The Essence of Warfare: Politics and Social Construction

The Essence of Warfare: Politics and Social Construction          

        While the argument between the weight of technology and politics  is certainly dichotomous, politics and social construction will always be the central idea behind warfare, not technology.  The use of technology in warfare is simply a tool.  This tool is built by man and controlled by man.  To simplify, any technology we have ever developed is at the very least guided, if not completely controlled, by man.  Consider autopilot on an airplane.  While the plane may be able to “fly itself”, it still requires the operations of a pilot to input its destination.  The pilot also has the option to put autopilot on when he or she decides; or to not use it at all.

            An even more basic example is an alarm clock.  If you know you need to be up at a certain time, you can set an alarm clock.  You can (for the most part) count on the alarm clock to go off once you have set it to, however, the alarm clock will never set itself.  If you need to be awake at 9am, you must set the alarm to 9am.  The time you need to be up is something that you construct or decide.    The time you need to be up is something that you construct socially.  You decide when you need to be up, not the alarm clock.  These same types of rules are the basic reasons as to why social relations and politics will always come before technology.  In the study of philosophy, there is a famous quote saying, “Perception is reality”.  Applying this to warfare, if we perceive another nation to be a threat, they are a threat.  It is through meaning that we make sense of the world.  Just as the example from lecture 3 talks about a mountain being socially constructed. This aspect is purely political.  It is our political stances that persuade us to adopt different types of technology.

            The importance of politics in warfare is illustrated in Becker and Shane’s article, “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”.  The article summarizes many of the methods the US uses to “capture or kill terrorists”.  However, after discussing drone strikes, the author says “it is the president himself who reserves the final moral calculation,” (1).  By definition, we know that politics is when two or more people have interests that cannot be fulfilled in current conditions.  Becker and Shane’s talks specifically about drone strikes.  The political aspect here is whether or not to allow drone strikes to kill wanted terrorists.  Drones are a recent technological advancement that was created particularly for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Many people would argue that drones are the central part of this war.  But just as the quote in Becker and Shane’s article says, it is the president who reserves the ultimate moral calculation.  Not the drones.  Just as your alarm clock does not set itself, drones do not decide where and when to launch.  The president when and where; and even decides if he wants to use this type of technology at all.  It is his political views that control the technology.

            Becker and Shane’s article later goes on to say that “war…appears to be ingrained in human nature,” (3).  The importance of this quote is the connection between war and human nature.  The intention here is to make the reader understand that war is between people.  Regardless of the types of technology countries develop to attack each other, the root of conflict lies within the politics of the human race. 

            In terms of the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States felt drones were effective technological tools given the tough, mountainous terrain.  Therefore, they developed this technology. Technology, therefore, is tailored to the political views.  If you have no use for technology, you don’t develop it.  Political views and social construction are what decide what technology is useful. Regardless of technology, the ultimate goal of war remains the same.  A quote from Arkin’s article titled, “The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned System” says “the tendency to destroy the adversary which lies at the bottom of the conceptualization of war is in no way changed,” (1).  Technology may change, but the goals of warfare do not.