Grégoire Chamayou

I have to admit I expected this one to be much more on philosophical side, but I was pleasantly surprised with author's very concise discussion on all aspects of the drone warfare. Author writes in a very clear way and keeps away from any [philosophical and legal] complex terminology that would make this book part of the specialized literature, not easily accessible by laymen in these areas.

Again, I have to admit, my view of the book would be very, very much different weren't it not for events in last 3 years (man, time flies). I would look at statements of officials as .... well lets be true here, as honest professional statements, instead of guesses and complete insecurity (and audacity to push shady agendas) under the pretense of "common good".

I wont go much into details of the book, it really needs to be read. I will just give few general comments.

While I understand that use of robotic/semi-autonomous (full autonomous is so very far away that it borderlines on never, because I cannot think military to be so idiotic (although there are elements proving the opposite) to allow for high powered weapons to be without control) is just progress in military affairs - this is not miracle weapon, it has its own limitations and within year or two (or as a matter of fact even right now) countermeasures will be in place and downgrade it from level of never-before-seen-hi-tech weapon to just one more item in arsenal. I think last year proved this beyond doubt - when encountering ready opponent, with industry, technology, means of production, and history of application of advanced weapon systems, drones are just one of the flying apparatuses performing missions on the front-lines - not behind enemy lines because any air defense will bring them down at some point while en-route (ballistic and supersonic/hypersonic missiles, even cruise missiles (which are basically autonomous drones), are still much much better for this type of operations).

Reason why drones are dangerous is because they provide government, which is completely divorced from reality when it comes to combat with serious opposition, easy PR campaign with which they can organize videos and images how they managed to destroy one or the other terrorist leader in the middle of nowhere after months of observation. This enables them to use drone actions as templates to start bush fires all over the world.

Common misconception is that drones are very cheap - they are not. Any reusable combat drone - air, sea or land - is very, very expensive, not to mention carrying highly sensitive sensor suits that nobody wants to fall to wrong hands. Single-use, so called suicide drones (or technically, loitering munitions) are nothing more than actual munitions with ability not to drop immediately to the ground but orbit for some time while seeking for targets. These are relatively cheap but they are not something unexpected nor new on the battlefield already bristling with equivalent PGMs (ranging from air deployed, artillery or even infantry weapons).

Main topic of the book are drones on expensive part of the spectrum - aircraft substitutions, armed with anti-tank missiles and with ability to fly over the target for a long time (again only in case of uncontested air-space) in order to track targets.

Main issues with this new way of waging war are the following:

- Drones are presented as more "humane" means of waging war, but nobody is actually clear why are they more "humane" than standard means of waging war. Using high explosive anti tank missile (or even air bomb) that has a substantial blast area hardly makes this a precision weapon. Much more scalpel-like-tool would be high powered rifle. But the goal is not precision but for all means and purposes high altitude terror - if only targeted terrorists were the ones under pressure, instead, entire population is held under the threat of Damocles sword.
- For a man with hammer, every problem is nail. Western governments see use of drones now as solution for everything (until they come across true military force). Since these actions are spectacular, easily advertised (and very hard to confirm the success and level of collateral damage), whenever in doubt how to solve the issue, drones are [naturally] taken as a solution. Result, you ask? Well nothing much but constant involvement in conflicts not just in war zones but over areas where there are no war operations and even in allied countries.
- Might makes right. Ability to strike everywhere makes Western governments think of themselves as omnipotent and with right to strike at anything they consider opposition, anywhere in the world. Basically this is what you might call rise of wars of assassins, wars that have nothing to do with actual war (covert or overt). It can be executed much easier than before (i.e. in case of use of planes, they would need to be moved to deployment area, pilots briefed etc; in this case there are drones based all over the world controlled from comfortably seated pilots somewhere in secure area in base country, just start the drones up under any pretense and off you go) and advertised any way you like because other side is always the "one that lies". Problems come up when wrong party is attacked, and government does not have exit strategy in this case. This causes escalation cycle that can cause the end.
- International law - what law? This is covered by above might makes right. Wars of assassins are never-ending wars and entire world is battlefield. They are always waged by "angels" of course, and in [unlikely, khm, khm!] case of errors they will always very politely say "we are sorry". So all good.
- Government no longer sees the citizenry as contributing body. Populace is seen as if it needs to be constantly guided and controlled and any opposition quickly brought under control. Since production is outsourced, and automatic systems dont need that many people (or even people from the same country, just imagine outsourced intervention control centers in third party countries), rest of the populace can be very easily put under control by use of these very automated systems (considering that, if anything, last few years showed that large part of any population are biological drones, with good percentage of zealots ready to point to anyone who is non-compliant). In this case drones are just part of the arsenal, external surveillance systems (cameras everywhere, obedient zealotry) and internal surveillance systems (phone software, social networks, habit monitoring etc) are majority of capabilities in question. This is the most serious side effect because state previously worked hard to keep populace happy because it needed it for any type of national enterprise (amongst other things for war). Now, tables have turned and it is more than obvious that governments today see their populace in completely different light. I think this will backfire in a huge way, but unfortunately it will take time.

All in all very good overview of all pitfalls created to approve and justify the use of drones, pitfalls that have created precedents that are ruining world peace at high pace. I just hope this constant erosion of international relations does not bring world to the utter destruction.

Very interesting book on the topic, highly recommended.… (mer)

If it is true that weapons constitute the essence of combatants, what is the essence of those who fight using drones?

Two years running, I have been swept along and often befuddled by a stream of theory texts. Scratching my head, I have attempted vainly to stay abreast on communication, virtual presence and what we talk about when we talk about work. Nowhere in my stumbling have I been as shocked as I was within this text. About 1000 years ago I bathed in news. My wife was so proud that I read The Guardian for about a hour every morning before work. This simply doesn't happen anymore. Fatigue, cynicism and a keen desire to read for me have elbowed that commitment aside.

Yes, I admitting that I was only paying half-attention to a foreign policy which chose to prosecute its War on Terror by incinerating its opponents rather than by imprisoning and torturing them. I remember reports on NPR about such. Is it possible to formualte a reaction? Would an attempt possibly be honest or - more remotely- truthful. One reviwer of this book said the argument deserved a Camus, not a Derrida. I resent that.

Then suddenly I had this book and I was ill prepared for such clear distinction about how drones are not conducting military operations as much as they man-hunting. By blowing up people and things below without controlling the ground narrative, the WOT is in fact completely opposed to the principles of counter-insurgency. Should we mention how we violate sovereign nations to achieve these targeted assassinations? Kill Lists cloud the issues where drones are regarded and defended as precise and humane: no, I'm not making that shit up. Those are the standard terms in the argument. So Hellfire missiles are lauded as precise, as compared to what? The humane aspect is something else. I'm speechless. This isn't the time nor place but I am left pondering the technological curve and the naked lunch of Imperialism.… (mer)