Dea Closson Entry No. 5 (Gregory)

In his article “From a View to Kill: Drones and Late Modern War” Derek Gregory takes a critical approach to the study of drone warfare in modern times. He aims to counter both the idea that drone warfare is the future of warfare with its supposed high level of precision, and that it has made killing to casual, too much like a video game. I think in order to fully grasp the magnitude of this new form of warfare it is important to know a little bit about traditional ethics if war. Ethics in war are traditionally based off of the Just War Tradition, which is based in Christian ideals. There are two parts to the Just War Tradition, Jud ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, or the justification for war and the manner in which war should be fought, respectively. Jus ad Bellum dictates that a just war is one in which the cause is just, the war is declared by a lawful authority, the intention is good, all other outlets have been exhausted in searching for peace, there is a reasonable chance of success, and the means are proportional to the ends. Jus in Bello dictates that a just war is fought avoiding civilian deaths, using appropriate means, and international conventions are followed. It is these concepts of Proportionality and combatant actors that I would like to expand on.  The concept of proportionality is as follows, a proportional war should be one that is proportional to the offense, it should prevent more evil than it causes.  The combatants in a just war should be, in the simplest terms, only those are fighting you. Non-combatants are seen as neutral citizens, the old, the sick, and children (although more recently children have been enlisted as soldiers more often). Civilians that participate in activities such as farming, mining or other daily tasks that keep the country running should not be targeted, but civilians who aid soldiers, in weapons, training, etc. have every right to be attacked. It is also stated that in a just war, while you should avoid killing civilians, sometimes if it is deemed proportional civilians will get caught in the crossfire. If we approach Gregory’s article through this lens of just war we can see many explanations, justifications, and criticism stemming from this concept, but the one thing Gregory’s article does not address is Jus ad Bellum: is this war just to begin with?

            Gregory begins with a brief history of drone warfare dating it all the way back to World War I. He compares aerial drone strikes to British aerial counterinsurgency in the 1920’s mostly to illustrate the idea that violent extremists do not respond well to faceless, nameless enemies. This is mostly said about the drone campaigns waged against the Taliban in Pakistan, while most actions taken by the Air Force in Afghanistan are not qualified the same. Military professionals see air attacks in Afghanistan as a “virtuous war” of high precision; Gregory seeks to challenge this assumption.  There are two main camps in the discussion of drone warfare, those who believe that it is a precise, just war, and those who believe that drone warfare promotes the concept of video game warfare, of point, click, kill.  Gregory seeks to address the idea that drone warfare is neither of these two extremes, but a complex combination of them both.  He does so through the ‘Scopic Regime’, which he defines as a “mode of visual apprehension that is culturally constructed and prescriptive, socially structured and shared” (190).  This scopic regime in terms of drone warfare is essentially how the operators of these drones see their targets and their context of warfare.  Drone warfare is conducted by hundreds of personnel both on the ground and based off site.  These soldiers have an incredible amount of connection because of these drones.  The hundreds of soldiers operating the drone, the commanders giving the orders to shoot, the judges advising on the Rules of Engagement and the troops on the ground are all seeing the same thing, hearing each other in radio transmissions, and chatting each other in chat rooms.  Through this kill chain Gregory gives way to the idea that these soldiers operating drones from exceptionally far away are not just killing without remorse, he uses the example of the failed attack in Khod to illustrate the concept that these soldiers are connected to the ground troops, that they are “18 inches from the battlefield” and they feel the same, or even more intense, remorse for killing as troops in the field.

            In addition to this intimacy created by the drone there is also a new level of visibility created. This is the first time in warfare that there is archived footage, chats, recordings, etc. that could be made available to the public. Gregory argues that this new technology allows the military to be held more accountable, allows them to persecuted more easily. This is an example of how drone warfare has changed the modern way of thinking about war.  If we return to our definition of ethics we can see that drone warfare creates a large grey area.  If we take the definition that drone warfare is quick, precise, and virtuous it is obvious that we are fighting a just war, but if we take the definition that drone warfare is casual, extra-judicial, and damaging then it is obvious that we are not fighting a just war. So Gregory’s point that drone warfare is a combination of the two opens up a large gap in the just war tradition that the world is not sure how to address.  This is why drone warfare is one of the most contested things of the modern age.