Philip Tankovich - Entry 6 (Gregory)

     Technology has reached an unprecedented power in contemporary society. The first-person shooter video games that every boy plays after he has finished his homework has now become a game for grown-ups. The most disheartening fact regarding modern warfare is its utter casualness – and even moreso- its nostalgia of childhood. Having killed hundreds of enemies myself in video games, one knows the intrinsic simpleness in pulling a trigger and killing a virtual character. This, however, is no longer the case – for the target's are real people even though the manner in which they are killed awfully resembles the simple, time-killing act of playing video games. 

     In Gregory's article From a View to Kill, he challenges the notion of contemporary warfare in its use of UAV such as Drones and Reapers. These UAV's create a problem with dichotomous functions and values in relation to their use, namely the problem in which one must balance the pro's and con's of UAV missions. Of course there is the government, which argues the efficacy of its use in the ability to move from a traditional war that is “mundane and monstrously violent” to a perfect war that, at its root, uses “target selection preferred to the point of assassination.” (190) The utter simplicity and efficacy with which Drones are used invites one to question what Gregory calls, the 'casualness of war.' Gone are the days when men would have to wait mundanely for intelligence only to get the report in just enough time to start an attack in the trenches of WWI, to be slaughtered by the millions (Verdun), and move nowhere in terms of war. On the other hand, modern warfare provides a certain safety for those at home. The commanders of the Drones are like invisible warriors, who riding under their invisible cloak, slaughter everyone silently. They also provide a 'facelessness' to war, which instills an almost religious fear in the targets, knowing that they are at the mercy of that which is above. This, however, is not a strong argument. In terms of the history of war, never has there been a war so virtual and detached. That, I believe, is not necessarily a bad thing. I am able to write about this at home, from the comfort of desk, not trying to kill someone or being killed for a country that I don't care about. What matters is people, not patriotism. At the same time, there is no peace, and hence one cannot deny that people are being killed while I am enjoying my lunch. Ultimately, the juxtaposing positions on the problem of the Drone changes very little but nevertheless allows us to penetrate the notion of modern warfare.

     Those who defend the drone wars insist that the near real-time video-feeds from the aircraft allow an      unprecedented degree of precision and a carefully calibrated response that can minimize civilian            casualties. Those who criticize these operations are concerned that killing at such a distance becomes      too casual and that late modern war has been reduced to a video game. (191)

   Overall, UAV's are detrimental to human rights. Regardless of whether they make war and killing something virtual and casual from the US perspective, people are still suffering from an 'unfair kind of war' that continues to feed a sentiment of anger towards the Drone attacks. And not for bad reason, wouldn't you be pissed if you were in class and bombs started shaking SciencesPo?

     Every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge,            and more recruits for a    militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have      increased. (Kilcullen and Exum, 2009)

The victims of the UAV attacks are mostly innocents who have had their lives ruined thanks to the press of a button. From the US point of view, however, genocide is separated into trailers.

    ‘Inside that trailer is Iraq, inside the other, Afghanistan.’ The effortless sense of time-space                      compression is exceeded only by its casual imperialism. (192)

     It is safe to say that the UAV infringe on human rights. Although they make life easier for us meaning that it is not me going to war and risking my life, they provide the exact opposite effect to the noncombattants on Pakistan and Afghanistan. In regards to a global civilization with global human rights, the governments using the UAV's are acting beyond the bounds of human rights and hence infringe on global life.

     It is interesting to ask: would you withdraw Drones from warfare, knowing the damage they do to noncombatants like ourselves, but by doing so, be obliged to fight a war on the ground, face to face. I think that 'convenience of life' has more power over 'nobility of actions', and so the US will continue to infringe on the rights of others for the sake of our ability to have a nice dinner this evening.