Hood is the director of the film Eye in the Sky
The film focuses on a joint operation by the British, American, and Kenyan militaries. There is a chain of command known as the kill chain (Dholly 1). All parties in the chain are watching as an operation against a terrorist organisation is carried out. They make decisions while watching from afar. This study tries to examine and provide insight into the so-called death chain, as well as the legal and ethical quandaries that arise as a result of drone warfare in modern combat. Its specifically seeks to address an issue relating to collateral damage. <\/p>
Analysis of Katherine Powel in the Movie
The mission is led by a British Colonel known as Katherine Powel. She has the duty of execution of the mission that involves the capture of two high ranking terrorists. The two have been radicalized into the terrorism militia group that is known as the Al- Shabaab (Dholly 1). Her intention for conducting the mission is to capture the group but not to kill. Her mission is interfered with when a girl selling bread appears in the proximity of the drone missiles damage range. This triggers a dispute at an international level over the effects of modern warfare.<\/p>
She is motivated to authorize the drone strikes
In that her mission is to neutralize the terrorists. She has gotten a chance of bringing them to an end and this can only be achieved by authorizing the drone attacks (Dholly 1). There is also a realization that the terrorists inside the house are planning to attack since they can be seen getting ready in suicide vests. This further motivates her to authorize the attacks.it is the only way that will bring them to an end and prevent them from launching an attack on the civilians (Bandes 187). This changes her mission from that of capturing the terrorists to that of killing them.<\/p>
Katherine’s motivations can be legitimated
In that it is her job to do so. In her job, she is engraved with the duty to conduct the mission (Dholly 1). On the other hand, it should not be legitimized in that even if it is her job, a times ethically it is not right.in this case, she has to conduct a mission which if she authorizes to be carried on, it will result to deaths of innocent civilians and also other damages which should not occur. Legally, she is supposed to do the mission. There is a conflict between the humanity and the job of the colonel as seen in the film, according to her job and mission, she is supposed to authorize the drone attack. When she authorizes the attack, there will be loss of lives among them innocent civilians which include the small girl selling bread within the proximity of damage of the attack (Bandes 192). The conflict comes in since she has to choose between authorizing the attack to be carried on and comprise her humanity or not to authorize the attack and compromise her job. The conflict results from ethics such as greatest benefit for least coast and in contrast, innocent lives should be cared for at all possible costs (Dholly 1).<\/p>
Politicians in the Chain of Command
The politicians in the command chain are faced with several dilemmas on the case of launching the drones (Dholly 1). They base their arguments on the individual, political and legal merits of authorizing an attack in a country that is not at war with them. Such an attack can cause an information dispute. The dilemma results from the ethics of the military and the moral values related to the politicians in their elected posts since they have the responsibility of protecting their innocent civilians.<\/p>
There are a number of these dilemmas in London
Lieutenant Benson has lost patience with the bureaucrats who have more concern with saving their public image instead of saving lives. The British foreign secretary has to take a life or death call and this causes him dilemma. The American secretary of state who is in Beijing puts emphasis that the Britain people should stop meddling with a crucial play of ping pong and start killing people (Dholly 1). The American USAF commanders are also in a dilemma on whether to launch the attack or not. The dilemmas result to a kind of a tree where by the politicians pass the duty of approving the decision to officers who are higher than them in the existing political chain (Bra\u0308unert, Svea, and Meredith 56). The international view of mode of operation further complicates the decision making process. The British have to make any decision by engaging the Americans and also have to put in consideration Kenya and its political and domestic concerns (Schulzke 24). The dilemmas are all in a bid to choosing between launching an attack that will cause collateral damage not launching it. There are legal requirements that necessitate the launching and on the other hand, factors that are ethically against launching the attack.<\/p>
Pilot Steve Watts and Carrie Gershon
The pilots of the drones are tasked with the duty of controlling the drones and pulling the trigger. Excluding the Kenya agent, the pilots can be viewed to have the most difficult duty among all the characters that have participated in the film. This is because their task of sending the missiles will involve a great damage. The damage includes the terrorist but the most devastating one is that it will result to loss of innocent lives of civilians. They have a hard time trying to weigh the options. They try to justify the action since they are in a dilemma in that, they are held back by the ethics of the army which state that there should be greatest benefit for least count (Bandes 188). On the other hand, they are held by that of the elected persons which states that the innocent lives are very valuable and are supposed to be taken care of at all the possible costs. They are given the commands to carry out the attack but at the end of the day, it’s them who pull the triggers of the missile that cause the damage (Dholly 1). Therefore, with such jobs and dilemma puzzles to solve, they carry the most weight hence have the most difficult job.<\/p>
In conclusion
The film has sought out the dilemmas that come up in chain of command, and also the legal and ethical dilemmas of modern warfare by use of drones. It also has provided an insight on the collateral damage involved in the drone warfare. It has shown what it is like for the nations to participate in warfare. It leaves one with so many questions of the new way of way that is sometimes referred to as ‘war of the remote’ and its effect on the innocent civilians who end up injured, traumatized and most cases dead.<\/p>
Works cited
Bräunert, Svea, and Meredith Malone. To See Without Being Seen: Contemporary Art and Drone Warfare. , 2016. Print.
Bandes, Susan A. “What Executioners Can—and Cannot—Teach Us About the Death Penalty.” Criminal Justice Ethics 35.3 (2016): 183-200.
Schulzke, Marcus. The Morality of Drone Warfare and the Politics of Regulation. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2017. Internet resource.
Dholly Bintaraz. Eye in the Sky Full Movie. N.p 5 May, 2017. Retrieved [13 May, 2017] from :< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeO9gRSI0iA >
