Article Image

IPFS News Link • Drones

Drone Operators, Not American Snipers, Rack Up the Biggest Body Count

• http://original.antiwar.com

For all the macho posturing of the late Chris Kyle, gunned down at a shooting range by a PTSD-afflicted veteran, his prolific killing has nothing on the death and destruction rained from above by those who carry out US drone strikes in the Middle East.  For all intents and purposes, former drone operator Brandon Bryant has Kyle beat by a long shot.  According to Bryant, over 1,600 deaths were dealt by him through the technological terror that patrolled the skies of the Middle East for the past decade.  Unlike Kyle, though, Bryant isn't flaunting his skill as a State-sanctioned murderer: he regrets it.  For six years, he flew the missions on orders from on high.  Now he's retired from it and is speaking out.  Bryant was diagnosed with PTSD shortly after leaving the program, odd only because normal diagnoses involve situations of prolonged mortal terror.  Air Force psychologists have referred to conditions similar to Bryant's as "existential conflict", or "moral injury".

Engaging in constant behavior that directly violates one's own moral norms results in this "moral injury", a term used by Dr. Jonathan Shay in his book, Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character.  The Foreign Policy piece linked to quotes Dr. Brett Litz on the distinctness of moral injury from PTSD: "perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations."

The piece goes on to state that, "There may be no stronger case for the existence of moral injury than that presented by drone operators who, far removed from any physical threats to themselves, suffer symptoms associated with PTSD. Indeed, if moral injury is distinct from and not a component of PTSD (as Dr. Brett Litz and his colleagues claim), it is reasonable to conclude that drone operators are misdiagnosed as having PTSD: They actually suffer from moral injury."

Humans flying drones, dealing death, and then suffering the fallout when their inner humanity accuses them of mass murder of their fellow man.  Moral injury.

Since President Obama took the reins of the drone program, over 364 strikes have been carried out, racking up a death toll of over 2,400.  But only when Americans die in drone strikes, with big exceptions, does the President acknowledge the tragedy.  The Al-Awlaki killing, the 16 year-old Al-Awlaki killing, was justified with nonsense: he should've "had a more responsible father." 

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Leslie Fish
Entered on:

The problem with "drone" strikes is that they're *not precise enough*, especially when dealing with enemies who surround themselves with human shields of innocent civilians. What we need are small, agile, smart missiles that can fly over the head of an innocent civilian and kill the terrorist hiding behind them The claim of PTSD for the "moral injury" of accidentally killing innocent people by accident, that too can be prevented -- and cured -- by greater precision and accuracy at getting the Bad Guys and sparing the innocent. As for the claim that any killing at a distance is particularly eeeeevil, that charge is as old as the first caveman who was hit by a thrown rock in combat, instead of a hand-swung club. It was claimed against the spear, the bow and arrow, the first personal firearm, artillery, and bomber airplanes. It has no more validity now than it did then.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

"Being antiwar is not solely about US troop deaths, but also about the deaths of innocent foreigners. Even if a draft finally summoned sufficient outrage in response to the number of flag-draped coffins to end a war, it will never stop the strikes of drones. It will therefore be the chief source of blowback for decades to come. It’s just too tempting for the US government not to use. Aim and fire. Blow apart weddings, massacre children, and funerals. Aim, fire. Wait for the rescue operation, fire again. Wait for the funeral, fire a few more. Thousands dead. And each of the dead more than likely has a loved one who has inwardly declared undying war on the US."

Amen. This is the plan...never ending war machine. Go Neocon, Go!

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Well duh. Unlike any other person of a battlefield a sniper can be certain of their target.

A person who drops bombs or fires missiles or rockets or artillery shells may hit their target or not, and when the explosive and concomitant shrapnel radiates out it engulfs anyone within its range. That is a lot of bodies despite the Pentagon's euphemism of 'surgical strikes.' Some of those commonly used warheads can KILL everything within a 5,000 foot radius! That doesn't include the many who are maimed at the periphery.

No a sniper actually is surgical. Little collateral damage. Only misidentifying a target from time to time. If they care.



thelibertyadvisor.com/declare