If we slide into one of those rare moments of military honesty, we realize that the technical demands of modern warfare are so complex a considerable percentage of our material is bound to malfunction even before it is deployed against a foe. We no longer waste manpower by carrying the flag into battle. Instead we need battalions of electronic engineers to keep the terrible machinery grinding.

– Ernest K Gann, The Black Watch

CNN’s Nic Robertson recently did some in-depth reporting on how the Air Force is conducting significant operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by remote control. In a half-hour special called “Warfare by Remote” he looks into the technology and the implications of fighting a battle in which our troops are halfway around the world from the combat.

In some ways it is ironic that CNN — the news outlet that rose to prominence in no small measure because of its coverage of the first Gulf War — would be covering this story. After all, stationing pilots in the Nevada desert is only the latest step in a progression that has been going on for decades, allowing the US to fight battles with increasingly less personal risk to our soldiers even while we increase the amount of damage that we can inflict on our adversaries.

Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that there are unintended psychological consequences when a soldier is able to obliterate dozens of people with absolutely no risk to his own person. While we support our troops and wish nothing more than their safe return, introducing the “convenience” of remote control to warfare seems like a morally dangerous proposition.

Warfare by Remote, part I

Warfare by Remote, part II

Warfare by Remote, part III