The psychology of using predator drones to eliminate perceived enemies in warfare can be connected to a bigger picture of human characteristics.
Dehumanization of Warfare
By tracing the evolution of warfare and the different types of weapons that have been used, we can trace the desire for more efficient and effective weapons to a gradual depersonalization of fighting. Back when spears were used, fighters would feel the blade twist into the bodily organs. They would hear the enemy's scream of pain and terror. They would see the enemy's eyes filled with fear. There was a real human quality to warfare. With bows and arrows, guns, tanks, and so on and so forth, this personal feeling of fighting another human being has faded. The enemy began being seen more as a target than as a living, breathing, feeling fellow human being. Those natural walls humans have of remorse for harming another human being have been torn down. Predator drones, seen as the next step in the evolution of weaponry, have also led us onto the next stage of the devolution of the personal aspect of fighting. Once a target is, in essence, dehumanized, the enemy is no longer seen as a "he," no longer seen as a being with dreams and concerns and fears, but rather as an "it," an evil savage needing to be eliminated in the most powerful way possible. This desensitizes the one doing the killing; he no longer sees this as inflicting harm on another human being. Instead, it is seen as eliminating evil in the world. Subsequently, he feels little or no remorse and fears no consequences from the enemy. From that point, it is a slippery slope that is run. This enemy elimination is seen as "easy" and doesn't make you feel bad. You think, "hey, this should be used more often." Even in military slang, a man killed by drone strike is called a "bug splat." And then, sooner or later, you have launched 97 drone strikes in Pakistan in 2010 after only launching 10 from 2004 to 2007. This dehumanization aspect also plays into the mass abundance of civilian casualties from these predator drone strikes. The casualties are seen as necessary and just a part of the fight to eliminate evil terrorists. The 147:1 civilian-to-suspected-terrorist death ratio in 2009-2010 is appalling in nearly every way imaginable, but it is seen as necessary to prevent these evil, dehumanized terrorists from hurting the American people. Source of table: University of San Francisco International Affairs Review In the audio interview below, David Livingstone Smith details just how dangerous dehumanization is and how it can cause humans to commit truly despicable acts. Source: NPR.org |
Deindividuation
The premise of this is that the enemy has no idea who is killing them, so the one pulling the trigger feels very little moral connection to the killing. This has become gradually more of the norm when it comes to warfare. Initially, people would be face-to-face with and only a few feet away as their enemy was killed by a spear or other sharp implement. Then, bows and arrows and, subsequently, gun allowed for more long distance and "anonymous" killing. When your troop is all firing their bullets at the same time, there is less of a moral attachment to each bullet fired as it is unlikely that anyone would know which bullet from which gun killed the opposing soldier. This is akin to the policy of executions, say, in Nazi Germany. Someone who was sentenced to death would be brought in front of a firing squad, and the squad would fire everything at once. Drones have taken this anonymity a step further. At first, manned aerial vehicles were responsible for firing missiles, so the individual releasing the missile still felt a connection to being responsible for the subsequent destruction. However, the person releasing the missile being thousands of miles away makes this moral disconnection even more severe. A study done in 1969 by Phillip Zimbardo supports this notion that anonymity promotes violent or aggressive actions. Entitled "The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order Versus Deindividuation, Impulse, and Chaos," the basic tenets and findings of the study were:
Sources: Fabius Maximus Zimbardo, Philip G. "The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos." Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, 1969. Image Source: Pinterest.com |
Moral Disengagement
Both the dehumanization and deindividuation aspects associated with the psychology of using predator drones involve a level of moral disengagement. This means that there is a level of rationalization that one eliminates inhibitions and justifies an act, which in this case is a violent one. This follows the human tendency of always desiring to have a reason for an action, to have some sort of purpose. This plays into dehumanization in that the rationalization of those operating the drone is that these enemies have been reduced to non-human-like qualities, and if they are not eliminated, then they will kill fellow Americans. In this way, the mindset can become that the enemy brought all of this onto themselves, and it is not the fault of the people in charge of the drone that they are being killed. Those innocent civilians being killed as collateral damage are not the fault of the drone, but rather the fault of the enemy.
The deindividuation involved in the complexity of predator drones plays directly into the hands of being a morally-disengaged activity. The person pulling the trigger knows that the enemy will never know the identity of his killer, and neither will any kids or women or other civilians caught up in the drone strike. This makes it that much easier to justify these actions. The injurious effects that predator drone missiles are no longer the main thing on the mind of the triggerman and are simply disregarded.
Both the dehumanization and deindividuation aspects associated with the psychology of using predator drones involve a level of moral disengagement. This means that there is a level of rationalization that one eliminates inhibitions and justifies an act, which in this case is a violent one. This follows the human tendency of always desiring to have a reason for an action, to have some sort of purpose. This plays into dehumanization in that the rationalization of those operating the drone is that these enemies have been reduced to non-human-like qualities, and if they are not eliminated, then they will kill fellow Americans. In this way, the mindset can become that the enemy brought all of this onto themselves, and it is not the fault of the people in charge of the drone that they are being killed. Those innocent civilians being killed as collateral damage are not the fault of the drone, but rather the fault of the enemy.
The deindividuation involved in the complexity of predator drones plays directly into the hands of being a morally-disengaged activity. The person pulling the trigger knows that the enemy will never know the identity of his killer, and neither will any kids or women or other civilians caught up in the drone strike. This makes it that much easier to justify these actions. The injurious effects that predator drone missiles are no longer the main thing on the mind of the triggerman and are simply disregarded.
Reliance on Machines to Do the Dirty Work
The interesting thing about the evolution of warfare is that, much like other impractical tasks, they have seen a marked increase in technology and thus a more automated-centric approach has been born. No longer are humans responsible for actually delivering the blow to their enemy, but rather they are simple the triggermen. Now, to avoid getting into a gun control debate, we will steer clear of the debate of whether the gun or the human is responsible for killing the person. What cannot be denied, however, is that advances in technology have made killing other human beings easier and more practical. It has gotten to the point that you do not even have to mobilize troops into an area to attack. All you need is a plane capable of delivering missiles. This is similar to many other aspects of life. For transportation, humans no longer have to rely on walking everywhere; instead, they can utilize a machine, a car or train or bus, that allows for longer-range, more practical transportation. Factories, and the machines contained within factories, allow for the mass production of goods that allow companies to sell great quantities of them while also being able to charge an affordable rate. Electricity makes nearly everything more practical. Cooking food in an oven is more practical than having to cook over an open fire. Machines that purify water and send them to pipes that distribute the water everywhere is more practical than having to fetch it with a bucket.
Everywhere one looks in this day and age, there is a machines making life just that much more practical, that much more efficient. This reliance on machines does not stop at warfare. It only makes sense that machines that fire weapons more effectively and more efficiently and that minimize the risk of losing your own soldiers have been developed. Science says humans have a natural desire to be in a state of being in the lowest energy possible for a situation. This is simply a continuation of the human quest to expand energy as efficiently as possible.
The interesting thing about the evolution of warfare is that, much like other impractical tasks, they have seen a marked increase in technology and thus a more automated-centric approach has been born. No longer are humans responsible for actually delivering the blow to their enemy, but rather they are simple the triggermen. Now, to avoid getting into a gun control debate, we will steer clear of the debate of whether the gun or the human is responsible for killing the person. What cannot be denied, however, is that advances in technology have made killing other human beings easier and more practical. It has gotten to the point that you do not even have to mobilize troops into an area to attack. All you need is a plane capable of delivering missiles. This is similar to many other aspects of life. For transportation, humans no longer have to rely on walking everywhere; instead, they can utilize a machine, a car or train or bus, that allows for longer-range, more practical transportation. Factories, and the machines contained within factories, allow for the mass production of goods that allow companies to sell great quantities of them while also being able to charge an affordable rate. Electricity makes nearly everything more practical. Cooking food in an oven is more practical than having to cook over an open fire. Machines that purify water and send them to pipes that distribute the water everywhere is more practical than having to fetch it with a bucket.
Everywhere one looks in this day and age, there is a machines making life just that much more practical, that much more efficient. This reliance on machines does not stop at warfare. It only makes sense that machines that fire weapons more effectively and more efficiently and that minimize the risk of losing your own soldiers have been developed. Science says humans have a natural desire to be in a state of being in the lowest energy possible for a situation. This is simply a continuation of the human quest to expand energy as efficiently as possible.