Armed Drones Robot "Warriors" Is employing ways of "killing the enemy without risk to yourself" immoral? Or Is the idea of "artillery" immoral? Or Is it immoral to take cover whilst in a "fire fight"? Or even Is Kevlar armour immoral? Are people really insane enough to be challenging the use of "remotes" and "robots" on ethical grounds? Does the process of making war on a technologically inferior enemy, at reduced or no risk to your own soldiers, inevitably lead to the situation we see now: the enemy strikes back at the only targets it can reach, e.g. civilian population centres. Is the answer a return to cavalry charges and hand-to-hand combat? Wars settled on the battlefield like in the good old days. The people who actually make war, the "leaders", have always employed remotes and robots to prosecute their wars - we call them soldiers, sailors, airmen - so why is it suddenly immoral to set the risk to life and limb at one further remove, making war safer both for leaders and armed forces personnel? Some random thoughts for you, brought to you by Coffee® and Time On My Hands©
Von Clausewitz takes technology for granted - he assumes that infantry, cavalry and artillery on all sides will have the same basic technologies available to them. The differences between combatants are about quantities of men and materials, training and morale, tactics and strategy, and of course leadership. Clausewitz was not much worried about ethics, only practicalities in the abstract. Contrast Thomas Aquinas, who was only interested in whether or not it was a "just war", so all ethics and nil practicalities for him.
Ethics certainly do come into it if a small, ill equipped entity attacks a much larger opponent, hence our attitude to hitting women & children, even if they are the aggressor.
Trying to avoid getting killed - hiding behind things, use of armour (doesn't have to be kevlar), being invisible (camouflage) - doesn't seem immoral to me, just very good sense. Even debating it sounds a bit dumb, as if in a firefight you'd be running around like soldiers of yore, dressed head to toe in red. It doesn't sound like the sort of question that anyone who has been in a firefight would ask. Taking it out on unarmed civilians at little or no risk to yourself seems immoral to me (bombing, shelling). Using civilians as human shields is immoral. But let's face it, war is pretty immoral. Investing your time and energy to kill, burn, maim and inflict misery and pain on people you don't know, who have far more in common with you than differences, in order to seize power is surely immoral. Of course it may be justified as a necessary evil, but most of the time that justification is hollow. There was no real reason for a war in Iraq (i.e., that there was no choice about it) and ditto Afghanistan. The systematic and industrialised murder of populations or even "enemy combatants" doesn't seem moral to me. I think we should get back to David and Goliath style means of settling disputes. Maybe have a football match (or....er.... some other sport perhaps...snooker say, we might win that). Since it will end at the negotiating table, couldn't we just skip the war part and go direct to the table? Perhaps settle the dispute with a UN war computer modelling software which predicts what would have happened had there been a war, and then move to the table with the bargaining positions established by the programme? How wise would that be? And you wouldn't have to rebuild countries either.
War is for when politics breaks down. It doesn't need to be fair, just legal, but that is one question that helps make lawyers rich. We are told that the use of drones is having a significant effect on the 'war against terror', but we can also see the negative impact when drone strikes go wrong and cause 'colateral damage'. Who knows where the balance truely lies. All I know is that if I was at a wedding and a missile came out of a blue sky and killed my familly I would be pretty pissed off. In the days when armies lined up against each other there was usually a clear winner at the end of the day. Now we have 'asymetric warfare' when the guy who shakes your hand during the day digs up his AK47 and shoots you during the night. At which point is he a legitimate target ? I am glad I am not one of those making the decisions. Regarding computer modelling all I would say is they spit out what they are programmed to spit out.
It has to be said that we are told all sorts of rubbish. I would think that war propagandists are some of the most unreliable and untrustworthy people in the world, second only to Nigerians who have recently inherited millions and require your help to bank it.
Indeed. If the Uk is (still ?) scheduling the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2014 then what has changed ? The idea that the Afghan forces will be ready to take over the role, whatever that is, seems fanciful. This is a political decision not a military one and begs the question why were we there in the first place.
A lot of folk seem to be keen on describing wars as "illegal" recently, mainly in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. Very rarely do they seem to have a clue what "illegality" might mean, or what laws might be relevant. It seems to have become merely a vague term of abuse.
If you haven't been there and you haven't done it then you aren't in a position to comment. If you want to be in a fully informed position then join up, put yourself at risk for your daily bread and fight for your life, your mates lives and patch up 18 year old lads that lay bleeding on the floor asking for their mums. Anything that keep the lads safe should be encouraged. Preferably don't pick a fight in the first place and if it's going to happen any way, kill the other side as quickly, efficiently and humanely as you can until they give in and no one else has to die. Keep all your own boys alive.
I also want to say this. Mr Taliban commander is in an area with no ISAF presence. He runs a network of IED emplacers that, this year, have killed or maimed 15 ISAF troops. The only way to destroy the IED network, and thus save lives, is to kill Mr Taliban commander. You can send a strike team in by helicopter and kill him, putting the air crew and blokes on the ground at risk. Or you can load up a drone, fly it from the UK, kill him and be home in time for tea. Seems pretty obvious to me. Many people find killing abhorrent but fail to accept that some times it's necessary.
If you haven't been there yourself and you haven't been more than once in the last decade then you won't be in a position to comment on the changes in Afghan security forces in that time. Things have changed for the better.
The issue people have with Drones is that they cant square the round of having an aircraft armed to the teeth with smart bombs being controlled thousands of miles away from the theatre of war. It somehow make them feel more comfortable about things if there is a pilot hooning around in his or her aircraft armed to the teeth with exactly the same munitions hanging off the wings, almost as if there is less chance of collateral damage if the person controlling the fall of the weapon were closer?. Manned or unmanned aircraft it makes absolutely no difference. They do exactly the same job in exactly the same way with exactly the same weapons. And sometimes things go wrong. Or is it that the anti drone protesters feel its just not cricket the "other side" not having the opportunity to shoot a pilot down with his / her aircraft? Whatever the politics involved, the troops have my utmost support and respect for the sacrifices they have made and are making. Without war we wouldn't be able to express our opinions on this forum unless it furthered the cause of National Socialisim had it not been for war. Falklands would be Argentinian, Israel wouldn't exist, Far east under the control of a tyranical Japan, no South Korea, The face of the whole world would not be anything as we know it now. War has shaped the world throughout history as it will to the end of humanity. It should all be thrashed out over a huge game of Risk! IMHO one of the best board games ever!
Firstly Tom I fully agree with your comments re the safety of our troops in Afghanistan who are there not through choice but through following orders, they deserve all the help and respect we can give them. No, I haven't been to Afghanistan but I have watched documentaries and read around the subject. The whole history of the area suggests that without a strong foreign presence on the ground the country will quickly revert back to tribal loyalties, witness what happened to Najibullah after the Soviets left in 1989. So yes things may have changed for the better but whether they will remain so after any withdrawal remains to be seen. What will then happen to those who have supported and worked for the ISAF or the girls who have chosen to go down the educational route ? The future of Afghanistan will be decided by Afghans. And I am still unsure as to why we went in in the first place.
NZ's armed forces have just withdrawn from Banyarm (sp) province, Afgan. and from all reports it is a much better place for it, however, for how long, your guess is as good as mine. After much lobbying all the local interpreters and their families have been repatriated to NZ as there were fears for their safety.
I'm with Tom Rowley on this one, conflict is best avoided but when its decided that its the correct option then get it over with as soon as possible by stopping the opposition as soon as you can. I see no issue with remote flying Drones from the safest possible location on this basis.
It's a bit hard to see why people would be making a fuss about drones when they don't make a fuss about cruise missiles, which are altogether a lot deadlier and probably harder to shoot down.
I think it is difficult to compare drones with cruise, they are used in a very different way against different targets. The risk with drones in asymetric warfare is that they don't win hearts and minds but help to create the next generation of insurgents. Drone strikes are carried out at the tactical level, and I can see why Tom Rowley is enthusiastic about them, I am sure I would be also if I was in what I assume to be his current or previous position. But just what is a realistic strategic objective in Afghanistan ? I can't see that it is victory followed by withdrawal leaving a thriving democracy moving forward into the 21st century. A more likely scenario is a reduction in front line troops with advisors in enclaves propping up a friendly regime of dubious merit. If some form of 'containment' is the best we can hope for then we had better prepare for a long term presence that will cost us dearly in cash and lives. And for what, just what are we trying to achieve at the strategic / geo political level ?
