As war increasingly becomes a calamity that we put on remote control, we can expect more films like this. In fact there have already been a number of them made. See for example Good Kill above.
Oh, and a few more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f … ing_drones
And now Eye In The Sky.
If nothing else, the ethicists among us can ponder the moral implications inherent in this new war technology. And, in particular, the part that revolves around “collateral damage”. To strike or not to strike. To kill or to capture. And, if to kill, how many innocent men, women and children who just happen to be within the impact radius of whatever particular explosive devise that is used.
One more rendition of “the fog of war”. And it doesn’t get much thicker than this. Even though when you think about it the casualties here are nothing at all like the casualties that accumulated in, for example, Hiroshima or Dresden.
Here of course [as with most things relating to the war on terror] there is a generally liberal narrative and a generally conservative narrative. In other words, regarding The Right Thing To Do. If, for example, a nine-year child enters the “kill zone”. Though, in there with her, are the terrorists fiercely committed to blowing themselves up. Along with [perhaps] even more children down the road.
Or: what if her death resulted in the destruction of a jihadi cell that, if not stopped, would result in the deaths of children considerably closer to us.
The targets here are in East Africa. Kenya. Which was in the news recently when Islamic jihadists, Al-Shabab, launced an attack at the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi. About 70 people were killed.
We quickly learn here that everything revolves around the intelligence. If it is wrong, people who weren’t supposed to die, do. And the people who were, don’t.
One thing for sure: These fanatic Islamists and their sharia law is not something that I ever want to be around.
And then there’s the technology itself. Is this for real? Camera’s fitted into fake birds, into fake insects? It’s unbelievable what they can do. Images coming from a tiny camera in a fake beetle that is flown remotely into a house. The images are then seen by military operators and civilians around the globe. Literally thousands of miles apart.
There is one particularly surreal scene where the fake beetle is beaming back pictures of two suicide bombers being armed while the military folks are waiting for the British Foreign Secretary who is on the toilet taking a shit to give the go ahead to launch a Hellfire missile from a drone aircraft they call Reaper. It’s straight out of Dr. Strangelove.
IMDb
[b]According to director Gavin Hood, 30% of U.S. military drone operators are treated for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
When asked at a screening of Eye in the Sky (2015) about working with Alan Rickman in the actor’s final film role, Hood revealed that Rickman stayed on set for three or four days after shooting wrapped to attend the wrap party and individually thank the film crew for its dedication.
The main part of the plot unfolds in real time.
The Reaper - a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) which has been operated from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire since April 2013. They are flown by serving RAF Officers that have undergone training with the Reaper Formal Training Unit (FTU) in the USA. The FTU is completed at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, USA. RAF Officers can be serving Tornado pilots who have carried out similar missions in active service. They can be posted to either XIII Sqn RAF Waddington (UK) or 39 Sqn Creech Air Force Base (USA) and will most likely fly an aircraft on operations over hostile territory, providing persistent ISR and if required, armed overwatch.[/b]
at wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film
trailer: youtu.be/hOqeoj669xg
EYE IN THE SKY [2015]
Directed by Gavin Hood
[b]Title card: “In war, truth is the first casualty.” — Aeschylus
…
Col. Powell [to the mission crew]: Today, you will be flying a joint operation over Nairobi, Kenya, codename Operation Egret. Horn of Africa, Somalia, Kenya, Nairobi. We have intelligence of a meeting of key members of Al-Shabab in the suburb of Parklands in this house, here. It belongs to a man named Shahid Ahmed. He’s an Al-Shabab facilitator. Due to visit this house is this man, Abdullah Al-Hady. He’s a Somali, and his wife, Ayesha Al-Hady, formerly Susan Helen Danford, British national. Troubled childhood, converted at 15. She was radicalized in a West London mosque where she met and married Al-Hady…This is an operation to capture, not kill. Your job is to be their eye in the sky.
…
Col. Powell: So, how do we launch a ground assault if Danford’s going in there?
Moses: We can’t. Al-Shabab controls that neighborhood. It would trigger a massacre.
…
Col. Powell: We need an eye inside that house. I have to know if Danford is inside, and who is with her.
Moses: Ma’am, it would mean putting a man in the street, and you’d have to get close to control the beetle. It would easily raise suspicion.
Col. Powell: What, even if you use a Somali?
Moses: Every stranger is suspicious, even a Somali.
Col. Powell: Moses, we both believe that Danford is inside that house, do we not?
Moses: Yes, ma’am.
Col. Powell: And I cannot authorize a strike without a positive ID. I believe we have to accept the risk and send someone in. Moses, can you do it?
Moses: Yes, ma’am.
…
Man [watching Alia play with a hula hoop]: What is she doing?
Father: Alia! What are you doing?
Alia: Sorry, Papa.
Father: Never do that again!
Alia: Yes, Papa.
Father [to the man, an Islamic zealot]: I’m sorry. She’s just a child.
[the man leaves]
Father: Alia. What were you thinking? Listen to me. These people are fanatics. Don’t play in front of them.
Alia: Okay, Papa. But I can play in front of you, right.
Father; Yes, sweetheart, of course you can.
…
Levery: Oh, fuck, man. Fuck. Fuck.
Soldier: Matt, what’s happening?
Levery: We’re seeing suicide vests and a whole bunch of fucking explosives inside that house.
Lt. General Benson: Well, this changes things.
…
Lt. General Benson [on phone]: What’s the plan, Katherine?
Col. Powell: We need to put a Hellfire through that roof right now.
Lt. General Benson: I told you, they came to witness a capture, not a kill. Give me a capture option.
Col. Powell: We no longer have a capture option. Any action on the ground will lead to an armed confrontation, which we will not be able to contain.
Lt. General Benson: They’re watching. Even with the vests, we need their approval for a strike.
Col. Powell: Just tell them we’ve got Danford in our sights. I mean, that alone should justify using a Hellfire. The vests are just a bonus.
Lt. General Benson: Danford’s a British citizen. They want her alive.
Col. Powell: They cannot have her alive!
…
Col. Powell: So, the plan is to put a Hellfire through the roof of that house. I need legal clearance right now.
Harold: A missile from the Reaper?
Col. Powell: Yes.
Harold: So, this is no longer a capture situation.
Col. Powell: No. We have two suicide vests with explosives inside that house. So, can you clear me to a higher CDE?
Harold: Uh…
Col. Powell: Harold, this is a very time-sensitive target. Do I have authority to strike?
Harold: The rules of engagement you’re operating under only allow for a low collateral damage estimate.
Col. Powell: Yes, yes, and my weapons only invoke a low CDE. It’s the explosives inside that house that bring it to a potentially high CDE.
Harold: And since you know the explosives are there, it is incumbent upon you to take them into account.
…
Angela: Are we all right with launchiung the missle? I’m sure we are not. There are two British citizens and an American as targets.
British Minister: This mission has the full support of Kenya and the United States.
Angela: For a drone strike?
Minister: Yes, a missile fired from an RPA is part of an agreed contingency plan in circumstances like this.
Lt. General Benson: Do we have permission to proceed?
Angela: No. Such a plan should not have been signed off by the PM without the authority of Parliament.
General: Operational issues are not generally discussed at Cabinet, and certainly not at Parliament.[/b]
And on and on and on they go debating the legal [and the political] ramifications of blowing these people up.
[b]Col. Powell: Lieutenant. You are now our best option to take these HVIs out. Now, prepare to launch a single AGM-114 Hellfire on the target house.
Steve: Yes, ma’am.
Col. Powell: This is a friendly city, so collateral damage must be kept to a minimum.
Steve: Ma’am…I have an ROE question. Is my government aware that we are targeting a person with a US passport?
Col. Powell: Yes. Yes, it is, Lieutenant.
Steve: I didn’t see anything in the SPINS about that.
Col. Powell: Lieutenant, we have new rules of engagement. You are covered.
…
Sergeant Saddiq: If we target this corner room here, where the explosives are, we would expect 100% mortality rate in that room and an 80 to 90% rate within the rest of the house. The market should be safe, but this area here in the street… A 65 to 75% rate. That’s just the Hellfire. If we factor in the explosives in the vests, we’re looking at even more extensive damage way out to this area here. But I can’t accurately estimate that yield.
Col. Powell: But we would be containing that payload in the vests within those walls, right? Far less collateral damage than them going off in a crowded shopping mall.
Sergeant Saddiq: Yes. Of course.
Col. Powell: Thank you.
…
U.S. Secretary of State [on the phone]: No, his citizenship does not protect him. By joining Al-Shabab he has declared himself an enemy of the United States. Listen to me. Tell the British, if they really do have two, four, and five on the East Africa list in their sights, they have our full support to strike. All three are on the President’s list.
…
Col. Powell: Lieutenant, you have clearance to prosecute the target. Do it now.
Steve: Yes, ma’am.
[he turns to Carrie]
Steve: Prepare to launch Hellfire.[/b]
And that’s when Alia enters the kill zone.
[b]Steve [looking at the screen]: Is that a kid?
…
Col. Powell [on the phone]: Lieutenant, we have this one opportunity. Let’s not lose it.
Steve: Ma’am, uh, she’s selling bread.
Col. Powell: Jesus. Those men are about to disperse. Engage now.
Steve: Ma’am, I understand we have clearance. I will fire if I see the HVIs moving or when this girl’s out of the frag radius, but I want to give her a chance to get out of the way.
Col. Powell Lieutenant, you have clearance. There is a lot more at stake than you see here in this image.
Steve: Ma’am, I need you to run the collateral damage estimate again with this girl out front.
Col. Powell: The situation has not changed, Lieutenant. You are cleared to engage.
Carrie: What do we do?
Col. Powell: I repeat, you are cleared to engage.
Steve: Colonel Powell, ma’am… I’m the pilot in command responsible for releasing the weapon. I have the right to ask for the CDE to be run again. I will not release my weapon until that happens.
[long pause]
Col. Powell: We will rerun the CDE.
…
Carrie: Jesus, she’s going to sell them again.
…
Col. Powell: Are we in the clear?
Harold: Uh…Again, I would refer up.
Col. Powell: No. No. I’m asking you. We cannot hold up this operation any longer.
Harold: We need to take all reasonable steps to minimize collateral damage. If we’re buying her bread then…
Col. Powell: We’re not. We’re not buying her bread. That’s over. Many children’s lives are at risk. This is just one girl. Are we clear to engage, yes or no? Come on, make a decision.
Harold: With respect, ma’am, I don’t make those decisions. I’m here to advise you on the law! The law is not here to get in your way, it is here to protect you, and to protect your target.
Col. Powell: Don’t lecture me, Harold!
Harold: Ma’am, the legal questions of necessity and proportionality are almost certainly met. But for the protection of you, and for the protection of that girl, I would refer up to the Attorney General.[/b]
Here we go again…
Lt. General Benson: I hope the fact that she’s a sweet little girl is not clouding your judgment. Dozens of other little girls’ lives are at stake if these men leave.
Minister: I’m sorry, but we have a Miss Jillian Goldman from the White House asking to be patched in.
Lt. General Benson: Who?
Minister: Jillian Goldman. She’s a Senior Legal Adviser at the US National Security Council. She’s been briefed by the Secretary of State.
Lt. General Benson: Put her through.
Goldman: Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to comment. As the military members of your committee know, we have a point system that takes into account collateral damage to deduce what is and what is not a legal strike. And let me tell you categorically that the existence of this new circumstance does not push us beyond a legitimate military action. We are way off what we would consider a dispute in this matter. British official: Miss Goldman, we have a somewhat different approach to the question of
collateral damage.
Goldman: Sir, you must act now. You have two men about to embark on a suicide mission. You have number two, four, and five on the President’s East Africa kill list in your sights, and you are putting the whole mission at risk because of one collateral damage issue?
Exactly: one child that will die for certain vs. other children that may die if the suicide bombers target them.
[b]James: George, do I understand this correctly? There’s a legal argument for waiting and giving this girl a chance to sell her bread?
George: Yes, there is. But, conversely, it does not mean that there is not also a legal argument for releasing the weapon now.
James: Forgive me, I’m not sure that helps me.
Lt. General Benson: Foreign Secretary, there is a military necessity for acting now. In our view, they’ll be making a move from that house at any moment.
James: Gentlemen, what action is being legally recommended to me?
Minister: James, the legal argument is that we could wait, but we need not wait. And the military argument is that we should not wait. It’s my recommendation that we should not delay in proceeding with this mission. If we don’t act now, we risk losing the lives of up to 80 people.
Angela: You can only assume those deaths. What is certain is that if we do act now, this one girl will suffer.
James: And you would save her and risk killing 80 others?
Angela: Yes, I would save her and take that risk. That is what I would do.
James: Angela, is it you or me who will be invited onto the Today program to explain why we knew of the attack on a shopping center that killed 80 people, but chose to do nothing to stop it?
Angela: You, James. But frankly, politically, I’d rather point to Al-Shabab as murderers of 80 people shopping than have to defend a drone attack by our forces that kills an innocent child.
George: James, Angela makes a compelling point. If Al-Shabab kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one child, they do.
…
Lt. General Benson: With respect, Foreign Secretary, are the lives of 80 people, including innocent children, really worth the price of winning the propaganda war?
James: General, if we go ahead, might footage of our attack be leaked?
Lt. General Benson: Sir, the footage from the Reaper is completely secure.
James: General, I would feel uncomfortable if we did not at least wait a little longer. If we go ahead and footage is leaked and this girl is killed, then, I think, the country would be most disturbed.
Lt. General Benson: Foreign Secretary, it is our task to make the right military decision. We cannot engage in an argument about possible future postings on YouTube.
James: With respect, General, revolutions are fueled by postings on YouTube.
…
Steve: Two loaves left. Come on…come on.
…
Lt. General Benson: Minister, we cannot have military decisions dictated by government committees. Nor can we put on hold a military operation at every stage for legal clarification. You tell us when to go to war, we conduct the war, you deal with the aftermath.
Minister: If only it were that simple!
…
Col. Powell: Adjusting the point of impact to here…
Sergeant: There is still a 45 to 65% possibility of fatality.
Col. Powell: 65%?
Sergeant: Yes.
Col. Powell: No, I need that calculation to be below 50%. Perhaps there could be an assessment of the impact of the damage right here.
Sergeant: That calculation is already at the lowest limit of what I believe is possible.
Col. Powell: What if you put the missile there?
Sergeant: I would still have to make that a 65% possibility on the upper limit.
Col. Powell: Sergeant, we need to make this work. Do you understand? We are locked into this kill chain. We have to make a decision. There are… There are many lives at risk.
[he caves]
Sergeant: Ma’am. I think…I think if I make this the point of impact, then…There I could predict a 45% possibility of fatality. That might be possible.
Col. Powell: 45%?
Sergeant: Possibly.
Col. Powell: Good man. Good man.
…
Steve: Three, two, one. Rifle, rifle, rifle. Weapon away. Time of flight, 50 seconds.
Carrie [gasping]: There’s a boy!
Col. Powell: Oh, shit!
Steve: Wait, he’s buy… He’s buying the bread.
Col. Powell: Forty seconds…
…
Angela: In my opinion, that was disgraceful. And all done from the safety of your chair.
Lt. General Benson: I have attended the immediate aftermath of five suicide bombings on the ground, with the bodies. What you witnessed today with your coffee and biscuits is terrible. What these men would’ve done would’ve been even more terrible. Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war.[/b]
So, who won?