Wars have NEVER been ethical in any shape or form- at best, there might have been a bit of chivalry between higher-ranking members of the opposing forces, a bit of mercy here and there- if they were culturally similar- but it often ended there.

Personally I think a remote-controlled drone guided by a distant pilot is much more ethical than a piloted fighter commanded by a distant general (the traditional way) as it means that whenever the planes get shot down, malfunction or run out of fuel we didn't end up sacrificing two servicemen and women in the process.

The end result is otherwise exactly the same.

Beyond that, you would just need to ensure that only remote pilots in army ranks were permitted to pilot the drones.

*The natural extension of this is that if one day someone in a cave in Waziristan decides that you are a danger to them, they will have little hesitation in pushing the button.*

Pericles, I think that already applies, for I have yet to see
Al Queda or the Taliban, be concerned with ethics or the Geneva
Convention. So their only limit, is owning and knowing how to
use the technology, to push that button. For as an infidel,
you are fair game.

The thing is, Al Queda and the Taliban are still standing, as
they simply changed the rules to suit themselves. Bin Laden did
say that he would defeat the US by bankrupting them. He hasn't
done such a bad job at that either.

So laws of the jungle it is, where the smartest survives and writes
their own rule book, as they go along.

Dear Pericles,

I am also deeply disturbed by this method of warfare. A year ago I raised the topic, “A 'cowardly attack'?”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2633#59197

I reproduce my opening post below.

-Start quote-

This article in the Age newspaper

http://www.theage.com.au/world/deadly-reapers-stalk-their-quarry-over-afghan-skies-20090323-97es.html

prompts me to ask the following question, what really is a “cowardly attack“?

We hear the term used often and in bold print, “Sri Lanka vows ‘cowardly attack’ will not affect Pakistan relations” or “Cowardly attack will not derail process - Brown” and “U.S. Seeks Culprits Behind Cole Attack ... we track down the individuals responsible for this...cowardly attack," defence secretary William Cohen said.”

Quite possibly a case could be made that all of these incidents had an element of cowardness in them. However the attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers did involve exchanges of gunfire with armed police, the Northern Ireland episode was an attack on an army base and the USS Cole assault was a highly armed warship in which the attackers blew themselves up.

Last year approximately 7000 Taliban were said to have perished, most of those from munitions from the sky. These were delivered primarily by jet pilots whose greatest threats come from their own side. They are not opposed by any enemy airforce and few weapons used by the Taliban are capable of reaching them even at relatively low levels. Admittedly there is the risk of capture after mechanical malfunctions or such like.

However the Reaper crews discussed in The Age article sit in “darkened control rooms” “12,000 kilometres away” where the “most dangerous part of their day is the drive between the base and their homes”. “It is, quite simply, the most risk-free form of combat”.

So I am wondering what needs to be present for an attack to be deemed cowardly? Is the risk to the attacker relevant? Is the military status of the victims the key? Or is it primarily the nature of the attack itself?”

-End quote-

Condoning this have we forever abrogated our ability to call any attack cowardly?

csteele- the logical answer to the quote you posted is to treat more kinds of attacks as cowardly- as ultimately the one actually responsible tends to be a long distance away anyway- you don't see Bin Laden strapping bombs to his little dialysis machine and pushing the button himself, or George Bush infiltrating deep behind enemy lines, after all.

Dear King Hazza,

I am supposing that if we want to use logic to answer this question (although I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate to do so here) then surely I might ask what would you define as a heroic attack?

I don't see anyone ever regarding a Reaper pilot as heroic, nor should they, but many may well see them as cowardly and not without justification. Haven't the notions of what constitutes a cowardly act such as the use of Mustard gas as mentioned earlier, or shooting a prisoner, or torture, helped inform our rules of war? Why not this one?

I remember Hamas fighters being called cowards because they remained in built up areas for protection. The implication was in order to fight heroically they should all march out to cleared areas to fight. Sure the overwhelming technology of the Israelis including drones would mean they could all be slaughtered without risk to the IDF personnel but at least they wouldn't be deemed cowards.

Logic tends to break down a little here doesn't it.

I share the concerns of Pericles.

If we need to resort to this kind of warfare then we shouldn't be in those countries full stop.

http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.htm

Not so csteele, we are in Afghanistan for good reasons. Milestones
was written by Syed Qutb, an Egytpian whose ideology is followed
by the likes of Bin Laden Zawahiri and the rest. Whilst these
people are a bunch of extremists, they really want the lot of us
to convert to Islam or die. Read for yourself what drives the thinking.

They had been bombing their way around the world for years, but
it was only when they started wiping people out in NY, that the
rest of the world took action and responded in any kind of serious
manner.