Asmat Khan’s investigation series in the Times struck the impressive balance of being both very repetitive and very gripping. On a technical level, the structure worked so well because it fit the content perfectly. The point was to demonstrate repetition, to provide irrefutable evidence that these civilian casualties have not been the exception but the rule, and to suggest that the pattern of deaths that emerged through the reporting is perhaps baked into the military system that allows for them and makes these mistakes time and again. By part two of the investigation, I was expecting to become desensitized to the barrage of civilian injuries and deaths, but couldn’t because each of Khan’s stories were hard-hitting and unique despite being representative of statistics of a much greater magnitude.
Following on last week’s drone conversation, the “gamer-boy” quality of modern warfare continues to trouble me. The part of the investigation I found myself rereading was the section titled “Play Time?” and the terminology “poppin.” One could imagine the exact same dialogue unfolding between two 13-year-old boys playing Fortnight from the comfort of their separate homes. The system seems designed to build just that—comfort—into the conducting of modern warfare. The technology lauded as “precise” clearly has its faults. But continuously using the language of precision to describe these acts of “mistaken” carnage they were carrying out allowed the American soldiers to remain a certain degree of separation from their actions and write off their errors as exceptional flaws. That drones could also come to provide some level of comfort to Afghan civilians was also a shock which we didn’t touch on when we spoke of the use of drones in Ukraine last week. It makes sense, but is also staggering, that the sight of a drone could bring a civilian a sense of security that they are being surveilled and therefore hopefully being accounted for by the U.S. army. But as we learn throughout the pieces, the idea that if you are seen by the technology, you are safe from its violence is a false narrative. Yet it might be a necessary false narrative that unites both the U.S. army and Afghan civilians in their ability to continue going about their lives without being consumed by guilt on the one hand and fear on the other. Overall, the investigation series deepened my understanding of how drones are transforming war, and I’m curious about how this transformation is changing war-related migration patterns as well.
As for the shorter news pieces, I was interested in German churches’ capacities to shelter “irregular” migrants in light of chancellow Merz’ immigration crackdown and deportations. I’d like to learn more about the rise in immigration bans across Europe and in the U.S., and whether the increase in politicians campaigning on “tough” immigration policies can be traced to the same cultural and societal shifts in both places. The Reuters piece also points to an interesting gender dynamic in immigration practices, with the assumption that “sunni men in particular are not at risk under the Taliban.” Linking this back to the drone-warfare element makes me wonder how more technologically advanced wars are changing the proof required to demonstrate one is imperiled or persecuted in one’s country of origin. Based on the investigations, wouldn’t all civilians be sufficiently endangered?
