Tom Englehardt / Middle East News – 2010-07-09 20:06:07
Bush’s Pilotless Dream, Smoking Drones, and other Strange Tales from the Crypt
(June 29, 2010) — Admittedly, before George W. Bush had his fever dream, the US had already put its first unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drone surveillance planes in the skies over Kosovo in the late 1990s. By November 2001, it had armed them with missiles and was flying them over Afghanistan.
In November 2002, a Predator drone would loose a Hellfire missile on a car in Yemen, a country with which we werenâ€™t at war. Six suspected al-Qaeda members, including a suspect in the bombing of the destroyer the USS Cole would be turned into twisted metal and ash — the first â€œtargeted killingsâ€ of the American robotic era.
Just two months earlier, in September 2002, as the Bush administration was â€œintroducingâ€ its campaign to sell an invasion of Iraq to Congress and the American people, CIA Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney â€œtrooped up to Capitol Hillâ€ to brief four top Senate and House leaders on a hair-raising threat to the country. A â€œsmoking gunâ€ had been uncovered.
According to â€œnew intelligence,â€ Saddam Hussein had in his possession unmanned aerial vehicles advanced enough to be armed with biological and chemical weaponry. Worse yet, these were capable — so the CIA director and vice president claimed — of spraying those weapons of mass destruction over cities on the east coast of the United States. It was just the sort of evil plan you might have expected from a man regularly compared to Adolf Hitler in our media, and the news evidently made an impression in Congress.
Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, for example, said that he voted for the administration’s resolution authorizing force in Iraq because “I was told not only that [Saddam had weapons of mass destruction] and that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles, but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard.”
In a speech in October 2002, President Bush then offered a version of this apocalyptic nightmare to the American public. Of course, like Saddamâ€™s supposed ability to produce â€œmushroom cloudsâ€ over American cities, the Iraqi autocratâ€™s advanced UAVs (along with the ships needed to position them off the U.S. coast) were a feverish fantasy of the Bush era and would soon enough be forgotten. Instead, in the years to come, it would be American pilotless drones that would repeatedly attack Iraqi urban areas with Hellfire missiles and bombs.
In those years, our drones would also strike repeatedly in Afghanistan, and especially in the tribal borderlands of Pakistan, where in an escalating â€œsecretâ€ or â€œcovertâ€ war, which has been no secret to anyone, multiple drone attacks often occur weekly. They are now considered so much the norm that, with humdrum headlines slapped on (â€œUS missile strike kills 12 in NW Pakistanâ€), they barely make it out of summary articles about war developments in the American press.
And yet those robotic planes, with their young â€œpilotsâ€ (as well as the camera operators and intelligence analysts who make up a drone â€œcrewâ€) sitting in front of consoles 7,000 miles away from where their missiles and bombs are landing, have become another kind of American fever dream. The drone is our latest wonder weapon and a bragging point in a set of wars where there has been little enough to brag about.
CIA director Leon Panetta has, for instance, called the Agencyâ€™s drones flying over Pakistan â€œthe only game in townâ€ when it comes to destroying al-Qaeda; a typically anonymous U.S. official in a Washington Post report claims of drone missile attacks, â€œWeâ€™re talking about precision unsurpassed in the history of warfareâ€; or as Gordon Johnson of the Pentagon’s Joint Forces Command told author Peter Singer, speaking of the glories of drones: â€œThey don’t get hungry. They are not afraid. They don’t forget their orders. They don’t care if the guy next to them has been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes.â€
Seven thousand of them, the vast majority surveillance varieties, are reportedly already being operated by the military, and thatâ€™s before swarms of â€œmini-dronesâ€ come on line. Our American world is being redefined accordingly.
In February, Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post caught something of this process when he spent time with Colonel Eric Mathewson, perhaps the most experienced Air Force officer in drone operations and on the verge of retirement. Mathewson, reported Jaffe, was trying to come up with an appropriately new definition of battlefield â€œvalorâ€ — a necessity for most combat award citations — to fit our latest corps of pilots at their video consoles. â€œValor to me is not risking your life,” the colonel told the reporter. “Valor is doing what is right. Valor is about your motivations and the ends that you seek. It is doing what is right for the right reasons. That to me is valor.”
* Smoking drones
These days, CIA and administration officials troop up to Capitol Hill to offer briefings to Congress on the miraculous value of pilotless drones: in disrupting al-Qaeda, destroying its leadership or driving it â€œdeeper into hiding,â€ and taking out key figures in the Taliban. Indeed, what started as a 24/7 assassination campaign against al-Qaedaâ€™s top leadership has already widened considerably. The â€œtarget setâ€ has by now reportedly expanded to take in ever lower-level militants in the tribal borderlands. In other words, a drone assassination campaign is morphing into the first full-scale drone war (and, as in all wars from the air, civilians are dying in unknown numbers).
If the temperature is again rising in Washington when it comes to these weapons, this time itâ€™s a fever of enthusiasm for the spectacular future of drones (which the Air Force has plotted out to the year 2047), of a time when single pilots should be able to handle multiple drones in operations in the skies over some embattled land, and of a far more distant moment when those drones should be able to handle themselves, flying, fighting, and making key decisions about just who to take out without a human being having to intervene.
When we possess such weaponry, it turns out, thereâ€™s nothing unnerving or disturbing, apocalyptic or dystopian about it. Today, in the American homeland, not a single smoking drone is in sight.
Now it’s the United States whose UAVs are ever more powerfully weaponized. It’s the U.S. which is developing a 22-ton tail-less drone 20 times larger than a Predator that can fly at Mach 7 and (theoretically) land on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier. It’s the Pentagon which is planning to increase the funding of drone development by 700% over the next decade.
Admittedly, there is a modest counter-narrative to all this enthusiasm for our robotic prowess, â€œprecision,â€ and â€œvalor.â€ It involves legal types like Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions. He recently issued a 29-page report criticizing Washingtonâ€™s â€œever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe.â€ Unless limits are put on such claims, and especially on the CIAâ€™s drone war over Pakistan, he suggests, soon enough a plethora of states will follow in Americaâ€™s footprints, attacking people in other lands â€œlabeled as terrorists by one group or another.â€
Such mechanized, long-distance warfare, he also suggests, will breach what respect remains for the laws of war. â€œBecause operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield,â€ he wrote, â€œand undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audio-feed, there is a risk of developing a ‘PlayStation’ mentality to killing.â€
Similarly, the ACLU has filed a freedom of information lawsuit against the US government, demanding that it â€œdisclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas, as well as the ground rules regarding when, where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and the number of civilian casualties they have caused.â€
But pay no mind to all this. The arguments may be legally compelling, but not in Washington, which has mounted a half-hearted claim of legitimate â€œself-defense,â€ but senses that itâ€™s already well past the point where legalities matter. The die is cast, the money committed. The momentum for drone war and yet more drone war is overwhelming.
Itâ€™s a done deal. Drone war is, and will be, us.
* A pilotless military
If there are zeitgeist moments for products, movie stars, and even politicians, then such moments can exist for weaponry as well. The robotic drone is the Lady Gaga of this Pentagon moment.
Itâ€™s a moment that could, of course, be presented as an apocalyptic nightmare in the style of the Terminator movies (with the U.S. as the soul-crushing Skynet), or as a remarkable tale of how â€œnetworking technology is expanding a homefront that is increasingly relevant to day-to-day warfareâ€ (as Christopher Drew recently put it in the New York Times). It could be described as the arrival of a dystopian fantasy world of one-way slaughter verging on entertainment, or as the coming of a generation of homegrown video warriors who work â€œin camouflage uniforms, complete with combat boots, on open floors, with four computer monitors on each desk… and coffee and Red Bull help[ing] them get through the 12-hour shifts.â€ It could be presented as the ultimate in cowardice — the killing of people in a world you know nothing about from thousands of miles away — or (as Col. Mathewson would prefer) a new form of valor.
The drones — their use expanding exponentially, with ever newer generations on the drawing boards, and the planes even heading for â€œthe homelandâ€ — could certainly be considered a demon spawn of modern warfare, or (as is generally the case in the U.S.) a remarkable example of American technological ingenuity, a problem-solver of the first order at a time when few American problems seem capable of solution. Thanks to our technological prowess, itâ€™s claimed that we can now kill them, wherever they may be lurking, at absolutely no cost to ourselves, other than the odd malfunctioning drone. Not that even all CIA operatives involved in the drone wars agree with that one. Some of them understand perfectly well that thereâ€™s a price to be paid.
As it happens, the enthusiasm for drones is as much a fever dream as the one President Bush and his associates offered back in 2002, but itâ€™s also distinctly us. In fact, drone warfare fits the America of 2010 tighter than a glove. With its consoles, chat rooms, and â€œsingle shooterâ€ death machines, it certainly fits the skills of a generation raised on the computer, Facebook, and video games. That our valorous warriors, their day of battle done, can increasingly leave war behind and head home to the barbecue (or, given American life, the foreclosure) also fits an American mood of the moment.
The Air Force â€œdetachmentsâ€ that â€œmanageâ€ the drone war from places like Creech Air Force Base in Nevada are â€œdetachedâ€ from war in a way that even an artillery unit significantly behind the battle lines or an American pilot in an F-16 over Afghanistan (who could, at least, experience engine failure) isnâ€™t. If the drone presents the most extreme version thus far of the detachment of human beings from the battlefield (on only one side, of course) and so launches a basic redefinition of what war is all about, it also catches something important about the American way of war.
After all, while this country garrisons the world, invests its wealth in its military, and fights unending, unwinnable frontier wars and skirmishes, most Americans are remarkably detached from all this. If anything, since Vietnam when an increasingly rebellious citizensâ€™ army proved disastrous for Washingtonâ€™s global aims, such detachment has been the goal of American war-making.
As a start, with no draft and so no citizenâ€™s army, war and the toll it takes is now the professional business of a tiny percentage of Americans (and their families). It occurs thousands of miles away and, in the Bush years, also became a heavily privatized, for-profit activity. As Pratap Chatterjee reported recently, â€œ[E]very U.S. soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq is matched by at least one civilian working for a private company. All told, about 239,451 contractors work for the Pentagon in battle zones around the world.â€ And a majority of those contractors arenâ€™t even U.S. citizens.
If drones have entered our world as media celebrities, they have done so largely without debate among that detached populace. In a sense, our wars abroad could be thought of as the equivalent of so many drones. We send our troops off and then go home for dinner and put them out of mind. The question is: Have we redefined our detachment as a new version of citizenly valor (and covered it over by a constant drumbeat of â€œsupport for our troopsâ€)?
Under these circumstances, itâ€™s hardly surprising that a â€œpilotlessâ€ force should, in turn, develop the sort of contempt for civilians that can be seen in the recent flap over the derogatory comments of Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal and his aides about Obama administration officials.
* The globalization of death
Maybe what we need is the return of George W. Bushâ€™s fever dream from the American oblivion in which itâ€™s now interred. He was beyond wrong, of course, when it came to Saddam Hussein and Iraqi drones, but he wasnâ€™t completely wrong about the dystopian Drone World to come. There are now reportedly more than 40 countries developing versions of those pilot-less planes. Earlier this year, the Iranians announced that they were starting up production lines for both armed and unarmed drones. Hezbollah used them against Israel in the 2006 summer war, years after Israel began pioneering their use in targeted killings of Palestinians.
Right now, in what still remains largely a post-Cold War arms race of one, the U.S. is racing to produce ever more advanced drones to fight our wars, with few competitors in sight. In the process, weâ€™re also obliterating classic ideas of national sovereignty, and of who can be killed by whom under what circumstances. In the process, we may not just be obliterating enemies, but creating them wherever our drones buzz overhead and our missiles strike.
We are also creating the (il)legal framework for future war on a frontier where we wonâ€™t long be flying solo. And when the first Iranian, or Russian, or Chinese missile-armed drones start knocking off their chosen sets of “terrorists,” we wonâ€™t like it one bit. When the first â€œsuicide dronesâ€ appear, weâ€™ll like it even less. And if drones with the ability to spray chemical or biological weapons finally do make the scene, weâ€™ll be truly unnerved.
In the 1990s, we were said to be in an era of â€œglobalizationâ€ which was widely hailed as good news. Now, the U.S. and its detached populace are pioneering a new era of killing that respects no boundaries, relies on the self-definitions of whoever owns the nearest drone, and establishes planetary free-fire zones. Itâ€™s a nasty combination, this globalization of death.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book, just published, is The American Way of War: How Bushâ€™s Wars Became Obamaâ€™s (Haymarket Books).
Posted in accordance with title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.