The Remote History of Remote Warfare

Abstract

The discovery of remote warfare in the War on Terror has resulted in an influx of research within the field of conflict studies. In short, remote warfare differs from conventional warfare because of its physical and moral remoteness from the actual violence. Despite the fact that remote warfare was discovered in the War on Terror, this does not mean that it is solely a contemporary phenomenon. To substantiate this claim, this study compares a case study prior to the War on Terror to the timeless aspects of remote warfare. The fact that the American intervention in the Chilean election and its violent aftermath in the early 1970s cannot be excluded from the definition of remote warfare, attests to the belief that remote warfare is not solely a contemporary phenomenon. This observation led this study to the question as to why conflict analysts indicated remote warfare to be a result of the War on Terror in the first place. Current studies argue three different causes namely (1) the new type of enemy that the United States faced during this war, (2) the unpopularity of this war, and (3) the giant leap in scientific innovation in remote weaponry that was made during this war. However, this study argues that these three supposed timebound causes are not specific to this era. In fact, this combination of societal circumstances also existed during the Vietnam war. Consequently, both the timeless and the timebound aspects of the current understanding of remote warfare are not sufficient to deem this military tactic to be solely contemporary. This revelation has grave consequences for the field of conflict studies. Besides the academic purpose of this field, conflict analysts also operate outside of the academic world. This is especially the case when they scrutinise the ethical challenges of remote warfare in contemporary conflicts. This study aims to add to this crucial exploration by urging conflict analysts to include historical conflicts in their research. This addition will deepen their grasp of this phenomenon and will increase their ability to hold our governments accountable for the actual costs of war.