January 23rd, 2009—the President’s third day in office: Obama gave the go-ahead for the first two C.I.A. airstrikes of his administration. Nearly twenty people were killed. The first strike was considered a success with no collateral damage. The second drone strike, however, was a complete failure, resulting in the deaths of a pro-government tribal leader and his entire family. The U.S. never officially recognized its participation in either strike.
Since Bush began using drones early in his presidency, critics have posed questions about the morality and consequences of 21st century-style warfare. Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger and advisor to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was quoted as saying, "There's something about pilotless drones that doesn’t strike me as an honorable way of warfare. As a classics major, I have a classical sense of what it means to be a warrior." History buffs out there may remember the Cult of the Offensive from WWI, when officers, plagued by a sense of honor, urged their troops to charge through no-man's land with rifles, pistols and bayonets. The enemies, of course, had machine guns, which lacked honor, but had enormous firepower. Those soldiers might have been mowed down senselessly in a cult of the offensive, but at least they died with honor, right?
That’s what comes to mind when people like Exum talk about honor and warriors. WWI was a ridiculous war for a number of reasons, but most notably because strategists failed to reconsider 20th century-style warfare in the light of new technologies. Are drones and cyberweapons the ignoble new technologies that are forcibly reshaping warfare in the 21st century? And are they reshaping the morality of war along with it?
[Illustration by David Barnett]
The arguments against drones take three forms: strategic, in that they impact how we go about about arming ourselves; moral, in that they trouble our relationship to killing civilians, and indeed, who gets called a civilian at all; and propagandistic, in that they increase the recruiting abilities of the exact terrorist organizations they're meant to stop.
Strategic: Now that we have them, other countries will get them. Peter W. Singer has consistently argued that the U.S. and her allies will not be the only ones with surveillance and weaponized drones. In early 2010, he wrote,
At least 40 other countires — from Belarus and Georgia to India, Pakistan, and Russia — have begun to build, buy, and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, showcasing their efforts at international weapons expos ranging from the premier Paris Air Show to smaller events in Singapore and Bahrain.
Here’s a look at China’s Pterodactyl UAV, which rivals the Predator:
Drones are becoming cheaper and easier to make, thus increasing their availability in open and black markets. "We must prepare for a world in which foreign robotics rival our own, and terrorists can deliver explosives not just by suicide bomber but also by unmanned machine," Singer goes on to say.
Geral Sosbee:
The 'Drone problem' suggests the nautre of the threat on manknd. Pls see report on democracy & mankind, followed by my reports in the links below.Thanks.
"means of information war threaten democracy and mankind "
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v194/
For many persons social media saves the day as a gap filler for lazy/incompetent/fearful mainstream media moguls.Evidence that media covers up police state, usa.
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/68776
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/noticetomedia.html
Serve your country in war, return home & serve again; then be treated as an insane experimental dog for speaking out against fbi/cia atrocities:
CJS, fbi , Police, Mil Intel, UT Chancellor GONE MAD!
UT police create fraudulent 'BOLO' against ME to cover up crimes by UT police & fbi:
Comments (1)