1

Military Dolphins, Warfare and Unwrapping Layers of Ethical Dilemmas

Introduction
While the first image that pops into one’s mind hearing the word war is an army of young
uniformed men, crawling through smoke with weapons clinging to their bodies, somewhere
hidden behind the smoke, stand non-human animals, tirelessly carrying ammunition, locating
mines, spotting enemies, or silently spectating destruction around them. The selected focus on
human species in international relations studies significantly overlooks the suffering of non-
human animals and gives rise to ethical concerns in involving and protecting non-human
species during times of armed conflict, mass destruction, and political instability. Employing
the example of military dolphins in the 2003 Iraq war, this essay aims to examine the
relationships between humans and non-human species, discuss their responsibilities towards
each other during wars, and argue that achieving human security at the cost of animals’
suffering gives rise to gross ethical concerns. Furthermore, non-human animals both during
wars and otherwise, must be seen as ends in themselves and not used as mere means to
accomplish anthropocentric goals.

Literature Review

Ideas discussed in the essay work closely with themes in the existing literature on wars and
hospitality studied through human and nonhuman relationships.

Matthew Leep (2018) studies the possibilities of protecting seemingly “inhospitable” civilian
animals during war. Illustrating the example of killing stray dogs in Iraq during the U.S
Invasion, Leep draws ideas of thick and thin cosmopolitan belongingness and ways in which
humans are tied to and responsible for non-human species. Expanding on Derrida’s work on
hospitality, there is an emphasis on the differences being a condition for hospitality towards
others, and a push to understand war in a new light taking into account the experiences of non-
human species. Cudworth and Hobden (2015), examine how the relations between human and
non-human systems during wars have often been characterized by interdependence. Using a
range of examples of the different uses of animals during wars throughout history, a post-
human way of studying war is encouraged, one that goes beyond the scope of human
populations, and studies how different species are drawn under different conditions. Karsten
Nowrot (2015) implicitly questions the morality of using animals in warfare and investigates
the possibilities of the inclusion of animal soldiers in international humanitarian law. He
highlights challenges in the process of legalizing “animal citizenship” and ends with an
optimistic note of future conditions which could enable the integration of animal rights into Jus
in Bello.
 2

Iraq’s bottle-nosed saviours

In 2003, U.S troops set out to invade Iraq intending to free them from Saddam Hussain’s
tyranny and disarm the country of dangerous weapons and explosives. This attempt to bring
greater peace and stability into Iraq was ironically done by dropping bombs and launching
precision airstrikes (Wong, 2008). This created an atmosphere of violence, instability, and
disorganized resistance by the public, and with no law and order, people were left homeless,
injured, and starving. In order to help out in this time of massive insecurity, the U.S army
sought to send food and medical aid to Iraq but needed to clear water routes to send across
ships carrying the supplies. As the water was too murky for human naval swimmers to see
through, two trained dolphins named Makai and Takoma1 were sent to Umm Qasr Port to detect
any underwater mines or other suspicious objects (Kirby, 2003).

An underlying argument in Leep’s (2018) work is that there exists a hierarchy of protection
and caregiving, where animals that provide more instrumental value to human lives are seen as
being more worthy of protection and hospitality. The example of Iraqi government killing stray
dogs helps prove this point, where stray dogs were exposed to danger and as they did not
provide much to human beings, and were instead seen as a menace. However, the military
dolphins example portrays the opposite, where in some cases this very instrumental value or
utility of animals could make them increasingly vulnerable and susceptible to the dangers of
war. Dolphins are known to have exceptional biosonar, making them extremely helpful at
detecting underwater mines, placing explosives on enemy ships, rescuing lost naval swimmers,
and spotting abandoned ships (Forces, 2019). While such abilities and values of dolphins
should make them more worthy of protection during war, militaries around the world exploit
these utilities and expose dolphins to additional dangers. Cudworth and Hobden (2015)
elaborate on this theme of the “biopower” of nonhuman animals, stating that certain abilities
of non-human bodies compensate for the inabilities of human bodies, due to their bio powers.
The way humans view these animal abilities shapes their relationship with the non-human
other, and in many cases, a non-human animal’s biopower makes them a weapon, one that
human beings exploit.

The exploitation of a dolphin’s biopowers to clear waters for sending humanitarian supplies
also divulges the anthropocentric goals of states. In talking about international humanitarian
law, Nowrot (2015) explains how laws, inherently are very biased towards humans. Even laws
that talk of protecting the natural environment during warfare, focus much more on how these
damages to the environment could first cause any threat to human civilian populations. Such
anthropocentrism makes animal rights a near to the ground priority in laws governing wars.
The Iraq war was caused by human acts, and the aid being sent was for humans, but amid these
human affairs, dolphins were drawn in, used as tools, and made more susceptible to injury and
danger, all to secure human lives. Similar to how, mitigating human vulnerability, meant stray

1
Alternatively spelt as Tacoma
 3

dogs were made more vulnerable (Leep, 2018). The non-human animals that have no value to
humans are left to die, while those that do, are made to die, or at least suffer to protect humans.
Tragically, while expecting responsibility from military animals to protect and serve human
civilians, human soldiers do not fulfill the same responsibilities towards civilian non-humans.
This raises questions on the nature of responsibility between human and non-human species.
A prominent argument on why humans must show responsibility towards protecting non-
human species is based on the fact that the very reason animals need protection is owed to
human activities like armed conflicts and wars. Thick cosmopolitanism (Dobson, 2006) or
acknowledging that humans are in some way culpable for the sufferings and dangers animals
go through during warfare should serve as a primary incentive for the human species to take
responsibility towards non-human species (Leep, 2018).
On 29th March 2003, just 48 hours after being brought into Iraqi waters, one of the military
dolphins, Takoma reportedly went AWOL2 (Neal, 2003). Shockingly such little information
had been shared by the U.S army following this incident, and although Takoma was said to be
found a few days later, this went on to demonstrate that no amount of training could justify the
kind of risk and dangers the dolphins were exposed to. The concealment of information until
days later when the dolphin was found, shows the military’s attempt to reduce culpability and
not take responsibility for the dolphin’s condition. In moments like those, they knew it could
have been highly likely that Takoma was injured or killed in the process of working around
deadly explosives and mines.

In the case of marine animals, like dolphins, an absence of a gaze, limited physical contact, and
habitat separation makes them feel further away from humans. This makes it harder to feel a
sense of belongingness towards the specie and leads to humans seeing them as distant strangers.
However cosmopolitan belongingness shows how various humans, albeit distant are tied to and
responsible for these dolphins. The human civilians requiring aid, the Iraqi government
planting mines, and the U.S navy sending in the dolphins to Iraq are all responsible for the
dolphins being exposed to danger and more specifically for Takoma going missing, so thick
cosmopolitanism ties these distant civilians of Iraq, the Iraqi government, and the U.S Navy to
Takoma, through culpability.

Naming non-human species, like the dolphins being named Makai and Takoma further reveals
how the human species view non-human others. While it may seem that giving the dolphins a
name and identity stands to show emotional bonds between humans and non-humans, it could
also be a tactic to reduce culpability. Naming the dolphins makes the U.S army look less like
a group of heartless humans, exploiting a dolphin’s abilities to achieve anthropocentric goals
and more like compassionate beings that share mutual belongingness and respect for these
dolphins. Much like the concept of White Innocence where the good white citizens look to
“save” black refugees (Danewid, 2017), naming the animals whitewashes the human’s image.

2
Absent Without Leave
 4

In showing concern for the animal through the portrayal of emotional bonds, they conceal the
fact that human actions have led to war and instability, humans are the ones that planted mines
in the water, and helping humans in need was the reason the dolphins had to be put into those
dangerous waters. This serves as an effective metaphor for the U.S acting as benevolent saviors
in sending humanitarian “aid” to Iraqi citizens when in reality the aid is them taking
responsibility for the destruction they created in Iraq.

Alternatively, the power and ability to give something a name also relate to the idea of
ownership. This Ownership means humans have control over the actions of the non-human
species, and shape their actions through training and disciplining the animal. Conveniently,
when the animal is in danger, the owner now gives away responsibility and gives the animal
agency by abandoning them and letting them deal with the pain on their own. Much like the
U.S army took responsibility to train the dolphin but in stating that Takoma was “absent
without leave”, they pushed the responsibility onto the animal for being missing.
Taking this idea of emotional ties further, Cudworth and Hobden (2015) point out that the
relationship between humans and non-humans during wars has been co-constitutive where the
interaction of their contrasting capabilities and sense of working together creates emotional
bonds between the two. However, there is evidence that much of the emotional bonding is only
extended until the animal remains useful to them. Once they become obsolete or fail to comply,
they are either abandoned or sold off. This dehumanizes the animal, reducing its identity to a
tool misused by humans.

Nevertheless, the flip side of humanizing non-human species also provides a range of complex
ethical concerns. As pointed out by Nowrot (2015), a primary reason for incorporating animal
soldiers into international humanitarian law is that in the warzone distinctions between humans
and nonhuman soldiers are blurred, due to their co-constitutive relationship. During times of
shared vulnerability and interdependence, the animal’s role becomes as important as the
human’s. In saying that animality becomes equal to humanity, it may seem ethical for animal
soldiers, like human soldiers to be sacrificed in war. However, the flaw here is to assume that
animals like humans have free agency when in reality their participation is forced. The
important distinction between human and animal soldiers is that animal soldiers cannot
consent. Takoma’s disappearance could strongly point to a lack of consent in adhering to
human orders.
A counter-justification for using animals in wars irrespective of their inability or unwillingness
to consent could be that non-human animals also owe an equal responsibility towards human
others. In many countries, even humans aren’t asked for consent and are forced to participate
in the military due to their responsibility to protect the nation and its citizens. Nowrot (2015)
also addresses this concern, stating if animal soldiers were to get legal status as citizens and
enjoy rights to protection, they must also fulfill duties and responsibilities towards the state.
Therefore, forcefully involving animals in war could be considered ethical, if they are seen as
being responsible for protecting human civilians.
 5

In response to this, Dobson’s (2006) thick cosmopolitanism theory provides a strong case for
why animals do not have to show equal responsibility towards human others. Looking at
relationships between species through the culpability for harm, an obligation to protect and be
hospitable only exists if one is responsible for the condition of another. The sole responsibility
behind creating destruction through wars and armed conflict lies on a human’s shoulder.
Cudworth and Hobden (2015) rightly point out that animals cannot be excluded from wars as
the nature of wars wouldn’t be the same without them (perhaps less violent), but this overlooks
the fact that wars are more or less exclusively caused by conflicts centered around humans.
Since animals are not culpable for the devastating conditions of war, they shouldn’t need to
fulfill any responsibility towards civilian humans during wars. Looking through the theory of
thin cosmopolitanism (Linklater, 2007), however, gives scope for claiming animals should be
responsible towards humans due to shared vulnerability and fear of suffering. A flaw in this
argument is that animals simply are incapable of understanding this obligation and
responsibility (Nowrot, 2015). The dolphins learn from their training that spotting a large object
(mine), getting close enough without touching it, and leading the human towards it earns them
a treat, but remain completely unaware of the dangers they are being exposed to in this process.
There is always information asymmetry between the human soldier who understands the kind
of dangers and sufferings he may go through and the animal soldier who does not see the
gravity of the situation and the consequences of their actions. While a naval swimmer
understands that the mines might explode, costing his life, it is a form of sad betrayal expecting
the dolphin to carry out responsibility when she is unaware that the “generous” humans treating
her with food, are in reality decreasing her chances of survival, just so other humans have a
better chance at surviving.

The arguments above lead to the following conclusions: The relationship between humans and
non-animals cannot be reduced to sameness. There has to be an acknowledgment of the
differences in responsibility, capability, and culpability. Accounting for these differences,
emerge reasons for ethical concerns about involving animals in warfare. The differences
shouldn’t mean the animal is viewed as a distant other, and its identity is reduced to a tool to
achieve human ends, but rather this difference should be the starting point of hospitality. As
Derrida (2002) elucidates hospitality must be extended at a cost, and expectations of reciprocity
take away this entire point of being “hospitable”. Just because animals cannot comply with
obligations or serve responsibilities towards the state doesn’t mean they do not deserve to be
protected by rights to hospitality and care during wars something the international humanitarian
laws must take into consideration to draft new animal-specific laws in the context of Jus in
Bello.
An analysis of whether involving animals in warfare has any positive impacts on the animal
community is not dealt with in this essay and could be further investigated to better understand
the ethical implications of animal soldiers and victims. In any case, one must recognize that
any specie on the earth has a right to protection and hospitality, beyond legal requirements, not
because of their instrumental value but rather their intrinsic value.
 6

Works Cited:

Brault, P. A. (2002). Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques Derrida to

Respond. L'Esprit Créateur, 42(1), 139-140.
Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2015). The posthuman way of war. Security Dialogue, 46(6),
513-529.
Danewid, I. (2017). White innocence in the Black Mediterranean: Hospitality and the erasure
of history. Third World Quarterly, 38(7), 1674-1689.
Dobson, A. (2006). Thick cosmopolitanism. Political studies, 54(1), 165-184.

Forces. (2003, March 27). Dolphins in defence: How marine mammals are used by the
military. Forces Network. Retrieved October 22, 2022, from
https://www.forces.net/news/dolphins-defence-how-military-uses-marine-mammals

Kirby, A. (2003, March 27). Dolphins clear mines the natural way. Retrieved October 22,
2022, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2891629.stm

Leep, M. (2018). Stray dogs, post-humanism and cosmopolitan belongingness: interspecies

hospitality in times of war. Millennium, 47(1), 45-66.
Linklater, A. (2007). Towards a sociology of global morals with an ‘emancipatory
intent’. Review of International Studies, 33(S1), 135-150.

Neal, R. (2003, March 29). Mine-hunting dolphin AWOL in Iraq? CBS News. Retrieved
October 22, 2022, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mine-hunting-dolphin-awol-in-iraq/

Nowrot, K. (2015). Animals at war: the status of" animal soldiers" under international
humanitarian law. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 128-150.

Wong, E. (2008, February 15). Overview: The Iraq War. The New York Times. Retrieved
October 22, 2022, from
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopics/topics_iraq.html

Other sources consulted:

Animal Ethics. (2022, June 17). Animals and war. Animals and War. Retrieved October 22,
2022, from https://www.animal-ethics.org/animals-and-
 7

war/#:~:text=Taking%20nonhuman%20animals%20into%20account,always%20suffer%20as
%20collateral%20casualties.

Animal Ethics. (2022, June 17). Military use of animals. Animal Ethics. Retrieved October
22, 2022, from https://www.animal-ethics.org/animal-exploitation-section/animals-workers-
introduction/military-use-animals/

Hegglin, O. (2019, December 20). The ethics and function of military animals. Human
Security Centre. Retrieved October 22, 2022, from
http://www.hscentre.org/uncategorized/the-ethics-and-function-of-military-animals/

Herel, S. (2003, April 2). Awol Minesweeping Dolphin Found Safe. SFGATE. Retrieved
October 22, 2022, from https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/AWOL-minesweeping-dolphin-
found-safe-2658414.php

History. (2009, November 24). War in Iraq Begins. History. Retrieved October 22, 2022,
from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins

Jones , M. (2018, May 28). 5,000 military dogs went to Vietnam; not a single one came back.
now, they're being honored. king5.com. Retrieved October 22, 2022, from
https://www.king5.com/article/news/nation-world/5000-military-dogs-went-to-vietnam-not-
a-single-one-came-back-now-theyre-being-honored/507-559204229

Lindorff, D. (2003, March). The Dolphin Who Refused to Fight. Takoma the Dolphin Goes
awol. Retrieved October 22, 2022, from http://www.eurocbc.org/page847.html

Wilson, J. (2003, April 3). How are the mine-hunting dolphins doing in Iraq? The Guardian.
Retrieved October 22, 2022, from
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/apr/03/thisweekssciencequestions2

Zeldovich, L. (2019, February 5). The Great Dolphin Dilemma. Retrieved October 22, 2022,
from https://hakaimagazine.com/features/the-great-dolphin-
dilemma/#:~:text=During%20the%202003%20Iraq%20War%2C%20the%20navy%20sent%
20Makai%20and,for%20ships%20carrying%20humanitarian%20aid.