Derek Gregory’s analysis of drone warfare dispels many of the common and
mainstream viewpoints heard in the media and political rhetoric today. What I think is
extremely important to note is that Derek Gregory is a geographer. Knowing this, his
arguments of time and space make sense and are in itself different than the general
rhetoric of human geography. Taking a Military Geography class last semester at
GW, human geography and physical geography go hand-in-hand, and the situation of
drone pilots and the culture surrounding drone warfare that Gregory lays out fits this
framework in a unique way.
Gregory points out that the mainstream advocates’ viewpoint of drone warfare is
that it is simultaneously a virtual and ‘virtuous’ war that plays an important role in
counterterrorism/counterinsurgency campaigns, surveillance, and in conducting
precision-strikes with the least possible civilian casualties. The mainstream critics’
viewpoint is that the use of drones have reduced war to a video game, where killing
becomes a casual act. Gregory denounces both of these arguments, saying that the
problem lies NOT in the detachment of drone pilots to the battlefield, but rather a sense
of proximity to ground troops “inculcated” by the high-definition video feeds. Thus,
Gregory focuses on what he calls the ‘scopic regime’ through which drone operations
take place. A ‘scopic regime,’ he defines, is a term to “distinguish the...theatrical way of
staging and seeing the world,” which denotes a certain degree of understanding that is
culturally/socially constructed, prescriptive, and shared. What I think is his main point is
the following: “My central argument is that these visibilities are necessarily conditional-
spaces of constructed visibility are also always spaces of constructed invisibility-
because they are not technical but rather techno-cultural accomplishments.”
These “visibilities” that he speaks of are important in understanding that the kill-chain
is created based on networks that establish a certain ‘pattern of life’ that is necessary
in counterinsurgency operations. Yet, how do you measure the ‘pattern of life’ (or
the “production of a macro-field of micro-vision”) from a distance? The kill-chain lays
down to a certain degree, in my opinion, a certain set of “norms” or “activities” that are
deemed normal/abnormal and therefore give the process of not killing/killing via drone
justification in the commander’s eyes. While drone warfare is overall concerning, this
is particularly concerning, especially after reading the account where the drone pilots
mistakingly killed 23 innocent civilians on their way to the market in order to “protect”
ground troops. The pilots created these abnormalities in their minds, converting
“civilians into combatants.”
This issue of visibility that Gregory constantly brings up is important to understand
not only in the context of what the kill-chain has constructed as the “culture” of the
people they are surveying, but also visibility in the sense of what the average American
citizen understands about drone warfare. As I’ve stated before, the mainstream critics’/
advocates’ viewpoints on drone warfare is the only conversation mainstream media will
have about drones. Videos will come out showing the misuse of drones, but it is not
enough to change the debate. Drone warfare is conducted in countries, like Pakistan,
that are not in war with the United States. While this is a clear violation of international
law, this will continue as long as the discussion about drones remains stagnant. In the
first ever testimony to Congress by a victim of a drone strike, 5 members of Congress
attended. There are over 500 members in Congress. http://www.theguardian.com/world/
2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress
Visibility needs to increase not only in the realm of understanding the cultures/peoples
of the places we place drones over, but also in the realm of what citizens should know
and understand about drone warfare apart from the mainstream rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment