The following comes from a story by Lt Col. Douglas Pryer in the Mar-Apr. 2013 edition of the Military Review. Pryer served in command and staff positions in Iraq, Kosovo, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and, most recently, Afghanistan. He is the author of The Fight for the High Ground: the U.S. Army and Interrogation.
At the start of 2004, when I was the commander of a military intelligence company in Baghdad, my company received five of the first Raven unmanned aerial vehicles deployed to Iraq. The Raven is a small, hand-launched reconnaissance plane that has probably never figured prominently in any discussion about the ethics of waging war via remote-controlled robots. This drone is not armed, nor can it range more than a few miles from its controller. It looks more like a large toy plane than a weapon of war. To my troops, I seemed quite enthused about this capability. Not all of this excitement was for show. I actually did find the technology and the fact that my troops were among the first to employ these drones in Iraq to be exciting. I had fully bought into the fantasy that such technology would make my country safe from terrorist attack and invincible in war.
I also felt, however, a sense of unease. One thing I worried about was so- called “collateral damage.” I knew that, because of the small, gray viewing screens that came with these drones as well as their limited loiter time, it might prove too easy to misinterpret the situation on the ground and relay false information to combat troops with big guns. I suspected that, if we did contribute to civilian deaths, my troops and I would not handle it well. But at the same time, I worried that we might cope quite well. Since we were physically removed from the action, maybe such an event would not affect us much. Would it look and feel, I wondered, like sitting at home, a can of Coke in hand, watching a war movie? Would we feel no more than a passing pang that the show that day had been a particularly hard one to watch? And, if that is how we felt, what would that say about us? Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.
It did not take long for a vivid nightmare to bring my fears to the surface. In this dream, I saw a little Iraqi girl and her family in a car, frightened, caught in the middle of a major U.S. military operation, trying to escape both insurgents and encircling U.S. forces. Believing the car to be filled with insurgents, my troops followed this car with one of our Ravens and alerted a checkpoint to the approaching threat. When a Bradley destroyed the car with a TOW missile, the officers in our command post cheered, clapping each other on the back.
I awoke filled with dread. I now recognize this dream as a symptom of cognitive dissonance, the psychological result of holding two or more conflicting cognitions. In this instance, my identity as a U.S. Army officer and all this identity’s attendant values (duty to follow legal orders, loyalty to my fellow soldiers, and so on) clashed with my fear of harming innocents. It also clashed with a growing feeling that there was something fundamentally troubling about how we were choosing to wage war. ….
I do not argue in this essay that waging war via armed robot proxies is unethical. Instead, my thesis is that the way we use them is deeply unwise because it seems unethical to the very populations abroad we most need to approve of our actions—the populations our enemies hide among, the wider Muslim world, and the home populations of coalition allies. The negative moral blowback that armed drones generate when used as a transnational weapon, I contend, is helping to fuel perpetual war. ….
Enemies who show us no quarter, we say, are inhuman, cruel, and violate the laws of war (which they do). Why would our enemies feel any differently about us, when we wage war in such a fashion that it offers them no quarter? Sadly, a barbaric medieval enemy prone to beheading captured prisoners actually holds a moral advantage over America in those places where America’s drone strikes are not coordinated with ground forces who can receive surrenders. The United States is the only country of 21 surveyed in which a majority of the population supports America’s use of armed drones against designated terrorists,,,,
To read the entire article, click here.
After 9/11 I told friends that this new form of terrorism (essentially: war with non-state agents) was going to create enormous moral, legal and military problems. Al-Qaida has nullified both Westphalia (1648) and Vienna (1815), where treaties attempted to distinguish war (directed by states) from actions like piracy, to be considered crimes punished by civil authorities. Organized, operating with impunity in areas where state authority is weak or nonexistent, armed and disciplined enough to defeat government troops and impose their will on subject populations, these terrorists share much in common with the barbarians who invaded Rome in the 5th century. God help anyone who has to fight them.
Lord have mercy.
The end does not justify the means. Even a good end cannot justify evil means. Evil is always immoral. Always. Not long ago, a missionary priest from Nigeria told me that using the end to justify the means was the root of our present-day moral evils. I agree with him, and these drones are a prime example of how morally bankrupt our once God-fearing nation has become.
Don: What would you have said to the Byzantine Emperors who defended Constantinople with Greek fire (low-tech napalm) several times in the 8th century and afterwards? Am I morally obliged to use no technology more sophisticated than my assailants’? Or are you condemning over-use of drone technology only (with which point I would agree).
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. The use of superior military technology is not intrinsically immoral, but, except as a secondary effect, the killing of civilian non-combatants is. By “secondary effect” I mean something like accidentally killing the janitor while bombing the enemy’s weapons factory at midnight. The killing of civilian non-combatants by drones is far too indiscriminate to qualify as a secondary effect.
If drone warfare could be made to conform to the morality of secondary effect as regards civilian non-combatants, then, hypothetically it could be moral, but I don’t think we’re there yet. I understand the temptation to resort to ruthlessness to defeat our enemies, but if we succumb to it, then we have already lost. War should be full-scale or not at all. Instead, we seek victory on the cheap, which, I think, is the real problem here.
War on the “full scale” is rarely something guerilla armies seek. Your points are well taken. I certainly think drone warfare could be conformed to legitimate principles of a just war. What I don’t think will ever happen (and it surprises me that even a Lt.Col seems to think it) is that the wicked will avoid illegitimate means at the mere example of the good. Maybe we shouldn’t do Thing X, but our not doing Thing X will not keep North Korea, China, Russia or Al-Qaida from doing it. Malice sees honor as an opportunity to exploit, not a rebuke of its intentions.
You’re right, of course. The mere example of the good will not make the wicked avoid illegitimate means. “Malice sees honor as an opportunity to exploit, not a rebuke of its intentions.” But that’s what separates us from them.
The West, and Christianity, has a real problem with Islam. Muslims are waging perpetual warfare, Jihad, against Infidels (anyone who isn’t a Muslim). This warfare is going on in Indonesia and the Philippines against Christians, in Thailand against Buddhists, in India against Hindus, in China, and in Europe and the West, against Christians and sectarians, in Israel, against Jews. In Muslim lands like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Afghanistan, Christians are being exterminated. Once Christian lands like Lebanon, are now turned into Muslim territory, through ruthless terrorism. Jihad also employs tactics which are unacceptable to Westerners, like the use of Children as suicide bombers, and militia. Muslims play on this repugnancy with the use of propaganda ploys, like the children holding the banner above. What’s missing is that many Islamic children are armed, and part of the Islamic army. If you doubt this, google “Muslim Child soldiers”. There are scores of images of grammar school classes, dressed in Muslim war garb, marching with automatic weapons. In the Islamic culture, children are part of the warfare against the Infidel. Muslims will set up artillery in schools and hospitals. Jihadists will meet in family homes where there are children, because they know Western soldiers find warfare against children to be repugnant. There have been scores of children acting as Islamic suicide bombers in the last few years.
This is related, I suppose. It’s incredibly sad. https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/15/I-sentence-you-to-hang-Declares-Sudanese-Judge-to-27-Year-old-Pregnant-woman-Her-Crime-Becoming-a-Christian
Yes, we should avoid killing children in war whenever possible unless they are combatants and aiming armament at us, but this same religion (Islam) has no trouble following a leader who had sex with a 9 or 10 year-old girl he “married” when Christian and Jewish women were being married at fourteen because of shorter life spans, so please spare me some of these crocodile tears. Which is worse death or being forced to marry an old man in ones childhood because his “god” says he has the right to do so, even though he was the only witness to what his “god” supposedly said. The ignorance of all this is just mind boggling. Christianity and Judaism requires witnesses to prophetic teachings. Who was a witness to what Mohammed supposedly saw and heard in that cave — no one.
Therefore I always pray for peace, and do not want to take sides in the quarreling between Russia and the Ukraine as there are Christians on both sides, and those who would like to see us all dead. You can be sure that there are Muslims and others just stirring the pot to keep us in perpetual conflict with each other.
There will always be COLLATERAL DAMAGE…..ww2..korean war..vietnam..the amount of bombs dropped created mass amounts of collateral damages..a lot of innocent people were killed…drones will actually reduce the amount of innocent people killed…..ALL WARS ARE BARBARIC…..
Drones are worse than beheadings……???? Really. I urge everyone here to google “Beheading Christian”, and watch some of these videos. You may then think that a drone strike is pretty humane by comparison.
Amen! Rex. When I was about eleven years old, an eleven-year-old boy saved me from being molested in a show by an older man. The boy’s name? MICHAEL. Michael, the boy, had dark blonde hair with brown eyes and light skin but with the ability to tan. The man who attempted to molest me was blonde-haired, too, so I learned quite early in life that both good and evil come in all skin and hair colors. Michael had a Hispanic last name because his Catholic father was of Mexican American heritage with black hair, dark brown eyes and brown skin. His mother was of Northern European heritage with blond hair, blue eyes and light skin. They were married and, evidently, had raised Michael well. Perhaps that is why I have always preferred, though I have others, the picture of the Archangel Michael with blonde hair and light skin that the Franciscans have often used, as one of the Lord’s protectors appeared to me that way in my childhood as a human boy of eleven. Because of my experience, no one will ever convince me that Mohammed saw the Angel Gabriel in that cave, or that the Archangel Michael approves his teachings — no, not in a million years. They would never approve that.
Excellent article.
Our politically correct rules of engagement make drones attractive against our Muslim Enemies. Remember 9/11.
JUST WAR DOCTRINE –
CCC: ” 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.
At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. ”
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
“- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” is a sure formula for defeat!
We won WWII largely because of our Air Superiority, should we have given that up because our Air Power was greater than theirs?
May God have Mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
So you reject the Cathecism, Kenneth?
Our God reigns! A Merciful God IS up there still on His Throne. JESUS, JESUS, JESUS Mother Mary tells us to pray, pray, pray! ‘Love our enemies’, but God knows who is our enemy
My prayers are with you Lt Col Douglas Pryer. You’re a Godsend!
As far as the use of drones, I will let those wiser and more informed about them decide, but we do need to avoid the harming the innocent. on all sides.
Anne T.
It makes no difference to your surviving relatives and friends if you are killed by an adult Muslim or by a child trained to kill like an adult, either way you come home in a box. Have you seen any of the pictures of child Muslims in COMBAT TRAINING?
My late roomate was an F51 Pilot in Korea, and it took my Archbishop Khai to finally convince him that he had no choice but to strafe civilian refugee columns because the Communist did not honor the Geneva Convention and were firing on our forces from within those columns. Unless you have been there, it is very easy to criticise our troops from the safety of your nize cozy State Side home!
Our Country is now in a sorry state because we have forgotten that wars are to be won. When we started fighting wars with no intention of winning them, we became sitting ducks! We would NOT have won WWI or WWII had we dared to use the rules of engagement that our Troops have forced on them by enemies within our own “government”, and the World would be much worse of for it.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Would it make a difference to you and yours?
Kenneth, please reread my May 15th post at 6:55 pm. I said there that we have a right to defend ourselves if the children are being used as combatants. Our first course would be to disarm them if possible without killing them, but it is not wrong to kill them if it is necessary to keep them from killing us or others. The Communists used children as combatants, sometimes unknown to the children even, in the Viet Nam War. Some people are just so terribly evil that they will use any human being, innocent or not, to get what they want. That is why I said that I leave the decision up to those who are wiser about these methods than I in my last post. In other words, it is not for me to pass judgment unless I know the WHOLE story behind what happened. I have had people send me e-mails wanting me to send my government messages to prosecute certain “war crimes”. I refused, because unless I was there and have all the evidence and what the so-called perpetrator went through before it happened, I have no idea what went on or who is telling the truth. This is another reason I hate it when people are “tried on television” which goes on often today.
Kenneth, only God knows what the state of the world would be had we not won WWI or WWII. How odd that you confuse the wishes of an amoral Amerika with the will of God.
Kenneth, I have also read where some radical Muslim groups use civilian areas and houses to fire rockets into Israel, and the Israelis feel there is no option but to return the fire to protect their own people. It is better when they can find another way to take the combatants out, but it might not be possible. I can make no judgment about the right or wrong of that unless I am there.
Of course some Israelis bombed the Kind David hotel in the first part of the 20th Century, full well knowing there would be civilians maimed or killed. It of course made people dislike them and was not good for their cause either.
The best way to end all killing in wars is to end the war in Victory. Yes we must avoid if at all possible direct attacks on civilian but how do you determine just who are non combatant civilians?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Are you suggesting we need to win our wars in Yemen and Pakistan? That’s where a high proportion of our drone strikes have been.
To win a war, there needs to be a war. There needs to be some clear measure of objective, and a determination of what winning even means.
CCC: ” 2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
JUST WAR –
CCC: ” 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. ”
CCC: “2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies.
They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. ”