was especially struck by his comment that "political,
social, and technological changes in the international system have
forced leaders and citizens alike to reconsider assumptions about
the ethics of military force." I can't imagine a more politically,
socially, and technologically-driven event than the despicable
attacks against our country on September 11th. The very
circumstances of these attacks may force a change in what we
consider the ethical use of military force.

Tonight's remarks are based on one fundamental truth: that the
attack we suffered in New York and Washington two months ago was not
a crime of petty scofflaws, but an act of war against the United
States by a trained cadre of terrorists. That understanding must
color our thoughts as we wrestle with new concepts and assumptions
about the lawful use of force. If you're not sure that this was an
act of war, consider it this way: Had we been attacked with cruise
missiles, it would have been clear cut. In this case, we faced
hijacked airliners, which were essentially the poor man's version of
a cruise missile, used exactly as a weapon of war would be used, to
equally devastating effect. It's not necessary to delve into the
legal niceties of whether the attacks were state-sponsored or the
acts of a terrorist organization. For the thousands of victims, the
result was the same.

I would like to offer two points for discussion:

The rules have changed since the attacks of September 11th, as the
circumstances under which we defined the lawful use of force no
longer exist.

You cannot debate the lawfulness of the use of military force
absent a framework that includes all elements of national power.
Debating the use of military force is meaningless without
considering its use in conjunction with the diplomatic,
informational, and economic instruments of statecraft as well.

I'll address each of those ideas in turn, but first let me set the
stage with a review of traditional thinking on the lawful use of
military force. We must have that common staging ground to
effectively define the new concepts that recent events have
dictated.

Since the rise of the modern nation-state, wars typically have been
contests fought between states over territory, for economic gain, or
for strategic advantage. Efforts to limit the use of war and codify
the lawful use of force in war, predate the First World War. The
devastation of that war led to an international peace movement that
aimed to ensure that the Great War was, indeed, the "war to end all
wars." One of this movement's champions was President Woodrow
Wilson, and his goal, embodied in the League of Nations, was to
avoid the types of misunderstandings and arguments that led to war.
The high water mark of the inter-war Peace Movement was the
Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, where war itself was outlawed as a tool
of statecraft. Sadly, the events preceding World War II showed that
the effort to outlaw war effectively denied states the right of
self-defense. Avoiding conflict and the appeasement of evil led only
to a greater conflict and more suffering in the long run.

World War II provides us a powerful and tragic example of what
happens when the world fails to stand up to naked aggression. We
attempted to balance the two - the idealism inherent in President
Wilson's vision, and the reality dictated by the need to defend our
interests and those of our allies. The result was the United
Nations. Although the UN Charter strongly discourages the use of
military force, it also recognizes that there are circumstances in
which war is necessary by acknowledging that states have the
inherent right of individual and collective self-defense. Indeed,
there is also a value in collective security: an attack on one is an
attack on all.

As expected, there have been a number of serious and sometimes
extremely divisive ethical and legal debates arising from the armed
conflicts in which the United States has fought since World War II,
from Korea and Vietnam to our involvement in Grenada, Panama, and
Operation Desert Storm. For various reasons, each of these conflicts
drew opposition, both at home and abroad, and the debate still
continues over whether they fit the requirements to justify war for
either self or collective defense. In each case, however, the stated
intent was to defend vital U.S. interests and those of our allies
and friends. They, therefore, were justifiable uses of military
force.

More recently, a similar debate has emerged in the aftermath of the
Cold War, centered on the use of force during humanitarian military
interventions within states that have violated the human rights of
their own citizens, and not for more traditional acts of aggression
against other states. Demands for action have been fueled by the
so-called "CNN effect." The visuals of terror and suffering, coupled
with instantaneous satellite communications and the Internet,
compress the time period between learning of events and responding
to demands to "do something."

Much has been said and written about the failure of the
international community -- especially the United States -- to label
the mass murders in Rwanda as genocide and act appropriately, or the
length of time that it took for NATO to intervene in Bosnia. On the
other hand, others have condemned the United States for its use of
force in 1999 in Yugoslavia, when NATO intervened to stop ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, as well as for its use of force over the past
ten years in Iraq, where we have imposed No Fly Zones to prevent
Saddam Hussein from not only terrorizing his neighbors, but -- more
importantly -- his own Shi'ite and Kurdish populations.

I would argue, however, that this debate is too shallow. A more
helpful exercise would be to move beyond a specific situation to
probe the larger issue of intervention itself. The key is to
consider the proper role of military intervention within the context
of using every available tool of national power in pursuit of our
national interests.

Therefore, I ask you: does the debate over the use of force to stem
human rights violations reveal gaps in international law, or the
failure of the will to see existing laws through to their logical
conclusion? Or perhaps both?

So far, I've focused on traditional concepts of the lawful use of
military force. The debate over our role in Iraq or the Balkans has
been conducted through the lens of an old paradigm surrounding the
laws of war. Two months ago, however, that lens was shattered. It's
time now to build and focus on a new paradigm, and to determine
whether the existing rules are adequate to address the current
threat. Principally, we must answer the question: "What of non-state
actors?"

Currently, the primary focus of the law of armed conflict is on
nation-states, and the law addresses non-state actors as unlawful
combatants. But what if the non-state actors act as belligerents?
This is clearly the problem we are facing today.

Our prime suspect in the September 11th attack is a non-state actor.
How do we respond, then, within the limits of the current laws of
armed conflict? Are we constrained by those limits when our new
enemies were not?

The terrorists responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and
other civilian targets flouted the traditional conventions of war by
targeting and attacking innocent civilians, who are not lawful
objects of attack. For terrorists, non-combatants are a legitimate
target. There is, of course, a huge difference between that concept
and the collateral damage and deaths of non-combatants that result
from military forces attacking lawful targets.

What is the correct response morally and ethically? And once we
decide, will it help or hinder our inherent obligation to defend our
interests and those of our allies? These are the questions you must
help us answer in light of the September 11th attacks. Beyond these
serious questions of what constitutes a lawful use of force -- the
limits on the lawful use of force and whether the limits against
non-state actors should now be relaxed -- I often reflect not only
on the justifiable use of force, but also on its judicious use.

The Armed Forces constitute a formidable hammer in our nation's tool
kit. But not every problem out there is a nail. While America is
blessed with the world's strongest military, military strength alone
is not sufficient to overcome or solve the emerging problems that
threaten peace and stability around the world. The population
explosion, competition for land and scarce resources, including
water, the spread of infectious diseases such as AIDS, bitter ethnic
and religious hatreds, poverty and the demand for illegal drugs --
such factors help to foster instability, fuel unrest, and magnify
the potential for armed conflict. Many of these problems defy
military solution, yet the military is often called upon to restore
order once conflict breaks out.

I would submit that a wiser approach is to prevent potential flash
points from erupting into crisis would require us to confront the
broader issues from a regional perspective, and with a coherent
unified action plan. It means bringing together multiple government
agencies in a concerted use of all elements of national power. In
many cases, it requires seeking international cooperation as well.

We don't need to start from a blank sheet of paper in furthering
this approach. As many in this audience are aware, a framework for
U.S. interagency cooperation is already defined in Presidential
Decision Directive 56, which brings all the appropriate elements of
our government to bear on complex contingency operations that
involve America's national interests. Since 1997, we've had the
guidelines for creating a coordinated planning effort. What has been
consistently missing is the timely application of other governmental
services either before the outbreak of conflict or, if conflict has
already broken out, once the Armed Forces have restored peace.
It's my firm conviction that for the military component of an
operation to have any long-term benefit, civilian agencies and
appropriate international organizations must be prepared immediately
to step in once the fighting stops to restore the rule of law, set
up a functioning court system, and provide other vitally important
civic and commercial services. This does not mean that we ought to
become -- either factually or theoretically -- an "occupying power."

We should integrate the military and civilian elements at the front
end of an operation so they all move forward together toward the
same end.

To drive this point home, we've seen President Bush remind us that
this current conflict requires much more than simply a military
response. Our Armed Forces, the diplomatic corps, and other
government agencies play complementary roles in fostering
international trust and understanding. They are aided by the
international involvement of American business and industry. By
encouraging free markets and representative government, we enhance
the prospects for world peace, security and prosperity. This is
compounded by work with our allies and friends both bilaterally and
through regional and international forums.

You see the pattern here. The best plan of action must include the
use of all elements of national power. An argument about lawful use
of military force absent that framework is meaningless. We can
define what's lawful, no matter what the circumstances, only through
considering the military's role in that larger effort involving all
elements of our power.

Make no mistake -- preserving the peace, security, and prosperity
that we all want will require a strong defense. Just imagine a world
without a powerful America. But notice I said strong defense, not
strong military. That's necessary too, but a strong defense goes
beyond the military might of the United States, a proper use of
which is definable only as part of a larger and broader effort.
Today America faces a new array of national security challenges. We
must be equal to the task. Part of this broad effort requires that
we determine the adequacy of the rules for lawful use of military
force, given the circumstances thrust on us two months ago in New
York and Washington. Another part requires defining our best use of
military force in a larger effort that includes all elements of our
national power. Fortunately, we have a civilian national security
team that understands that fully. And we have senior military
leaders -- my successor and good friend General Dick Myers foremost
among them -- who understand that as well. They're masters of the
interagency process, and they relish being part of that larger
national security team.

For your part, I encourage all of you to help us define what's
necessary to meet the new security challenges of today's
unconventional defense environment. Be creative in your search for
solutions to complex national security problems. Don't just think
outside the box; build a new box. We can't afford to be constrained
by old paradigms. September 11th showed us why. Help us define what
is now proper and lawful in the use of military force. And help us
reinforce the absolute necessity of considering the use of that
force only in the context of a larger plan that uses every other
element of national power we can bring to bear.

In closing, let me leave you with a heartfelt thought. There are few
callings higher than that of serving one's country. I sincerely hope
that many of you -- Georgetown's best and brightest -- will join
with those of us in uniform in this worthy mission.

Thank you again for inviting me today, and for you attention. May
God bless you, and may God bless America.