Human Terrain Systems and the Moral Prosecution of Warfare

There is a growing consensus that cultural variables play an integral role in conflict mitigation. Whether one believes we are truly in a “long war,” in which capturing “hearts and minds” is integral, or whether one thinks that a major combat operation is looming on the horizon, cultural knowledge and understanding of the area of operation are instrumental to success. 

The recently developed and implemented Human Terrain System (HTS) Project was designed to play an important role in developing cultural knowledge for the US military and is critical to mission success and the moral prosecution of warfare.1 But this program is new and, admittedly, not perfect. Human Terrain Teams (HTTs) were designed to play a key, on-the-ground role in bridging the cultural and personal identity gap between western military forces and the foreign cultures in which they operate. This is an extremely important but often overlooked aspect of “just war” theory. A deeper understanding of not only adversarial but friendly culture and personal identity formation allows the US military to better discriminate between friend and foe and to build deeper relationships with local leaders. These measures create a more precise and humane war effort than if the United States was forced to rely solely on indiscriminate, blunt, and largely kinetic options. The US military does not have the ability to veto a political decision to go to war or abscond from any order to engage overseas. Having said this, the US military does have a great say in how a campaign will be conducted and HTS was designed to play an integral role in ensuring that a campaign is conducted as morally and unobtrusively as possible. 

In a general sense, the US military needs to be permitted the latitude to conduct a moral and honorable campaign regardless of the circumstances that brought the military into the conflict. Any military that is professional and honorable is not exonerated from conducting a moral war simply because the decision to go to war is being vigorously challenged. There has to be a separation, as Michael Walzer states, between jus ad bellum (the justice of war or the justice of the initiation of war) and jus in bello (justice in war or justice in the practice of war).2 Any ability the United States has that does not violate human rights, the US Constitution, US legislation, or the military’s rules of engagement (ROE) needs to be considered. There is a small but vociferous chorus of pundits and academics who are attempting to discredit and marginalize the HTS Project. The purpose of this article is to counter this cohort by showing that when one attempts to link arguments against HTS to the justness of a war, the argument quickly falls apart. In fact, HTS is critical to the moral conduct of war, and prohibiting this practice, especially if there is no replacement program, will make it nearly impossible for US forces to effectively and morally conduct warfare in divergent cultures.