Daily Archives: February 28, 2017

Eye in the Sky (2015) is the first feature-length film about drone warfare to have received a decent amount of mainstream attention. This no doubt has something to do with the high-caliber cast, including lead roles by Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine Powell, and Alan Rickman as Lieutenant General Frank Benson. Big names imply big budgets. But theres another reason why this movie, directed by Gavin Hood, has been discussed more than National Bird (2016), Good Kill (2015), Drone (2014), Drones (2013), Unmanned: Americas Drone Wars (2013), or Dirty Wars (2013).

None of these films is entertaining. Eye in the Sky, like some of the others in this growing genre, presents itself as a work of historical fiction, grounded in what is supposed to be a realistic portrayal of the contemporary practice of drone warfare against persons suspected of association with radical jihadist groups. But rather than condemning the remote-control killers, as the other films unequivocally do, Eye in the Sky portrays the protagonists wrestling with the complexities of morality before launching missiles and then congratulating one another on their success.

The evil enemy here, in Nairobi, Kenya, is Al Shabaab, and the fate of one of their cells is the subject of lengthy and sophistic just war debate among the drone warriors. A contingent of US and British military and civilian officials communicate with one another from different parts of the world over Skype-like video feed, and after arguing over the course of the workday, they ultimately decide to execute the suspects, who appear to be preparing to carry out a suicide attack in the proximate future or, as the drone warriors would say, imminently.

One of the suspects is a US citizen, recently recruited from Minnesota, and two are British nationals. The white woman, Susan Danford nom de guerre Ayesha Al Hady has been tracked by Colonel Powell for a remarkable six years. Powell is keen to kill Danford, even after having summarized her lifes story as that of a person who came from a troubled household, married a terrorist, and was converted to the jihadist cause as a result of her vulnerability.

The mission is supposed to culminate in capture, not killing, but when the group of suspects convenes at a house where a suicide vest is being assembled and a video message filmed, the military officials immediately call for a missile strike, to the initial protests of the civilian political officials in attendance, who insist that they are there to witness a capture, not a targeted assassination.

The rest of the film is essentially an extended consideration of a version of what professional analytic philosophers call The Trolley Problem, a thought experiment wherein people are persuaded that they must kill some people in order to save others. Such hypothetical scenarios like the proverbial ticking bomb, which is said by some to illustrate the necessity of torture under certain circumstances involve an eerie desire on the part of some thinkers to persuade others to condone what, left to their own devices, they would never have agreed to do. As David Swanson has correctly observed, there is no known case in reality of drone warriors who kill a person and his entourage as they strap a suicide vest onto the martyrs chest. That is why singling out this wildly implausible and entirely hypothetical scenario as representative of drone warfare in general is a consummate expression of pro-military propaganda.

Eye in the Sky attempts to portray the dilemmas involved in drone warfare but ultimately serves to promote the drone warriors all-too-sophistic modes of reasoning. Rather than ask deep and important questions such as how Al-Shabaab became such a powerful force in, first, Somalia and, later, places such as Kenya, the film allows the viewer steeped in New York Times headlines touting Six Suspected Militants Slain to float along blissfully in his or her state of ignorance regarding what precisely the US and British governments have been doing in the Middle East for the past sixteen years.

No indication is made of the fact and frankly Id be surprised if Director Hood himself were aware that the US-backed 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia led directly to a massive increase in local support for Al-Shabaab. Its all-too-easy and comforting to swallow the official line that the members of local militias being targeted by drone strikes are bad guys who need to be extirpated from the face of the earth, even when it is likely that many of the people intentionally destroyed have been dissidents (or their associates) seeking to challenge the central government authority. (See Yemen for another example.)

It is abundantly clear from the very fact that new recruits from the United States and Britain indeed, the very targets of the mission in this story have been primarily either troubled youths or persons outraged at the Western devastation of the Middle East, and now Africa. Yet the film blithely allows the viewer to persist in puzzlement over the perennial question: Why do they hate us?

Colonel Powell wants to kill people, as is obvious by her calling for a missile strike even before explosives are seen at the meeting place. (Do the director and screenwriter win points from feminists for making the most ruthless military killer and her radical jihadist quarry both women? Or from progressives for making them white?)

Both Colonel Powell and General Benson consider Susan Danfords allegiance with Al-Shabaab to be, essentially, a capital offense. They dont bother with niceties such as the fact that capital punishment has been outlawed in the United Kingdom. Instead, the military personnel seek refuge in and parrot the simpleminded terms of just war theory which they learned in first-year ethics class at the military academy.

The missile strike is said to be a military necessity, proportional, and a last resort. It has furthermore been authorized by the legitimate authority, aka the US president, to whom the British continue to defer, even after the scathing Chilcot report in which Prime Minister Tony Blair was taken to task for embroiling Britain in the ill-fated 2003 invasion of Iraq. As though none of that ever happened, when President Barack Obama normalized the targeted assassination of anyone in any place on the planet where radical jihadist terrorists are said by some anonymous analyst to reside, Prime Minister David Cameron, too, followed suit. In August 2015, he authorized missile strikes from drones against British nationals in Syria, despite the Parliaments having voted down his call for war in 2013.

Perhaps Cameron was impressed by Barack Obama and drone killing czar John Brennans oft-flaunted fluency in just war rhetoric. Unfortunately, in Eye in the Sky, the sophomoric facility of the assassins with the terms of just war theory may, too, be taken as evidence to ignorant viewers that these people in uniform know what they are talking about and should be trusted with the delicate decision of where, when, and why to summarily execute human beings who have not been charged with crimes, much less permitted to stand trial.

The question how a missile strike in a country not at war can be conceived of as a military necessity is altogether ignored in this film, as though it were already a settled matter. Someone in the US government (President Obama under the advisement of John Brennan, former president and CEO of The Analysis Corporation, the business of which is terrorist targeting analysis) decreed that the entire world was a battlefield, and this opened up every place and other governments to the delusive casuistry of just war theorists, including their most strident advocates for war, the self-styled humanitarian hawks.

No matter that in this case there are no military soldiers from either the United States or Britain on the ground to be harmed. No matter that their collaborators are local spies who do in fact commit acts of treachery against their compatriots and are indeed brutally executed when this is discovered. Despite the complete absence of any of the aspects of a war which might warrant a missile strike as a military necessity above all, that soldiers on the ground will otherwise die the itchy trigger drone warriors point to their version of the dreaded Trolley Problem and a false and misleading application of utilitarianism to convince the naysayers that they must approve the launch of a missile in order to avert an even worse tragedy.

The military personnel are more persuasive than the sole civilian dissenter, and no one seems to be bothered in the least by questions of strategy. The word blowback is never even mentioned in this film. But judging by the growth of ISIS and Al-Shabaab over the past decade, and the testimony of suicide bombers such as Humam Al-Balawi (the Jordanian doctor who blew up a group of CIA personnel at Camp Chapman in 2009 in direct retaliation to US missile strikes on Pakistan), the tactic of drone assassination can reasonably be expected to cause the ranks of jihadists to continue to swell. No one denies that during the occupation of Iraq, an effective recruiting tactic of factional groups was to point to the civilians harmed by the Western infidels as confirmation that they were indeed the evil enemy. Knowing all of this, it does not seem unfair to ask: Is military necessity now conceived by the remote-control killers as whatever will ensure the continuation of a war?

In Eye in the Sky, the drone warriors are more than willing to risk the life of a little girl who has set up a table where she is selling loaves of bread because, they say, if they do not act immediately then perhaps eighty little children just like her will be killed instead. No mention is made of the psychological trauma suffered by the people who do not die in drone strikes, but witness what has transpired. (When was the last time one of your neighbors houses was cratered by a Hellfire missile?) Instead, the collateral damage estimate (CDE) so conscientiously calculated by a hapless soldier pressured by Colonel Powell to produce an estimated likelihood of the girls death at less than 50% altogether ignores the 100% probability that she and everyone in the neighborhood will be terrorized.

But even focusing solely on the likely lethality of the strike, the drone warriors in Eye in the Sky display what is in reality a lethal lack of imagination, an utter failure to conceive of counter measures such as warning the people in nearby markets and public places of the impending danger. That is because, in the minds of the drone warriors, if one terrorist attack is thwarted, then another will surely be carried out later on down the line. By this mode of reasoning, they have arrived at the depressing and nihilistic conclusion that they must kill all of the suspects. What would be the point of doing anything else?

Recruits from Western societies, young people such as Junaid Hussain, Reyaad Khan, and Ruhul Amin, are assumed to be beyond the reach of reason, despite the glaring fact that their recent conversion to the jihadist cause itself reveals that they have changed their view before and could, in principle, change it again. Nonetheless, the drone warriors persist in their worship of death as the be-all and end-all of foreign policy. They are literally trapped in the lethality box, because they cannot conceive of any other way of dealing with factional terrorism than by killing people. When obviously innocent persons are destroyed, maimed, terrorized and left bereft by Western missiles, these acts of so-called military necessity end by galvanizing support for the Anti-Western jihadist cause, both near the strike site and in lands far away.

Realistically, what self-respecting father would not wish to avenge the death of his young child at the hands of the murderous drone warriors who are so despicable as to kill without risking any danger to themselves? Instead of thinking through the likely implications of what they are doing, the drone warriors persist in invoking delusive just war rhetoric to promote what they want to do: kill the evil enemy. But the use of lethal drones in what has been successfully marketed to taxpayers as smart war, eliminates soldierly risk only by transferring it to civilians on the ground. No matter that new recruits continue to flock to the jihadist cause, seems to be the thinking of our great military minds, missiles are in ample supply.

It is a depressing view of humanity indeed which sees homicide as the solution to conflict when in fact it is its primary cause. But the delusion of the drone assassins is even worse than the corruption of criminal contract killers because they emetically congratulate each other, as in this film, for pushing buttons to eliminate their fellow human beings from the face of the earth, as though this were some kind of accomplishment, rather than the worst of all possible crimes.

New recruits such as Susan Danford will never stop arising from the ashes of drone strike sites until the drone strikes have come to a halt. Indulging in a false and Manichean division of people into black and white categories of good and evil, the killers corrupt more and more young people to collaborate with them, both informants and drone operators. Those who perform well in their jobs rise in the ranks to become the commanders of future killers, until at last the entire society is filled with people who upon watching a film such as Eye in the Sky end by sympathizing not with the victims but with those who destroyed them.

Focused as they will be upon this simpleminded Trolley Problem portrayal of drone warfare, Western viewers will likely miss altogether the obscene hegemonic presumptions of the killers who use beetle- and bird-sized drones to penetrate the private homes of people in order to stop them from wreaking havoc in countries where there are no US or British soldiers on the ground to harm. To pretend that all of this killing is for the benefit of the locals is delusional to the point of insanity.

If serial Western military interventions had not destroyed country after country across the Middle East, beginning with Iraq in 1991, then there would be no evil enemy to confront in the first place. To continue to ignore the words of jihadists themselves when they rail against the savage butchery of millions of Muslim people by the US military and its poodles is but the most flagrant expression of this smug hegemony. No, I am afraid, they do not hate us for our freedom.

In Eye in the Sky, anyone who opposes the use of military weapons against people living in their own civil society thousands of miles away is painted as a coward and a fool, as though there were some sort of moral obligation to launch missiles to save a hypothetical group of eighty people. The very same killers do not feel any obligation whatsoever to provide food, shelter, and potable water to the people living in such societies, even when the $70K cost of a single missile could be repurposed to save many more than eighty lives, in addition to winning over hearts and minds.

Here is the ugly truth shining through the willingness to kill but not to save lives in nonhomicidal ways: Peace does not pay. The drone killing machine is the latest and most lucrative instantiation of the military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-pharmaceutical-logistics complex. That Westerners continue to be taken in by this hoax is tragic for the people of Africa and the Middle East mercilessly terrorized (when they are not maimed or incinerated) while the killers gloat over what they take to be their moral courage.

Near the end of the film, Lieutenant Colonel Benson sanctimoniously admonishes the sole remaining dissenter among the witnesses to the mission, which she has denounced as disgraceful. He smugly retorts to her suggestion that he is a coward: Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war. But the cost of the remote-control elimination of persons suspected of complicity in terrorism is not merely the tragic loss of human life. It is the destruction of such killers souls and the concomitant creation of even more killers who feel the need to retaliate in turn. It is the fact that they have rolled back all of the moral progress in procedural justice made by human societies since the 1215 Magna Carta. It is the fact that their dogged insistence on perpetuating and spreading this practice to the darkest and least democratic corners of the planet represents a categorical denial of human rights.

Laurie Calhoun, a philosopher and cultural critic, is the author of We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age(Zed Books, September 2015; paperback forthcoming in 2016) and War and Delusion: A Critical Examination (Palgrave Macmillan 2013; paperback forthcoming in 2016). Visit her website.

See more here:

Eye in the Sky: Where Nihilism and Hegemony Coincide - Antiwar.com (blog)

Poor, poorNigel Farage. In any ordinary week, his consolation prize for missing out on a knighthood would be the Gerald Ratner Golden Knuckleduster (0.002 carat;touch it for a second, have a rash for a month) for Most Cataclysmic Instant Rebranding.

This is no ordinary week, however, and the Oscars finale robs him of another title he did more to deserve it than its actual recipients.When Woody Allen was asked how he would most want to be reincarnated, he said As Warren Beattys fingertips. Now those fingertips will be remembered less for gliding over Hollywoods most desirable women (check out the A-Z lists) than for grasping a card reading Best Actress, Emma Stone, La La Land while their owner gazed out sheepishly at the millions observing his bemusement around the world.

For all that, you wouldnt want to underplay the damage dealt to the Farage brand by the latest model to roll off the inexhaustible factory line of Ukip superfiasci. Nigel is furious with Douglas Carswell, the partys lone MP, over the latters efforts to stop him getting the knighthood Nigel deems his due reward for Brexit.

He has been furious with Carswell ever since that erstwhile Tory MP defected and won the Clacton by-election under the purple banner. He patently regards Carswell as an effete intellectual ponce, and his ambition to detoxify Ukip by moving the focus away from immigration as a treacherous affront to himself.That fury has boiled over with the leak of emails showing Carswell being mischievous when he was asked to help get Farage a knighthood by Malcolm Pearson. If that entrant on the capacious honours board of Ukip farceurs escapes you, it was Pearson who, when leader of Ukip,denied having read his own manifesto before the 2010 electionin a tone implying he wouldnt have the bloody thing in the house.

Nigel Farage says 'our real friends speak English'

This genius is so loyal to his predecessor andsuccessor on the Ukip iron throne that he originally hoped to wangle hima peerage. When that plan was abandoned for one of two reasons either 1) Nigel would have had to quit as an MEP, which he didnt care to do,or 2) The noble Baron Farage of Whiteseville in the County of Albinoshire? Are you pulling my bell end? his thoughts turned to a K.

In late December, Pearson asked Carswell to report on how his knighthood lobbying was going. As promised, I did speak to the government Chief Whip, emailed Carswell. Perhaps we might try angling to get Nigel an OBE next time round? For services to headline writers?The cheeky bleeder well knew how Farage would take the idea of an OBE. For guidance on this, we turn to a late expert on etiquette. An OBE is what you get, said Michael Winner on refusing one in 2006, if you clean the toilets well at Kings Cross Station.

But surely, you must be thinking, mainline termini toilet cleaners are the kind of people for whom Farage fights the good fight? Wouldnt an anti-establishment warrior,who in the US on the weekend cited the Brexit-Trump axis as the start of a global revolution, prefer a humble OBE to show solidarity with ordinary folk?Isnt a knighthood the emblem of how a self-serving political class rewards its cronies and donors? Could there be a tawdrier mascot for a decadent establishment than a K?

Apparently there could. And so Nigels man of the people schtick (never that convincing, but not as laughably exposed as now)can be seen spinning clockwise towards the reputationalU-bend.

The rotten luck here for dearNige is that there was no recent precedent of a populist icon who, after presenting his public work as wholly altruistic, was caught petulantly screeching about being denied a knighthood. Had there been, it would have warned him that rampant hypocrisy and a glaring sense of entitlement can incinerate any brand.Instead, the latest Ukip golden balls-up since Paul Nuttalls Walter Mitty tribute act finds Farage screaming in print that Ukip will collapse unless Carswell is expelled from the party.

This is a pretty useful working definition of politicalnihilism. Im no Stephen Hawking, but you neednt be Lucasian Professor of Mathematics to master this equation: if you have one MP, and you subtract one MP, what youre left with is nil MPs.

Advocating for a parliamentary strength of zero is an eccentric way to hammer home the message about Brexit restoring parliamentary supremacy. So if Carswell is kicked out, one hopes Nigel will have another crack at becoming an MP by standing against him in Clacton.

Eighth times a charm and if he does finally plant his bum on the green benches, it would only be the beginning of the rapid surge to Downing St that would end, as it does for all male ex-premiers, with the choice of knighthood or peerage.

Dont take my word for it. Farage will make a fine UK Prime Minister. Looking forward to that, tweets David Duke.

Lose a knighthood, gain the admiration of a formerImperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan Swings and roundabouts for plain Mister Nigel there as the crazy hurtling of the Ukip rollercoaster leaves it clinging to relevance by the tips of its fingers.

Originally posted here:

The fight between Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell is the definition of political nihilism - The Independent