That there are problems in the ethics of war thrown up by drone technology is not in doubt. Earlier this year I posted a link to a piece by Michael Walzer that discussed some of them: in particular, the danger of constraints being lowered against the killing of non-combatants. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago, Waleed Aly, lecturer in politics at Monash University, also makes reference to this aspect of the issue, but he then goes on to propose a rather extraordinary notion:
Whatever the truth of these claims and counter-claims, perhaps the best objections to drone warfare have nothing to do with pragmatic arguments over counting bodies. The central problem is drones permit a kind of no-risk, low-cost warfare. Indeed, they so radically and fundamentally alter the nature of war that they risk making war seem far less grave, and far easier to wage.
War is a kind of contract. Each side confronts the other, with the risk of death and defeat. In short, war should come at a cost. That contract is shredded when you're attacked by something that cannot itself be killed. It's not remotely a fair fight. It's scarcely a fight at all. For all the horror, pain, and gore of the battlefield, there's something to be said for it. It's one of the very best reasons every nation has not to go to war. The greater the sacrifice, the graver the decision to fight. That's why the Vietnam War – fought by people conscripted into the army – was so much more toxic for the US government than the Iraq War. You're more likely to proceed with a strike based on sketchy intelligence if you're risking only the lives of faceless civilians, and not any of your soldiers. The prospect of waging a war without sacrifice is a frightening prospect. It makes war that much more disposable; that much closer to being waged on a whim.
Where Aly gets the idea of war being a contract involving a fair sharing of costs between the two sides is beyond me. This would mean, for instance, a country with air superiority forswearing the use of it, not using tanks against infantry, only fighting tough wars and not potentially easier ones. It's a fanciful notion, foreign to the realities of warfare.