MURPHY'S DILEMMA

A Question Of Ethics Versus Reality

Introduction:

Academia entertains various ethical dilemmas, as a part and parcel of moral philosophy, through multiple hypothesis and thought experiments that are meticulously crafted to scrutinize either the self-proclaimed noble heights of our morality or plumb its depraved depths-all this to illuminate the psychological intricacies of our decision-making. But reality often incites situations where academic wranglings cease to be relevant and heart-wrenching ethical dilemmas inspire tests of courage and conscience that either accrue celebration or notoriety.

Operation Red Wings:

In mid-2005, the American Special Forces Command launched Operation Red Wings to liquidate Osama Bin Laden’s Taliban second-in-command. The mission was entrusted to the US Navy’s elite SEAL special operatives and placed under the field command of Lt. Michael (Mikey) Murphy who would be supported by Petty Officer Matthew G. Axelson, Petty officer Danny Dietz, and Corpsman Marcus Luttrell. The four-men patrol set-off to slay their target in the arid and mountainous hinterlands of the Hindu Kush, little did they know that three of them would not return alive and the one who did would be mentally and physically scarred for life due to one moment of fateful indecision.

After a treacherous mountainous ascent, the four-men patrol hunkered down to await their target. But they were soon discovered by three shepherds. What ensued was the horns of an ethical dilemma. Luttrell would recall that the military decision, based on battlefield prudence, dictated that all three be immediately slain and their corpses concealed. If they alerted the Taliban, not only would the SEALS be slain but their mission compromised and further terrorist offensives against innocent civilians by Koran-waving Muslims continue unabated. But civil law, written by non-military personnel in Washington, would persecute and imprison the SEALS if the trio turned out to be innocent.

“When they find the bodies, the Taliban leaders will sing to the Afghan media. The media in the U.S.A. will latch on to it and write stuff about the brutish U.S. Armed Forces. Very shortly after that, we’ll be charged with murder. The murder of innocent Afghan farmers.

I had to admit, I had not really thought about it quite like that. But there was a terrible reality about Mikey’s words. Was I afraid of these guys? No. Was I afraid of their possible buddies in the Taliban? No. Was I afraid of the liberal media back in the U.S.A.? Yes. And I suddenly flashed on the prospect of many, many years in a U.S. civilian jail alongside murderers and rapists.

And yet…as a highly trained member of the U.S. Special Forces, deep in my warrior’s soul I knew it was nuts to let these goatherds go.”

-Marcus Luttrell, Lone Survivor, pg. 201.

Murphy’s ethical dilemma, as commander, unfolded in the Afghani crucible. Let the shepherds go and risk a Taliban offensive and compromise their mission? Or slay them and face legal consequences at the hands of civilians with no profound appreciation of warfare and what it demands? The stakes were high, higher than anything the four had ever previously confronted. After much debate, they decided to let the shepherds go who reassured them they were not Taliban. Exactly ninety minutes later, over 200 Taliban fighters launched a heavy bombardment on their position grievously wounding all four. Over half a day of battle, three would die and only Luttrell would survive. The trio turned out to be Taliban after all.

A memorial for Operation Red Wings’ fallen SEALs.

The Dilemma Continues:

Blasted off mountainous ridges several times prior to their demise, the three SEALs and Luttrell kept up a murderous gunfight that saw multiple Taliban killed. Favoring the old Islamic tactic of charging the foe, the Muslim warriors continually fell to SEAL bullets until their comrades opened up with heavy mortar fire to dislodge and disorient the four. Heavily wounded but unfazed, Michael Murphy walked out in the direct line of fire to operate his mobile phone and ring for assistance his military radio having failed. Though heavily wounded and with his fate sealed, Murphy succeeded in raising his base with his call. Eight more SEALS and other armed personnel rushed to their rescue but only to have their helicopter shot out of the sky by hidden Taliban fighters killing all rescuers.

Luttrell would be the only survivor. Irrespective of the controversy that now surrounds his memoirs, the official narrative establishes his survival after evading his Muslim pursuers. In this he was aided by Pashtun tribals adhering to an ancient pre-Islamic code of hospitality that opposed Taliban and Islamic norms. The ethical tightrope that all four confronted enunciates that moral paradoxes have no digestible outcomes. To slay the trio would have brought down the wrath of the civilian legal system on their heads. Releasing them resulted in the unnecessary deaths of several valorous soldiers and the eventual failure of their mission.

“We all knew that we’d chosen to do what 999 Americans out of every thousand would not even think about doing…But we were also told that we could not shoot that camel drover before he blew up all of us, because he might be an unarmed civilian just taking his dynamite for a walk…We wouldn’t hear him reveal our position, and neither would the politicians who drafted those ROEs. And those men in suits won’t be on that mountainside when the first grenade explodes among us and takes off someone’s leg, or head.”

-Marcus Luttrell, Lone Survivor, pg. 165.

A justified conclusion, here, would be that ethical paradoxes are more convoluted and more complex than academic debates and in life-and-death situations often defy effortless categorization. But this precipitates another question, what would a conscientious individual do?

The Sikh Perspective:

What would be the Sikh reaction, the Gurmat (the Khalsa philosophy) mandated reaction in such an adverse situation? The apostles of liberalism prancing about as Sikhs would argue for Sarbatt Da Bhalla, welfare for all. But as the 19th-century chronicle Sri Gur Panth Prakash delineates, among other aspects, that Sarbatt Da Bhalla is only achievable by the Khalsa. It is when the Khalsa uproots the false faiths and continually slays all those opposed to its sovereign existence that true Sarbatt Da Bhalla or welfare for all can be achieved. A similar sentiment is found in the canonical Guru Granth espousing the enlightened Khalsa Gurmukhs slaying the base-minded Manmukhs who are, after all, on the path to lose the battle of life.

ਆਪੇ ਛਿੰਝ ਪਵਾਇ ਮਲਾਖਾੜਾ ਰਚਿਆ ॥ ਲਥੇ ਭੜਥੂ ਪਾਇ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਮਚਿਆ ॥ ਮਨਮੁਖ ਮਾਰੇ ਪਛਾੜਿ ਮੂਰਖ ਕਚਿਆ ॥ ਆਪਿ ਭਿੜੈ ਮਾਰੇ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ਕਾਰਜੁ ਰਚਿਆ ॥ ਸਭਨਾ ਖਸਮੁ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਾਣੀਐ ॥

“The Creator has furnished this existential wrestling pit (life) and within it places two competitors. With great war cries the Gurmukhs leap into the fray and delightfully seek to fight. The Manmukhs, meanwhile, fight foolishly and succumb to heavy blows. The Creator has set up these fights to kill (the false) such is the divine will. The Creator is the sole sustainer of all, the Gurmukh realizes and acknowledges this.”

-Guru Granth, 1280.

As the epitome of all spiritual and resultantly social perfection, the Khalsa as Gurmukh has a greater commitment to carrying out its divine mission of perennially pursuing perfection. For this reason the Khalsa cannot tolerate any imposition or tyranny, of any form, that seeks to impede this mission. This, and not some utopian equality of outcome, is the fundamental foundation of Gurmat ethics. Sikhi, as a mission, is the foremost concern of the Sikh in the form of imbibing Naam or the divine wisdom in action. And this divine wisdom entails the ability to engage in and withstand conflict when necessary.

ਮਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਆਤਮ ਦੇਵ ਦੀ ਖੜਗਿ ਜੋਰਿ ਪਰਾਕੁਇ ਜੀਅ ਦੈ ॥

“Within his (Guru Angad’s) soul, the divine wisdom (revealed by Guru Nanak) enshrined the presence of the Creator. Then (Guru Nanak) bequeathed to him the sword of power over all beings.”

-Guru Granth, 966.

The Sikh Gurus were armed and enjoined their Sikhs to be armed themselves. Guru Nanak’s martial discipline necessitated the development of a Khalsa military ethic. Again, this was derived from Gurmat and resultantly enshrined in the Guru Granth. Its core aspect was the fact that Gurmat could only be lived in this tangible world. Thus, the ethical and moral paradoxes that play out in this world require a resolution in this world as well.

ਗਾਫਲ ਗਿਆਨ ਵਿਹੂਣਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਨ ਭਾਲਿ ਜੀਉ ॥

ਖਿੰਚੋਤਾਣਿ ਵਿਗੁਚੀਐ ਬੁਰਾ ਭਲਾ ਦੁਇ ਨਾਲਿ ਜੀਉ ॥

ਬਿਨੁ ਸਬਦੈ ਭੈ ਰਤਿਆ ਸਭ ਜੋਹੀ ਜਮਕਾਲਿ ਜੀਉ ॥੭॥

“Without wisdom, we tend to fear death more than is necessary. Careless and senseless, the common man runs helter-skelter and fails to seek out and discover the truth. Various goods and bads pull at him and through inner conflict he is finished.”

-Guru Granth, 751.

Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Sikh Guru, drilling the Khalsa cavalry.

The Sikh Ethic:

The Sri Gur Panth Prakash records how for the welfare of all under its own aegis, the Khalsa theocracy led by the Dal Khalsa waged a ruthless war across 18th-century Punjab against the Hindu-Muslim combine. In 1763 the Khalsa Misls annihilated city after city on the Punjab plains to avenge the wanton holocaust of Sikh non-combatants in 1762 at the hands of local Muslims in cohorts with Afghan plunderers and Hindu chauvinists. After a brutal massacre at Malerkotla, they attacked Morinda which was the home of Muslim duo that had tortured the 10th Guru’s younger sons. With assistance from nearby villages, Khalsa warriors sacked Morinda and then identified its resident tyrants. Over 90% of the city was slated for execution with culprits and their families bashed to death with hammers.

One might argue that this episode contradicts the very fabric of Sikh morality. But then again how are we observing Sikh morality? With the benefit of hindsight presented by post-Nuremberg laws that emphasize free trials even for the guilty despite the open acknowledgement of their crime? Where ideology is separated from the individual in the name of political correctness? Or with the conditional theory that the massacre at Morinda was done under exigency? But by that argument, is exigency an excuse enough for what would be considered a crime by modern standards? But if these standards are modern and subject to change then how can they be used to analyze religious conflict without being accused of bias ipso facto?

The reality is that the Khalsa has its own Rehat derived from the Guru Granth for living Gurmat in the various stages of life. Initiation into the Khalsa is subject to accepting this Rehat in full. But alongside comes a caveat, one accept reality on reality’s terms and not any other. The Misls at Morinda were not afflicted by political correctness that prevented them from seeing the insidious religious ideology of Morinda and what allowing its tyrannical population to survive implied for Sikhs and Sarbatt. Even though they refrained from rapine, they were more than willing to repay the foe in their own coin and slaughtered the entire tyrannical population of Morinda in retribution.

The Sikh Situation:

Regarding the use of force, the Guru Granth provides certain boundaries:

ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਅ ਜੁ ਮਾਰਹਿ ਜੋਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਕਹਤੇ ਹਹਿ ਜੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥

ਦਫਤਰੁ ਦਈ ਜਬ ਕਾਢਿ ਹੈ ਹੋਇਗਾ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੯੯॥

ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੁ ਕੀਆ ਸੋ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਲੇਇ ਜਬਾਬੁ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥

ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਨੀਕਸੈ ਮਾਰ ਮੁਹੈ ਮੁਹਿ ਖਾਇ ॥੨੦੦॥

“Kabir, those who slay the living are imposing themselves through force even though they may call it Halal. When retribution is demanded from them in the hereafter what will be their state? Kabir, to impose yourself through force thus is tyranny and the Creator will surely call the aggressors to account. When your time comes, your face will be smashed apart with continued blows.”

-Guru Granth, 1375.

To slay the living just because it is religiously permissible should not encourage one to blindly impose on others. Such ideologies and religions should be effaced and/or neutered to preserve true humanity. This was the same concern that animated the Dal Khalsa at Morinda where the city’s denizens were in the habit of slaying non-conformists just because it was permissible. For a Khalsa-led Sarbatt Da Bhalla, it was deemed prudent to raze Morinda and annihilate its tyrannical citizens. Our modern sensibilities are unable to accept that a whole population could be guilty, but historically the Sikhs were under no such illusions.

Murphy’s Dilemma:

If indeed Khalsa warriors happened to be in Murphy’s stead, what would have been the outcome? The most prudent course of action, even for them, would have been to slay the shepherds. The risk of being compromised would not only have resulted in their deaths but exacerbated the danger posed to Sikhi. Combat is not solely armed but also augmented through inaction. Inaction and allegiance equally contribute to injustice as much as the more conspicuous tools of oppression themselves. Historically, the Dal Khalsa directed its vengeance on those unarmed populaces who inaction posed a danger to the Sikhs.

Foremost, Khalsa warriors protected their own. It would have been the height of inanity for Sikh warriors to have allowed the shepherds to walk away had they supplanted the SEALS. To expect the trio to have remained silent for the rest of their lives in enemy territory and that too territory giving free access to the Taliban, the risk naturally would have been too great. We see a similar pattern playing out when Baghel Singh destroyed the entire village of the Brahmin informers who betrayed the 10th Guru’s younger sons and mother to the Muslim fanatics. Guilty and non-guilty whose inaction brought about the betrayal were equally punished.

Thus Murphy’s dilemma would have been solved with bullets rather than debate if Sikh ethics were concerned. Inaction alone would have damned the shepherds. Their inaction had allowed the Taliban to breed in their area. The Sikh perspective on the conflict would have been one of ideology rather than stamping out individuals dedicated to terrorism alone. The Khalsa disparages inaction among its own. It does likewise among others as well. The high standards of enlightenment are not attainable by everyone due to their own fault. Ultimately we reap what we sow.

Some might argue that such a conclusion is maliciously similar to how the Indian armed forces and the Indian state justify their continued genocide of the Sikhs. Once again, the Sikhs themselves must accept the fact that their philosophy is much more supreme than any nation-state’s and as a result ideology and belief should be identified as the axis around which all of their conflicts revolve. As a result, their faith that espouses the upliftment of the individual above bestial mores also inspires resistance to tyranny and those that thirst for their blood are tyrants either by action or inaction.