05 November 2009
Honorable Way of Warfare
Terrorism is not an honorable way of warfare. Slaughtering civilians at their workplaces, on the street, in their places of worship, as they commute does not qualify the perpetrators as wagers of classical conflict between states. So I take issue with former Army ranger and writer for the Center for New American Security Andrew Exum, quoted in Jane Mayer’s article in the October 26, 2009 New Yorker, “The Predator War,” who said that “as a classics major. . ., there’s something about pilotless drones that doesn’t strike me as an honorable way of warfare.”
There has been woeful confusion about the causes of the disappearance of safety in the world in recent years, and on the selection of appropriate methods to use to control them. Civil order, which helps assure the personal security of residents of the world’s nations, has traditionally been guaranteed by domestic police forces. Challenges to the authority of nations have been defended by their armed forces. However, the technological advance of communications and means of destruction have allowed extremist religious and ideological groups to become virtual states. Non-state entities now have the power to threaten both civil order and national authority. This has led governments to use their armed forces to take the police actions required to combat non-state law-breakers.
There no longer is an honorable way of warfare—it has become barbaric and unnecessary. There is certainly no honor in choosing to risk innocent life, whether of the police or of bystanders, in order to enforce rules of civil order. If unmanned drones can be used with sufficient surgical precision to avoid “collateral damage,” no classical consideration of honor should prevent their being used to protect innocent life and welfare from the threat of terrorism.
Terrorism is not an honorable way of warfare. Slaughtering civilians at their workplaces, on the street, in their places of worship, as they commute does not qualify the perpetrators as wagers of classical conflict between states. So I take issue with former Army ranger and writer for the Center for New American Security Andrew Exum, quoted in Jane Mayer’s article in the October 26, 2009 New Yorker, “The Predator War,” who said that “as a classics major. . ., there’s something about pilotless drones that doesn’t strike me as an honorable way of warfare.”
There has been woeful confusion about the causes of the disappearance of safety in the world in recent years, and on the selection of appropriate methods to use to control them. Civil order, which helps assure the personal security of residents of the world’s nations, has traditionally been guaranteed by domestic police forces. Challenges to the authority of nations have been defended by their armed forces. However, the technological advance of communications and means of destruction have allowed extremist religious and ideological groups to become virtual states. Non-state entities now have the power to threaten both civil order and national authority. This has led governments to use their armed forces to take the police actions required to combat non-state law-breakers.
There no longer is an honorable way of warfare—it has become barbaric and unnecessary. There is certainly no honor in choosing to risk innocent life, whether of the police or of bystanders, in order to enforce rules of civil order. If unmanned drones can be used with sufficient surgical precision to avoid “collateral damage,” no classical consideration of honor should prevent their being used to protect innocent life and welfare from the threat of terrorism.
Comments:
Post a Comment
