A conversation on faceless and non-visible violence
The permeation of violence overseas, specifically in middle-eastern regions, garners much attention from news and media outlets. Whether coverage is based on the success of armed forces, or on the tragedy of innocent lives being taken, the use of drones remains a topic of controversy for many.
A large concern regarding drones involves the kind of violence that stems from their use in modern warfare.
Zubair ur Rehman, a 13-year-old Pakistani boy, is a victim of such faceless and violent acts. Having survived a drone strike that saw other members of his family killed in 2013, Zubair spoke in congress about his experiences – the outcome is truly telling of the devastation caused by drones.
“I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey,” said Zubair.
The image stands strong and continues to resonate within the minds of those who heard Zubair speak those words. A 13-year-old should not be afraid of blue skies, yet the permeated threat of an airstrike is a grim reality for the young boy and his family.
As drones are suspended above supposedly hostile territory, with the capability to fire missiles at any given time, a major component of the violence caused by the use of drones resides not in action, but in threat. The presence of drones, along with their capabilities for destruction, offers an extreme amount of insecurity to those in rural Pakistani regions.
A report on the incident written by Amnesty International outlines key features of drone usage and its potential to cause more harm than good.
“The tragedy is that drone aircraft deployed by the USA over Pakistan now instill the same kind of fear in the people of the tribal areas that was once associated only with al-Qaeda and the Taliban,” explained the report.
A crucial issue in the discussion of drone usage revolves around its public perception. It has become increasingly evident that drones are becoming heavily integrated into the public domain. With companies like Amazon exploring implementing a delivery system through drones, it could very well be a reality that North Americans can face. In a way, desensitization towards drone usage would occur among the public.
While there are many benefits to drone use, both in and out of combat, it is important to recognize their ability to cause terror and instill fear in innocent bystanders. To categorize victims such as Zubair ur Rehman, and his grandmother (who was killed in the drone strike) as collateral damage would be unjust.
Rafiq ur Rehman, Zubair’s father, also publicly spoke to congress in late October, 2013, and provided his insight on the attacks that took place which saw his mother killed.
“Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day,” Rehman said. “Some media outlets reported that the attack was on a car, but there is no road alongside my mother’s house. Others reported that the attack was on a house. But the missiles hit a nearby field, not a house. All of them reported that three, four, five militants were killed.”
However, the only person killed that day was not a militant, but Rafiq’s mother.
The power of drones to control and manipulate the psychological mindset of a population is astounding. By hovering over an area persistently, an aura of constant threat lingers among the lives of many innocent people. The danger of drones lies not in the threat of airstrikes in North America, but rather, in forgetting about the blind violence suffered by victims like Zubair and Rafiq. In identifying that drones can be a cause of such harm for those who are completely undeserving, public perceptions of its use can shift from tolerable to condemnable when guided by knowledge and awareness.