April 28, 2009
Today, I was on “Your Call,” an hour-long call-in program on KALW 91.7 FM, the local Public Radio station in San Francisco, to talk about the impact of drones and robotics on war. To listen to show, click here. Hope you enjoy!
Archive | War RSS feed for this section
In the United States, where the vast majority of the population (82 percent according to a recent Newsweek poll) identify themselves as Christians, one of the most important steps we can all take to ending not only the war in Iraq, but all war, is to remind people of faith at every turn how radical and nonviolent their God truly is.
How Does Remote-Controlled Technology Change War?
28 AprThe Dawn of Robot Wars
17 AprApril 17, 2009 issue
The Indypendent, WIN Magazine, Huffington Post, Common Dreams, ZNet. Also published as an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Australian Financial Review. Syndicated by Featurewell.com.
With little public scrutiny, robotics is quickly revolutionizing not only how war is fought, but who fights in war. While the U.S. military first began to experiment with remote-controlled weapons during World War I, the Pentagon had no robots on the ground when it invaded Iraq in 2003, and only a handful of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the air. Today, according to P.W. Singer, author of Wired for War and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the U.S. military has some 7,000 UAVs in operation – more than double the number of manned aircraft in its arsenal - and more than 12,000 robots on the ground in Iraq alone.
Predator drones armed with laser-guided Hellfire missiles have regularly bombed Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, and their use is skyrocketing. In 2008, 71 Predators flew 138,404 combat hours – a 94 percent increase over the year before, according to a recent presentation by U.S. Air Force Col. Eric Mathewson. And over the last year, drones flown largely by the CIA have launched missile attacks inside Pakistan more than 40 times. Rather than reconsider this deadly policy, President Obama has become an enthusiastic backer. Since his inauguration, he has authorized 11 such attacks that have collectively killed over 145 people, many of them civilians, and sparked large protests within Pakistan.
UAVs are also increasingly being used inside the United States. The Department of Homeland Security has deployed unarmed drones to monitor the borders with Mexico and Canada. Police departments in Los Angeles, Houston and Miami have been testing drones for surveillance purposes in their cities. And according to the Washington Post, activists have even reported seeing insect-sized spy drones at antiwar rallies in Washington and New York.
In Iraq, there are at least 22 different unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) in operation. While they are used primarily for reconnaissance and to help soldiers defuse roadside bombs, the first armed ground robot was deployed south of Baghdad in May 2007. The Special Weapons Observation Remote Direct-Action System, or SWORDS, stands three feet tall and rolls on two tank treads. It’s currently fitted with an M249 machine gun that can be swapped for other powerful weapons and controlled with a modified laptop. More sophisticated UGVs – such as the MAARS and the one-ton Gladiator - are currently being developed and tested and will likely see combat in the near future.
Attack of the Killer Robots
28 Feb 
The Pentagon’s dream of a techno army is doomed to fail.
February 2009 issue
In These Times; To view PDF, click here. Also published in the Columbia City Paper, Metroland, Boise Weekly, Alternet, Common Dreams
One of the most captivating storylines in science fiction involves a nightmarish vision of the future in which autonomous killer robots turn on their creators and threaten the extinction of the human race. Hollywood blockbusters such as Terminator and The Matrix are versions of this cautionary tale, as was R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), the 1920 Czech play by Karel Capek that marked the first use of the word “robot.”
In May 2007, the U.S. military reached an ominous milestone in the history of warfare—one that took an eerie step toward making this fiction a reality. After more than three years of development, the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division based south of Baghdad, deployed armed ground robots.
Although only three of these weaponized “unmanned systems” have hit Iraq’s streets, to date, National Defense magazine reported in September 2007 that the Army has placed an order for another 80.
A month after the robots arrived in Iraq, they received “urgent material release approval” to allow their use by soldiers in the field. The military, however, appears to be proceeding with caution.
According to a statement by Duane Gotvald, deputy project manager of the Defense Department’s Robotic Systems Joint Project Office, soldiers are using the robots “for surveillance and peacekeeping/guard operations” in Iraq. By all accounts, robots have not fired their weapons in combat since their deployment more than a year and a half ago.
But it is only a matter of time before that line is crossed.
Future fighting force?
For many in the military-industrial complex, this technological revolution could not come soon enough.
Robots’ strategic impact on the battlefield, however—along with the moral and ethical implications of their use in war—have yet to be debated.
Designed by Massachusetts-based defense contractor Foster-Miller, the Special Weapons Observation Remote Direct-Action System, or SWORDS, stands three feet tall and rolls on two tank treads.
It is similar to the company’s popular TALON bomb disposal robot—which the U.S. military has used on more than 20,000 missions since 2000—except, unlike TALON, SWORDS has a weapons platform fixed to its chassis.
Currently fitted with an M249 machine gun that fires 750 rounds per minute, the robot can accommodate other powerful weapons, including a 40 mm grenade launcher or an M202 rocket launcher.
Five cameras enable an operator to control SWORDS from up to 800 meters away with a modified laptop and two joysticks. The control unit also has a special “kill button” that turns the robot off should it malfunction. (During testing, it had the nasty habit of spinning out of control.)
Developed on a shoestring budget of about $4.5 million, SWORDS is a primitive robot that gives us but a glimpse of things to come. Future models—including several prototypes being tested by the military—promise to be more sophisticated.
Military 2.0: Should You Fear the Killer Robots?
28 FebP. W. Singer discusses the military’s sci-fi future, what happens when life imitates Star Wars, and his new book, Wired for War.
January 29, 2009
Peter W. Singer is not your typical “military expert.” At 33 years old, he is the director of the Brookings Institution’s 21st Century Defense Initiative and the youngest senior fellow in the think tank’s 90-year history. In 2003, his book Corporate Warriors chronicled the rise of the privatized military industry; Children at War, released in 2005, examined the tragic phenomenon of child soldiers. He also served as the coordinator of President Barack Obama’s defense policy task force during Obama’s campaign—a role he took on after consulting for The West Wing.
In his new book, Wired for War, Singer takes an in-depth and at times frightening look at the growing use of robotics by the military—a development that he argues will be looked on as “something revolutionary in war, maybe even in human history.” Recently, he spoke with Mother Jones about the unforeseen ripple effects of these new technologies, the folly of calls to use robots in Darfur, and whether we should ban these machines before it’s too late.
Mother Jones: Was there anything in particular that surprised you or scared you as you researched the book?
Peter Singer: I think three parts were most surprising. One was the openness with which people talk about how science fiction influenced what the scientists build and what the military asked to be built. That’s what drew me to research science fiction’s influence on science reality. I was really driven by just how many people would describe some weapon or robot and say, “I was watching this Star Wars movie with my kids and I thought it would be cool if we could have something like that.” And it’d be a Marine colonel saying that. There is also a great scene in the book where the folks at a human rights organization I was visiting are referencing Star Trek more than the Geneva Conventions.
The second part of this is how quickly things moved. In the first draft of the book there were systems on the commercial and military side that didn’t exist then that are out there now. Related, this issue of arming and autonomy of robots is farther along than I thought. Finding some of the studies about “taking man out of the loop” was a little bit surprising and scary.
Finally, the international “blowback” issue was much bigger than I suspected, which became very clear after interviews with folks in the Middle East. I knew, of course, broadly that there were serious issues with our public diplomacy, but how dire it was when it came to our new military technology was a little bit surprising even to me.
Obama: Listen to Iraqi Opinion
28 FebJanuary 5, 2009
Foreign Policy In Focus, Alternet, Common Dreams
Demonstrators make their voices heard during a rally at Firdos square in Baghdad November 21, 2008. (REUTERS/Ceerwan Aziz)
In discussing his plans for the Iraq War during the presidential campaign, one group that Barack Obama seldom, if ever, mentioned as supporting his proposed policy was the Iraqi people.
Obama’s campaign website, which differs only slightly from his transition website, lays out very clearly what he sees as problematic with the Iraq War. It highlights U.S. casualties — without mentioning the hundreds of thousands (some studies estimate over one million) of Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of the invasion and occupation — and the exorbitant financial cost of the war, while arguing from a strategic perspective that the diversion of troops and resources to Iraq “continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”
Not only is Iraqi opinion completely ignored, but Obama’s website actually blames the victim — a popular line with both Democrats and Republicans — by stating that “the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people.” How Iraqis are supposed to take control of their destiny with 146,000 U.S. troops — and an even larger number of U.S. contractors — in their country is apparently not a relevant question.
Failure to mention Iraqi opinion during the campaign, however, wasn’t due to a lack of knowledge about what they think. In fact, since the war began, the Iraqis have been extensively polled and the results are telling. Below is a sampling of these poll results, each compared with the president-elect’s proposed policy for the Iraq War.
1) A March 2008 poll by Opinion Business Research found that 70% of Iraqis wanted foreign troops to leave. Of that group, 65% said they wanted the troops to leave “immediately or as soon as possible,” and another 13% responded “within six months.” Such sentiment has remained fairly consistent since shortly after the U.S. invasion. In April 2004, for example, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found that 57% of Iraqis wanted the U.S. and British forces to “leave immediately.”
Obama has repeatedly pledged to “responsibly end the war in Iraq,” convincing many of his supporters who didn’t dig beneath the campaign rhetoric that he was the “peace candidate.” Obama’s plan from the beginning, however, has consisted of withdrawing only the “combat brigades” over a 16-month period and leaving behind a “residual force in Iraq [that] would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.”
‘Obscene Monument to War’ Returns to NYC
28 FebOctober 27, 2008 issue
The Indypendent; Also published in Fall 2008 Issue of WIN Magazine
While hundreds gathered to welcome the return of the U.S.S. Intrepid to its west Manhattan pier Oct. 2, not everyone present was there to celebrate. More than a dozen peace activists carried banners and handed out fliers along the waterfront to protest what one demonstrator called “an obscene monument to war.”
The Intrepid, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, set sail in 1943 during World War II, and was deployed during the Korean and Vietnam wars. In the 1960s, it was used as a support vessel in two NASA space missions. Decommissioned in 1974 after years of service, the ship has served as a military and space museum at Pier 86 since 1982.
Nearly two years ago, the warship was hauled to Bayonne, N.J., and then to Staten Island for extensive repairs and renovation. Despite being a privately run enterprise, virtually every cent of the estimated $60 million to fund the overhaul of both the aircraft carrier and the dilapidated pier was paid for by federal, state and local governments. Before it was all over, the cost of the project ballooned to $120 million.
“I’m appalled that my taxes are being used for this. It’s outrageous and offensive,” said Jim Moschella, a member of Brooklyn for Peace who was at the demonstration.
Paying for these repairs, however, does not mark the first or the only time taxpayer dollars have been allocated for the museum. Back in 1982, the Intrepid Foundation received a $4.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to supplement the more than $120 million in private funds to establish the museum.
“The public money used to renovate and rehab what is essentially a war propaganda museum could be better spent on many things, particularly given the last week in this country,” argued Matt Daloisio, a member of the New York Catholic Worker, alluding to the risk of foreclosure faced by millions of homeowners due to the recent financial crisis.
So You Think You’re Antiwar?
28 FebOctober 2, 2007
While recent polls reveal that 60 to 70 percent of Americans have soured on the war in Iraq, most of these people should not be mistakenly labeled “antiwar.”
Many of those calling for the troops to come home could more properly be called “anti-this-war.” “We never should have gone into Iraq,” the argument typically goes, “but World War II was a war we could all get behind.” It’s the tired “just war” argument rearing its ugly head, and Iraq just didn’t meet the criterion. While this may aptly describe the thinking of a certain part of the population – thanks to patriotic history textbooks and a popular culture that continually reinforces the myth of the “good war” – it fails to explain the increasing numbers that are now ready to pull the plug.
More to the point, most Americans are simply “anti-losing-this-war.” As Alexander Cockburn explains in The Nation, people have turned against the war in Iraq because they “looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust.” Had the invasion and occupation not been completely botched from the start, and if there was even some distant glimmer of hope that we might still “win” – however that is defined – many of the currently discontented would readily give their approval.
To be truly antiwar then means being opposed to all war, irrespective of the casus belli offered by those in power. It means complete rejection of the notion that violence has some role to play in bringing about a more just world, and actively resisting in ever more creative and daring ways what the New York Times last week called America’s “voracious war machine.” This critical work can take many forms, including: supporting GI resisters and the growing counter-recruitment movement, organizing against ROTC programs and war profiteers, not paying war taxes, engaging in nonviolent direct action, and educating others about peace and the power of nonviolence.
If this is how antiwar is defined, then far too few fit the bill.
Living by the Sword
28 FebSeptember 19, 2007
In the United States, where the vast majority of the population (82 percent according to a recent Newsweek poll) identify themselves as Christians, one of the most important steps we can all take to ending not only the war in Iraq, but all war, is to remind people of faith at every turn how radical and nonviolent their God truly is.One of the many stories that could be mentioned in this regard comes at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. Just before Jesus was capitally punished by the Roman Empire, he gave his followers an unequivocal lesson about violence that we can ill afford to ignore today.
When the authorities came to arrest Jesus, the apostle Peter did what most of us would do under similar circumstances. He drew his sword in defense of the life of his friend and teacher — who he also believed was the Son of God — and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear.
For Christians still wedded to the just war theory, a more “just cause” for the use of violence in all of history is hard to imagine.
Jesus responded, however, not with approval, but by emphasizing once again the centrality of love, even for the enemy, to his teachings. He rebuked Peter, saying: “Put your sword back in its sheath, for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword.”
The key word there is “all.” Jesus was not only condemning Peter’s violence in that moment some two thousand years ago, but explicitly issuing a warning to anyone, anywhere who chooses violence.
This story should make Christians in this country uncomfortable, because no other nation is currently taking up the sword with more zeal or recklessly wielding it around the world than our own.
Bush’s Crude Intentions in Iraq
28 FebAugust 31, 2007
Huffington Post, and a shorter op-ed version was published in: Topeka Capital Journal, KS; The Mirror, NV; Asheville Citizen-Times, NC; The Daily Journal, MN; Portland Observer, OR; Tri-County Press, WI. Distributed by Minuteman Media.
With the U.S. consuming a quarter of the world’s petroleum, President Bush courageously admitted the obvious during his 2006 State of the Union address: “America is addicted to oil.”
While recognizing that you have a problem is laudable, and the first step on the road to recovery, we must now be honest with ourselves and ask some tough questions.
Knowing that addiction can drive normally kind, law-abiding people to steal or even to violence in the single-minded pursuit of a fix, is America guilty of such behavior in Iraq?
With the third largest proven oil reserves in the world — estimated to be around 115 billion barrels — and much left to be discovered, Iraq does have quite the stash.
Critics of the war have never shied from making this connection. Neither, for that matter, have the vast majority of the Iraqi people.
According to one recent poll, 76 percent of Iraqis believe that the real reason for the invasion was a U.S. desire “to control Iraqi oil.”
The Bush administration, on the other hand, despite its ever-evolving rationale for attacking Iraq — from nonexistent WMDs to spreading democracy in the Middle East — has consistently denied such crude motives.
“This is not about oil,” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld flippantly told Al Jazeera on the eve of the invasion, “and anyone who thinks it is, is badly misunderstanding the situation.”
Recent moves in Washington, however, tell a different story.
Fear and Loathing on the Jersey Shore
28 Febby Eric Stoner and Bryan Farrell
August 20, 2007
Huffington Post, Yahoo! News
Manhattan’s cosmopolitan atmosphere has a way of making people forget what life is like for the rest of America. Coffee shops, book stores and night life are all tailored to meet the needs of even the most niche-oriented individual. But back on the mainland, a different, more monolithic — and at times scary — culture seems to prevail, as we discovered on a recent get-away to the Jersey Shore.
On our way to check out Seaside Heights’ notoriously sketchy boardwalk and have our fill of zeppoles, we pulled up behind an old pick-up truck. Plastered on its rear bumper was a sticker that read: “I love the sound of jet noise. It’s the sound of freedom.”
Reminiscent of the famous quote from Apocalypse Now, when the deranged Robert Duvall exclaims, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” this sticker was the first of many glaring signs that we had entered another world, influenced — like much of America — by the presence of a nearby military base.
Displaying such a statement reveals not only an ignorance about what U.S. military might is used for — namely the promotion of our economic interests abroad — but also a complete lack of empathy for those who have the bad fortune of finding themselves underneath our bombers. Most likely, the sound of our “jet noise” does not conjure happy thoughts of freedom for Iraqis, but rather a sense of abject terror that a stray bomb could land in their living room.
