If there's no risk, is it really war?

by Sam Roggeveen - 17 September 2012 2:58PM

Steve Weintz has taken the words out of my mouth.

My original post on this topic argued that drones don't really revolutionise warfare, they're just another step in the direction military aviation has taken from the beginning: improving the accuracy of weapons delivery while trying to keep the aircrew from harm. Christian Enemark responded that drones are qualitatively different:

When there is no contest between killer and killed, no relationship of mutual risk, any killing that takes place is incapable of attracting the moral imprimatur that war potentially bestows. The use of armed drones is therefore something that is genuinely new and arguably anathema to the reputed virtues of the military profession. The drone operator kills without experiencing any physical risk, thus requiring none of the courage that for millennia has distinguished the warrior from all other kinds of killer. As such, the moral status of the drone operator is diminished.

There's an obvious problem with Christian's argument. If a 'relationship of mutual risk' is central to the virtues of the military profession, then any attempt to reduce that risk undermines the courage which allegedly distinguishes warriors from other killers. That would include body armour, camouflage, or night vision equipment that allows soldiers to hide in the dark.

But soldiers have always tried to reduce the risk to themselves and increase it for their enemies. As George C Scott said in his famous portrayal of General Patton, 'no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.'

I think Christian recognises the weakness of his argument when he closes by saying that warriors need to expose themselves to merely a 'scintilla' of risk. I wouldn't go even that far, but if it would comfort Christian to know that drone operators do face a scintilla of risk, then he should remember that they are at some threat of being targeted by terrorists. In fact, I'm reading a cracking good novel on that subject just now, Andrew Croome's Midnight Empire. If you'd like to join Andrew, myself and the ABC's resident drone reporter Mark Corcoran to discuss this subject further, join us on Wednesday at the Lowy Institute.

Photo by Flickr user Defence Images.

Lowy Institute for International Policy
Australia in the Asian Century

An Interpreter feature which ran from March to September of 2012, published to debate the Gillard Government's 'Australia in the Asian Century' White Paper, then in its research and consultation phase. Click here to see every post published in this series.

For commentary on the published White Paper, click here.

Australia's Defence Challenges

An Interpreter feature exploring Australia's defence challenges as the 2013 Defence White Paper planning process begins. Click here to see every post published in this series.

Selected Interpreter posts also appear in:

 
Business Spectator Caing online The Diplomat
 

Keep up-to-date with The Interpreter through:

iPhone App   iPhone App

RSS Feed   The Interpreter RSS Feed

Email Digest  

To receive a digest of posts from The Interpreter via email, enter your email address:

Receive a daily digest ->
Receive a weekly digest ->

Preview   |   Powered by FeedBlitz

Interpreting the Aid Review

This is the archive of a Lowy Institute blog which ran from January to April of 2011. It was published to debate the Gillard Government's independent aid review, which was then in its research and consultation phase. We offer this archive as a service to researchers and the general public.