MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > Who is really to blame for collateral da...

Who is really to blame for collateral damage?

posted 9 years ago by dave-1662
35 replies | jump to latest

The reason there is collateral damage is because those who want to make war -- the people who blow up women and children at an Easter celebration, to give just the most recent example -- have intentionally chosen civilians as their targets. They intentionally hide their soldiers and their weapons inside peaceful places such as hospitals and neighborhood markets, forcing those who try to stop them to risk hurting the innocent. They do this cynically and deliberately.

They are ultimately to blame for collateral damage. They are those who force the military to choose between letting someone blow up 70 civilians, or to possibly kill 1 civilian in trying to stop them. There is no possible justification for intentionally killing civilians, but it is justified to try and stop these evil aggressors, and to target them and them only as much as possible.

One thing the movie draws out to great effect is the supreme difficulty of conducting war not only remotely by drone, but also remotely by committee. There you are, sitting on the can because you have food poisioning, and someone hands you a cellphone and asks you to approve the killing of a terrorist. It's an impossible question, almost absurd. You cannot conduct war by committee. I'm sure many Britons are comforted by the idea that the chain of decision goes all the way up to the Prime Minister (in real time!), but I was personally horrified. You need to figure out the rules of engagement BEFORE you even get into battle. You can't ask soldiers to put their lives on the line while you call up the phone tree. The Americans look cold by comparison in the movie, but in fact I think they had the better of it. You make your choices and then live with them.

A very thought-provoking movie.

[–] lostn 8 years ago

Technically the bad guys are not to blame for collateral damage, but they chose to conduct war in a way that it will be unavoidable. Yes they did hide themselves amongst civilians, but that doesn't mean pulling the trigger won't make you responsible for killing the civilians.

Legally the bad guys or terrorists are not the ones responsible. Just as legally, a woman who dresses sluttily and invites a rapist is not responsible or at fault for being raped -- the rapist is. She did not do her due diligence to avoid being raped, but that does not mean the crime was her fault, or not the fault of the guilty party.

That said, I'm fully on the side of the americans in this movie, Rickman, and Mirren. One little girl's life as cute as she is, is not worth the loss of potentially 80 more civilians, including more little girls. I thought the woman in the room with Rickman and the Attorney General was a naive, idealistic coward who did not look at the bigger picture. So was anyone else who needed to "refer up". The worst part is, if anyone died to suicide bombings as a result of not dropping the Hellfire, she would not have taken any responsibility for cockblocking the operation nor would she have felt any personal guilt for the people killed by the suicide bombers. Spineless cowards like this put into power are disgraceful.

To be fair to her, I think they Hollywoodized the decision making. In real life war, I don't expect there to have been as much emotional hesitation as there was in the film, not that I am privy to real like war operations conduct. I would imagine that if you're not strong enough willed for a job like this, you wouldn't get the gig. This includes the two Americans operating the drone.

[–] cdreid1 8 years ago

Just so you know drone pilots suffer ptsd at the same rate combat pilots do. And it's easy to sit there and be a sociopath and call people cowards when your rl experience is.. watching movies. Killing human beings is a big deal. When it stops being a big deal to people.. those people have become evil. BTW you ahve a better chance of getting hit by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack. Yet we've spent literally Trillions of dollars, thousands of allied lives and hundreds of thousands of literally innocent lives

[–] bezorta 8 years ago

Who is really to blame for collateral damage?

Maybe the ones who go to the other side of the world to start wars to protect "their interests in the region".

Any comments?

[–] InglouriousSister 8 years ago

The Americans look cold by comparison in the movie, but in fact I think they had the better of it.

I don't agree at all with the coldness point, but the better of it, yes. I'm neither American nor British (nor from any country that is very involved in military missions such as this) so I've no horse in the race, but for once I didn't think America came across "the worst". The US secretary of state who didn't bother discussing the affair was in the right, there were at that point dozens of professionals who had a better understanding of the situation. Besides they were talking of taking out high-level targets, he was right, the fact that one of them was an American citizen shouldn't matter.

It was obvious the people most concerned for that child's life were the American drone pilots and the Somali man who was commandeering the beetle. "If we let Al-Shabaab kill 80 people we win the propaganda war, if we kill one girl they win it." How is this not extremely cold? Realistic though, yes.

Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.