Democracies, Danger Aversion and Navy Engagement – E-Worldwide Relations


That is an advance preview from the forthcoming e book Distant Warfare: Interdisciplinary Views (E-Worldwide Relations 2020)

Liberal Western democracies are more and more resorting to distant warfare to control safety threats from a distance. From the 2011 NATO-led bombings in Libya, the US Africa Command coaching Ugandan troopers to combat al-Shabaab, or the US-led coalition in opposition to IS in Syria and Iraq, violence is exercised from afar. Distant warfare is characterised by a shift away from ‘boots on the bottom’ deployments in direction of light-footprint army interventions. This will contain utilizing drone and air-strikes, particular forces, intelligence operatives,  non-public contractors, and coaching groups helping native forces to do the combating,  killing, and dying on the bottom (Demmers and Gould 2018: 365; Watts and Biegon 2017: 1).

Violence is thus exercised with out exposing Western army personnel to opponents in a declared warzone below the situation of mutual danger. This chapter goals to grasp why we see this shift to distant warfare and critiques the ethical and political challenges that this new means of battle has given rise to.  Our key argument is that the secrecy round distant warfare operations, their portrayal as ‘exact’ and ‘surgical’, as effectively the asymmetrical distribution of loss of life and struggling they entail, thwarts democratic political deliberation on modern warfare. We foresee that it’s these qualities of distant warfare that may make Western liberal democracies extra battle susceptible, not much less. That is the distant warfare paradox: the army violence executed is rendered so distant and sanitized, that it turns into neglected, and even ceases to be outlined as battle.

To empirically illustrate these factors, we begin with two vignettes. The primary highlights how ‘battle’ was taken out of the air-strike marketing campaign in Libya in 2011.

In 2011, when NATO bombs have been dropped on Libya, U.S. President Obama confronted a dilemma: would he have to finish US airstrikes after the sixtieth day, as required by the Battle Energy Decision? The Battle Powers Decision (WPR) is a 1973 regulation that orders the president to withdraw US forces from ‘hostilities’ inside 60 days within the absence of congressional authorisation. It was clear on the time that Congress had little curiosity in supporting the intervention in Libya with a battle declaration or statutory authorisation.

In response, White Home legal professionals crafted a authorized rationale that allowed Obama to bypass the WPR predicament. The Libya battle didn’t ‘rise to the extent of hostilities’, they concluded, as a result of army engagement was restricted by design, performed with out the involvement of US floor forces, and subsequently freed from any danger of pleasant casualties. The legal professionals’  report asserted that ‘US operations don’t contain sustained combating or lively exchanges of fireplace with hostile forces, nor do they contain the presence of US floor troops, US casualties or a critical menace thereof (…)’  (US Division of State 2011).

By inserting U.S. airstrikes exterior the realm of hostilities as envisioned by the WPR, it was argued that Obama didn’t want Congressional authorisation to have interaction in an offensive mission involving sustained bombardments of a overseas authorities’s forces. With this argument, the Obama administration set a precedent, drawn upon by his successor, that constant bombing doesn’t rise to the extent of ‘hostilities’ (Olsen 2019). In 2019, the Trump administration was simply capable of declare that US help for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen—merely refueling jets and intelligence sharing, effectively wanting direct airstrikes—doesn’t represent hostilities.

Our second vignette exhibits one other dimension of distant warfare: right here, too, a Western democracy is waging distant battle, however right here the remoteness entails an ‘outsourcing’ that’s shrouded in secrecy.

In 2015, the Dutch parliament authorised the Ministry of Overseas Affairs to offer non-lethal help to militias combating the Islamic State and Assad in Syria. This permission was granted below the situations that solely ‘average’ teams with respect for worldwide humanitarian regulation can be assisted; help can be terminated instantly if this proved to not be the case, and the parliament can be given frequent updates in regards to the programme.

In 2018, newspaper Trouw revealed that the Netherlands had supported over 22 militias by offering them with 25 million euros value of pick-up vans, laptops and uniforms. Trouw additionally uncovered that this help had been used for ‘deadly’ ends and the Ministry of Overseas Affairs was effectively conscious that a lot of these militias have been human rights abusers (Dahhan and Holdert 2018).

The Dutch Public Prosecutor had even labelled one, Jabhat al-Shamiya, as a terrorist organisation. The parliament was shocked by these revelations; nonetheless, in response the Ministry of Overseas Affairs labelled the programme as ‘categorized,’ thereby ruling out public, political and authorized enquiry.

These vignettes illustrate how eradicating Western army personnel from the theatres of battle by means of airstrikes or the financing of native militias and framing these distant engagements as ‘non-hostile’, ‘non-lethal’ or ‘categorized’ provides room for governments to bypass home public scrutiny and political debate. Aiming to discover this ‘depoliticization transfer’ in additional element, we do three issues on this chapter.

First, as a way to set the bigger image, we discover three causes to clarify the flip to distant warfare: the will for leaders to keep away from the dangers related to warfare, the rise of technological developments, and the networked character of contemporary warfare. Second, we spotlight how these debates fail to deal with the transformative nature of distant warfare, specifically that it permits Western states to wage cold wars, whereas transferring the danger of loss of life and struggling to native populations. This raises the query of whether or not Western democracies will ‘care’ sufficient to restrain the wars waged of their title. Within the third part, we examine the reply to this query by highlighting how watchdogs and human rights organisations comparable to Airwars and Amnesty Worldwide attempt to make Western publics and parliaments ‘care’ by publicising the native human struggling brought on by Western airstrikes. Within the conclusions, we come again to the ‘paradox of distant warfare’ and the challenges that distant killings current to the politics of battle: each to public scrutiny and political decision-making.

Explaining the flip to distant warfare

Why will we see this flip to ‘distant’ interventionism? And why now? Aiming to seize the ‘new newness’ of interventionism, students and specialists have coined a variety of phrases.  We see labels popping up comparable to ‘globalized battle’ (Bauman 2001) ‘coalition proxy warfare’ (Mumford 2013); ‘transnational shadow wars’ (Niva 2013); ‘surrogate warfare’ (Krieg & Rickli 2018), ‘vicarious warfare’ (Waldman 2018), ‘liquid warfare’ (Demmers & Gould 2018) or, merely ‘distant warfare’ (Biegon & Watts 2017). If we glance past the labels, nonetheless, we discover how authors largely depend on three codecs (or genres) to clarify the shift to what’s thought-about a brand new means of battle: democratic risk-aversion, know-how, and networking.

Democratic risk-aversion

Authors grouped inside this style level on the attraction of distant applied sciences of warfare. They argue that democracies, specifically, flip to distant warfare as a means of risk-aversion. Merely put, resolution makers in democracies worry losses amongst their very own constituencies greater than authoritarian leaders, as a result of rising numbers of casualties can have antagonistic results on public help and reduce their likelihood of re-election (Freedman 2006, 7). For one, distant applied sciences comparable to unmanned techniques give human troopers the very best drive safety: they don’t seem to be uncovered to the enemy in any respect. Grounded in basic liberal thought, and infrequently referring to Immanuel Kant’s notion of perpetual peace, this strand of pondering sees the ‘no physique luggage’ name of the voters in liberal democratic societies as restraining politicians from participating in high-risk warfare. In his well-known treatise, Kant ([1795] 1957, 12-13) offered an vital perception on the danger aversion of democracies. Right here he argued that when those that determine to wage battle are obliged to combat and bear the prices:

(…) they’d be very cautious in commencing such a poor recreation, decreeing for themselves all of the calamities of battle. Among the many latter can be: having to combat, having to pay the prices of battle from their very own assets, having painfully to restore the devastation battle leaves behind, and, to refill the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy nationwide debt that may embitter peace itself and might by no means be liquidated on account of fixed wars sooner or later (our emphasis).

Distant warfare, in some ways, helps overcome this drawback of ‘prices’, each by way of human lives and expenditure. The top of conscription in Western democracies, with Vietnam as an vital turning level, already fashioned a primary step of transferring dangers to army professionals. However with the emergence of distant know-how wars can now be fought from a distance: permitting for zero-risk warfare. Quickly after the invasion of Iraq, Martin Shaw (2005) in his e book on the ‘new western means of battle’ argued that liberal democracies purpose to ‘switch the dangers of battle’ even additional: away from their very own skilled troopers to the civilians and armed actors of ‘the enemy’. In liberal democracies, warfare has develop into primarily an train in risk-management. For Shaw, this explains the robust choice for long-distance air strikes and drones, as a substitute of army interventions with floor troops. In the same vein, Coker (2009) and, extra critically, Sauer and Schörnig (2012) discuss with ‘battle in an age of danger’, and ‘democratic warfare’ to focus on how democratic establishments and their publics are the central elements constituting the flip to distant warfare.


The function of know-how, and significantly the flip to army robotics and autonomous weapons, figures prominently within the second clarification of distant warfare. Though the relation between know-how and battle is an outdated one, the latest revolution in army know-how and the emergence of a ‘military-tech complicated’ is seen by some to be the primary driving drive behind distant warfare. Unmanned aerial automobiles (or drones), specifically, provide unprecedented prospects to wage battle from a distance. Along with being seen to ‘save lives’ of each army personnel and civilians ‘on the bottom’ and cut back prices, these techniques provide quite a few benefits to the army. As identified by Sauer and Schörnig (2012, 363): ‘Machines can function in hazardous environments; they require no minimal hygienic requirements; they don’t want coaching; and they are often despatched from the manufacturing unit straight to the frontline, generally even with the reminiscence of a destroyed predecessor.’ Inside Worldwide Relations, a brand new subfield of drone research has emerged, with a robust emphasis on materiality, the politics of ‘issues’, the agentic capability of drones, the absence of human our bodies, and the ‘ethics of killing’ (see: Holmqvits 2013; Schwarz 2016; Wall and Monahan 2011; Walters 2014; Wilcox 2017). Students working from the sphere of political financial system have added to this second explanatory style by declaring how we’ve entered a brand new, and extremely worthwhile arms race, with tech firms comparable to Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir and Anduril feeding the distant battle machine. The fundamental viewpoint right here is that synthetic intelligence, autonomous techniques, ubiquitous sensors, superior manufacturing, and quantum science will radically push for, and remodel, distant warfare.


A 3rd, and equally distinguished, style refers back to the key significance of the networked nature of up to date warfare. Ever because the publication of Stanley McChrystal’s 2011 article in Overseas Coverage, the notion that ‘it takes a community to defeat a community’ has develop into considerably of a regular, in each army and tutorial evaluation (McChrystal 2011). Merely put, the argument goes that as a result of the ‘enemies of the state’ at the moment are working by means of shadowy networks and cells, the state should resort to related ways. Reflecting upon this, Niva (2013) emphasizes how US wars, legitimized by the Battle on Terror, have develop into more and more ‘networked’, calling them ‘transnational shadow wars’. Whereas recognizing the function of army robotics as a necessary instrument, he contends that the central transformation enabling distant warfare has much less to do with new applied sciences and extra to do with new types of social group – specifically, ‘the rising emergence of community types of group inside and throughout the US army after 2001’ (2013: 187). In these new types of ‘counter-netwars’ hybrid blends of hierarchies and networks, consisting of particular operations forces, intelligence operatives, and personal army contractors, have mounted strike operations throughout shadowy transnational battle zones (2013: 187). Through the 2010s, this hybrid warfare has mutated to closely depend on what is named ‘safety cooperation’. Herein, small (non-public) army groups prepare, equip and advise native forces to do the combating and dying on behalf of Western ‘boots on the bottom’ (Biegon & Watts, 2017). What’s the truth is implied on this remaining style is that distant warfare outcomes from the state mimicking its enemies.

Perpetual warfare

Though the above debates every present vital insights, they should be mixed to create a complete, multifactor clarification. Whereas we see democratic danger aversion as the important thing driver behind the Western flip to distant warfare, this new means of battle additionally closely relies upon upon technological developments, political economies, and the outsourcing of the burden of battle to non-public and distant others. What the above debates—even when mixed—fail to deal with, nonetheless, is the extra basic query on the transformative capability of violence. That’s, on how this new sort of battle is ready to (re)work relations of energy, order and politics. In pondering by means of the primary ethical and political challenges that distant warfare has given rise to, our concern with the proliferation of such a violence lies in its normalization of the asymmetrical distribution of loss of life and struggling. Returning to Kant’s well-known phrases distant warfare presents us with a paradox: if certainly distant applied sciences assist to beat democracies’ casualty-sensitivity, and if ‘cold battle’ (Mandel 2004) turns into a actuality, will these democracies then not develop into much less ‘cautious’ in commencing the ‘poor recreation’ of battle? Or as Michael Ignatieff (2000: 4) phrased it in 2000 after the NATO bombings of Serbia and Kosovo—the primary riskless battle in history- ‘if battle turns into unreal to the residents of contemporary democracies, will they care sufficient to restrain and management the violence exercised of their title?’. With zero direct dangers and no returning physique luggage, we foresee that the perpetual peace doctrine will come to facilitate perpetual battle.

Counting the our bodies of the useless

Allow us to take a better take a look at the manufacturing of the ‘lack of care’ that distant applied sciences facilitate: how have western publics responded up to now? On a constructive be aware, we’ve witnessed the arrival of a set of Western civil society organisations that monitor the native affect of distant warfare interventions and demand transparency and accountability for its dangerous results. Not glad with how Western militaries assess the variety of civilians killed by their airstrikes by means of counting on inner visible army intelligence recorded from the sky, organisations comparable to Airwars, Amnesty Worldwide, and Human Rights Watch, have developed new distant sensing strategies to depend the variety of civilian casualties from Western airstrikes. They use open sources intelligence (comparable to social media posts and satellite tv for pc imagery) to trace, triangulate, and geolocate, in real-time, native claims of civilian casualties. Concurrently, they monitor and archive official army experiences on munition and strike statistics to measure them in opposition to the general public report and grade the reliability of the claims made. In some instances, that is augmented by investigations on the bottom.

The underlying assumption driving these initiatives is that publics do care, however merely should be knowledgeable. If Western publics and parliaments are supplied with systematic real-time proof of the devastating results of distant interventions for the civilians besieged, they may press their governments to constrain this fashion of battle. An illustrative instance is how Amnesty Worldwide and Airwars joined forces to observe the affect of the 2017 US-led bombing marketing campaign to retake the Islamic State-held metropolis of Raqqa in Syria.

 Within the four-month distant Battle for Raqqa (June – October 2017), the US, UK and France fired over 40,000 air and artillery strikes that have been known as in by their native allies the Syrian Democratic Forces.[1] Within the quick aftermath of what was coined by the US Defence Secretary James Mattis as a ‘battle of annihilation’, the Coalition acknowledged simply 23 civilian casualties, but refused to conduct any investigations on the bottom. In response, Amnesty Worldwide and Airwars arrange an modern crowdsourcing information mission known as Strike Tracker.[2] This on-line mission engaged over 3000 digital activists from throughout 124 international locations to assist them hint and geolocate how the coalition’s bombings destroyed virtually 80 % of Raqqa. Drawing proof from social media posts, two years of on-the-ground investigations, and knowledgeable army and geospatial evaluation, they then constructed a database of greater than 1,600 civilians reportedly killed in Coalition strikes, of which they have been capable of title 641. For the battle as a complete, the US led anti-ISIS coalition engaged in over 34,000 strikes, firing over 100,000 munitions throughout Syria and Iraq from 2014 onwards. The ensuing loss of life toll is staggeringly completely different: Airwars estimate a minimal of between 8,214 and 13,125 civilian deaths, whereas the Coalition acknowledges 1,335.

Killing with care

This painstaking and infrequently harrowing evidence-based monitoring work illustrates that some individuals in Western democracies clearly care. We, nonetheless, observe that representatives of the US-led coalition additionally take nice care to successfully thwart the important counterclaims made by these watchdogs and human rights organisations on the human struggling brought on by their airstrikes. We establish 3 ways wherein this happens. First, we see an absence of worldwide media protection of the numbers produced, but in addition, and secondly, an outright denial by official sources. Third, and carefully associated, Coalition companions are fast to justify their very own violence utilizing basic battle tropes.

In distinction to Western media’s almost every day reporting and ethical outcry over Russia’s distant bombardments in Aleppo or Idlib, there was hardly any real-time protection of the Coalition’s bombing of Raqqa (see O’Brien 2019). Two years after the actual fact, most main information retailers (together with CNN, BCC and Reuters) did pay lip service to the 1600 physique depend. All experiences, nonetheless, quoted the Coalition spokesperson’s acknowledgement of simply 159 of those allegations (thus denying the opposite 90 %) and his justification:

Any unintentional lack of life through the defeat of [IS] is tragic. Nevertheless, it have to be balanced in opposition to the danger of enabling [IS] to proceed terrorist actions, inflicting ache and struggling to anybody they select. The coalition methodically employs important measures to minimise civilian casualties and all the time balances the danger of conducting a strike in opposition to the price of not placing.[3]

If we zoom out, we see right here that distant wars, like all wars, do not stay insulated from the machinations of propaganda. Battle is a high-stakes enterprise and public perceptions and public help are by no means left to likelihood (see Griffin 2010). Distant warfare is shrouded in denial and secrecy. Nonetheless, governments attempt to justify their ‘distant wars’, whereas journalists typically toe the social gathering line to keep away from being named unpatriotic or being ‘blocked out’ from highly effective and official sources. It’s these pressures and concerns which frequently end in a information food plan of regular and extremely standardized portrayals.

For the case of Operation Inherent Resolve, these in favour distinction the brutal and barbaric violence perpetrated by Islamic State (ISIS) with the surgical precision with which its strongholds have been focused. This distinction between ‘their’ violence as vicious and barbaric and ‘our’ violence as clear and exact suits the basic tropes of battle. Such statements counsel an excellent deal about how we like to grasp our personal violence. They set up a extremely interesting distinction between borderland traits of barbarity, extra and irrationality, and metropolitan traits of civility, restraint and rationality (see Duffield 2002: 1052). In response to Airwars’ excessive civilian physique depend, coalition commander Stephen J. Townsend, as an illustration, claimed: ‘Assertions by Airwars (…) and media retailers that cite them, are sometimes unsupported by reality and serve solely to strengthen the Islamic State’s maintain on civilians, inserting civilians at larger danger’. Townsend emphasised that the Coalition dealt in details and that he challenged anybody to discover a extra ‘exact air marketing campaign within the historical past of warfare ….The Coalition’s aim is all the time for zero human casualties’ (2018).[4] Or, as Former US Protection Secretary James Mattis emphasised: ‘We’re the nice guys… We do every part humanly potential according to army necessity, taking many possibilities to keep away from civilian casualties in any respect prices’ (2017).[5]

Such statements not solely undermine the authority and legitimacy of the monitoring organisations, however they repeatedly level out how the fixed software of recent good applied sciences and proportionality ideas enable for a brand new type of good warfare, which saves lives of each Western army personnel and pleasant civilians on the bottom.

Conversely, important voices level out the hazards of those types of ‘moral killing’ (Schwarz 2016) or ‘humanitised violence’ (Bonds 2018). They take challenge with what they see because the manufacturing of a brand new sort of moral proposition that, paradoxically, presents ‘killing as an ethical act of care’ (Chamayou 2015, 139). By framing acts of army violence in medical phrases (‘surgical procedure’, and ‘precision’), we’re made to think about we’re killing with care, and it then turns into onerous to care for many who are killed fastidiously. This sanitisation directs our consideration away from what is actually a political act; coalition state violence must be accounted for, each legally and politically. Why was the operation launched within the first place? What was the worldwide authorized mandate to take action? And if certainly the bombings are legitimised as ‘collective self-defense’, is that this how Western democracies finest defend their very own and native residents in opposition to armed assaults? What are the boomerang results of destroying 80 % of a metropolis with ‘utmost precision’? And, extra complicatedly, and painful maybe, why and the way was ISIS capable of emerge? How was the West concerned in creating the situations for ISIS’s explosive success? We acknowledge that instantly addressing specific wars and militarism is extremely political.

These questions subsequently require cautious evaluation, consideration and open debate. On this, we have to transfer past discourses of precision and sanitisation. For Chamayou, ‘precision killings are nonetheless killings’ (2015, 140). Or as Hannah Arendt argued a lot earlier: ‘Politically, the weak spot of the argument has all the time been that those that select the lesser evil overlook in a short time that they selected evil’ ([1964] 2003, 36-37).


Allow us to be clear: we don’t argue for extra Western physique luggage or extra boots on the bottom. What we emphasise on this chapter is the necessity to ‘make unusual’ the evolving normalisation of distant warfare because the lesser evil: as exact, environment friendly wars of necessity. Western democracies have largely eliminated their army from the theatres of battle. And as we noticed within the opening vignettes, Western troopers thereby now not interact in ‘hostilities’ instantly. However this doesn’t make them any much less violent.

Aside from ‘making seen’ the direct struggling brought on by distant warfare, we purpose to suppose by means of the transformative results and ethical and political challenges that this new means of battle has given rise to. Key to the continuation of distant warfare, along with the secrecy of its operations, and the delicate propaganda of precision and care, is its asymmetrical distribution of loss of life and struggling. As we’ve seen within the above, zero-risk warfare is compelling to these not on the receiving finish of the violence. Altogether, we conjecture this to translate into liberal democracies changing into not much less, however extra, war-prone. That’s the paradox of ‘democratic warfare’, and herein, we argue, lies its transformative impact. The violence is executed so remotely, that it turns into invisible, neglected, and even ceases to be outlined as such.

A second concern is blowback. The challenges that distant killings current to the logic of warfare even have critical political implications. As identified by Ignatieff (2000) and Sauer and Schörnig (2012), the riskless setup of distant warfare may very effectively justify a mirroring of ‘distant’ methods of combating within the type of terrorist assaults by the enemy as the one potential approach to retaliate within the absence of a ‘truthful’ combat. As for the secrecy of distant violence, one factor is evident: on this age or digital media every part is seen, filmed, and shared. Violence all the time has a boomerang impact.

In sum, outsourcing the violent act to robotic, non-public or surrogate others has silently taken political deliberation out of up to date warfare. As a consequence, this has lowered the brink for army engagement in liberal democracies. We have to convey politics, and the general public, again in. Though this evidently entails a a lot wider and extra profound dialogue, we right here conclude by making two recommendations. What we are able to detect from our opening vignettes, is that, for a begin, the brand new methods for army engagement that include distant warfare should discover a reflection in new political decision-making procedures. Any type of army intervention, whether or not offensive or defensive, that ends in acts of bodily hurt on the bottom ought to finally be put by means of cautious parliamentary scrutiny (comparable to, for the case of the US, the Battle Powers Decision). That is what ‘participating in hostilities’ ought to imply: inflicting hurt to enemy combatants or civilians. Second, extra evaluation, dissemination and debate on the intimate realities of distant warfare is required. Hopefully, this contribution has offered some helpful insights into that path.

And eventually, Western democracies’ claims to the ethical excessive floor in respect to the brutality of battle are uncalled for. All battle is horrible, whether or not it’s executed by a soldier piloting a weaponised drone or an rebel’s improvised explosive gadget. There is no such thing as a such factor as subtle violence.


Arendt, Hannah. [1964] 2003. Accountability and Judgment. New York: Schocken Books.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2001. “Wars of the Globalization Period.” European Journal for Social Idea 4 (1): 11-28.

Biegon, Rubrick, and Tom Watts. 2017. “Defining Distant Warfare: Safety Cooperation.” Distant Management, November, 2017.

Bonds, Eirk. 2019. “Humanitized violence: Focused killings and civilian deaths within the US battle in opposition to the Islamic State.” Present Sociology, 67 (3): 438–455.

Chamayou, Grégoire. 2015. Drone Idea. London: Penguin Books.

Coker, Christopher. 2009.  Battle in an age of danger. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Dahhan, Ghassan and Milena Holdert, 2018,  ‘Hoe de Nederlandse overheid een Syrische ‘terreurbeweging’ faciliteerde ‘, Trouw, 10 september 2018.

Demmers, Jolle and Lauren Gould. 2018. “An Assemblage Strategy to Liquid Warfare: AFRICOM and the ‘hunt’ for Joseph Kony.” Safety Dialogue 49 (5): 364-381.

Freedman, Lawrence. 2006. “Iraq, liberal wars and intolerant containment.” Survival 48(4): 51-65.

Griffin, Michael. 2010. “Media photos of battle.” Media, Battle & Battle 3, no. 1 (April): 7-41.

Holmqvist, Caroline. 2013. “Undoing battle: Battle ontologies and the materiality of drone warfare.” Millennium 41(3): 535–552.

Ignatieff, Michael. 2000. Digital Battle: Kosovo and Past. London: Picador.

Kant, Immanuel. [1795] 1957. Perpetual Peace. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Krieg Andreas and Jean-Marc Rickli. 2018. “Surrogate Warfare: The Artwork of Battle within the 21st Century.” Defence Research 18 (2): 113-130.

Mandel, Robert. 2004. Safety, Technique, and the Quest for Cold Battle. Boulder, CO: Lunnen Rienner.

McChrystal, Stanley. 2011. “It Takes a Community.” Overseas Coverage, February 21, 2011. 

Mumford, Andrew. 2013. “Proxy warfare and the Way forward for Battle.” RUSI Journal 158(2): 40–46.

Niva, Steve. 2013. “Disappearing violence: JSOC and the Pentagon’s new cartography of networked warfare.” Safety Dialogue 44(3): 185–202.

O’Brien, Alexa. 2019. Information in Transient: US Media Protection of Civilian Hurt within the Battle Towards So Referred to as Islamic State. Airwars, revealed July 2019.

Olsen, Gunar. 2019. “Add Trump’s Yemen Veto to Obama’s Spotty Battle Legacy.” The New Republic, April 20, 2019.

Sauer, Frank and Niklas Schörnig. 2012. “Killer drones: The ‘silver bullet’ of democratic warfare?” Safety Dialogue 43(4) 363-380.

Schwarz, Elke. 2016. “Prescription drones: On the techno-biopolitical regimes of up to date ‘moral killing’.” Safety Dialogue 47(1): 59–75.

Shaw, Martin. 2005. The New Western Means of Battle. Cambridge: Polity Press

US Division of State. 2011. “Libya and Battle Powers.” June 28, 2011.

Waldman, Thomas. 2017. “Vicarious Warfare: The Counterproductive Penalties of Fashionable American Navy Observe.” Up to date Safety Research 39 (2): 181 – 205.

Wall, Tyler, and Monahan Torin. 2011. “Surveillance and violence from afar: The politics of drones and liminal security-scapes.” Theoretical Criminology 15(3): 239–254.

Walters, William. 2014. “Drone strikes, dingpolitik and past: Furthering the controversy on materiality and            safety.” Safety Dialogue 45(2): 101–118.

Wilcox, Lauren. 2017. “Embodying algorithmic battle: Gender, race, and the posthuman in drone warfare.” Safety Dialogue 48(1): 11–28.


[1] These artillery strikes have been fired from 50 km exterior of Raqqa.

[2] See Strike Tracker

[3] See BBC. 2019. “IS battle: Coalition strikes on Raqqa ‘killed 1,600 civilians.” April 25, 2019.; Reuters. 2019. “Amnesty, displays say U.S.-led coalition killed 1,600 civilians in Syria’s Raqqa.” April 25, 2019.; CNN. 2019.

“Report: US-led coalition killed 1,600 civilians in Raqqa in 2017.” April 25, 2019.

[4] See for transcript assertion: Airwars. 2017. “Former Coalition Commander Lt Gen Townsend responds to Airwars article on Raqqa.” September 15, 2017.

[5] See for transcript interview: CBS Information. 2017. “Transcript: Protection Secretary James Mattis on “Face the Nation.” Could 28, 2017.

Extra from E-Worldwide Relations

Source link