A spokesman for a US veterans group called the decision to
honour drone pilots in this way “boneheaded.” I think this adjective is
unintentionally revealing. What’s boneheaded about Leon Panetta’s decision to
award the medal is that it indicates the extent to which a leader of a decadent
military, whose fighting is done for the soldiers more and more by machines,
comes to think himself more like a machine.
My explanation of why the US military would praise drone
warfare follows from what I've said elsewhere. In a decadent society, actual courage
and other martial virtues mean less, because human life itself is trivialized
by the population’s high-tech environment. People lose in their
competition with machines. For example, many manufacturing jobs are currently
being lost. And guns and drones kill more efficiently than swords. Assuming
efficiency is your greatest concern, because you’re a postmodern liberal who’s
lost faith in your Enlightenment ideals of individual freedom and rationalist
utopia, and so you’ve been reduced to a nihilistic, pragmatic systems manager,
you’ll be in favour of winning wars regardless of the moral cost to your society.
You’ll think less of old school martial virtues and you’ll scientistically
assume that heroism can be measured. Because drone strikes are more precise,
because they kill the enemy without endangering friendly soldiers, because
drones are relatively cheap to produce--for those utilitarian, Philistine
reasons, you’ll really think that drone pilots are heroic. Your notion of
heroism will have thus been warped by the environment you’ve been stewing in.
You’ll mistake decadence and mere usefulness for heroism. The cowardly act of
killing with impunity, with a projectile weapon from a position of complete
safety, will be honoured with a medal as though the act were an “extraordinary
achievement.” This is Orwellian and our first task should be to appreciate the dark
humour in it. [Note: this post was added as a PostScript to The Vileness of Guns and of Just Wars.]
But Benjamin...you are assuming that the "martial vitues" ARE virtuous. As you yourself note, war exists to serve our corrupt oligarchy. Hasn't that always been the case? Just like religion, which serves the rulers, war serves the rulers.
ReplyDelete"Decadence" is also a pretty loaded term, redolent of pining for superior olden days of Golden Warrior Leaders and the like?
My own tragic nihilism, I guess, does not allow me to do that.
My argument against guns here is an internal criticism of gun culture. Gun enthusiasts care about martial values, but they don't realize that those values should compel them to think poorly of guns.
DeleteMind you, as I say in "Games, Sports, and MMA," I'm not opposed to martial values. Wars may usually be fought for bad reasons, but martial values may still be needed for existential purposes. For example, we might want to see ourselves as being at war against nature (the undead god). As I say elsewhere, we should think of grim humour as a sort of battle song to keep our spirits up despite our understanding of life's absurdities and tragedies.
Ah. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't necessarily disagree with your skepticism towards the "valor" of the keyboard drone warriors. :)
The modern American Warrior/Commaando. One example of why "transcending nature" is not always virtuous. :)
ReplyDeletehttps://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6565_526010670776772_1566338459_n.jpg