To the gates of Halo
Slate’s William Saletan discusses drones, which he believes to be the future of warfare. The explicit parity between these drones and the video games so many children now grow up with is unsettling, yes, but is it also ultimately irrelevant? Less risk to American soldiers is always a good thing, is it not? This is certainly fair play [whatever that means] within the bounds of warfare. That answer doesn’t satisfy really satisfy me; I’m interested in what you think after reading Saletan’s piece.
There’s also a deeper argument here. “They don’t understand war’s horror the way McCain does,” Saletan writes about tomorrow’s army, those who have grown up playing video games with mass senseless killings. In the past, I think a lot of books written about warfare — novels, not actual accounts — were highly romanticized, visions of the noble soldier fighting alongside his countrymen for the safety and justice of those at home. Now war is often skewed through the glorification of violence. Conversely, the proliferation of war photo-journalists has led to an abundance of images, which I think are used to manipulate as often as to clarify reality. The hawks and doves divide, distilled. How do we come to a realistic view of warfare — both from an on-the-ground perspective as well as from an overarching policy standpoint — in ourselves, or the public at large?
On a slightly tangential note, and *please* do not let this derail all the comments, this is part of the reason why I think McCain’s considerable military experience means quite a lot. For certain things, there’s just no substitute for personal experience.
