Center for a Stateless Society » drone strikes

“Civilized” War is Permanent War on Feed 44

James Tuttle — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 21:00:24 +0000

C4SS Feed 44 presents Christiaan Elderhorst‘s ““Civilized” War is Permanent War” read by James Tuttle and edited by Nick Ford.

A number of ideas have been put forward to mediate the amount of innocent victims. Technology philosopher Christine Boshuijzen cites technologically impaired military officials as a reason for civilian deaths. Doctoral student Dieuwertje Kuijpers calls for more democratic accountability for the CIA. Artificial intelligence professor Gustzi Eiben wants to improve drones’ face recognition and tracking software. Computer scientist Arnoud Visser claims the remedy is to fully automate the whole killing process by programming drones with algorithms governing the acceptable margins of error. These changes might very well reduce innocent deaths. Drone warfare would be far more efficient. But is efficiency really the goal?

Feed 44:

Bitcoin tips welcome:

1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Challenging the Motives Behind War on Feed 44

James Tuttle — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:00:19 +0000

C4SS Feed 44 presents Chad Nelson‘s “Challenging the Motives Behind War” read by Christopher B. King and edited by Nick Ford.

But in war, all the war-making murderer needs is a place where he or she claims bad people exist. To hell with other details or circumstances. The rest of the war-making murderer’s conduct gets blanket immunity so long as that low threshold requirement is met. Most of the time even that part can later be found false or mistaken. The actual execution of war never matters. Its implementation always ends up being reckless, depraved, and of such a nature that even a toddler would recognize it as guaranteed to lead to the murder of innocents. Yet presidents and congressman always get away with behavior that would land any ordinary person behind bars, probably on death row.

Feed 44:

Bitcoin tips welcome:

1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Guerra “Civilizzata” Significa Guerra Permanente

Christiaan Elderhorst — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:00:58 +0000

È capitato ultimamente che persone all’interno delle forze armate hanno parlato di una carenza di droni che avrebbe rallentato la guerra contro Isis. Questo dopo che il presidente Obama aveva detto che le restrizioni imposte alla guerra condotta con i droni per minimizzare le vittime civili non sarebbero state applicate in Siria e Iraq. Secondo gli analisti, se la carenza di droni costringerà gli Stati Uniti a mandare truppe in Siria e Iraq è facile immaginare che i morti faranno schizzare il reclutamento di Isis alle stelle.

La necessità di espandere la guerra con i droni potrebbe dar luogo a quelle innovazioni che gli specialisti invocano. Secondo loro, l’obiettivo sarebbe la riduzione delle vittime civili. Questo attenuerebbe la voglia di vendetta e rappresaglia.

L’obiettivo è nobile. La parola “nobile”, infatti, non potrebbe descrivere meglio la situazione. Nel 1139, papa Innocenzo II emise una bolla che vietava l’uso della balestra al fine di proteggere la nobiltà europea. A quei tempi, la funzione principale della nobiltà europea era di mettere una forza militare costosa e ben addestrata al servizio dei monarchi. La balestra era un’arma economica, facile da usare e molto potente. Con una settimana di addestramento, un semplice contadino poteva uccidere un cavaliere protetto da una pesante armatura. L’idea che un esercito di contadini potesse decimare forze ben più addestrate fu giudicata anti-cavalleresca. Il bando della balestra fu dunque, nel vero senso della parola, “nobile”.

Similmente, quando si trova davanti forze che adottano strategie e tattiche nuove e diverse dal solito, il potere è pronto a bollare il nemico come incivile. I gruppi di militanti, contadini nel vero senso della parola, non rispettano le teorie della guerra legittima, ritualizzata della Nato. La guerra con i droni è considerata una risposta civile che dà legittimità all’intervento americano banalizzando la natura orribile della guerra stessa. Il fatto, però, è che si continua a terrorizzare le popolazioni locali con attacchi indiscriminati. E il rimedio proposto non è la cessazione della guerra, cosa giudicata impensabile e sconveniente, ma il miglioramento della sua esecuzione.

Sono state fatte tante proposte per limitare le vittime innocenti. Christine Boshuijzen, filosofo che studia la tecnologia, cita le scarse conoscenze tecniche degli ufficiali come causa dei morti civili. Dieuwertje Kuijpers, studente di dottorato, chiede una maggiore responsabilità democratica per la Cia. Gustzi Eiben, che insegna intelligenza artificiale, vorrebbe migliorare i software di riconoscimento facciale e tracciatura dei droni. Arnoud Visser, informatico, pensa che il rimedio sarebbe l’automazione totale di tutto il processo di uccisione, ottenibile programmando i droni con algoritmi in grado di ridurre il margine di errore a livelli accettabili. Molto probabilmente, questi cambiamenti porterebbero ad una riduzione delle morti innocenti. La guerra con i droni sarebbe molto più efficiente. Ma è l’efficienza il vero obiettivo?

Pensate a quanto potrebbe crescere l’arroganza dei militari se avessero il drone perfetto. Con la possibilità di regolare minutamente le relazioni di potere regionali con attacchi di precisione, chiunque anche vagamente sospettato di intenzioni terroristiche potrebbe essere assassinato immediatamente con il tocco sterilizzante e civilizzante di un bottone. Uno sguardo vendicativo in direzione della bandiera a stelle e strisce e la possibile recluta terroristica verrebbe subito individuata e trattata come si deve. Gli algoritmi potrebbero anche decidere quali giovani sono maturi per il reclutamento tra i terroristi e ordinare la decimazione immediata di questi dati numerici.

In questa guerra dei droni, se si vuole andare nella direzione giusta, il prossimo passo è l’abolizione immediata. L’aristocrazia, le élite, combattono queste guerre a distanza contro piccoli gruppi di individui che collaborano tra loro formando reti che cambiano continuamente alleanze. Il campo d’azione di questi individui è la vendetta spicciola, la diatriba tribale, l’estremismo religioso e l’instabilità politica. La soluzione è ovviamente la fine dell’interventismo militare e l’abolizione dello stato bellico.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

“Civilized” War is Permanent War

Christiaan Elderhorst — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:00:40 +0000

US military insiders recently reported a shortage in drones has slowed the war against ISIS. This after President Obama stated that restrictions imposed on drone warfare to minimize civilian casualties will not be applied to the situation in Syria and Iraq. Analysts conclude that if the drone shortage forces the US to send troops to Syria and Iraq we can expect the death toll to climb and ISIS’s recruitment success to skyrocket. The call for an expansion in drone warfare capabilities might allow for the innovation specialists have called for. They state reduction in civilian deaths as their goal. This would lead to less local vengeance and retaliation.

Their goal is noble. In fact “noble” couldn’t be a more apt descriptor. In 1139 Pope Innocent II issued a bull forbidding the use of crossbows in order to protect the position of nobility in European society. The prime function of European nobility at that time was to supply royalty with expensive and well-trained soldiers. The crossbow was a cheap, easy to use, and powerful weapon. With a week’s training a mere peasant could kill a heavily armored knight. The idea of peasant armies decimating skilled forces was deemed void of chivalry. The crossbow’s ban was, literally, “noble.”

When faced with opponents adopting new and different strategies and tactics, the powers that be are quick to declare their opponents uncivilized. Militant groups, peasants in every sense of the word, don’t comply with NATO’s chivalrous, ritualized just-war theory. Drone warfare is seen as a civilized response which legitimatizes the US’s involvement by downplaying the horrible nature of war. Yet the terrorizing of local populations through indiscriminate drone strikes continues. The proposed remedy for this horror is not to cease war — that would be unthinkable and unprofitable — but merely to improve upon its execution.

One can only begin to imagine how a perfect drone feeds the military’s hubris. With the imagined ability to micromanage regional power relations through precision strikes anyone even slightly suspected of terrorist aspirations could be assassinated quickly at the sterile and civilized push of a button. A vengeful glance in the direction of the star-spangled banner and subsequent terrorist recruitment would be easily spotted and dealt with too. Algorithms might even decide which youths are ripe for terrorist recruitment and allow for immediate decimation of these datapoints.

The correct next development in drone warfare is its immediate end. The aristocracy, the elites, are fighting long distance wars against small groups of individuals cooperating in networks of ever changing allegiances, petty vengeance, tribal grudges, religious extremism, and political instability. The clear solution is non-interventionism and abolition of the warfare state.

Translations for this article:

Italian, Guerra “Civilizzata” Significa Guerra Permanente.

Challenging the Motives Behind War

Chad Nelson — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:00:47 +0000

American criminal law takes a nuanced view of murder, creating several punishable degrees of it. First degree murder is generally defined as premeditated. The murderer has a plan to kill and takes sufficient time to map out his crime. Second degree murder involves the killer who hasn’t necessarily taken the time to plan out his crime, but nonetheless has an “evil mind” and intends to kill. Another variety of second degree murder involves the killer who engages in conduct so depraved that the law says he should have known that his behavior would likely result in death. Then there’s manslaughter, sometimes referred to as “negligent homicide,” wherein the killer behaved negligently and someone died as a result. These are age-old American legal traditions.

Somehow, American war culture manages to turn a blind eye to these longstanding, basic legal principles when it comes to its government’s wars. Americans brook no nuance when it comes to war. A war with massive civilian casualties is the same as a war with no civilian casualties, as long it meets some vague government objective. For anyone who doubts this lack of distinction, simply look at the body of historical work surrounding “The Good War” — World War II.

War is hell, they say. War is a dirty business. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. The countless despicable metaphors used to describe war are intended to distract people from what war really is: Non-punishable mass murder.

Unfortunately, no matter how reckless, depraved, ill-informed or misconceived American war-making becomess, the war-makers are never held to the same standards as run-of-the-mill murderers. Neither George W. Bush nor any other American president, were he tried in a criminal court of law (loud laughter), would escape conviction for first degree murder.

Many critics of the American War Machine give their opponents the benefit of doubt by acknowledging supposedly good intentions. This is a grave mistake. It becomes a mantra that gets tossed out prior to challenging any war: “I know you mean well, but …” It’s time to drop that preface. Just as criminal law cuts the negligent killer no break, so too should serious war critics drop the forgiving aspect of their engagement with government killers.

Remember this when Barack Obama or any future president speaks to you in an effort to outline his or her war strategy. It doesn’t matter whether he or his clan of humanitarian killers are able to come up with some cockamamie excuse for dropping bombs. Their behavior is going to end innocent lives, pure and simple.

What to Make of Renewed U.S. Intervention in Iraq

Natasha Petrova — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:12:31 +0000

A humanitarian rationale is being given for the recent renewed U.S. intervention in Iraq. The atrocities of ISIS are the latest excuse for U.S. military action in the country. There are even signs of a new U.S. push on Fallujah and Anbar generally. Fallujah is the site of two past U.S. assaults and some atrocities.

All of this should be deeply troubling for friends of liberty. George W. Bush had humanitarian reasons for his occupation and bombing of Iraq too. That didn’t make his actions in Iraq just. There were jihadists running around killing Shia and oppressing Christians during his term as well. The difference now is one of degree. ISIS is a lot more successful and powerful than other jihadist groups have been in Iraq.

One need not like ISIS to question further U.S. military action in Iraq. There is a very real possibility that further occupation of and airstrikes on Iraq will lead to sympathy for ISIS. They can play the defense against foreign aggression card. Not to mention that airstrikes will most likely result in the euphemistic concept of “collateral damage”. This can lead to further support for ISIS.

These possibilities were also present in the military action in Iraq prior to this latest round. That makes one wonder how people will react to it this time. If there is a positive reaction, the stigma surrounding war in Iraq created during the Bush era will have been defused. This could lead to an escalation of the intervention or military action elsewhere. An action that would no longer trouble the populace and thus not be politically dangerous.

The banishment of a stigma surrounding war from the public consciousness would be disastrous for people around the world. They would be subject to more U.S. murder and military intervention. This aversion to war and imperialism helps keep people alive. If nothing else, renewed U.S. military intervention in Iraq could have this awful effect.

Renewed militarism in Iraq could also involve the further use of extrajudicial killings via drone strike. This has been a horrific practice honed in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. A rational anti-militarist will not want it to spread to other countries. If they make an exception for this new military action in Iraq, they may very well be supporting what brings extrajudicial killing through drone strike to Iraq. One can only hope that further military action in Iraq doesn’t lead to any of the possibilities above.

One way to help is by donating to Antiwar.com.