Fighting Terrorism (Ukázka, strana 99)

98

Shane M Riza writes on the same issue from a more practical point of view. The only thing that the pilot, or later the public, could see from the battlefield is the images on a screen. The strike then looks like a clear shot and it may even look merciful. What is not on that screen, is the suffering and blood of the victims. It looks like there is a possibility to fight a war without blood, mud and dirt that was always an instrumental part of warfare. The precision capability highlights the illusion of being morally on the high ground. Such a precise strike seems to be the most humane way of waging a war, killing instantaneously.270 The fact that the operator is so far from the actual battlefield, allegedly makes him less emotionally affected, and thus he should be able to make the right decision and save lives. Or to take only those he intended to.

The experience of UAV operators is incomparable to anything else in history. Although they never left Nevada control centers, they gradually became combat effective and vital part of warfighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Singer uses the term “cubicle warriors” to describe UAV operators.

As he describes, the computerization of the society has significantly changed experience in modern industry and military seems to follow suit. “Going to war now means sitting in the office building, watching screen and dragging mouse.”271 Moreover, as operators can switch from one UAV to another, for the first time, they may virtually be deployed in various areas instantaneously. That is a whole new experience of war. The issue of distance, time and space do not play a role anymore.

The problem with the distance between cubicle warriors and the battlefield they are engaged in, has multiple aspects. Psychologically, it is challenging to switch almost on daily basis between being at home and the military deployment. Operators, although not physically present in the environment of direct military action, are suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and other symptoms. The capability of the UAV to fly over the target for hours and days has a negative aspect to it. While the jet fighter pilot has no possibility to see the aftermath of his strike, regular operation of UAV often includes staying on the target to confirm that the strike was successful and to strike again if needed. Emotional distance is thus overcome and the operator is fully aware of consequences of his action. This may be both beneficial and burdensome for the operator.

On one hand, the operator is not becoming a player of a video game 270 Martin Kudrec, Robotizácia amerických ozbrojených síl medzi rokmi 2000–2011 a jej perspektívy do roku 2020. Prague: Fakulta sociálních věd, 2011, p. 13.

271 Singer, Wired for War, The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS249101

99

depersonalizing war, whereas, on the other hand, the acknowledging and understanding consequences of his action may cause additional stress.

Another issue entails consequences for the future, and that is what class of warriors we are creating with such a strategy. Here it is vital to mention the concept of warrior ethos. Defining this term “begins with the manner in which those in profession of arms view their craft.”272 It is the question of perception of the role of warrior of both soldiers themselves and the broader public. This has historical and cultural roots and an impact that even transcends war.

As Christopher Coker concludes, modern societies are post-heroic and show an unhealthy interest in war without displaying an equal interest in warriors. Few people would in present times see war as noble or even glorious.273 Both Riza and Coker agree that what makes the war an ethical activity, is the warrior ethos. In light of previous chapters, it is only fitting to ask how relevant this ethos is. When the new generation of cubical warriors steps in, what will war mean for them and will they even perceive themselves as warriors? When referring to the term warrior it is important to point to the shift of thinking in the western societies after the experience of two world wars, the first one in particular. If the society of the nineteenth century expressed their admiration and respect for warriors willing to die for their nation, the Great War and the literature of that time changed the perception about organized violence. The character of war changed when there were millions of people dying on European battlefields without achieving anything. A deep skepticism towards war is more common than any sort of admiration for those who fight them. The fact that there are now several generations who can imagine the world without war is a precedent. So, while ancient Greeks saw war as an essential part of life, modern society considers war as part of governmental hypocrisy. The Iraq war is the most recent example of how the U.S. society views war. While support for the war itself was low from the beginning and fell quite rapidly over the years, the soldiers are still perceived as heroes. So somehow we see soldiers as being separated from the war itself. The soldiers are just doing their job while the government is using them to fight its unlawful, hypocritical or unjust war.

We no longer see soldiers as warriors; we see them as professionals in the hands of the government dying in a conflict, nobody even wants to fight. It is difficult to see the warrior ethos as being currently relevant 272 Riza, Killing without Heart.

273 Christopher Coker, The Warrior Ethos, Military culture and the War on Terror, (Routledge, London: 2007), Kindle edition.

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS249101

100

at all. Moreover, if we add technology, and the capacities of the U.S. military to pursue impunity in the war, the scenario where more autonomous robots will eventually overtake the role of a warrior, seems more plausible than ever.

The idea of the just war is also gravely affected by the last decade of U.S. wars. Terrorist attacks, the fear and anger combined with the arguably hysterical emphasis on the terrorism as the main threat to the U.S. national security created the atmosphere that resulted in public support for the large scale military invasion in Afghanistan. In order to hunt down or kill terrorists U.S. society was willing to accept and support a military invasion of another country and strengthening of the U.S. internal security establishment. An essential part of these changes was the Authorization for Use of Military Power and a secret executive order giving the CIA once again the authorization to kill individuals posing a threat to the USA. In this regard, the use of UAVs by the military may be considered as following the just war tradition of proportionality, preventing large scale wars and limiting civilian casualties. But the USA is also conducting a secret war by allowing the CIA to run its UAV program.

Mark Mazzetti writes: “(…) The White House was most interested in were leads about the whereabouts of specific Al-Qaeda operatives, not broader subjects like the level of support Al-Qaeda had in the Muslim world or the impact that American military and intelligence operations might have on radicalizing a new generation of militants. The CIA focused its efforts accordingly.”274

This is a real danger for both the warrior ethos concept and just war tradition. Transparency issues and the possible indiscriminate nature of strikes conducted by the CIA are reasons to believe that the effort to make the war on terror a just one is being diminished.275

274 Mark Mazzetti, The Way of the Knife: CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth, (New York: The Penguin Press 2013), Kindle edition.

275 Daniel Brunstetter, Megan Braun, “The Implications of Drones on the Just War Tradition,” Ethics and International Affairs, vol. 25, no. 3, Fall 2011, pp. 337–358.

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS249101