The Human Eye of the Drones — Part Two
What follows is part two of a piece written in 2014 as part of my university studies. You can find part one here, and the accompanying interview with an active duty RPA operator here.
It can be said that it is one act to fire your weapon a man you do not know, who is firing at you and then to move on. It’s a wholly different thing to fire missile at a man who could never have harmed you directly, who you have built up a strange connection with from months of watching him playing football with his kids, sleeping with his wife atop their home, waking up and smoking on his doorstep. It is easier to be at home than in a desert for months, but harder to separate war and home when you switch between the two each day with only a 20 minute drive.
— (Wood, 2013).
Perhaps then, from the side of the force with the drones, this is the warfare of the 21st century information junkie world, infinitely connected but emotionally isolated. What could be more fitting for the warfare of the Twitter age than being in front of banks of computer screens controlling killer flying robots lurking in the skies on the other side of the world?
The Effects On Civilian Population. A major component of the Obama administration’s use of RPAS’ has been the expansion in the use and definition of “signature”, based on “pattern of life” analysis. These strikes target “groups of men who bear certain defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known” (Klaidman, D, 2012). The majority of these strikes occur within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Taliban and other non-state armed factions are most active.
In these areas, it is hard to imagine a way that the extensive use of RPAS’ could not have a substantial impact on the civilian population. There is a reported distinct fear that a strike could come from anywhere at any time, to the point that attendance of daily routines and social gatherings that are of central importance to the tribal societies is severely diminished (Human Rights Council, 2012). Often when a drone flies overhead, civilians report that even if they cannot see it, it can be heard. They call them ‘Buzzers’ or ‘Fruitflies’ from their recognisable engine whine, a sound that signals a spread of terror through the incumbent population as one taxi driver in Islamabad described:
‘We are always thinking that it is either going to attack our homes or whatever we do. It’s going to strike us; it’s going to attack us. No matter what we are doing, that fear is always inculcated in us. Because whether we are driving a car, or we are working on a farm, or we are sitting home playing cards– no matter what we are doing, we are always thinking the drone will strike us. So we are scared to do anything, no matter what”
— Interview with Saeed Yayha (anonymised name), (Stanford Law School And NYU School of Law, 2012).
With the economic and human risks so drastically reduced as they are in the case of RPAS’ (35 Predator drones cost roughly the same as a single F16 combat jet whilst the fuel of a single flight of an F4 Phantom jet could provide 200 predator flights. Associated Press, 2011). It has enabled the cold touch of war to extend to ever more places, for much longer than ever before dreamed. In prolonged missions, when one drone returns for fuel another takes its place, creating a constant presence, and risk of death to those living beneath. Psychiatrists in Pakistan are increasingly reporting patients presenting symptoms of pervasive worry about future trauma, emblematic of “anticipatory anxiety”. Mental health professionals who work with drone victims conclude that these symptoms are largely attributed to the patient’s belief that they could be attacked at any time without warning (Nabila Ur Rehman / Washinton Post, 2013)(Lavallee, 2013).
There is strong evidence that this constant pressure and frustration becomes a powerful recruitment tool for the very targets of the RPA strikes. Militants propaganda states that “Your government’s not doing anything, the United States has no remorse or apology and this is the only way to take revenge”. This manifestation shows itself where would-be terrorists have cited drones as motivation. Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb New York City’s Times Square in 2010, said in court that “until the hour the US pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan … we will be attacking US, and I plead guilty to that” (Bollier 2013).
Knock On Effects. It seems too that due to the targeting nature of an RPA strikes of military age males (especially at gatherings) who are often the sole income source for the traditionally heavily patriarchal families Women are often the most affected by the usage of RPAS’. Losing not only a husband, father or brother, but also find difficulty where strict sharia law is enforced by the Taliban dictates that they should not be allowed to leave their homes without the accompaniment of a male family member or husband (Stanford Law School And NYU School of Law, 2012).
Civilians who have lost family to drone strikes cannot fight back for their loss and many pick up arms to become a fighter in the same way that many grieving men and women throughout history have. A particularly distressing element in the areas where drone strikes are most common is that civilians are beginning to no longer provide medical assistance or even go near strike sites for days afterwards for fear of repeat attacks, something never before reported from traditional methods of war (Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, 2012). Signifying a significant subversion from human instinct as a direct result of Drone warfare in particular.
It should be noted that there are indeed groups that support the use of Drones, those who live in fear of their Taliban occupation of their villages at gunpoint. Brutally killing those who dissent from their laws, leaving the bodies in the streets. To these people (who are not few in number) the political arguments of national sovereignty as seen in Lahore mean nothing, drones strikes are the lesser of the available evils. It is increasingly reported that tribal elders have met the death of local militants with celebration as the population grows restless (Hazelton, 2013).
“My aircraft was never meant to kill, it was meant only to observe.”
– Abe Karem (Creator Of The Predator)
A Conclusive Statement. The use of RPAS’ seems a perfect reflection of the world and conflict in the information age. The fact that combat drones can only be employed in good, clear weather skies in uncontested airspace reflects a fundamental change in the type of war that exists today. No longer does the traditional picture of two countries fighting grand battles apply, rather conflict zones today typically consist of a technologically developed occupying force fighting small, indigenous factions within developing countries employing guerilla tactics. Asymmetrical warfare in its peak.
Personally, its hard not to feel that drone technology more than just a new tool, but instead the dawn of a new type of ‘cleaner’, colder warfare. A double edge blade that acts both as the perfect weapon to the point of potentially trivialising taking lives, but one that leaves lasting psychological scars on both sides that brings with it vastly different ethical questions to which we are accustomed. Right or wrong we are forced by the unstoppable march of technology to either restrict military drone use until it can be reevaluated on a grand scale to understand its longterm moral footprint, or to continue onwards using the tool many would say we need, and look back with hindsight to determine it as a curse or a blessing.
It wouldn’t be the first of such ‘unjustifiable’ weapons; as cluster mines, white phosphorous or biological weapons were before. If we don’t then we must instead adapt and expand our moral framework so drones become simply another transitional taboo that in some years will be readily accepted and seen as a norm. We are presented with a choice that is both dark but also one that is full of possibilities for unlimited good. One thing is for certain with the USAF now training more RPA pilots than traditional ones (U.S. Dept of Defence 2014) and drones filling the domestic theatre at an extreme rate, the drones are well and truly here to stay. I suspect in some sense, the question may have already been answered for us.
