Ty Klippenstein Ethics and War First paper Apocalypse Now and the Morality of War Apocalypse Now was

first released in 1979 and is set during the Vietnam War. Francis Ford Coppolla, the director and writer of the film, borrows heavily from the plot of Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness. In the book, an Englishman named Marlow is sent up the Congo River in search of a man named Kurtz. Similarly in Apocalypse Now, the main character Willard is sent upriver in Vietnam to terminate the command of a Colonel Kurtz. While not based on historical events, the movie nevertheless attempts to recreate the environment of Vietnam and to address many ethical questions that surround the Vietnam War. Issues in both categories of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are prevalent in the film, but the action in the film favors the latter. It address questions of the value of war, of how to deal with guerrilla forces, and the efficacy of the realist position. From the very first scenes, it is evident that this is not a movie that seeks to romanticize war, nor does it feature the heroism in war that so many films do. Rather, it shows war in its barest, most nihilistic form, thus leading to the ultimate question: how can something as horrifying as war be moralized? The film opens with a napalm attack in a densely forested area and then moves to focus on Captain Benjamin Willard, the main character. At this point it is very clear that Willard has been affected by the war. He speaks of a strong desire to get back in the jungle. Willard notes from Vietnam, When I was here, I wanted to be there (at home). When I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle. He talks about how he rarely spoke to his wife after his first tour. He also mentions a feeling of

nothingness when he woke up at home. It seems that this war has captured Willard. The jungle has become an obsession, and combat a drug that he cannot get enough of. After getting his orders, he is to be escorted by Lt. Colonel Kilgores Air Cavalry unit to the mouth of the river. This, though, is described as Charlies Point, and is pretty hairy. But Colonel Kilgore is obsessed with surfing and wants to see Lance Johnsona professional surfer and one of Willards mensurf. Thus, the absurdity of war begins. Kilgore and all his bravado plan the attack on the Viet Cong village at the mouth of the river and commence his attack the next morning. This attack, with Richard Wagners Ride of the Valkyries blaring through Kilgores helicopter loudspeakers is one of the films most famous scenes. His unit proceeds to bombard the village from the air, paying special attention to military installations and fighters. No doubt, though, civilians were being attacked too. They were, after all, firing at a multitude of huts without having any idea about who was in them. The attack on this village raises some important moral questions. The first question is, is the village as it is depicted in the movie a valid target? It is clearly a Viet Cong stronghold as there are soldiers and military equipment in the village. Kilgore is also on orders to escort Willards men to the mouth of the fictional Nung River, where this village is located. In order to provide safe passage then, this village would need to be pacified. On the other hand, there are schools and a large civilian population. In their response to the attack, though, it is clear that the civilian population is complicit in allowing guerrilla forces to live amongst the villagers. A particularly moving scene involves a woman, dressed in civilian attire, running up to an American helicopter and throwing her hat with a

grenade in it. Do she and her other civilian cohorts, as just war theorist Michael Walzer asks, in supporting the Viet Cong, forfeit their immunity? Walzer suggests an historical example from Vietnam to try to answer this question. Not coincidentally, it is similar to the attack depicted in the movie. Walzer argues that civilians should be given an opportunity to leave. They should be allowed some kind of warning before attacked indiscriminately. Walzer notes, The only protection the rules [of engagement] provide is in advising or enforcing the departure not of guerrillas from peaceful villages but f civilians from what is likely to become a battlefield (Walzer, 190). The only advising the civilians received before Kilgore attacked was Wagners Ride of the Valkyries, and that only served to give them a few extra seconds to prepare to defend their town. Had there been a greater effort to warn civilians, then it might have been acceptable to Walzer. It would depend on how effective their attempts at discrimination would be. Kilgore would be given little leeway here. Walzer, quoting a British expert on counter-insurgency notes that the use of heavily armed helicopters against peasant villages can only be justified if the campaign has deteriorated to the extent where it is virtually indistinguishable from conventional war (Walzer, 193-194). Assuming that this is the case in Vietnam (a hefty assumption), then Kilgore need only provide advanced warning and try to prevent as many civilian deaths as possible. Despite his macho bravado, it appears that there was an effort to discriminate between civilians and fighters. Walzers views are relatively simple here: A soldier who, once he is engaged, simply fires at every male villager between the ages of fifteen and fifty (say) is probably justified in doing so (Walzer, 192). Kilgore, then, would need only to have made an attempt at warning civilians for his actions to be deemed acceptable.

This particular scene also begs a broader question that Walzer addresses. What happens if you are fighting a war that is essentially an anti-guerrilla campaign that is actively supported by a large portion of the civilian population? This dilemma provides a unique situation as it is a point where jus ad bellum and jus in bello come together. If it becomes too difficult of an enterprise for a soldier to differentiate between combatant and noncombatant, then the war should not be fought. This is because it is no longer an antiguerrilla but an anti-social war, a war against an entire people (Walzer, 187). Walzer goes on to state firmly that a war like this cannot be won, and it should not be won (195). This is because the only strategy that could be incorporated would be a systematic attack on civilians. Not only that, if a guerrilla movement has a sufficient amount of support from the masses, then they must be the legitimate rulers of the country. It would be difficult to make this assessment based upon what evidence is given in the movie, but given that the movie is based upon the Vietnam War, it is certainly debatable whether the methods employed by Kilgore were acceptable when considering the greater context of the political atmosphere in Vietnam. An even broader question emerges when considering the movie as a whole. Throughout the movie, war is portrayed as a corrupter of men. Willard has certainly been corrupted as is made clear in the opening scene. Kilgore too, seems to be corrupted as he laments that some day this war will be over. When we meet Kurtz for the first time, it is clear that he is a consummate example of the corruption of war. He embraces the horrors of war. Because of this Kurtz may be considered the embodiment of the realist position on war. In one of his monologues Kurtz discusses an event which changed his views to that of a realist. He explains that after he and his men had gone to a camp to inoculate children

against polio, an old man caught up to them. He was crying and urged them to go back to the camp. When they got there, they saw piles of arms hacked off, the same arms that had just been vaccinated. Kurtz explains: And I remember. I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didnt know what I wanted to do. And I never wanted to forget. And then I realized, like I was shot, like I was shot with a diamond bullet right through the forehead. And I thought, My god, genius of that. The will to do that...perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. Then I realized they were stronger than we because they could stand it. These were not monsters. They were men, trained cadres. These men, who fought with their hearts, who have families, who have children, who are filled with love. But they have the strength to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, then our troubles would be over very quickly. Kurtz had obviously taken that to heart. All indications show that he proceeded to fight the enemy using the same type of terror tactics as mentioned above, and he was undoubtedly successful. Kurtz, however, states clearly to Willard, You have no right to call me a murderer. You have no right to judge me. Because it is judgment that defeats us. Kurtzs actions and justification here parallel Shermans War is hell declaration during the Civil War. As for the position the director takes on this issue, it is not at all clear. On the one hand, Kurtz is painted as an admirable officer; he is even treated as a god by his men. He is also successful in battle. On the other hand, the plot of the movie centers around Willards mission to terminate Kurtzs command, which he does in the end. Certainly when the cameras fade, one is left to ponder: If war is so corrupting, if it is nothing but horror, what place does morality have in such a situation? It is, if nothing

else, an artificial, and inherently contrived application. Moral laws in war are given the impossible task of taming the dogs of war that have already been let loose from their cages. No doubt, Apocalypse Now provides much material for just war theorists to debate. It may be with regard to the particulars of bombarding a village occupied by guerrillas. On a more general level, it calls into question, the winability of the Vietnam War, at least in the way that it is being fought by Kilgore and others like him. In the most general analysis it calls into question the whole enterprise of judgment in war. It suggests, if nothing else, that trying to remove or curtail the horror in war can be, at best, only partially successful. On the other hand, it may be true that when war is viewed in such naked detail, it moves people to seek other means of settling conflicts. This conclusion, however, has yet to materialize, at least at the present time.