Author Topic: Confessions of a drone warrior (Read 10828 times)

wraith808 · « **on:** October 28, 2013, 12:02 PM »

He was an experiment, really. One of the first recruits for a new kind of warfare in which men and machines merge. He flew multiple missions, but he never left his computer. He hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar. He stalked and killed countless people, but could not always tell you precisely what he was hitting. Meet the 21st-century American killing machine. who's still utterly, terrifyingly human

More at link

“It’s like playing Dungeons & Dragons,” says Bryant. “Roll a d20 to see if you hit your target.” His training inspector, watching over his shoulder, would count down to impact and say, “Splash! You killed everyone.”

Within a few months he “went off” to war, flying missions over Iraq at the height of the conflict’s deadliest period, even though he never left Nevada.

There's a level of cognitive dissonance there that is ... staggering in it's implications.

“I kind of finished the night numb,” Bryant says. “Then you just go home. No one talked about it. No one talked about how they felt after anything. It was like an unspoken agreement that you wouldn’t talk about your experiences.”

Other members of his squadron had different reactions to their work. One sensor operator, whenever he made a kill, went home and chugged an entire bottle of whiskey. A female operator, after her first shot, refused to fire again even under the threat of court martial. Another pilot had nightmares after watching two headless bodies float down the Tigris. Bryant himself would have bizarre dreams where the characters from his favorite game, World of Warcraft, appeared in infrared.

What really strikes me from the recollections is that PTSD doesn't seem to require you to be on the ground, and this has a real effect on the so-called drone warriors also; one that's not being front and center. Like executioners or anyone who deals in push button death.

He constructed a darkly appropriate syllabus for his occupation. He read the dystopian sci-fi classic Ender’s Game, about children whose violent simulated games turn out to be actual warfare. Then came Asimov, Bryant pondering his Three Laws of Robotics in an age of Predators and Hellfires. A robot may not injure a human being….

The future of authors' dark imaginations on stage today in our military. Where has technology taken us?

p3lb0x · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2013, 12:41 PM »

That was a strikingly human perspective on drone warfare. It didn't really change my opinions of drones at all, but goddamn. It was a pretty emotional explanation of what the operators go through and their thought processes.

wraith808 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2013, 12:48 PM »

That was a strikingly human perspective on drone warfare. It didn't really change my opinions of drones at all, but goddamn. It was a pretty emotional explanation of what the operators go through and their thought processes.
-p3lb0x (October 28, 2013, 12:41 PM)

The fusion of technology and human as an extension of firepower- we see the modern warrior on the ground and all of the equipment and technology making him into the techno-warrior. But this... it seems more the definition of the warrior of a technological age.

40hz · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2013, 12:58 PM »

An additional article that further highlights the almost amoral detachment of one these military "don't call them drones - they're RPAs" operators can be found here.

Apparently many veterans, as well as those still in the US military, were somewhat less than enthusiastic about our new "Nintendo" and "cyber" warriors. Especially when it came to awarding decorations for combat service.

The proposed Distinguished Warfare Medal which was to be awarded for cyber and drone combat has since been canceled by the Pentagon. Dubbed as a "participation ribbon" by some who were against it, it's now completely off the table as a separate medal.

The national commander of the American Legion went so far as to say:

"Cyber and drone warfare have become part of the equation for 21st-century combat, and those who fight such battles with distinction certainly deserve to be recognized. But the American Legion still believes there's a fundamental difference between those who fight remotely, or via computer, and those fighting against an enemy who is trying to kill them."

Hmm...looks like the real soldiers see a fundamental difference between 'remote' and actual combat engagements. Maybe the politicos in power should listen a bit more closely to those who actually do know what war is.

wraith808 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2013, 01:36 PM »

It's the pig vs chicken scenario. But to be fair, war, no matter if you're not directly in harms way, is hell. Different people have differing contributions to the effort, but to denigrate these particular warriors seems unfair, and more leaning towards the old service rivalries, when without the drone intel (taking the assassinations off the table) their hazard levels would be much higher.

40hz · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2013, 03:43 PM »

^I think it's more a matter of too great a separation between an act of war and it's consequences.

Technology, by its very existence, begs to be used.

Abd this type of warfare without consequences is all too easy to initiate.

wraith808 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2013, 04:18 PM »

^ What about the fact that he *was* diagnosed with PTSD? And the new studies quoted in the article, i.e.

It was an unexpected diagnosis. For decades the model for understanding PTSD has been “fear conditioning”: quite literally the lasting psychological ramifications of mortal terror. But a term now gaining wider acceptance is “moral injury.” It represents a tectonic realignment, a shift from a focusing on the violence that has been done to a person in wartime toward his feelings about what he has done to others—or what he’s failed to do for them. The concept is attributed to the clinical psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, who in his book Achilles in Vietnam traces the idea back as far as the Trojan War. The mechanisms of death may change—as intimate as a bayonet or as removed as a Hellfire—but the bloody facts, and their weight on the human conscience, remain the same. Bryant’s diagnosis of PTSD fits neatly into this new understanding. It certainly made sense to Bryant. “I really have no fear,” he says now. “It’s more like I’ve had a soul-crushing experience. An experience that I thought I’d never have. I was never prepared to take a life.”

In 2011, Air Force psychologists completed a mental-health survey of 600 combat drone operators. Forty-two percent of drone crews reported moderate to high stress, and 20 percent reported emotional exhaustion or burnout. The study’s authors attributed their dire results, in part, to “existential conflict.” A later study found that drone operators suffered from the same levels of depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation as traditional combat aircrews. These effects appeared to spike at the exact time of Bryant’s deployment, during the surge in Iraq. (Chillingly, to mitigate these effects, researchers have proposed creating a Siri-like user interface, a virtual copilot that anthropomorphizes the drone and lets crews shunt off the blame for whatever happens. Siri, have those people killed.)

What if it has less to do with mortality than it does morality?

tomos · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2013, 04:53 PM »

^ What about the fact that he *was* diagnosed with PTSD? And the new studies quoted in the article, i.e.

[...]

What if it has less to do with mortality than it does morality?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 04:18 PM)

I agree, but would not use the world 'morality' - morality is, by definition, an intellectual thing. This is not an intellectual response....

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2013, 05:45 PM »

I think it's more a matter of too great a separation between an act of war and it's consequences.
-40hz (October 28, 2013, 03:43 PM)

And I would say you nailed it perfectly right there.

  Years ago I spent a great deal of time with a group of Vietnam vets, who were part of my security staff. When the bar closed we frequently sat around and talked shop about the events of the evening. And many times one of the staff would go back to then and the discussion would turn into stories about the war.

  One of the guys on my staff was ex black ops for an agency that he never specified. He stated one night, that the only act one can commit that is more intimate than sex (e.g. bringing a life into this world), was taking a life out of this world in hand-to-hand combat. Because there is a level of tactile/visceral understanding that just cannot be experienced by pushing a button. The audience for the discussion was made up of retired Green Burette, Airborne Rangers, Marines, and a Navy Seal. All present agreed with him wearing expressions of understanding that I will simply describe as a bit chilling.

   So Cognitive Dissonance Indeed .. Because while you can be bothered by the act of pushing a button, if you truly grok the implications of its function, it is still not the same thing as being there. And maybe on some level it helps to know that your own life was indeed in danger when one thinks back about taking the life of another. But the distinction regarding the level of personal exposure is a truly critical one. Because a metal for bravery does not IMO belong on the chest of someone who was never at risk...as that would only serve as an insult to those that earned it and were.

wraith808 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2013, 07:23 PM »

While I will agree that the introduction of mortality and the visceral nature of being there is different, that still doesn't excuse IMO the denigration of any that serve in any capacity. I'll just never get that. There are also those that are in the conflict that are there for different reasons- they aren't all heroes, no matter what acts they perform. Then there are those that are heroes, but are in the capacity of execution of the wrong thing.

There's also the fact that some of these people who are being denigrated for their part are preventing very real casualties on the ground. For instance, if there wasn't the jamming screw up in the example in the article and they'd been able to tell the soldiers, "hey, there's an IED on the ground there", that would have saved real casualties. And I'm sure that has happened in other cases. Is that contribution to be denigrated? And once you start making these sorts of distinctions... where do you draw the line? What about sailors on a battleship giving offshore support? What about pilots of a bomber? Soldiers manning missile stations?

40hz · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2013, 08:07 PM »

^It's not a denigration. It's a legitimate question of what we want to accept as a standard of valor or heroism.

So while it's true some "also serve who stand and wait" I think it's very important (out of respect for those who do serve in active capacities) not to make the fatal mistake of "leveling" - that tendency so popular in American culture to equate everything with everything else - such that "capable," and "acceptable" are becoming synonymous with "exceptional" when speaking of performance.

And once you start making these sorts of distinctions... where do you draw the line?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 07:23 PM)

In my small corner of the universe, you draw it at the place where "at risk" becomes real. Military personnel at sea stations or over hostile airspace are definitely at risk. As are the missile silo commanders and crew who know (with certainty) that either a first-strike or retaliatory missile has already targeted them and will be heading their way - and is guaranteed to impact long before they could get beyond the radius of total destruction.

Sitting in an air conditioned and totally secure command area someplace in Virginia and remotely piloting an unmanned aircraft? Hmm...that seems a somewhat different a type of 'valor' to me. Sure, it serves a necessary function in a military operation. But it seems more to me like somebody acting responsibly and doing the job they're being paid to do rather than serving bravely or with valor. Right up there with the guys packing medical supplies and MREs back in the US for the folks over there.

It's a difference not only of degree, but scope as well.

At least to my pointy little head.

wraith808 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM »

In my small corner of the universe, you draw it at the place where "at risk" becomes real. Military personnel at sea stations or over hostile airspace are definitely at risk. As are the missile silo commanders and crew who know (with certainty) that either a first-strike or retaliatory missile has already targeted them and will be heading their way - and is guaranteed to impact long before they could get beyond the radius of total destruction.

Sitting in an air conditioned and totally secure command area someplace in Virginia and remotely piloting an unmanned aircraft? Hmm...that seems a somewhat different a type of 'valor' to me. Sure, it serves a necessary function in a military operation. But it seems more to me like somebody acting responsibly and doing the job they're being paid to do rather than serving bravely or with valor. Right up there with the guys packing medical supplies and MREs back in the US for the folks over there.
-40hz (October 28, 2013, 08:07 PM)

The closest Bryant ever got to “real” combat—the roadside bombs and mortar fire experienced by combat troops—was after volunteering to deploy to Iraq. He spent the scorching summer and fall of 2007 stationed at the airfield in Balad, flying Predators on base-defense missions—scanning the area for insurgents.

Does that change it at all? Or not because he's not out in the field? Especially since bases have been attacked and military personnel killed... or is that still not close enough?

(And I'm really wondering... not just throwing things out there. Seeing things from a different perspective of a dissenter is a good part of debate that people sometimes miss

)

And what if it was a different sort of service badge... would that be acceptable? Or is it just off the table in general as some seem to think?

40hz · « **Reply #12 on:** October 28, 2013, 09:28 PM »

And what if it was a different sort of service badge... would that be acceptable? Or is it just off the table in general as some seem to think?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM)

It's already been taken care of in a manner that seems to have satisfied most parties. Per US News and World Report:

Current Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Joint Chiefs to conduct a review of the medal shortly after he took office at the end of February, and announced Monday it would be scrapped in favor for a new device to be added to existing medals.

"The medal was originally conceived to be awarded only to those men and women who, while serving off the battlefield, have an extraordinary impact on combat operations," he said in a written statement. "While the review confirmed the need to ensure such recognition, it found that misconceptions regarding the precedence of the award were distracting from its original purpose."

The award was designed to recognize those who have an "extraordinary impact on combat operations" while serving off the battlefield. After conducting the review, the Joint Chief of Staff recommended to Hagel the creation of a distinguishing device to be added to existing medals to recognize these efforts, instead of a new medal.

Current medals, such as the Bronze Star or commendation medals for all service branches, have devices such as a "V" that can be affixed to them to denote valorous acts.

This is as opposed to the original intention of the 'drone' medal that was reported earlier:

According to the Department of Defense, the medal "may not be awarded for valor in combat under any circumstances" and will be given to service members "directly impacting 'hands-on' employment of a weapons system, including remote employment … that had direct, immediate, and on-site effects on the outcome of an engagement."

Most Air Force drone pilots, for example, fly their planes over Afghanistan and Pakistan from air conditioned trailers at a base in Nevada. So far, the medal has not yet been awarded to any troops.

<more here>

Does that change it at all? Or not because he's not out in the field?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM)

It makes all the difference in the world IMHO.

Especially since bases have been attacked and military personnel killed... or is that still not close enough?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM)

An air-conditioned trailer in Nevada is not "at risk in combat' in any real sense of the word. And certainly not the same thing as being stationed on a US military base in an area of conflict on foreign soil.

I strongly suspect that medal was intended to bring some measure of nobility to a questionable form of warfare being pursued exclusively (to date) by the United States - and to provide an enticement to future drone commanders in what is reportedly being seen as a "dead-end job" by many in the military. More on that here.

wraith808 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2013, 09:52 PM »

An air-conditioned trailer in Nevada is not "at risk in combat' in any real sense of the word. And certainly not the same thing as being stationed on a US military base in an area of conflict on foreign soil.
-40hz (October 28, 2013, 09:28 PM)

Did you not see what I quoted? He wasn't in Nevada. He was in Iraq. That is an area of conflict on foreign soil, right?

tomos · « **Reply #14 on:** October 29, 2013, 03:03 AM »

So, the big question here is about medals....

[edit] about my fifth edit here

Maybe I shouldnt even mention morality here, but, just to be clear: I'm not at all saying that we should be discussing the morality of different aspects of the topic here. Just that the medals discussion is so the other end of the scale... I apologise in advance cause I reckon I will have already offended some people with my response. But I just dont know how else to say it at this moment and time - and I dont want to leave it unsaid. Apart from the above, the debate (medals) doesnt seem to me to fit into the (international) dc community/forum. [/edit]

40hz · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:19 AM »

So, the big question here is about medals....

[edit] about my fifth edit here
Maybe I shouldnt even mention morality here, but, just to be clear: I'm not at all saying that we should be discussing the morality of different aspects of the topic here. Just that the medals discussion is so the other end of the scale... I apologise in advance cause I reckon I will have already offended some people with my response. But I just dont know how else to say it at this moment and time - and I dont want to leave it unsaid. Apart from the above, the debate (medals) doesnt seem to me to fit into the (international) dc community/forum. [/edit]
-tomos (October 29, 2013, 03:03 AM)

It's not about medals per se as it's what medals represent and how they make a clear statement about the 'official' attitude towards something. Medals serve to acknowledge and encourage certain acts and behaviors on the part of the military.

To award a medal is to say something is both meritorious and deserving of recognition - which goes right to the heart of the entire drone debate.

Is this type of military behavior acceptable and moral? And is it the sort of thing the people in the USA want to see done and encouraged in their name by their (supposedly) freely elected government? Because if it's not, why would we ever consider issuing a medal?

The United States (and many other countries) have biological and chemical weapons. While some may argue for the necessity of maintaining an inventory, or the capability of producing such weapons (always in the name of that favorite catchall: deterrence), nobody sane has ever proposed awarding a medal exclusively for meritorious service in the support or deployment of such weapons. And although this comparison is a admittedly extreme, there are still many of us who feel that unmanned/remote warfare is a step down a dangerously similar road. So much so that remote controlled weapons should not be allowed to become the norm on the battlefield even if the technical capability to make them so now exists.

War is dehumanizing in and of itself. To pull the human off the battlefield further dehumanizes things and allows those nations (which can afford such technology) to wage war without the human toll, thereby making it far easier to "sell" the latest governmental military venture to the public.

But it gets worse...

Some have already made serious legal arguments that the President of the United States requires no approval (other than the executive powers of his/her own office) to deploy US remote weapon systems anywhere in the world - and for whatever reasons deemed necessary - by the President alone.

That's handing a very big stick to a group of people who have a very poor track record regarding the rule of law or the checks and balances on executive power provided by the US Constitution.

It's also important to remember that the US military has always served as check against out of control political power in the US. Our military is educated in the law. Huge amounts of time are spent at military academies learning about the rules of warfare, constitutional law, and ethics. Something our military seems to understand and respect far more than its civilian leaders sometimes do.

Drones are a very real danger because of that. If some politicos decided to do a power grab they'd need to convince the military to go along. I doubt they'd succeed. It didn't happen at the height of the cold war. And I doubt it would now.

But...if you could have a huge arsenal of remotely piloted drones - or semi-autonomous robots like the next generation of these weapons promises to be; plus a few thousand "right thinking" individuals (with police and 'security' backgrounds) installed in secret command locations; with access to that huge domestic monitoring system the US has secretly built over the last ten years...it just might be sufficient to pull off that long feared US coup d'état.

Drones are a weapon that, much like nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, are something we really can't be trusted with. And if they must be used, they should only be allowed in extremely limited and clearly defined scenarios - and certainly not purely at the discretion of a single man.

We've avoided nuclear war by the simple expedient of its price being too horrible to contemplate. We've avoided chemical and biological conflict largely due to the overwhelming disgust and refusal of most people on this planet to condone or tolerate such weapons.

Drones and unmanned weapons represent a new and significant threat because they remove the perceived "human price tag" attached to military action. And that's where the real problem and danger lies. As long as your nation is on the trigger end of this technology, there is no perceived human cost. Your designated adversary has been completely dehumanized - reduced to little more than a graphic on a tactical map - or a grainy IR image on a display screen housed in a bunker 5000 miles away.

And that's a very dangerous development in tactical warfare.

One that can only be contained by a near universal attitude which clearly says: This is not acceptable. This will not be allowed.

And you can start by refusing to glorify the use of such technology. Or attempt to make it somehow psychologically equivalent to human presence on the battlefield.

And that's why the decision to award - or not award - a medal for involvement in drone combat operations is so important.

Not about medals?

It's all about medals.

Or at least so it seems to me.

-------------------------------

Apart from the above, the debate (medals) doesnt seem to me to fit into the (international) dc community/forum.

I'm not sure if I understand the point being made there. Maybe something went missing in translation?

wraith808 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:22 AM »

That wasn't my intent when I posted it for sure... it was more the merging of the technology and the warrior, and the psychological effects thereof. I think that the medals isn't off-base with the international aspects of DC IMO. But it does point towards the attitude and conversations that surround the use of the drones, i.e. that it isn't really worthy of mention as battle and isn't worthy of recognition as battle, which I dispute.

Especially given that at times, the combatant in question isn't 5000 miles away... as when the soldier in the article above deployed to Iraq.

40hz · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:43 AM »

Especially given that at times, the combatant in question isn't 5000 miles away... as when the soldier in the article above deployed to Iraq.
-wraith808 (October 29, 2013, 08:22 AM)

Out of curiosity - why there?

It would be more efficient and cost effective to keep it in Nevada. No shipping charges! And certainly more secure in that there would be no risk at all of a command unit being destroyed - or even worse, captured by the enemy. IIUC these systems use satellite communications for their control systems - so physical location of the commander doesn't seem to be all that important. (It certainly isn't for the "hitman" drones operating in Pakistan and other places.)

I strongly suspect it was done more for PR purposes than anything else. Much like the mobile nuclear weapon systems deployed in Europe in the early days of the Cold War. Those were put in place mostly to placate and assure US allies they had a "nuclear blanket."

Sad thing was, it actually increased the risk of a nuclear exchange because these weapons would almost certainly have been overrun or captured by conventional opposing forces long before they could be readied and used. So that necessitated an "early" or "preemptive launch" strategy to avoid being captured by an enemy. "Launch on certainty of attack" became reduced to an educated guess about being under attack.

Fortunately, that was something everybody eventually realized and the weapons were removed from Europe.

wraith808 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2013, 10:15 AM »

Out of curiosity - why there?

It would be more efficient and cost effective to keep it in Nevada. No shipping charges! And certainly more secure in that there would be no risk at all of a command unit being destroyed - or even worse, captured by the enemy. IIUC these systems use satellite communications for their control systems - so physical location of the commander doesn't seem to be all that important. (It certainly isn't for the "hitman" drones operating in Pakistan and other places.)
-40hz (October 29, 2013, 08:43 AM)

I'm not sure why there... but I'd assume that for the same reason that is pointed out in the article that you linked... link latency. He was performing flyovers at the base to accompany patrols and reinforce base security. Link latency would be a problem, I'd think, especially when lives are on the line. It's of little importance if the drone lands safely to be recovered when the link goes out if there's no one to recover it.

And does the reason lessen the fact that he is now on foreign soil in enemy territory? And that he volunteered for deployment?

40hz · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2013, 01:37 PM »

And does the reason lessen the fact that he is now on foreign soil in enemy territory? And that he volunteered for deployment?
-wraith808 (October 29, 2013, 10:15 AM)

I have no issue with Airman Bryant. I'm sure he enlisted and served with the best of intentions and truly believed his service would make the world a better place in the end. I've known others just like him who served in our nation's armed forces. Some are even in my own family.

But I consider him more a tragic figure than a hero. As I do all the patriotic and highly honorable men and women who have served this country in needless conflicts orchestrated by those who put their own interests and agendas ahead of those of their nation.

Seeing people (both allies and adversaries) die over half-truths and untruths will take its toll on anyone with a shred of humanity still left inside them. Small wonder so many have come back from conflicts such as this one with serious emotional and mental issues. Small wonder so many who live in the region of conflict will also live out their lives similarly scarred.

Perhaps I see it this way because I was "of age" (plain and simple '1-A' on my draft card) during the last years of the Viet Nam war. I saw what that war did to our nation at home and abroad. And I especially saw what it did to to many of those who served once it became public that all the reasons they thought they were fighting and dying for were largely misrepresented those few times when they weren't just flat out lies.

I see this current conflict in much the same way - and for much the same reasons. And I see it doing much the same thing to this nation - although those responsible for it have been significantly more successful in framing the story and keeping reality from interfering with "the official version" too much. So at least something has been learned by those in power after Viet Nam and the Pentagon Papers revelations.

Guess you could call that a form of progress, right?

wraith808 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2013, 01:57 PM »

I think that many don't echo your sentiments, however, and view his service as somewhat less than someone who put boots on ground in the face of enemy aggression.

But I consider him more a tragic figure than a hero. As I do all the patriotic and highly honorable men and women who have served this country in needless conflicts orchestrated by those who put their own interests and agendas ahead of those of their nation.

Seeing people (both allies and adversaries) die over half-truths and untruths will take its toll on anyone with a shred of humanity still left inside them. Small wonder so many have come back from conflicts such as this one with serious emotional and mental issues. Small wonder so many who live in the region of conflict will also live out their lives similarly scarred.
-40hz (October 29, 2013, 01:37 PM)

This I can definitely get on board with. We seem to wash them with the same colors and end up with ribbons on our cars, and tip jars to support our troops, branding them in the same way that the threat boards of the theater of combat does to a different extent when they're looked at as resources and casualties rather than people whose lives and deaths have a very real impact on the country.

We calk about the cognitive dissonance of waging war from behind a screen at increasing distances... I think that there is more of a cognitive dissonance between those that wage war as enlisted and those that formerly waged war under the same terms. Because it seems that the men to a large extent become less important when that man isn't you.

tomos · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2013, 04:00 PM »

Guess you could call that a form of progress, right?
-40hz (October 29, 2013, 01:37 PM)

-
that was a powerful post.

Re my earlier, eh, reproachful post: sorry folks, I missed the sub-text to the whole medal talk (maybe it was more obvious than a 'sub-text' - but I missed it anyways). Which gave me a skewed perspective of the medal debate...