‘There’s No Downside’ to Drones, Philosopher Says

[The Northerner]

A newly hired philosophy professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., has become the latest defender of President Obama’s program of targeted killings through the use of unmanned drones.

Bradley Strawser is a self-described “army brat” who studied history and English before “falling in love” with philosophy in graduate school. He served as an air force administrator for seven years but never saw combat. He says he didn’t know he would become an advocate for drones when he began studying the topic.

What fascinates in reading the article on Strawser is how thoroughly—and willingly—he seems to have locked himself into the ivory tower mentality for which academics are routinely ridiculed and reviled. We read him discussing such finer points as whether or not it is ethical for one side in a war to have superior firepower; the degradation of traditional concepts of valor in fighting from behind a computer screen rather than on the field (drone “pilots” are models of “intellectual bravery” and “moral courage,” he says); and the tendency for drone technology to encourage war-making because the human, financial and political costs are lowered.

Instances where drones kill innocents (10 civilians die for every militant killed, the Brookings Institution estimated in 2009) are unjustified, Strawser says, but misuse of the technology does not invalidate the technology itself.

Read more: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/theres_no_downside_to_drones_moral_philosopher_says_20120803/?ln


I wonder if this so-called "philosopher" has ever heard of the term "blowback" which was coined by the CIA to describe the consequences of its own policies?

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Having a pilot in the cockpit provides a level of humanity in the process of killing.

When risk is removed for the attacker, the rules change for that process. Risks become less... risky. And bad decisions are made.

[MADem]

3. I wouldn't say the drone operators are inhumane.

Having a pilot in the cockpit means a massive amount of expenditure, too.

And pilots are trained to focus on the objective--there's no guarantee that they would be any more "humane" than someone sitting in a trailer somewhere in an American desert. Pilots in a danger zone are probably less concerned about anyone on the ground than preserving their own lives and safety. They aren't obsessively worried about collateral damage. Their job is to get in there, hit what they were told to hit, and get out alive.

I think the ability of the drone to circle overhead at altitude, out of range of ground fire, while the decision process is being made, is actually of benefit. There's less immediate impetus to get the hell away from the area, and thus the target acquisition can proceed in a more reasoned fashion with less "fight/flight" pull.

[ret5hd]

2. intellectual bravery and moral courage...uh huh...right.

i don't jave the words to describe how i feel about this man. depraved is the closest i can manage ate this point.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. I'd have to read his work to get a full appreciation of it

On the surface, however, it appears to be what Churchill called "an argument so ridiculous only an intellectual could have thought of it."

As I understand that, an example I like to give is Richard Pipes, who advised President on national security matters is the fathers of the infamous Islamophobe, Daniel Pipies, stating that, because quantity transpsoes into quality (a Hegelian principle), a larger nuclear stockpile than one's opponent assures that a nuclear war can be won. Of course, it didn't seem to occur to Dr. Pipes that among the ways to measure a nuclear arsenal is the number of times over it could destroy all life on the planet. Dr. Pipes' argument, one that could only be made by an intellectual, may hold for conventional weapons, but not for nuclear weapons. He seems to have been thinking so hard in the abstract that he lost track of the real world.

The anecdote about Richard Pipes is found in Robert Scheer's book, With enough Shovels.