Sara Gormley - Entry No. 5 (Gregory)

The War on Terror that Bush introduced the United States to has seen an evolution in military tactics embracing a virtual dimension to war and to US hegemony. This raises the question of morality in war as well as this modern warfare’s efficiency. The argument is made that drone attacks are counterproductive by creating even more enemies. Civilians who may not support terrorist activities will see innocents being killed by drone attacks and unite against what they view as an evil power.  While the US is promoting freedom and peace, how can the civilians of the countries under attack see it as anything other than the antithesis of these qualities?

There are legal issues involved as well which question the legality of US strikes against Pakistan, when the US is not at war with that country. The argument can be made based on the strikes’ limited nature, determining that it is not to the scale at which the United States would need international consensus to declare war or that it is an act of self-defense against terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the Taliban. But when considering those arguments, any armed attack that puts civilians at risk can be looked upon by some as a credible attempt at war. Most arguments however assume that the use of UAVs is unproblematic, supporting the notion of a virtuous war.

The argument supporting drones expresses the importance in its ability to detail the precision of its targets, thus diminishing civilian casualties. These advanced technologies may be causing desensitization in capable militaries who have the impersonal perspective of creating a faraway impact without regard to the very intimate impact it will have on those on the ground. The US military carrying out drone strike have a warmed perspective on the countries they are attacking, shown in the article when it states “When Kaplan (2006: 81) visited the base, he was told: ‘Inside that trailer is Iraq, inside the other, Afghanistan.’ The effortless sense of time-space compression is exceeded only by its casual imperialism.” Even the control room itself looks like one big video game, adding even more space between the hunter and the hunted. Increased capabilities of technology in war can also raise the problem of “drowning in data,” requiring a huge amount of support to sift through this information in what used to be a one man job.

This “video game war” is a main source of tension throughout the article. The “kill-chain” has changed over the years as technology has improved, questioning the actors carrying out the strikes’ ability to see the events which has perhaps increased, versus their ability to feel the full effect of the repercussions which has arguably decreased with the advancement of technology.  

When it comes to the war on terror and counterinsurgencies, there is a thin line between innocent civilians and combatant civilians, which it is the Job of the United States’ military force to determine. This has proved tricky in the past and, through media, its accuracy and imprecision has been broadcasted into homes across the world. This could bring in a new factor by shaping public opinion possibly for or against military action. There has been a history of people understanding war to be virtuous, but as armed forces increasingly removed from the battle and the world’s population brought straight to it through technology this point of view may have altered. We see a blurred line between what is “mine” and what is “yours” in this modern battlefield, introducing a whole new debate to the way the world sees war.