In the Context of “1,000 Years” of Warfare, Drones Are “More Humane”

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=drone&search_group=#id=116770390&src=419020D8-7469-11E2-946D-1E561472E43D-1-1">Paul Fleet</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) gave a sort of backhanded defense of the Obama administration’s controversial targeted killing program.

“To be honest, I believe that drones are a lot more civilized than what we used to do, you know, when Sherman shelled Atlanta or when the Allies firebombed Dresden in World War II, it was all collateral damage. It was virtually all civilians. And that was the way of war until very recently,” King said on Friday’s episode of MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “The drones, although there is some collateral damage, basically is a very smart artillery shell…[I]f you put it in a context of 1,000 years of war, I think it’s actually a more humane weapon because it can be targeted to specific enemies and specific people.”

Of course, that doesn’t have much to do with drone critics’ actual arguments, and Sen. King was wise enough to point that out during his interview: “Now, I do think there’s a problem…about targeting Americans. There is this little item of the Fifth Amendment that says no person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

But King’s initial point is unimpeachably true: When you look at the history of warfare between 1013 A.D. and now, it’s hard to come to the conclusion that drone warfare is any more barbaric or indiscriminate than what humanity has become used to over the past ten centuries. For instance:

when the normans invaded ireland in 1169

norman invasion ireland

Land was taken, the regime was changed, and much brutality was exacted with swords. Via the University of Alabama at Birmingham

 

 When Pope Innocent III launched the tw0-decade Albigensian Crusade

cathars crusade albigensian crusade

It’s this particularly horrific crusade that gave birth to the phrase, “Kill them all; let God sort them out.” Via Wikimedia Commons

 

that time the Qing Dynasty put down the Taiping Rebellion between 1850 and 1864

taiping rebellion

20 million killed, mostly civilians. Via Wikimedia Commons

 

when america went to the philippines…

philippine american war atrocities

Click here for a rundown of American atrocities during the war. Via New York Journal

 

napalm

napalm vietnam us

Napalm during the Vietnam War has a remarkably ugly legacy.

 

US-backED death squads

el mozote massacre memorial

IRAQ

iraq war

Staff Sgt. Sean A. Foley/US Army

The estimates of militant and civilian casualties resulting from the American drone war vary widely—but none of the body counts come anywhere close to the estimated death tolls of the Iraq war, let alone the indiscriminate carpet-bombing of World War II.

So King is right. In the “context of 1,000 years of war,” the United States’ armada of flying killer robots is a comparatively kinder, gentler, and more precise manner in which a world power conducts business abroad. The only things we have left to worry about are the Obama administration denying Americans due process, the vaporized civilians, the horrible precedent set for the executive branch, and the potential for creating mass resentment against the US among local populations in any number of the countries we’re currently droning.

Another way of putting it: Assessing the Obama drone program’s rate of civilian casualties—or its flagrant abuse of power—through the prism of the past millennium’s military excesses is akin to the following clip from Armando Iannucci‘s 2009 satire In the Loop:

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate