hostage: Thomas Egan Identity: U.S. drone pilot Ending: Dismissed
Among many anti-terrorism movies, "Killing in Good Faith" has the biggest highlight, which is true and detailed The earth presents a new way of killing-drone attack. It fully embodies the advanced military technology, and also heralds the change in the form of future warfare, that is, "dematerialization" (Zizek language), or being imaged-the battlefield only appears on the computer screen, I see I have to see you, you can't see me, I can kill you anytime and anywhere, but you don't know where the missile flew over, or how you died. Of course, this refers to a war between the strong and the weak. For soldiers participating in the war, launching an attack is like a computer game: lock the target, press and twist, and the target disappears instantly on the screen. As the leader of this military revolution, the United States has not only successively equipped UAVs in company-platoon-level grassroots combat forces, but also widely used them in global counter-terrorism operations. Therefore, this is not science fiction, but a living reality. The Las Vegas military base where the protagonist Thomas Egan is located in the film does exist in reality, and it is consistent with the media description. According to CNN, a group of bungalows are inconspicuous in a desert base just an hour’s drive from the casino city of Las Vegas, but their importance is equivalent to that of the trenches of World War I. Today’s soldiers are hiding in the trenches. In these bungalows, drones are used to attack targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are thousands of miles away. Due to the film’s authenticity (adapted from real events), sensitivity (the drone project is the top secret of the U.S. government), and politically “incorrect” (like the prisoner abuse scandal involving the ugly side of the war on terror), no Incomprehensible, when the film's director Andrew Nicoll handed the script to the U.S. Department of Defense for support, he was rejected.
The movie is called Good Kill. This is the spoken word of Thomas and the commander after completing the attack mission. The original intention was to hit the target and did a good job. This title is translated as "Killing in Good Faith", which is similar to the name "Essential Killing" (Essential Killing) of another film in this chapter. If you put aside the pacifist point of view, how do you distinguish between the good and the evil, the necessary and the unnecessary? It may be relatively easy in theory, but in terms of war practice it is much more complicated and vague. How much space people are willing to reserve for justice and morality on the battlefield is itself a big question. As far as the two films are concerned, one of their footholds is the killing side and the other is the killing side. Regardless of the subjective wishes of the directors, they objectively reflect the difficulty of this distinction to varying degrees-it is difficult for you Definitely conclude that which side's killing was "good faith" or "malicious", completely "necessary" or "unnecessary".
The so-called "good faith killing" is more an irony. Most of the killings in the film, especially the later anti-terrorism operations under the command of the CIA, have the meaning of "a blend of good and evil". For the joint injuries of civilians, especially women and children, the term "mistaken bombing" is no longer accurate. Some The situation is deliberate indiscriminate killing. The most impressive thing in the film is that the CIA and the Supreme Command have abused their power and adopted a method called "signature strike" in the drone attack, that is, when the specific target of the attack is not confirmed. Still launching deadly attacks, as long as the target’s behavioral characteristics look similar to terrorists, or appear next to terrorists or near the location of the attack, they are regarded as “accomplices” of terrorists. Although in reality the U.S. officials denied this, claiming that their review procedures were very strict, and even they were too rigorous to delay the fight, but this attack method was disclosed to the media by leakers in the United States. At the same time, about Reports of civilians killed by drones are not uncommon. Whether in reality or in the film, the United States has a set of rhetoric for this type of attack, which will be discussed later.
The most important point in the film is a "personal law enforcement" by Thomas at the end. The director is more subjectively inclined to affirm that this is a "goodwill killing", and also expresses Thomas as a hero with a sense of justice in the language of the video. From a positive perspective, before being dismissed and under investigation, he used his power for the last time and bravely did an anonymous “good deed” for Afghan women who were repeatedly raped by the Taliban; but from an objective and rational perspective In other words, he himself didn't realize that this behavior may not be essentially different from the killings he had previously passively executed. They were both on the edge of the law and had gone "excessive." As stated in the article "Necessary Killing", "excessive" is the main feature of the war on terrorism. A righteous man, with a just impulse, may make unjust actions, and may backfire and cause unexpected consequences (the situation in the film is that the victim was almost bombed by Thomas along with the perpetrator. die). Why not be like this in a country. From this perspective, nothing can explain the irony contained in the title better than this. In fact, if the director wants to arouse stronger shock and deeper reflections from the hero and the audience, then perhaps he should choose to let the woman, Thomas’s original sympathy and protection object, die for Thomas." "Justice" attack. This ending method is of course more "stimulating" and "dark", but it is undoubtedly more able to reveal the fusion of good and evil that often occurs in anti-terrorism actions, as well as this terrible conversion mechanism between good and evil.
The drones adopted the methods of "shadow combat" and "press the key to kill", and they were secretly carried out overseas strikes. When killing becomes easier and faster, it means that it is becoming more and more dangerous. So how should we limit power, reduce arbitrariness, and reduce harm to innocent civilians to ensure the "legitimacy and necessity" of the killing? This is very controversial in reality. Although this new combat method like computer games has many unparalleled advantages from a military point of view, it has achieved "zero casualties" as far as the attacker is concerned, but it still inevitably brings moral confusion and ethics to the combatants. Psychological trauma. Although there are no reports in the media that drone pilots suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), it can be expected that as the frequency of drones being put into actual combat continues to increase, in reality, it looks like the protagonist Thomas of the film. In this way, soldiers facing psychological breakdown will also follow. As an American military officer said: "No matter how advanced weapons and equipment, no matter how powerful firepower is, they cannot save the hearts of all officers and soldiers."
The film director Andrew Nicoll was born in New Zealand. He worked in London for more than ten years in TV commercial production, and then moved to Los Angeles to enter the film industry. His script "The World of Truman" was a blockbuster and became a fantasy classic. Since then, Nicole found his unique movie theme, artificial reality, based on one of his ideas-"Everyone will question the authenticity of their lives." So far, he has filmed three science fiction films. Among them, the director’s debut "Variants of Variations" (1997) explores how future genetic technology will control and influence the destiny of mankind, and where are the boundaries of the pursuit of perfection. The future world may be more scientific and orderly than the real world, but it may also be colder. "Simonie" (2002) tells the story of a perfect and lifelike virtual actress designed with the help of advanced computer programs. How to become an idol so popular that no one wants to believe that she is a fake. "Time Planning Bureau" (2011) imagined that everyone in the future will be set to a fixed time of death. Once this point of time is reached, money must be spent to buy time to continue life. Nicol used this to satirize people in the real world for eternal youth and prolong life and do everything they can do. In his view, this is a manifestation of immaturity of mind and thought. Although "Benevolent Killing" is a realistic theme, the discussion on themes such as power, human nature, and the dark side of technology is the same as the previous film. Nicole also filmed a "King of War" (2005), which is based on real life stories. Through the legendary experience of an arms dealer, Nicole exposes the crazy inside story of the arms trade and the huge harm it brings. This "King of War" was finally tortured by his conscience because his family broke down. In this movie, Nicole has already expressed his attitude towards war.
"Press the key to kill", killing people thousands of miles away, this almost "artificial reality" reality inspired Nicol's creative desire. For this new type of war, he tried to choose a middle ground that neither agreed nor opposed, saying that he only hopes that the film can become a "warning prophecy." In an interview at the Venice Film Festival, he said: "There are no boots and the bodies of American soldiers scattered on the ground to make the public happy-although in reality we still have to face the fact that innocent civilians have been killed. When I was with military advisers. While chatting, I asked them if they would carry out the CIA flight mission, and they replied that “I don’t have the right to discuss this question.” In other words, the answer is yes.” In the five-person combat team in the film, the on-site commander and two The team members held this attitude. Although they could not bear the civilian casualties caused by the attack, they still chose to obey the order, while Thomas and another female teammate finally chose different forms of resistance. Nicole's own attitude is: "Unforgivable, but understandable." He said: "I have chatted with those pilots. They often witnessed brutal atrocities, but they were powerless. Regarding the consequences of war, just like the World War II and Vietnam War we experienced before, countless veterans have to face post-traumatic stress. Obstacles, drone pilots also have to face all this.”
As shown in the opening caption, the U.S. military began to use drones in theaters after "9•11". The story in the film took place at the largest fixed point in 2010. During the cleanup operation, the attack density is very high. At the beginning of the film, it vividly demonstrated the unique way of participating in the war by drone pilots, as well as their dreamy and divided lifestyle. Thomas, who used to fly F16 fighter jets in Afghanistan and Iraq on combat missions, no longer has to go to heaven. He works more like an office worker on duty, except that he is wearing a military uniform. The war room is a movable and fully enclosed bungalow in a military base, which is jokingly called a "box". He sat in front of the console and looked at the computer screen, spending most of his time looking for and monitoring the target. It was very boring and monotonous, but he couldn't get distracted. Even when performing an attack mission, it seems very "simple"-lock the target, count down "three, two, one", press the missile launch button, calculate and report the time to hit the ground target, and then you only see the screen The last group of fire and smoke, Good Kill (on the target), count the corpses (according to Thomas, if you are lucky enough to be able to distinguish the limbs), report the results of the battle, and the battle is over.
The biggest difference from fighting on the frontline battlefield is that in addition to receiving urgent tasks and needing to work overtime, participating soldiers can go home on time after 12 hours of work in the "box" under normal circumstances, and be replaced by another combat team. "You are leaving the United States now" posted on the door of the war room. This joking reminder reminds the soldiers after get off work to return to reality from "illusory". Thomas went shopping in the supermarket before returning home. The cashier asked him if the pilot logo on his military uniform was genuine. He couldn't imagine that the pilot in front of him was not only genuine, but had just "returned" to the United States from over Afghanistan. Thomas said: "Six Taliban were killed today. Now I am going to barbecue." The reason why he is not afraid of leaking military secrets is because he knows that no one believes what he said, but killing and going home to barbecue. Things can happen on the same day. This kind of "benefits" similar to office employees did not make Thomas feel relaxed. From the charcoal fire of barbecue in the yard, he seemed to have seen today's killing. According to the psychological explanation, charcoal fire, a common and even happy life scene, has become a "trigger point" to awaken the person's memories and experiences of the traumatic event. At night, Thomas was lying on the bed, the angle of the camera tilted first, and then slowly returned... He subconsciously avoided his wife Molly's approach, Molly later said more than once that he "looks so far away". These all imply Thomas’ mental illness. It is not a cold day. The war experience before flying a drone may have caused him to suffer from PTSD. Now his condition is not due to the new combat method and the ability to go home from get off work and The wife was reunited with her two children and was relieved, but to some extent it became more serious. Although the physical distance between him and his wife is close, the psychological distance is still far away.
The film is used to highlight the sense of fantasy and division, as well as the huge contrast between Las Vegas and Afghanistan in terms of landforms. One is a mirage in the desert. Its prosperity and intoxication have become one of the multiple signs of the United States, while Afghanistan on the screen is gray and barren. Once Thomas and his teammates went to a go-go bar to drink and have fun. Someone sarcastically said-"If you want to know the result of civilization, come to Las Vegas"; the United States thinks the world is here (Las Vegas has imitation pyramids) , The Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Statue of Liberty and other iconic landscapes around the world), but here is also the "land of cultural destruction." This contrast in geomorphology also leads to the asymmetry of this war. Zizek asked this question about the war on terrorism: "Who are we fighting against? No matter what kind of counterattack we make, we will never hit the target and satisfy us." In his view, the Afghanistan war is the ultimate case——" The world’s largest power country bombed the world’s poorest country, where farmers live on barren hills and it’s almost impossible to make ends meet"; "Afghanistan is an ideal target, which has been razed to rubble in the past continuous wars. , There is no infrastructure", but this just shows "the incompetence of the United States." He commented from this: "The war on terrorism is playing a performance function. Its real purpose is to deceive us and give us a false sense of security." In the film, Thomas' commander Jack once also criticized the United States and satirized the United States in Afghanistan. The "victory" won, he said: "The superpowers will all perish. The United Kingdom will no longer work, the Soviet Union will no longer work, neither will we, nor did Genghis Khan last long. No one can win the war in Afghanistan. The only way to win is in bullets. Unreachable air."
The film uses Commander Jack’s words to the new students to explain in detail the combat methods and advantages of drones: “What you see is not the future war. It’s here and now. There are countless drones in the sky, day and night. Such aircraft are remotely controlled by our soldiers. Most of these new “international birds” are used in Afghanistan. Once they are in the air, it means that the situation is under our control. You don’t need to go anywhere, but in fact you don’t. Everywhere." He emphasized to everyone: "Don’t make any mistakes, you are killing people. Although you control a remote-controlled aircraft every day, this is not a game room-but I have to admit that your job is more like Playing games. War is now a shooting game, but the triggers you pull here are real. What you explode is not pixels, but blood and flesh. Every time you pull the trigger here, someone will die." He refuted the public's suspicion about the combat effectiveness of the Air Force, because the U.S. Air Force ordered an astonishing number of drones, which is indeed true. According to "Global Times" reporters Qiu Yongzheng and Hao Zhou in the book "Follow the U.S. Army on the Battlefield", there are as many as 75 drones in use in the United States, and dozens of them are under development. A combat network system with various levels and performance cascades, including long, medium and short range, large, medium and small, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, communication relay, electronic countermeasures, and attack operations. According to media reports in 2012, according to the military strategy announced by the U.S. government, the U.S. Air Force has 61 unmanned aerial vehicles with strike capability patrolling the air in various hot spots around the world at any time, and each group has at most 4 UAVs.
According to the new plan, the Pentagon will require the Air Force to have enough drones to maintain 65 patrol formations, and increase to 84 when necessary. In the film, Jack said that Thomas spent 3,000 hours on F16, including 60 patrols and 200 battles. Now these new students have only 40 hours of operating experience and are sent here. This indirectly shows the rapid development of UAVs in the United States, and the demand for operators has also greatly increased, and even the supply exceeds demand. This is also true. For example, the Fort Huachuca UAV Training Camp in Arizona, which is responsible for one-stop training of U.S. Army UAV operators, has to train more than 2,200 people each year to meet the demand. In an interview with reporters, the training camp commander said that they had to work 16 hours a day, without rest on weekends, in order to keep up with the training progress.
Regarding the new students, Jack also said to Thomas with a certain tone: "They will want to do this soon, and they will experience the fun on the first day." But if the fun develops from the technical level to the killing itself , The problem is serious, and this is also the most worrying aspect of high technology. A well-known American military research expert, Dr. Peter Singer, quoted a military chaplain in the "New Atlantis" magazine as a warning: "Because the danger in war is getting smaller and the enemy can be killed easily. Therefore, the participants in the war are less and less aware of the horror of the war. The enemy they see is no longer a living person, but just a dot of light displayed on the screen. Therefore, the horror of the war brings people The coming deterrence is facing a realistic threat that is gradually being lost."
In order to comfort Thomas, Jack asked him to remember that he was "not a god of death" there, but Thomas still wanted to get on the plane back to the front line. This idea seemed crazy to everyone. Suarez, the new female member of the combat team and Thomas' new partner Suarez, was full of yearning for this new profession at first and couldn't wait to come here. But after experiencing the cruel killings and the "blood and flesh" of women and children on her hands, her dream soon shattered, so she and Thomas cherished each other and became confidants. The team that Suarez replaced was fired for smoking cocaine. Although the film did not explain the reason for his drug use, it shows that the American soldiers did on the battlefield in Vietnam (the Vietnam War soldiers estimated that nearly 80% of them smoked marijuana). It’s the same in the game room.
Drone attacks can effectively implement fixed-point clearance. Thomas has excellent maneuvering skills. He can accurately calculate the delay time of a missile from launching to hitting a fast-moving target, and then aim at the direction the target is about to reach and hit in one fell swoop. But in this time difference, there will be accidents. Once two children suddenly appeared near the target, and Thomas had too late to cancel the launch. Jack comforted him and said that it was just an accident, not his fault-"We all pulled the trigger at that time." The commander and his subordinates shared the responsibility together. Thomas was grateful for this, but then Jack shifted the responsibility to the Taliban. "We are forgiven for not seeing the child in the drone, but they know the existence of the child. They are deliberately letting children become targets."
A turning point in the film is the transformation of the UAV combat command structure: Thomas’ combat team is under the command of the CIA, and they can simultaneously see everything they see in the combat room and receive orders from the highest command. In this way, Jack’s function is only to accept orders from the CIA official Langley over the phone and act as his microphone on the spot. The substantive change brought about by the new command is an escalation of killings, and Thomas' mental illness has also worsened as a result. Jack announced in advance: "They are ready to carry out a'characteristic attack'. We all know that their target is a bad guy, and now we have put forward the so-called'characteristic attack' theory, which means that the attack is not based on a crime, but an attempt and behavior. Come on." Suarez immediately questioned. Jack said that he also has different opinions on this, maybe he should stick to his own point of view, "but fuck, it's easier to kill these people than to catch them alive". Someone sarcastically said, "They have to be tortured if they are captured alive", but Jack dismissed those who called for the kind treatment of prisoners of war as "hypocrites" because capturing them alive would take a greater risk-"The people are tired of seeing their own soldiers. With constant sacrifices, the Pentagon has been embarrassed by Al Jazeera’s video of the execution of US prisoners of war. Therefore, considering all factors, we now have the right to dispose of it. Don’t ask me whether this war is humane. This is not something we should consider. Come to us. Say this is just war".
The first attack mission commanded by the CIA demonstrated its "powerful power," and Langley stipulated that neither the reliability of intelligence nor the certainty of the target's identity should be contested. Even though it was reported that a large number of civilians were found around the target, Jack was still required to issue an attack order. Langley’s reasoning was: "We have killed a lot of civilians in previous incidents. We need to be careful, but don’t be fooled by them. Many of their goals use women and children as a shield, just to avoid being hit. We have to compare their lives with the national interests of the United States." Obviously, the situation at this time and the accident that Thomas encountered before have essentially The difference is that Thomas discovered that civilians suddenly appeared near the target after pressing the button, but at this time, he knew that there were civilians around the target, but still launched the attack, and with the subjective intention of revenge. Thomas had no choice but to obey. However, this is not the case. What is even more cruel is the "double strike", that is, those who rushed to the scene to rescue the target of the first attack are also identified as "residual terrorists" and then attacked. , The first attack becomes a terrible trap and bait. Jack and others couldn't believe their ears, but Langley confirmed that the order was issued by the Supreme Command, "In our opinion, it is worth it." This is an argument we are very familiar with. For example, a UNICEF report in 1996 estimated that nearly 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions. The then US Secretary of State Albright did not even doubt this number, so he answered. Said: "This is a difficult choice, but we think the price is worth it." This "cost theory" ignores the most important point, which is that children who have died have no right to choose. Langley issued the order on the grounds that they constituted a "potential threat" to the United States-this "crime" could cover almost everyone. Thomas and others had to target the ruins of the house and fire again the missile, which became the grave of the rescuers. The smoke cleared, and a woman appeared on the screen. Langley, holding the spirit of not letting a living person, asked what she was doing, Suarez said that she was cleaning the stumps from the branches. Twelve corpses were counted at the scene, and Suarez questioned whether their actions had committed war crimes. This method of attack confirms Zizek's point of view: We have entered a new era of "paranoid wars."
Putting "national interest" above life, as long as it is for the country, you can kill arbitrarily, and it is a "just killing". This view has been used to inspire fighters' fighting spirit in wars. Another popular view is to use "worth" as the criterion for killing. This is typical utilitarianism, that is, sacrificing a few people, saving the majority, and using mathematical calculations to consider the justice and legitimacy of the killing. There is a famous "tram car problem" in philosophical discussions. Different people have different views, but one thing that may lead to the consensus of the various schools is that the sacrifice of a few people should not be taken for granted, and deliberate murder and enjoyment of killing There is a world of difference between it and "have to", although some people think that this difference has no practical significance, anyway, the result is the same, and the murderer can easily pretend to "have to".
Regarding whether the killing is "worth it", an important basis is the tradition of the "War Law", that is, the legality of war is based on the principle of distinction and the principle of moderation. The principle of distinction means that combating innocent civilians cannot be the target of a war. Although war will inevitably cause casualties of innocent civilians, this undesirable consequence cannot be regarded as part of the goal of war, nor can it be regarded as an inevitable choice to achieve the goal; the principle of moderation means that the cost of starting the war should be paid The cost is controlled within the "necessary" range. This cost includes the casualties of innocent civilians, the casualties of our own and enemy combatants, the level of damage to the infrastructure necessary for the normal functioning of society, and so on. Among them, the death of humans, especially civilian casualties, is at the core. The Catholic Pope John Paul II believes: “If a war is launched in the name of justice, but the proportion of losses and consequences caused by military actions using modern technology is far greater than our ability to accept it, then this A war launched in the name of justice is also illegal.” In the practice of war, it may be difficult to guarantee distinction and moderation, but it is still necessary to emphasize the difference between deliberate and accidental, that is, whether or not subjective prudence has been fulfilled. Of course, in the absence of supervision, it is easy to find excuses for prevarication even deliberately, and it is difficult to be held accountable afterwards. Killing maliciously and indiscriminately and burying innocent people outside the target is one of the main characteristics of terrorist attacks. So after this mission, Suarez said, “I don’t want to do it anymore, that’s a terrorist. Just to do”.
The CIA mentioned that terrorists may deliberately adopt human shield tactics to avoid attacks. It also includes using civilian casualties to create public opinion pressure on the enemy. This phenomenon does exist and constitutes a moral dilemma on the battlefield. Moreover, sometimes, as shown in the film, the opportunity to strike is fleeting and should not be hesitated. So at this moment to kill or not to kill? If you don't kill, terrorists are holding the gold medal for immunity; if you kill, you must sacrifice the innocent. Returning to the film, the CIA and the Supreme Command’s determination of the enemy’s human shield strategy and the order to continue the attack appear to be too arbitrary and arbitrary, and all the responsibility is placed on the enemy. Similar attacks continue, and the CIA always believes that the Taliban are using the same set of tactics, and claims to have learned that the civilians are disguised by military personnel, completely disregarding Suarez’s questioning whether the boys are also included. After the task was completed, Langley had to admit that it was "a bit miserable", but he believed that "this is the price."
Both attacks of the same nature caused fierce disputes among teammates. Jack and the two team members belonged to the passive support faction-that is, despite disagreements, they insisted that the soldiers obey orders as their bounden duty; Suarez belonged to the fierce opposition faction, believing that " "We" are terrorists to civilians who were killed or injured, so her role in these two scenes is very prominent; Thomas is a silent faction. Once Suarez asked him what he thought, he said, "That's an order." Although he is more negative than Jack and others, he also yielded to orders, so his attitude was ridiculed by Suarez, who sympathized with him: "At least this will not make you guilty."
In the two disputes, the passive supporters showed these two attitudes. One is that they are willing to put themselves in a state of responsible agency. "We are performing combat missions, and we don't have time to discuss rationality", and as Jack said before, "this is not what we should consider"; "high-level officials will not waste money to kill civilians"-these expressions are quite typical. Blindly obey orders and give up their responsibilities, so they give up thinking, and it is easy to find excuses for themselves and the "responsible agent". The controversy between this group of teammates and Suarez is also very typical-Su sympathized with the children who were killed and accused the war of being unfair, but the teammates who opposed her bluntly accused those parents that they shouldn't bring their children during the war. Running around, Su said, "But they lived there in the first place." We have thus discovered a path for the transfer of responsibility: the lower level transfers the responsibility to the higher level, and the higher level (or the higher level together) then transfers the responsibility to the terrorists, and now the parents of the dead and injured children are also dragged in, because they have not Do your duty of "nursing". Some teammates suspected that Su had chosen the wrong career. They ridiculed her as Jane Fonda (an anti-war star during the Vietnam War) and told her to stop worrying, because "This is a military base. All we have to do is win the war. They are made in New York. Attack, we are saving the people". The "salvation theory" in the Vietnam War-"The country must be destroyed before it can be saved", reappeared in the war on terrorism at this time, and the term "good faith killing" is a match made in heaven. Once shouldered the mission of "saving", "Fuck" (Jack's words), and completely ignore the paradox between it and killing. The only purpose of war is to win. For this purpose, you can do whatever you can. Justice and humanitarianism are both hypocrisy. This view has long been a cliché. There is also the most direct and shocking defense of "characteristic killings": "At least we can make them die happily"-if "save" is the "highest goodwill" that comes with the killing, then "die happily" "Is the "minimum goodwill" bestowed on the slaughtered.
The second is to sum up and experience a superior sense of superiority from the hatred of others. "Every one of them hates us. We have always been the devil in their eyes because we let women learn knowledge. They will hate us until the Islamic law is widely circulated throughout the world." Another time, Jack pointed to the newspaper Reports of demonstrations against the US military’s killing of civilians and photos of the burning of the American flag said: “Pakistans think this is a victory. Someone has to teach them the meaning of these stars and stripes. Some people regard it as evil and A symbol of power. To love too deeply will turn into hate.” This reflects a common and powerful habitual thinking in Americans: we are hateful because we are "too good." With this kind of thinking coupled with the demonization of "them", the prejudice and opposition between each other is extremely difficult to dissolve. Thinking about the "good" in everything, lacking due reflection, is also a kind of "closure of the American spirit" (Alan Bloom). This tendency is inevitably shown in "Who Is Against America", a monograph that comprehensively discusses "anti-Americanism." Of course, some of the above remarks are facts, but they are all guilty of partiality. In this regard, the most typical one is Bush’s evaluation of the "9·11" incident-"The enemies of freedom launched our country. A war" and the answer to "Why should they hate us": "Because they hate everything in our building-we are a democratically elected government, and their leaders are appointed They also hate our freedom-our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of elections, freedom of assembly, freedom to oppose opinions, etc." He concluded: "The reason why the United States has become the target of attacks is because of our freedom and opportunities. The beacon is the brightest and most dazzling in the world.” According to Michael Scheuer, a senior intelligence analyst at the CIA, bin Laden has clearly told the United States that the reason for his attack was the United States’ policies in the Middle East and its presence in the Middle East. What the Islamic world does has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Scheuer has been tracking bin Laden since 1996. The action team he is responsible for in the CIA is codenamed Alec, so his judgment should have a certain degree of credibility. In 2004, Scheuer published anonymously "The Pride of the Empire: Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism", which counts the mistakes of the US government in the war on terrorism. After the book was published, Scheuer’s freedom to accept media interviews was restricted by the CIA and was forced to announce his resignation. Let’s take a look at the results of the Gallup Global Poll: Although many people in the Muslim world do not believe in the sincerity of the United States to promote democracy in their country, Most people still think that the most enviable things in the West are political freedom and freedom of speech; the key to this conflict is not democracy or freedom, but about faith, identity and respect. When the surveyor asked respondents in 10 predominantly Muslim countries what they think of other countries, the characteristics most often associated with the United States are: cruelty (68%), advanced technology (68%), and aggressive Sexuality (66%), self-righteousness (65%) and moral corruption (64%). However, for these characteristics in the eyes of "them", with the exception of the positive technological advancement, the United States may not be willing to easily claim the rest. At the same time, we were also surprised to find that the "characteristic attack" taken by the drone in the film almost encompassed all of the above "American characteristics" in one fell swoop.
Kissinger summarized the United States and its view of order in "World Order" as follows: "The United States firmly believes that its own path will shape the destiny of mankind, but historically, it has played a contradictory role in the issue of world order: it Expansion across the entire American continent in the name of “Destiny Destiny”, but claims that there will be no empire attempt; exerts a decisive influence on major events, but denies motives for national interests; eventually becomes a superpower, but claims that it has no intention of imposing power politics." "The United States’ foreign exchange is not a traditional foreign policy, but a project to spread values. It believes that all other peoples are eager to copy American values." "The United States firmly believes that its principles are universal, which brings the international system Here comes the challenge, because it implies that a government that does not implement democratic principles is not a completely legal government. This belief is rooted in the depths of American thinking and only occasionally becomes official policy." Therefore, among the above-mentioned "characteristics", "self-righteous" and "cruel" and "aggressive" constitute a causal relationship to some extent. The colonel in "Full Metal Shell" said, "We are here to help the Vietnamese people. , Because every Vietnamese wants to be an American.” This typical self-righteous expression contains this causal relationship. People have noticed that the much-maligned Vietnam War and the Iraq War received widespread support from the American people at the beginning. Domestic scholar Liu Yu reminded people not to forget that the launch of the Iraq war was not only approved by the US Congress, but after the war was launched, Bush’s approval rating once jumped from 50% to 75%—that is, 75% of the United States. The people supported the war at the time. So she believes that you can say that the launch of the Iraq war is a manifestation of the failure of American democracy, but you cannot say that it is a manifestation of President Bush's dictatorship. Although her conclusion ignores Bush’s deliberate deception of Congress and the public, that is, the conditions for democratic failure, how can Americans use their arrogance appropriately and prevent the mutual incentive effect between the arrogance of the public and the government. The dark side of democracy" has caused errors in foreign policy. This is indeed a problem. The passive supporters of the "characteristic attack" in the film used "self-righteousness" to effectively restrain their sympathy for the innocent victims, so in the end, they all actually transformed into active supporters.
Jack has this reflection and summary on the war on terror: "They kill us, we kill them. Have we ever thought carefully, if we stop killing them, they will continue to kill us? This is a vicious circle. It doesn’t matter who makes the situation cruel, but they won’t stop, so we can’t stop either. I want to go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. My sad career can save at least an innocent American’s life every day. Because I don’t know how to explain to the sad parents that their child is dead, just because we think it’s enough, we declare victory on our own.” He is aware of the vicious circle caused by the war on terror, but also simply The blame is attributed to "them" and mistakenly summed up the lesson of American terrorist attacks as that because the United States stopped the killing prematurely-a terrible conclusion.
In the constant killings, Thomas was on the verge of collapse, and his alcoholism became more and more serious. Sometimes he would rather sit quietly in the car by himself than go home to be close to his family. Molly complained that he talked too little, as long as she didn't talk, the two of them would never talk. Thomas felt that he couldn't go back to the past. He also wanted to be himself, but it was impossible. The unknown outsider praised Thomas for his good temper in front of Molly, saying that he was quiet, and curiously asked Molly what it was like to have his temper. Molly said, "It's quieter." His wife learned that he wanted to be heavy. Returning to the blue sky and returning to the battlefield, I was deeply puzzled by this, thinking that he just "want to fight". She didn't know what happened in the base. The estrangement and misunderstanding between the two deepened, until the marriage broke down.
In order to help his wife understand his work, Thomas broke his silence and told her a story, which was also the cruelest serial attack in the film-"Yesterday, I was monitoring a house in southern Afghanistan. The target's wife and family. All fell asleep in the silence, and the target drove home. The only chance is this time. I bombed the house and watched the neighbors drag the corpse out. It’s not like the corpses that I usually see are all fragments, this time I’m sure It's seven people (there are seven coffins in the picture). I watched the locals clean up the ruins and prepare for the funeral all morning. They will be buried within 24 hours-this is also a coincidence, I can only stay in the sky for so long. A group of people carried the coffin to the cemetery. I received information that the brother of the Taliban commander would also attend the funeral, so I waited until they were all there, and when I started praying, I squeezed..." A "second strike" that was very "successful" in the military, and the strike location was in the cemetery where the deceased's funeral was held. In other words, the seven dead died twice. In order to kill the target, it is “worthy” to bring the family to the funeral. Even if there is no accurate information, according to the theory of “characteristic attack”, the rescue of terrorists or those who attend their funerals are regarded as terrorists. As a result of the "second blow", no one dared to show up at the scene after the attack, so they could only shrink behind the door and look out. Langley said evilly: "They can wait, and we can wait." A mass murder requires not only cruelty, but also "patient".
On the one hand, under the influence of the opposition Suarez, on the other hand, the awakening of his own moral conscience, Thomas began to rebel from silence and obedience to orders. In order to avoid "additional damage," he lied about the machine malfunction and allowed the target to escape. However, unless this behavior happens occasionally, it would be difficult not to be discovered, and Jack had to consider dismissing him for this reason. Molly asked him what he did, and he said: "I did what I can do"-this is a simple but very proud answer, it shows that once the individual is willing to take on his own responsibility, rather than throw it away Give others and find excuses for himself, then he will find that there are other options where he thought he could not do anything, and he can do more. Thomas did not confront his superiors' orders head-on, but "raised the muzzle by an inch", and he also accepted the consequences frankly. He is saving people, and he is also saving himself, because only by resisting, and only by stopping this killing, can he relieve his wounds. Suarez did what she could do-when she couldn't disobey the order, she chose to resign.
At the end of the film, Thomas also did something he thought he could do. The film has made a foreshadowing before: When Thomas and his teammates were monitoring the target, they found that a Taliban fighter repeatedly beat and raped a housewife. Every time they could only watch this tragic scene and could not do anything. The long surveillance operation made Thomas feel great sympathy for this woman, so when he was on duty for the last time and found that the mob appeared on the screen again, he decided to seize this opportunity to carry out a "good faith killing." . He deliberately walked away his teammates, locked the door of the war room, turned off the computer recording system, and fired a missile at the Taliban. However, within the time difference of the attack before the missile landed, the accident happened again: the target was getting closer and closer to the courtyard gate of the victim woman, and the woman just walked towards the courtyard gate. Thomas was shocked and could only call in vain at the screen. She "go back quickly." A cloud of smoke lifted up and slowly drifted away. Thomas eagerly looked for the figure of the woman, and he was relieved to see her finally slowly rising from the ground. At this time, the investigators outside the combat room were knocking on the door non-stop. The final shot is Thomas walking out of the war room without a word, his expression calm and contented. However, this Hollywood-style bright tail may not be so bright. One of the disputes is whether his action was an act of war, that is to say, whether he executed the Taliban as a soldier or a criminal-as a result, there is no reason to kill the enemy combatant, but from a specific plot. Look, his attack is obviously out of righteous indignation, and it is to "execute the death penalty" against Taliban mobs who committed rape from thousands of miles away. If “outer space missiles” are used to solve all parts of the world—of course, including such crimes that occur every day in the United States itself, as well as various other equally hated crimes and humanitarian disasters, will this constitute a new kind of Disaster?
The surveillance function of drones on any corner of the earth is like the "eye of the sky", and the unconscious attack on the target by the drone symbolizes a supreme power. If this kind of power lacks the necessary supervision and restraint, and is given the name of "justice", it is easy to lose control. At this time, the person who manipulates the drone seems to be the incarnation of God-Thomas acted like this once. God, and he secretly enjoyed it. From the perspective of his breaking the silence and daring to "disobey", he is undoubtedly a hero, but his last "goodwill killing" cannot be simply called a "heroic act" because he did not realize it. This behavior may be exactly what he opposed, so until the end, he was still a "hostage of justice" and he still did not get rid of the "American identity" of "self-righteousness". This understanding and judgment will provide a rational reference for us to evaluate the United States’ counter-terrorism and uphold global justice. The film not only uses Langley, the terrifying voice from the CIA to issue an attack order, but also through the killing of Thomas, a "righteous man" who has resisted and resisted the terrorist order from his heart to his actions, to prove that justice and evil are often only one step away. .
Since the U.S. drone program falls within the scope of official secrecy, there is not much public information in this regard. UAV attacks mostly occur in areas that are inaccessible to ordinary people. The casualties data mainly come from local governments and media, so the reliability is difficult to judge, and the disparity between different data sources is also large. A survey by the New America Foundation shows that in the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the number of drone assassinations ordered by him in Pakistan was four times that of Bush’s eight-year tenure. In January 2013, at the request of Pakistan and other countries, the United Nations launched an investigation into the casualties caused by drones. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Terrorism and Human Rights Ben Emerson reported to the United Nations General Assembly in September of that year. Submitted a mid-term investigation report. The report shows that in Afghanistan, UAV air strikes by the United States and the United Kingdom caused 16 civilian deaths and 6 injuries in 2012. In the first half of 2013, 15 civilians were killed and 7 injured in air strikes. In Yemen, the number of civilian casualties caused by U.S. drone airstrikes has ranged from 21 to 58 since 2011, of which 12 civilians were killed in a single operation in 2012. Pakistan has the highest casualty rate. According to figures that are likely to be underestimated, U.S. drones caused a total of 2,200 deaths and 600 injuries. Among them, at least 400 civilians died, and another 200 may also be civilians. In addition, the report compiled by the British human rights organization Reprieve through the non-profit organization Bureau of Investigative Journalism also questioned the accuracy of the U.S. drone attacks. Data show that as of November 24, 2014, about 1147 people were killed in order to kill 41 targets. Data released by the News Investigation Bureau in August 2012 also showed that U.S. drone attacks caused 178 deaths in Pakistan and Yemen.
However, the defense insisted that the United States has a comprehensive set of rules governing the use of drones, and that operations are subject to considerable a priori and posterior review and are also subject to Congressional supervision. John Brennan, an adviser to the US President's Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism Affairs and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, even asserted that "the innocent has never been injured." It is said that the U.S. government will review and ensure that three conditions are met when implementing such actions: 1. The target poses an "imminent threat" to U.S. security. 2. It is not feasible to capture the target. 3. Actions must conform to the "basic legal principles of war", that is, the principle of military necessity, the principle of distinction, and the principle of humanity. But in fact, drone attacks have been controversial because they violated these principles. However, the defense still claimed that if the target had to be hit, the accuracy rate of drone attacks would be higher than other weapons.
On February 4, 2013, the National Broadcasting Corporation of the United States (NBC) exposed a white paper from the Department of Justice concerning the UAV attack policy implemented by the Obama administration, which caused controversy in the United States. Critics called it unconstitutional and carried out "extrajudicial executions" of terrorists; the White House called it "legal," "moral," and "wise." In May of the same year, the White House announced new guidelines for counter-terrorism operations, imposing more restrictions on drone strike plans. Obama said that drone operations will be strictly targeted at those who "form a continuous and powerful threat to the American people." He emphasized that the assassination can only be initiated when the fact that the attacked target poses a threat to U.S. security is "almost completely affirmed," and it must be ensured that civilians will not be harmed. However, in January 2015, in a drone attack launched by the CIA against members of the "Al Qaeda" organization in Pakistan, a U.S. hostage and an Italian hostage were mistakenly killed. Obama said that he was "fully responsible" for the military action. And promised to "learn from it." This was the first incident of a U.S. drone manslaughter publicly acknowledged by the White House. The media ridiculed this. The White House finally admitted to the mistake by manslaughtering an American. In 2015, another leaker appeared in the United States, who was suspected of revealing top secrets about the U.S. drone assassination program to the "Intercept" news website. Although the CIA believes that the drone assassination plan is an effective way to "find, lock, and end" targets, the document discloses that 90% of the dead in an operation were not the established targets of the U.S. military, but they were all labeled by the U.S. "Enemies killed in action" label. This situation is very consistent with the film.
The "Wartime Law" prohibits attacks that may incidentally cause loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or both, and that damage excessively in comparison with the expected specific and direct military benefits. It requires that when selecting targets for attack, if civilian damage is unavoidable, then the degree of damage cannot be much higher than the possible military benefits, otherwise, even if it is a legitimate target, it cannot be attacked. If the 90% manslaughter mentioned above is true, then the U.S. drone attack is obviously a serious violation of military principles and humanitarian principles. And if the actual commanders in actual combat describe all the damage indiscriminately as "worthy" as in the movie, then naturally they will not be able to hold these bottom lines.
The extensive use of long-range weapons in modern warfare greatly reduces the interpersonal nature. The popularization of drones is a revolution in tactical air power. From now on, one third of the U.S. deep-attack tactical aircraft will be drones. Not only that, the new US research program is trying to establish a space military superiority, "anyone anywhere in the world can be hit by only 30 minutes of observation, without resorting to nearby air bases." Previously, some experts believed that the spiritual essence of war "seems to be a matter of distance and technology. If you use sophisticated weapons to kill people from a long distance, you won't have any problems at all." But now this conclusion seems to be arbitrary. You can kill with a press and a twist. This is certainly much easier than a face-to-face killing, and the attacker does not need to bear the risk of personal injury or death, but killing is not a game after all. The "distance and technology" may be greatly reduced, but it cannot be resolved in the end. Psychological problems of soldiers who participated in the war. As for the cruel killing methods such as "characteristic attack" and "second blow", it will even make soldiers like Thomas psychological collapse.
The use of drones as a counter-terrorism weapon is not only a technical issue, but the core issue it touches is still: After the mourning period and the "passionate killing period", the United States should draw conclusions from the "9•11" incident What kind of lesson? It is to continue to use the narrow perspective of "either with us or with terrorists" to force standing in line, according to the dichotomy of "us" and "them" to cut the world and the crowd, and be immersed in the pleasure and pleasure of revenge. The delusion that they are all terrorists finds it difficult to extricate themselves, and is deeply trapped in the vicious circle of "controlling terrorism with terrorism"; or appropriately suppress excessive superiority and "innocent" stance, and reflect on the "American identity" in the eyes of others ? McNamara accepted an interview at the age of 86. He summarized 11 lessons, of which the 9th is "In order to do good, you may have to do evil"-the United States engaged in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the war on terrorism. Out of such "lessons" and ideas. Because we have the "purpose" of justice and kindness in our hearts, we are proactive in offering the "means" of evil. As William Kristol, editor-in-chief of "Standard Weekly" puts it, "If we want to become strong, we need to make mistakes. If Some people want to say that we are an imperialist power. It doesn’t matter.” Although the phrase "make mistakes" is more subtle than "do evil," "needs" are an upgraded version of "have to", and "strong" is also better than "doing good." "It's much more straightforward. In this way, the snowballs of wrong and evil will become bigger and bigger.
Many scholars have sharply questioned the Americans' position that they were completely "innocent" in the "September 11" incident. Zizek pointed out that from a moral point of view, the victim is innocent and the assault is an extremely bad crime, but "the innocence of Americans is not really that innocent"-in today's global capitalist world, this is adopted. The "innocent" position is itself a hypocritical abstraction. Jacques Derrida also said in his speech to accept the Adorno Prize on September 22, 2001: "My unconditional sympathy for the victims of '9·11' does not prevent me from saying the following aloud: Just this As far as crime is concerned, I don’t believe that anyone is politically innocent. If I have unlimited sympathy for all innocent victims, it’s because this sympathy is not limited to the loss in the United States during the 9/11 incident. A man of life." To understand Derrida's "untimely" remark, one has to mention Adorno (his birthday happens to be September 11)'s classic exposition of Auschwitz. "After Auschwitz, poetry no longer exists", this is his famous saying. Adorno felt that Auschwitz first suffered from his own subjectivity, and it related to his own reason for survival, so he even asked himself the question: whether Auschwitz has any reason to let him in the future. Live by yourself? Domestic scholar Liu Xiaofeng has made an insightful analysis of this: After Auschwitz, the survival of the living and the people who will live is guilt—this is guilt in the sense of survival, not guilt in the sense of psychology, just like Auschwitz is a sign of suffering and shame in the theory of existence, rather than a sign of regional or national suffering and shame. Based on this, we can also understand Derrida’s "inhumanity". He emphasizes the universal political responsibility of human beings for evil, and everyone should not exclude themselves from evil irrespective of their own affairs. . Zizek derives a point from Derrida’s words: This kind of "self-relation", that is, associating oneself with what he opposes, and including oneself at the crime scene, is the only and true one. Infinite justice" (the code name of the US military's military operations in Afghanistan. It was later revised to "enduring freedom" because it was accused of too strong religious connotations). Of course, emphasizing responsibility is not to confuse right from wrong, to obscure guilt, nor to justify terrorists, but to fundamentally prevent such crimes and disasters from happening. In addition, if this kind of "self-relation" is not spontaneous, it should also be driven by external incentives rather than coercion. Otherwise, it is easy to blur the boundaries between justice and injustice, criminals and victims.
For the death of "9•11", Zizek's prescription was, "The only way to ensure that this type of thing does not happen again here is to prevent it from happening anywhere." He believes that the United States should "have a vain mind" and accept its vulnerability as part of the world; the United States can punish those responsible for the attack, but "see this punishment as a sad and lamentable obligation, not a joyous one. revenge". In reality, the U.S. flaunts its special role as a global policeman too much, as if it was resented not because of its ostentation-the drone attack in "Benevolent Killing", even if it is not "excited", is enough" Show off their power," the commander of the attack always asked the soldiers to "put down their burdens and move forward with ease." As long as they refuse to find the real cause in the hatred of others, then such killings will not stop, and the responsibility will always be on "them". As Jack said in the film, the lesson of "September 11" is that "we" stopped too early. In other words, the United States was soft-hearted and didn't kill enough. This is indeed a reflection, but unfortunately the direction is reversed.
Like overseas prisons, drone attacks are likely to become the extra-legal space that the United States has opened up for itself in the war on terrorism, and its legality and morality will inevitably lead to more controversies. For insiders, this constitutes a great test, because they will face more confusion when operating the "game of death". The film stands in the middle to show this confusion and the different choices made by individuals-"obeying orders" is of course the easiest and most common choice. The essence of this choice is to avoid and give up the choice. This is also the case for all military forces. Or the core requirements of the paramilitarized system. Therefore, individuals like Thomas and Suarez are always in the minority. They still retain the right to think about, question and even resist orders, and retain a sense of guilt for indiscriminate killing of innocents-even if they are clearly informed beforehand and afterwards that there is no need for them. Take any responsibility for these actions. However, this is the real "goodwill".
From "Hostages of Justice" Author: Zhang Qiu
View more about Good Kill reviews
