Modern warfare: Drones and society

Perhaps the toughest decision any leader can undertake is the prospect of declaring war. A leader must be confident enough to believe their convictions that war is the only answer. It cannot be taken likely. War is bloody. War is miserable. War is expensive. All focus tends to be displayed on whether it is necessary. A short and decisive victory can elevate a leader into the people’s hearts. Yet a war that is bloody and sluggish can signal the end of a government. Countless leaders have ridden the polls of popularity after victory; whereas countless more have fallen upon defeat. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz said that “War is an extension of politics by other means”, and even to this day wars are resolved by political leaders and diplomats, not soldiers. War is constructed through a political and moral lens. Is an invasion illegal? Could it have international consequences? Is it affordable? These are all questions asked before a potential conflict may ensue. Yet few people actually ask militarily what war means.

The apparatus of war has evolved over the centuries. From formations of soldiers across Great Plains, ready to duel on horseback to the use of cruise missiles in the Gulf wars. As the size of armies has grown and the weapons became more mechanised, it created units dedicated to medical and logistics. The advances in communications and intelligence have allowed armies to operate at greater distance and with more efficiency. No longer do generals lead from the front but can be stationed hundreds of miles away. These advances have not only changed the way wars are fought but increasingly how wars are won. Up until the mid twentieth century, victories were determined by the capitulation of an army or the capture of the enemy’s major city. Today’s technological wars are fought within smaller warzones; requiring fewer frontline troops but retaining devastating fire power.

The increasing use of unmanned drone aircraft is systematic of this change. Even at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion in 2003, drones were small reconnaissance probes that scoured for intelligence. Now, they are much bigger and armed with missiles to target and kill any threat. Controlled from thousands of miles away in a military base in Nevada, operators are engaged in a form of virtual war as they hunt enemies around the world. In late 2011, the American born Islamist militant, Anwar Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone in Yemen to little news coverage. In fact, the use of drones over North-West Pakistan, killing an unknown number of militants and civilians, has caused America less trouble diplomatically than the raid carried out by US Navy SEALS that killed Osama bin Laden.

Wars that are unseen are perhaps more conducive for a government and military. Compare the news coverage of assassinations of Iranian nuclear physicists by foreign agents (possibly Mossad) and the computer virus that has caused havoc to Iranian nuclear enrichment plants (CIA, GCHQ) to NATO’s role in Libya. It is unsurprising that governments are investing heavily in their secret services and Special Forces, moving away from the traditional spheres of warfare.

All the while, Western societies are increasingly subscribing to a post-militaristic view. As fewer families are affected by war, they are moving away from the ideas of associated with the army. Civilians do not accept the idea of a soldier dying for the good of the mission. Soldiers are ends in themselves, not means of the Army. The use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) has made this war more vivid, particularly with a greater number of survivors and a modern media to convey their story. Although every death is tragic, it neglects the fact that soldiers sign up knowing they could possibly die. In World War One, on average 559 British soldiers died per day (886,939 in total), In Afghanistan, a war that began in 2001 has so far killed 398 soldiers. It highlights the point.

All wars are demanding on all constituents: politicians, the military and ordinary citizens. Although wars will be fought on different lines, it will continue to ask the same questions as before.

9/11 - America's nightmare

If history is a subject about remembering the names of dead kings and queens and memorising important dates, then September 11th, 9/11, is the most memorable of them all. On that, beautiful Tuesday morning in downtown Manhattan, where clear blue skies and naked sunshine shone upon the east coast metropolis, the events of that fateful day, that left the whole world aghast, turned the vivid blue sky to a choking, black fog. The television news replaying footage like an advertisement, looping pictures of horror and awe. Beneath, within the panic, saw the remnants of a European city, razed to the ground by Allied bombing; a grey haze and tampered soul. Yet this was not just a mass grave, this was the sowing of seeds for a nightmare that was about to unfold, one that would make us all victims. Ten years on, the drama appears to have quelled. The protagonists have been written out of the script. George W. Bush, then US President, is now retired and has already written his memoirs and Osama bin Laden, the poetic Saudi and Al-Qaeda leader, met his end this year in his compound in Pakistan. A decade later, as the world relives the tales of bravery and loss from loved ones and observers, we have a clearer picture of the world we now live in and what 9/11 experience taught us all and inevitably the history books.

America’s response and subsequent combat mission in Afghanistan was permitted by the UN and was backed by 41 different countries, who all provided troops to bring down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Nearly ten years after the Cold War had ended and involved in fewer armed conflicts, this was an opportunity for the world to see the firepower of the American military. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers and futuristic weapons all contributed to the downfall of the Taliban regime and the liberation of Kabul in late 2001. This was a victory for the men and women who had lost their lives in the towers, the Pentagon and the many who had tackled the would be suicide bombers in Pennsylvania. Yet, all the while Mr Bin Laden managed to cross the border and live safely in neighbouring Pakistan.

Perhaps the country that has suffered the most subsequently is Pakistan. None of the men that flew the planes into the towers were Pakistani nationals. Before 9/11 there had been only one suicide attack incident, since 9/11 there have been hundreds. The Pakistani state has become a lot weaker and many of the moderates have been succeeded by Islamists who despise the values of the West and America. Much of the aid given to the Pakistani state has been swallowed up by the military, leaving the education budget with a miserly 2%. Most military analysts say that the problem now lies in east of Afghanistan, in Pakistan. NATO troops will never be able to defeat the Taleban because its roots are tribal and local, just like the British Government could never defeat the IRA. The notion of state building in Afghanistan is impractical because the issues that need addressing are political. When NATO troops finally leave, will Afghani troops be capable of defending their country or will the militants from Pakistan be waiting in anticipation? The war planning was nonexistent and improvised as the battles ensued.

Not since Pearl Harbour had America been attacked so unexpectedly and spectacularly. As intelligence experts searched for answers, the stories of heroism and selflessness emerged from the dust. No one can deny America’s anger and certainly, its self-contemplation of what had just happened; the people who had died were casualties, just like other people who had died in bombings or hijackings over the years. Yet to die ‘at’ 9/11 made someone more exceptional than for someone to die ‘on’ September 11. The circumstances were horrific, but it blazed a trail of American exceptionalism that was ultimately toxic. They weren’t just killing and targeting Americans, they were killing and targeting America itself.

This led to the Bush Administration, acting with impunity in Iraq, without a second resolution from the UN Security Council because this was a war for freedom and democracy. The CIA conducted the rendition and torture of foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay and other countries. It was a foreign policy based on a doctrine not the economics, so as Americans enjoyed further tax breaks and the extension of social security, the country’s foreign adventures were paid on its credit card (the Bank of China had the lowest interest repayments). It is inconceivable based on today’s sluggish American economy and deficit that it would even consider intervening in countries with despotic regimes such as Syria or Iran.

9/11 was a horrendous day for the people of New York but it now is a part of what it means to be a New Yorker. It was the first event that the globalised world witnessed and suffered. We all are subject to stricter security measures in airports and the rise of CCTV in our towns and cities. We were brought together by the loss but it did a great deal of harm to the global communities. Suspicion and contempt for innocent people has only made some situations worse. September 11th was a dark day and forever the empty chair will always remind families at holidays and celebrations. Yet we should not forget the other victims and the how it really changed the world forever.

Kant and Osama.

I had an interesting thought after the manhunt and then eventual death of Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden. Many philosophy students will be familiar with the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario; an idea of whether it is right to torture someone who holds information that could prevent a bomb or weapon of mass destruction from detonating, saving many lives but compromising morals. Information is still unravelling from the operation and the US government is deciding whether it is in the public interest for some of it to become known. We are told that knowledge of Bin Laden’s compound was obtained through the monitoring of a courier, but who knows whether this information came from another source?

The utilitarian view that everything should be done in the greater good is extremely plausible and favourable in most scenarios; but most countries hold dear the founding notions of Habeas Corpus and not torturing citizens. Kant’s argument, the categorical imperative, pushed the notion that people are ends in themselves; they cannot be used as means. For example, in a war, it is morally wrong to shell an area if you think an enemy may be hiding there, but kill a few innocent people instead, the sacrifice of the few for the many is necessary - is morally incompatible.

Theories always sound grand on paper and often seem inflexible when discussed in open debate. Would countries and citizens deem the utilitarian approach that punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit, if Osama’s whereabouts had been obtained by torture and he was on the verge of planning another 9/11? Would this contravene national morality? Or can laws and rights be absolute? These were questions America asked itself in the aftermath of September 2001 and after Sunday it may tip the balance that it made the right decision.

In the name of Osama.

So Osama is dead, hiding in a small provincial town in the heart of Pakistan, his last moments were dealt with by a team of US Navy Seals. The rapture across America is understandable and the vast majority of world leaders have welcomed the news of bin Laden’s death. There are a few things to take away with his passing. Firstly, one of the most iconic men of the twenty-first century is gone. The pictures and videos that followed 9/11 showed a man uttering strong hate and revenge, yet remaining calm and unflustered throughout. We have been led to believe that he has been residing within caves and the parochial uplands of Pakistan. Yet despite the infrequent nature of his media appearances this revolutionary became more iconic than the likes of Che Guevara. The world underestimated the man's reverence and his ability to unite under one organisation.

Previously, America had fought enemies within countries and regions. Even the Communist ideology could be sourced to the Kremlin in Moscow or Castro in Havana. Al Qaeda was an enemy confronting American interests all around the world and yet its leaders could not be sourced to one specific location (Bin Laden spent years in Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and his final residence Pakistan). This distorted omnipresence fooled Pentagon hawks into believing all terrorist groups prescribed as ‘enemies of America’ were off shoots of Al Qaeda. Militant Islamic groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas were tarred with the same brush yet their cause was ingrained in a deeper nationalist cause much like the IRA. This made the ‘War on Terror’ became amorphous and tactically unwinnable.

September 11th and the casualties across the Eastern seaboard of American will always be remembered. The calculated and horrifying death toll will be etched in the minds of the people going to work on that Tuesday morning. This was only the awakening, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London spread the terror to other big metropolitan areas. It changed the relationship between citizens and governments and between faiths and neighbourhoods.

When the world comes to judge the legacy of bin Laden and his ideology, perhaps most people will forget the deaths inflicted not on infidels, but on ordinary Muslims. Al Qaeda saw itself as a liberator from Western decadence and puppet regimes in the Middle East, yet tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have been slain in Pakistan, Indonesia and ultimately Iraq in the name of Al Qaeda and Islam. Whether Bin Laden ceased to become a protagonist or figurehead in recent years is possibly true, but it is fair to assess that his impact was huge, in terms of lives, not successes.

The question no one can answer is whether his death will draw a line under the continuous violence in the name of ‘Islam’ or whether the Arab Spring will evolve into a bloc of freely democratic and legitimate Arab nations? The latter would perhaps be a worthy resolution for all those innocent men, women and children who died under his stewardship. It will certainly not be the end of Al-Qaeda.