It seems as though many people have
widely ranging thoughts about what the casualty of non-targets is. Der Derian, “founder
of the Information Technology, War, and Peace Project,” claims that “there are
no or minimal casualties” from drone operations whereas two “commentators
closely identified with the new US counterinsurgency doctrine” say that the
drones and their operators “often [kill] more civilians than militants” (https://research.brown.edu/myresearch/James_Der_Derian,
Gregory, page 357 of reader). I wonder if Der Derian is referring to no or minimal
casualties on our side (granting injuries caused by spilled coffee of
course— see drone operators getting higher awards than the bronze star awarded
to real combatants http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/15/pentagon-uproar-over-panetta-medal-drone-operators/).
Regardless, it sounds very flippant and disrespectful toward human life for
double D to use the word minimal when referring to casualties, but I’m
satisfied that guys like him and Eric Holder are in charge (drones won’t kill
Americans on US soil because that would be inappropriate *cough cough* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsy01ljGcy0).
It is fascinating to think that “these
dead noncombatants [represent] an alienated family, a new desire for revenge,
and more recruits for the militant movement,“ because I had not thought about
that (Gregory, page 357 of reader). It makes me wonder (not really) if the cut
down families are ever reimbursed by the US government for their dead relatives.
If we are killing the enemy in order to make more of the enemy, then it seems
like our morals suck, but at least we are making the enemy stronger and prolonging
the illegal wars! At least only 13% of Americans think that the
US government should launch drone strikes against its citizens who are thought
to be threats to the empire, according to a Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161474/support-drone-attacks-terrorists-abroad.aspx).
Still, as we discussed in class, after technology is used in war, it is no just
sent to the scrap heap but is often reintegrated into the empire. The same I
think will likely be true for drones, and the craze is already starting and
drones are being normalized (drones carrying goods to houses, as mentioned in
class), just like the balloon and airplane crazes (although the carrying goods
thing is likely a PR stunt for Amazaon.com at the most opportune time of the
year).
It is annoying that they (many
people supporting drone operations) deem drone use as virtuous war and, as
Anderson terms it, “perfect war” (Gregory, p. 258 of reader). They call it such because they, if they
believe themselves, think they can kill certain individuals with precision strikes.
This is ludicrous. I hate to copy so much, but here’s a halfway decent example:
“Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly
documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan
and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such
casualties are rare. In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six
selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the
82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children
who perished in a September 2012 attack,” reports the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html).
I’m glad that Obama, our Nobel Peace Prize winner of the anti-war Democrats, is
keeping the peace in America by hiding what those sexy drones are really up to.
Many people opposed to drone strikes
assert that “late modern war has been reduced to a video game” (Gregory, p. 359).
As we discussed in class, there are problems associated with this video game
outlook on killin’ level 5 Oompa Loompas. It is problematic that killing baddies
will now be like the next awesome version of Halo. What will happen to the
souls of the first-person shooters if they start to think of people as those stupid
little koopa kids and baby bowsers (that need to be terminated for funsies) in Super
Mario Bros Deluxe, which was basically described in a class video (the vid that
included the guy who said “I lost that respect for life”). What will become of the manhood of the little
sissies sitting behind the computer screens who swore an oath to annihilate the
enemies of our country’s politicians all the while posting uncalled-for screenshots
on FaceBook. The game-like nature of the
assassinations departs the user from reality by diving him into the fictitious thrill
of a shoot-em-up game (also reminds me of how screen flicker rate can brainwash
the computer user into staring at the screen). On the practical side, many “soldiers
who had been accustomed as teenagers to playing video games” will require less
training than that required for using other special weaponry (Gregory, p.359). Lastly
I would say that “I felt like a God hurling thunderbolts from afar,” but some legalized
drone assassin already said that (Gregory, p.360). I guess I can still say it.
It sounds so fun—I bet it is fun (not to mention manly) killing people that
this guy (http://image.naldzgraphics.net/2012/01/10-lazy-worker.jpg)
tells you to with no chance of being killed (Gregory, 360).
I find your comments regarding the "minimal casualties" interesting, as there does seem to be evidence of inaccuracy in drone strikes leading to excessive casualties. While we would all like to ignore such occurrences, when drones are really examined it seems like a permeating factor. I would also like to think that families of casualties are repaid in some way, but cannot justify inaccuracy even with repayment. The visualization technologies that allow these strikes are not inherently harmful, but when employed in such an injurious way cause possibly more harm than traditional war methods. In this sense, representation techniques can be deadly.
ReplyDelete