Slashdot Log In
USAF Enlists Shrinks To Help Drone Pilots Cope
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Aug 08, 2008 01:02 PM
from the free-counseling-coming-with-next-GTA-game dept.
from the free-counseling-coming-with-next-GTA-game dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Flying drones from halfway-across the world used to be considered a cushy military job. But the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have become so dependent on the robo-planes that the Air Force has called in chaplains and psychiatrists to help these remote-control warriors cope. 'In a fighter jet, "when you come in at 500-600 miles per hour, drop a 500-pound bomb and then fly away, you don't see what happens," said Colonel Albert K. Aimar, who is commander of the 163d Reconnaissance Wing here and has a bachelor's degree in psychology. But when a Predator fires a missile, "you watch it all the way to impact, and I mean it's very vivid, it's right there and personal. So it does stay in people's minds for a long time."'"
Related Stories
[+]
F-117A Stealth Fighter Retired 476 comments
zonker writes "Nearly 30 years ago Lockheed Martin's elite Skunk Works team developed what would become the F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter. A few of their earlier projects include the SR-71 Blackbird and U2 Dragon Lady spy planes. Today is the last for the Stealth Fighter, which is being replaced by the F-22 Raptor (another Skunk Works project)."
Submission: USAF Enlists Shrinks to Help Drone Pilots Cope by Anonymous Coward
[+]
First All-Drone USAF Air Wing 242 comments
bfwebster writes "Strategy Page reports that the United States Air Force has announced its first air wing that will consist entirely of unmanned craft. The 174th Fighter Wing has flown its last manned combat sorties; its F-16s will be entirely replaced by MQ-9 Reapers. Reasons cited include costs (maintenance and fuel) and the drone's ability to stay in the air up to 14 hours, waiting for a target to show itself."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
UAV missions more demanding that you might expect. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, while this has received some criticism, I visited Creech AFB [utah.edu] a little while ago and the missions being flown from there in the Middle East and South America are more taxing and complex than you might expect.
Loiter times and length of engagements for these aircraft are not measured in minutes like with traditional fighter jets or helicopters. Rather they are measured in hours with the Predator A airframes capable of loitering over a combat area for 10-13 hours at a time. The Reaper has a slightly shorter loiter time, but those airframes also carry the same combat load as an F-16 and the missions being carried out are just as complex if not more demanding than with piloted missions.
Because UAV missions can last quite a bit of time, the pilots are expected to multi-task with ground troops for extended periods of time, tracking targets and managing data in a way that traditional piloted aircraft crews are not expected to. I observed a number of missions including missions that involved oversight for ground troops and elimination of targets that were active threats to those soldiers on the ground and even though the missions were being piloted from the other side of the globe, the tension in the "cockpit" was palpable. There is no celebration when a target has been engaged successfully and you are very much an intimate observer of what transpires and able to see more than you might expect.
The final telling statistic in this comment thread anyway, has been that the 432nd wing has become in the last couple of years, the Air Force's number one most requested asset and the toll rapid build ups like that take on any organization can be significant.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully respect that from time to time, horrible things must be done.
That said, I hope the USAF has only limited success with brainwashing all the guilt away. Guilt is important. Guilt is what reminds us what is morally right. When the operator pushes the button that fires the missile people die. Again, I understand that sometimes it must be done. But the decision to kill should be tough and difficult and fraught with guilt.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Insightful)
"But the decision to kill should be tough and difficult and fraught with guilt."
No, it should be a matter of disciplined action, and "guilt" isn't required to ensure discipline. The cultivation of "guilt" is guaranteed to ensure PTSD, and has nothing to do with precision performance.
Parent
Killing machines without a conscience (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing without remorse on orders "from above". I guess you would have made an awsome prison guard at Auschwitz back then.
Stand with pride, soldier.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
Not nearly as bad as the kind who gets themselves paradise by killing themselves and any near by kids with a bomb vest..
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Insightful)
No they are not,
A soldier would rather not be doing his job and while they think they have to kill they do not think they are going to heaven because they are doing it. A suicide bomber believes that by *intentionally* killing a bus of women, kids, and elderly they are earning heaven.
The Afgan Weddings, while tragic were not intentional, the pilot did not wake up that morning and prepare himself to kill a bunch of civi's. The suicide bomber meticulously goes though ceremony preparing himself, selects the busiest bus, the most crowded market, or the most painful target thats a huge difference than the soldier.
"This is to manage the international drugs syndicate monopoly on Opium - which has grown EXPONENTIALLY since Karzai was installed as the mayor of Kabul.This is the worst thing to happen since Stalin."
WOW, just wow your hate blinds you.. Yes there are huge problems in Afghanistan right now and it would have been a million times better for all concerned (Iraq / US / Afgans) if we had stayed the hell out of Iraq so we could have then focused on helping Afghanistan stabalize, ill give you all that..
But to say that things in Afghanistan were *better* under the Taliban is either a pathetic F'ing joke, or proof you've jumped the shark. They (the Taliban) made shows of shooting women in soccer stadiums for daring to learn to read, or earning money, ... They banned speech, music, and every other freedom you can imagine but hey at least there were no drug problems right..
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think it matters whether someone's justification is that they are "going to heaven" or "just doing their job?"
War is war and murder is murder, regardless of the reasons of justification. Self-defense is different, but occupying a country isn't self-defense, no matter what certain kleptogarchs would like the masses to believe.
In a war of occupation and insurgency you are basically fighting against civilians; yes, some of them are threat to soldiers - but to say it is any different isn't that clear. They are not necessarily soldiers, and most of them are not "terrorists." Foreign fighters looking for jihad may be, but would they be there if we weren't? Doubtful.
With the hubris, disregard for human rights, international law and the rule of law in general there may come a day when foreign troops are in US streets to enforce something. It may not be likely due to our technological superiority, but it's not impossible. If this happens you best believe that regardless of whether most view it as right or wrong there will be resistance by many civilians.
Civilians are killed all of the time and some losses are considered acceptable by the US given the mission and target. The US has, at certain times in our history, purposely bombed civillian areas and done all sorts of nasty things.
The opium growing going on in Afghanistan is directly benefitting those who have a stake in it; certain components of US intelligence are stakeholders - it is a fact that elements of our CIA specifically have been involved in international drug trafficking for quite some time.
All I am really saying is that none of this is simple, and justifications can be made all sorts of ways, and the only person who can say whether a justification justifies anything are the people directly involved.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying better under Taliban.
I'm saying they didn't play ball with the US, so we took their goodies that we couldn't get cut-in on.
Didn't play ball? I'd say. They harbored Osama Bin Laden. You remember him, right? The guy that planned and ordered the deaths of 3000+ Americans in the largest attack on American soil? Am I ringing a bell here?
What would you have had the US do?
GWB: Give us Bin Laden.
Taliban: No, bitch!
GWB: Well, we tried. Sorry to bother you guys. Have fun blowing up ancient art.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the point here is that Afghans did not ask to be invaded. The US invaded Afghanistan (and, alas, this time they actually had good cause... not something that happens a lot with the US and wars) not to benefit afghans but to benefit itself.
And thats the truth. Nobody "liberated" Afghanistan from anything because that was not the objective. The objective was to kill the talibans and, by the way, the US failed MISSERABLY in that.
And thats the truth. IF it makes you feel a nicer person to think that the US army is the liberator of Asia, then by all means, keep lying to yourself.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the point here is that Afghans did not ask to be invaded. The US invaded Afghanistan (and, alas, this time they actually had good cause... not something that happens a lot with the US and wars) not to benefit afghans but to benefit itself.
And thats the truth. Nobody "liberated" Afghanistan from anything because that was not the objective.
So, since it wasn't the objective, it didn't happen?
The objective was to kill the talibans and, by the way, the US failed MISSERABLY in that.
Yes, because they are still in power and those elections we saw were produced in Hollywood.
And thats the truth. IF it makes you feel a nicer person to think that the US army is the liberator of Asia, then by all means, keep lying to yourself.
I'm not lying to myself. The Japanese, Philippinos and S. Koreans I have met must be lying to me when they say they are quite liberated when compared to N. Koreans, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Burmese and so on (you know, the countries we have NOT liberated).
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
Last thing first:
Don't be a condescending prick. ArcherB made a rational, well thought out response to your earlier comment, and does not deserve to be insulted just because you want to give yourself an ego boost.
Next:
The first part of that comment makes no sense - what exactly is wrong with liberating a nation by blowing up parts of it? How else do you expect to do it? By air-dropping cookies and candy bars?
The second part of that sentence should have a [citation needed] tag.
No, it didn't go wonderful. Why not? Because the US tucked tail and ran. The main difference between SK and Vietnam was that in SK the US was there for the long run, and willing to do whatever it took to win. Vietnam was a whole different ballgame because after only a few years it became apparent that they had no staying power.
Irrelevant. I've never understood this line of reasoning. Apparently, according to people like you, we're not allowed to try and do anything good in ANY part of the world unless we're simultaneously doing the same thing in EVERY part of the world. That is beyond idiotic. I'd love to see you try and justify that "logic".
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
What should we have done when the Taliban didn't hand Osama over? The obvious thing -- send in special forces to assassinate him. Why is our first reaction to clumsily overthrow the entire government of the country? The Taliban weren't terrorists, just a corrupt, fundamentalist regime (like the Bush administration). The Taliban couldn't have handed us Osama even if they wanted to.
First, if the Bush "regime" were like the Taliban, as you suggest, you would not be able to read this reply as you would already be dead. Next, is your girlfriend... I mean mom or sister... allowed to leave the house "uncovered" and without male (relative or husband) escort? How about vote?
Finally, we didn't overthrow the Taliban alone. First, we had NATO support. Next, we merely assisted the Northern Alliance in ending a civil war that has been raging for decades. I guess you would prefer that we let innocent men, women and children continue to die as a result of that civil war.
Oh, and "assassination" truly is forbidden by US law. Unlike war, which is perfectly legal. I find it ironic that so many who want Bush impeached for breaking non-existent laws suggest that maybe he should have broken REAL laws instead. Do you really not see the irony there?
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, the Taliban were not the official govenment of Afghanistan. They were not recognized by the US as a government and they did not have an extradiction treaty with the US. They were just the most powerful faction in a drawn out civil war. I'm not sure they would've been able to capture and deliver Osama Bin Laden.
Secondly, the US provided no proof of the involvment of Bin Laden. Most countries do not extradict people without proof.
I guess you are right. I mean, unless we had a VIDEO TAPE [npr.org] of Osama Bin Laden admitting to planning 9-11, I guess we shouldn't have gone in.
(Source is NPR, so take with salt):
According to a translated transcript issued by the Pentagon, bin Laden says the attacks on the World Trade Center did more damage than expected. "...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower," he says, according to the transcript. "We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
Your forgetting something about terrorism. The goals of terrorism is to effect change through hitting non military targets like innocent women and children. You mention Shock and awe without ever realizing that there was military significance to the targets. Showing might and muscle by hitting every target in the course of a few days in hopes of leaving a mental image of superiority doesn't negate that the targets were of military significance when picked.
I can't believe that your advocating killing an innocent woman and child in for doing nothing military related other then living and somehow see that as the same as taking out a intelligence headquarters or a row of tanks. You simply amaze me.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Insightful)
The goals of terrorism is to effect change through hitting non military targets like innocent women and children.
It's good thing that I'm male and thus so disposable that my death would have no impact on society and therefore not a worthy target of terrorism. It is entirely unfair that terrorists aren't running around kidnapping, torturing and beheading men like they exclusively doing to women and children. Women and children are bearing an undue burden of being the sole targets of terrorists.
Really, stop pandering to emotion by using "women and children" when people, humans or just "innocents" or "civilian bystanders" would work.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
"They say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They say it because it's true."
They say it because people are so damn afraid to say politically incorrect things and anyone in the world who hates the yanks ( no matter how justified ) must be on to something right? Its a BS statement when said as an absolute truth.
A suicide bomber who is targeting a military asset is, imho a 'freedom fighter'. A suicide bomber who targets a bus full of civilians is a terrorist. A man who kills an enemy soldier is a freedom fighter, a man who beheads a journalist because he is Jewish is a terrorist... Are you seeing the difference?
"There is nothing inherently wrong with using asymmetric warfare tactics."
When you're talking road side bombs of military convoys, sneak attacks, even bombing of business which are occupied by a huge majority of foreign combatants I could agree with stat statement. When you're talking about blowing up a tourist nightclub in Bali, hypothetically speaking of course, then we have long left the theater of asymmetrical warfare and entered into criminal terrorism.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
That would mean that the Allies were terrorists during WWII for their air campaign of targeting civilian cities as a means of breaking the enemy's will to fight. It would also mean that unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI and WWII were acts of terrorism.
More importantly, you're forgetting the biggest down side to only attacking military targets. If the civilians are fat and happy and warm in bed, is easy for them to support continued military action. The main reason to attack civilians is to remind everyone that war is painful and to make the cost of war so expensive that the enemy is no longer willing to pay it. Which then ends the war.
And if you want moral justification, then just remind yourself that a society goes to war. A society full of farmers, teachers, leaders, doctors, contractors, miners, bankers, etc. are needed to create, improve and run the infrastructure necessary to build, feed and maintain the military that's oppressing the freedom fighter and/or terrorist.
Just because you're a civilian, safe at home, far away from the front lines, doesn't mean you have some God given or universal right to remain safe.
Even Star Trek covered the problems of "painless" war in A Taste of Armageddon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon [wikipedia.org], in which a "war" lasted for centuries:
"The landing party soon discovers that the entire war between the two planets is completely simulated by computers which launch wargame attacks and counterattacks, then calculate damage and select the dead. When a citizen is reported as "killed", they must submit themselves for termination by stepping inside a disintegration booth. Anan 7 informs Kirk that the simulated attacks and following executions is the agreed system of war decided by both sides in a treaty with Vendikar. A conventional war was deemed too destructive to the environments and societies of both planets."
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Insightful)
"The difference between 'military assets' and 'civilians' is not a solid one. It's certainly not a fixed one."
Its not formulaic but its certainly a damn solid one in many cases and a Bus full of tourist or school kids is *not* a legit military target. To try and play it off as some grey line is f'ing insanity.
Parent
Re:Anatomy of your enemy: Anti-Flag (Score:5, Informative)
Er, a *very few* *specific* people attacked the US. I'll agree with you that those people responsible should be dealt with.
As far as Afghans go, "they" didn't attack your country, any more than "you" killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. By your logic, if Iraq had the resources to do it, the whole US should be a radioactive crater.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Informative)
Jeremiah,
I have to disagree with you here. While I believe that our current policy with respect to Afghanistan and the export of the war on drugs to that region of the world is remarkably short sighted, indeed even foolish in both the long and short terms. I would also agree with you in that the current war in Iraq is a disaster of epic historical proportions that has been mismanaged by members of our government who have lied to the American public to further their own goals.
However, characterizing the work of the 432nd as equivalent to terrorist bombings is hyperbolic extremism. The work that I witnessed was remarkable in that the UAV squadrons have the time and take the effort to minimize collateral damage to both civilians and religious institutions. For instance, I watched while crews waited and followed confirmed roadside bombers while they left a Mosque crowded with other people. The crews waited patiently for those bombers to get to a safe distance before engaging them, preserving the life of everyone else in the mosque. This sort of thing happens every day and I'd argue that UAV operations are far more surgical, minimizing collateral damage because of the time that the crews are allowed to invest in their mission.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the interesting thing, isn't it? There's definitely a distinction from someone that purposefully kills the innocent and someone that accidentally kills the innocent.
But, on a larger scale, UAVs, fighter jets, guided missiles, guns, sniper rifles, artillery, catapults, sling shots, blowguns... they all spawn from the desire to kill, the desire to be safe while killing, and the desire to maintain a moral high ground by avoiding collateral damage.
Have we really ever met that last goal, though?
For all the good-hearted meticulousness of the UAV pilots, they still kill civilians. Bad intelligence, fog of war, misjudgements, etc. There is no perfect weapon that magically kills the "bad" guys and leaves the "good" guys alive.
The more precise we think our weapons are, the more arrogant we get that we can use them surgically. We get ourselves into a mindset of being superior and then head out on adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan confident that we can win hearts and minds while killing bad guys with our surgical weapons.
Then someone blows up a village...and it all goes to shit. It's kind of hard not to create new enemies when half a town is killed by an unseen drone flown by some guy on the other side of the world.
So, the UAV pilots are nothing more than the next evolution in disconnecting ourselves from war and the massive collateral loss of life it always causes. The more disconnected we are, the more arrogant we become, the poorer our judgement becomes, and the worse it gets. It's not because the UAV pilots are evil, it's because their whole mission is fundamentally selfish and flawed.
Parent
Equating the sides (Score:5, Insightful)
You are equating the deeds based on their results, rather than the intentions of the perpetrators. It is a very common fallacy, so I don't blame you in particular. For example, for reasons irrational we punish successful murderers harsher than the failures, even though the crime is exactly the same.
Similarly, you assign equal blame for a blown-up wedding party — and spice it up with graphic depictions of bodily damage ("mothers decapitated"). Very touching, and very idiotic — either you are an idiot yourself, or you have serious contempt for your audience.
US does not target the innocent — when we kill them, it is by a tragic mistake, a major failure. Terrorists do target them — the "decapitated mothers" means success for them, and a cause for celebrations.
Parent
Re:Equating the sides (Score:4, Insightful)
US does not target the innocent
You don't have to actively target them to kill hundreds of thousands of them. Thats something that the chaos of war will ensure quite automatically and that is also something that was well known before the US attacked Iraq. In a better world the organizers of such wars would end up on a war crime tribunal, but alas, here they get voted to be President of the USA, again.
Parent
Re:Equating the sides (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really going to have to disagree with you and say that this is not the fallacy you seem to think it is.
First off, one of the fundamental tenets of (Western at least) ethics is that you can only be held accountable for your actions, and your intentions, only insofar as they can be shown to relate to your actions. What you are proposing is essentially a thought police, which is *generally* held to be a moral abomination.
You seem to be under the (I would argue very mistaken) impression that our military does not realize that they would potentially be hitting civilians in a lot of their strikes. If you have NO reason whatsoever to believe there might be a civilian presence somewhere, and every reason to believe there to be a military one, only to discover after the fact that you were mistaken in a way you couldn't have known about, then you can not be held morally accountable. Unfortunately, that very much does not seem to be the case. I have a hard time believing a lot of these civilian casualties are anything other than our military deciding to shoot first and ask questions later. "But it really looked kinda like a military target," just doesn't cut it when you end up bombing a wedding--that's CLEARLY an example of a profound lack of proper diligence in choosing your targets. When you take it upon yourself to take military action in a civilian area, you have an absolute moral obligation to make AS SURE AS YOU CAN that you are only striking military targets, and sadly our military doesn't seem to be taking that obligation very seriously.
To put it another way, if you drop a nuke on a military installation that happens to be right next to a civilian city, you didn't (as you seem to define it) intentionally target that city. That doesn't mean those in charge aren't morally responsible for the civilian death. Then again, I am of the, seemingly unpopular, opinion that protecting civilians of any nationality is more important than protecting soldiers of any nationality, and also more important that achieving any military goal. Obviously exceptions can be made for absolutely dire situations, but we aren't in any such situation as far as I'm concerned.
Parent
Re:Equating the sides (Score:4, Interesting)
The failure was the civilians dying in contravention of the laws of war, not the failure of the action.
The failure, i.e., killing civilians, is no better if done by intent than if done by accident.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
Were the humans of ancient times cowards when they decided that projectiles were a great way of killing people at a distance?
I guess everyman that doesn't use a short knife or blunt stick in battle is a coward?
Have you ever even been in a fist fight? Because your statement reeks of insulation from the real world. The last thing you want in any battle is a fair fight. Even the Samurai, whose whole being was centered around remaining honorable on the battlefield, realized that and used any advantage they could to kill their enemy.
And if you want to talk philosophy of war in general - well the problem with being a pacifist is it doesn't stop others from killing you. Only warfare does. It's a sad reality.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember a quote that from somewhere that went something like this: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, its time to re-evaluate your strategy".
Something like that. Also reminded me of advice about being in a fist fight (generally speaking): "Hit first and hit really really hard."
Again I paraphrase.
Parent
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I'm sure UAV piloting isn't easy, but (Score:4, Informative)
When an F-16 pilot's missions regularly last 10 hours straight, maintain full situational awareness of the field rather than the "Hey, you've got some friendlys to the west, try not to kill them" approach most fighter pilots exhibit, and forces him to watch the people he's killing blow apart rather than take a quick "Bombs away, and so am I" approach, we'll call it as demanding as a UAV mission. K?
Or rather, why don't you drop the machisimo and realize that stress comes in many forms and just because the different ways an F-16 pilot is stress don't match the ways a UAV pilot is doesn't one or the other can't equal or surpass the other.
Or are you one of those dicks who thinks that physical stress is the only kind out there and people affected by mental stress should just 'rub some dirt on it and man up'?
Parent
People should search for AC-130 videos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People should search for AC-130 videos (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing people isn't supposed to be fun or normal, that's not news.
Maybe the shrinks are for people who find it fun?
Parent
Re:People should search for AC-130 videos (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:People should search for AC-130 videos (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're stuck in the sandbox for 3 months, you get wound up, do your duty, then unwind and come home. That cycle is happening daily instead of over a 90-120 day period.
Parent
Welcome to warfare (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to warfare. This is not much different than the same consultations offered ground troops who get up close and personal. The military realized that killing someone else really changes a person early on and brought in people who could help - religious leaders and shrinks.
Thank God I was in the Army during a peaceful period. I would certainly regret taking another life, even if I could justify it as the warrior way (don't be on a battlefield without being ready to kill or die). Particularly when today's battles are so one-sided and the targets mingle amongst the population.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Bonus points for hitting weddings, Chinese embassies, and British armoured columns.
Everyday.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, the solution is to recruit kids and tell them it's just a video game.
~Aero
Re:Everyday.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
You're not wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to think that at some point in human history we'll look back at the wars and realize that 100% of the kills were team kills.
But perhaps that perspective just isn't ready for the world yet.
Parent
Now here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely believe that these UAV pilots experience stress from, well, killing people.
My idea is this: now that the U.S. military has the technology to kill people from halfway across the globe without exposing the pilot to physical danger, let's let the President sit next to the pilot and push the button for a couple of those missions, then sit there and watch the blood and destruction.
I think this should be a mandatory experience for anyone who has the authority to order an attack. Military officers have a good chance of having fought in combat already; now let's let the President experience killing an enemy and watching him die. Then we'll see whether his attitude toward using military force displays a little more, let's say, maturity.
Purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether politicians prefer to call it "pre-emptive" or not, what we are doing is fighting an offensive war. In the case of Iraq this is against an enemy which was no real threat to us, which is why the "justification" so quickly changed from "weapons of mass destruction" to "liberation of the Iraqi people". In the back of their minds, in some place that is untouched by denial, our soldiers have to see just how convenient this whole war has been for the expansion of executive power, the passage of legislation like the Patriot Act, the no-bid contracts for companies that our Vice President and others just-coincidentally happens to have ties to. Despite the incredibly bravery and willingness to put their lives on the line that our soldiers have shown (seriously, these guys have balls of brass and guts of steel; they are not the problem), there is very little honor to be had in a war of this type. Don't mistake me for a pacifist just because I think we need a damned good reason before we go and kill a lot of people; a reason that will stand up to questioning and critical thinking; a reason that does not have the taint of political and financial gain everywhere you look.
When an enemy attacks and like-it-or-not you are forced to defend yourself, the horrors of conflict are not your fault and they are not what you asked for. They are what you had to do. Despite that, it may still take the defenders a long time to learn to cope with the horrors they have witnessed. Just imagine how much harder that must be when you also know that you are the aggressor. Like too many things we do, this is a band-aid designed to alleviate a symptom and not a solution to the actual underlying problem.
War is a terrible, hellish, ugly thing. It's supposed to be. That is its nature, and that is what the drone pilots are finding out the hard way. It's not supposed to be something you do for a questionable reason. What an insult to such honorable men that our leadership puts them through this, and for what?
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
You should take a psychology class or two and go learn a few things about where terrorists come from and why they become terrorists. There are many things you fail to understand here.
Actually I made no comment on terrorists, where they come from, why they do what they do. Zero. My commentary was regarding "pre-emptive" war -- that sounds so much better than "offensive war", just like "shock and awe" sounds so much better than "blitzkrieg" even though it's the same thing. So, you're actually responding to statements I never made. Good job.
Now, if you want me to comment on the terrorists themselves, you certainly have a roundabout way of asking but no matter. I can only speculate about this, but here's my take: I would imagine that no matter what the party line might say, the USA's habit of using its intelligence agencies to overthrow foreign governments and install dictators more favorable to our interests would explain their suicidal desperation quite a bit better than "they hate us because of our freedoms".
In terms of meddling with the affairs of soverign nations and pissing off a lot of people worldwide, it may please the government of the USA to play the "innocent victim" role but this is simply not the case. If the USA's leaders had any honor whatsoever, they'd take responsibility for the fact that actions taken to ensure that the USA remains a dominant world superpower are not free; they come at the expense of earning ill will and various enemies worldwide. Enemies who realize they don't stand a chance fighting a conventional war. Does this make those enemies any less murderous and cowardly because they have decided to target civilians? No, it doesn't, and the people who would do that are still the scum of the earth. I am most certainly not saying otherwise. What I am saying is that there is a chain of cause-and-effect here that is sorely neglected in the media anytime a purportedly serious discussion of this topic comes up. A chain of cause-and-effect that would make our leaders something less than the honorable men who are acting in our best interests that the party line would have you believe.
Parent
Upon further reflection... (Score:5, Insightful)
On Killing (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are interested in the psychological aspects, I recommend reading a book called On Killing [wikipedia.org], by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. One of the key insights in the book was how the military changed their training (e.g. by making man shaped targets instead of circles) to make people more effective at firing weapons and killing. It has been a few years since I last read it, but I found it fascinating.
He suggested that distance from target increases your ability to cope with killing someone as it depersonalises the situation - so the closer in you are, the harder it becomes to do the deed and/or to cope with it afterwards (at least without training). That seems to back up this situation as the drone pilots see the results of their handiwork - unlike other pilots or those manning artillery.
It's *not* like a normal battle (Score:5, Insightful)
The soldiers I've known have been big on honor. And while I'm not saying any way flying a drone is dishonorable, it's a lot harder to justify internally on an instinctual "if I don't kill him, I would have been killed" level. It's like being a sniper, except without the personal risk.
Can't have war being close and personal (Score:4, Insightful)
Might give war a bad name or something. War seems so... warlike. Can't we call it something like, oh, aggressive defense? Can't we call accidentally killing women and children by accident something nice and sanitary like "collateral damage?"
Of course that was sarcasm. But one of the biggest gripes I have is how we sanitize war. We need to show what war is really like in all its brutality. Then when people vote for war, they will know what they are voting for. To sanitize it is to spread disinformation and undermine democracy by not allowing the people to weigh all the consequences of a march to war.
Like this one, which was suppressed by the MSM in the US:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Fsee4zZHXInj6M:http://www.peace.ca/faceof1.jpg [google.com]
Now pardon me while I go puke.
Re:No Taste for Armageddon? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point could end up being "don't kill anyone unless you absolutely have to, because the cost is too high otherwise." Which would be a very good point to learn I think.
Parent
Re:No Taste for Armageddon? (Score:5, Funny)
Might as well just send in the pikemen...
Be careful, sometimes they can beat battleships ;)
Parent
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent