For veteran peace campaigner Helen John, a battered caravan by the A15 outside RAF Waddington is home for the foreseeable future.
Ms John, 74, a founder of the Greenham Common protests, is demonstrating against the use of unmanned military aircraft.
Accompanied by her “Heinz 57″ dog Charlie, who is nearly 17, she anticipates being there indefinitely. She cooks meals on a camping stove and pegs her socks out to dry on an awning’s guyline.
Banners are displayed from her pitch which include the words: “Grim reaper drones smash flesh and bones in oil rich lands far away, guided by geeks, computer freaks.”
Ms John is opposed to RAF Waddington’s involvement with Reaper drones, which are used in Afghanistan.
The aircraft – remotely controlled by pilots on the ground – are used for surveillance and armed with 500lb laser-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles.
Ms John accuses the military of being assassins and claims that killing by remote control is a Nazi trait simply brought up to date.
She says the origins of drone aircraft lie in the V1 rockets which the Germans used to terrorise Britons in the Second World War.
“What’s happening now is history repeating itself but we have to stop making the same mistakes,” said Ms John, who stood against Tony Blair on a No Star Wars ticket in the 2001 General Election.
“Another generation of young men and more lives lost.
“Doing things by remote control is like playing a game. At least the men of Bomber Command put their lives on the line when they were killing civilians in the Second World War.
“I lived through the Second World War and it was not unusual to have a friend not turn up after an air raid.
“I have been a nurse and a midwife so I have this capacity to save lives.
“Here I am in Lincolnshire in this green and pleasant part of the world – can we not move into the 21st century peaceably?”
Crews from 39 Squadron, which has its headquarters at RAF Waddington, have been piloting drones from a base in Nevada, USA, for several years.
No 13 (Reaper) Squadron is expected to become operational at the base in November this year, which means the planes will be controlled from the UK for the first time.
Ministry of Defence spokesman Suzanna Brookner said: “The MoD only operates its unmanned aircraft in Afghanistan to support UK and coalition forces.
“Reaper is the only remotely piloted aircraft that is armed.
“The vast majority of unmanned aircraft flying is surveillance and reconnaissance in support of our front-line troops.”
Why is it wrong to use un-manned aircraft to patrol our boys routes in Afghanistan? And to if located attack and kill the insurgents caught in the act of planting explosive devices…..the insurgents in Afghanistan might not operate these type of systems but they most certainly do operate cowardly-unmanned roadside bombs!!!….which have killed and seriously wounded hundreds of British Personnel……as i have now completed 2 tours of Afghanistan, I believe I have the right to make these comments here this is not the 60s, 70s and 80′s ban the Bomb!
Joel, you most certainly do have the right to make any comment you see fit. 2 tours is impressive for a pongo. I do though think you should consider the amount of casualties currently being inflicted on our hero’s by Afghan police and army allies. What is the figure currently standing at, at this time? How many have been prevented by UAV use? Impressive machines, helping you sort out our allies from the bad boys no?
How many of these Ied’s killing and maiming our brave lads and lasses are in fact Russian leftevoers…Or even Saudi supplied ordinance paid for by previous hero’s of another generation from your own auspicious regiments in the seventies and eightees…Bit like the old type 42′s and canberras being used against our lads in Falklands…But that’s another story and one you probably cannot be bothered to fathom out.
I personally will stick with another pongo who like you has done his bit, been there seen it, done it whitewashed the sgt’s mess staircase.
Do we really have to put up all the kids names that have been butchered by uav weaponary in Afghanistan alone by fly by seat of your pants adrenelin jockeys? I will if you want me to. Then perhaps you can explain to me their use in protecting you and the hero’s of what was once a fine bunch of pongos and brylcream boys of old, and not the subserviant yank followers who have followed on from them over the years.
One pongo at least can see through the b’s Perhaps there is hope after all, and perhaps you too on your next tour if you have one will maybe get his head out of his arse and see the trees through the woods. In comradeship and reverence to a fellow warrior..Enjoy the parades mate..you deserve em. Me I say…ban the bomb…Cos I too am entitled.
Drone warfare’s deadly civilian toll: a very personal view
by James Jeffrey
I was minutes from ordering a drone strike on a Taliban insurgent – until I realised I was watching an Afghan child at play
“I find myself caught between the need to follow the drone debate and the need to avoid unpleasant memories it stirs. I used drones – unmanned aerial vehicles – during the nadir of my military career that was an operational tour in Afghanistan. I remember cuing up a US Predator strike before deciding the computer screen wasn’t depicting a Talibaninsurgent burying an improvised explosive device in the road; rather, a child playing in the dirt.
After returning from Afghanistan at the end of 2009, I left the British army in 2010. I wanted to put as much distance as I could between myself and the UK, leaving to study in America (where I still reside). By doing so, I inadvertently placed myself in the country that is spearheadingdevelopment in drone technology and use, highlighted by each report of a drone strike and the usual attendant civilian casualties.
Political theorist Hannah Arendt described the history of warfare in the 20th century as the growing incapacity of the army to fulfil its basic function: defending the civilian population. My experiences in Afghanistan brought this issue to a head, leaving me unable to avoid the realization that my role as a soldier had changed, in Arendt’s words, from “that of protector into that of a belated and essentially futile avenger”. Our collective actions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 were, and remain, futile vengeance – with drones the latest technological advance to empower that flawed strategy.
Drones are becoming the preferred instruments of vengeance, and their core purpose is analogous to the changing relationship between civil society and warfare, in which the latter is conducted remotely and at a safe distance so that implementing death and murder becomes increasingly palatable.
The author (at far left) as a lieutenant Challenger 2 troop leader in al-Amarah, Iraq, 2004. Photograph: James Jeffrey
Hyperbole? But I was there. I sat in my camouflaged combats and I took the rules of engagement and ethical warfare classes. And frankly, I don’t buy much, if any, of it now – especially concerning drones. Their effectiveness is without question, but there’s terrible fallout from their rampant use.
Both Pakistan and Yemen are arguably less stable and more hostile to the west as a result of President Obama’s increased reliance on drones. When surveying the poisoned legacy left to the Iraqi people, and what will be left to the Afghan people, it’s beyond depressing to hear of the hawks circling around other theatres like Pakistan and Yemen, stoking the flames of interventionism.
I fear the folly in which I took part will never end, and society will be irreversibly enmeshed in what George Orwell’s 1984 warned of: constant wars against the Other, in order to forge false unity and fealty to the state.
It’s very easy to kill if you don’t view the target as a person. When I went to Iraq as a tank commander in 2004, the fire orders I gave the gunner acknowledged some legitimacy of personhood: “Coax man, 100 meters front.” Five years later in Afghanistan, the linguistic corruption that always attends war meant we’d refer to “hot spots”, “multiple pax on the ground” and “prosecuting a target”, or “maximising the kill chain”.
The Pentagon operates about 7,000 drones and asked Congress for nearly $5bn for drones in the 2012 budget. Before retiring as air force chief of staff, General Norton Schwartz was reported as saying it “was ‘conceivable’ drone pilots in the air force would outnumber those in cockpits in the foreseeable future”. That’s not a brave new world, far from it.
The encroachment of drones into the civilian realm is also gaining momentum. President Obama signed a federal law on 14 February 2012, allowing drones for a variety of commercial uses and for police law enforcement. The skies above may never be the same. As with most of America’s darker elements, such as its gun culture, there’s profit to be made – the market for drones is already valued at $5.9bn and is expected to double in 10 years.
During my time in Afghanistan, drones were primarily supplied by the US as our drone capability was miniscule in comparison. The British military still relies on US support, only owning about five armed drones. They have been busy, though: as of May 2012, the Ministry of Defenceconfirmed these had flown a total of 34,750 hours, and fired 281 missiles and laser-guided bombs.
With continued cuts to the British army’s personnel levels, it isn’t hard to envisage drones increasingly replacing boots on the ground. And since the UK already has the world’s highest number of CCTV cameras, the intrusion of drones into surveillance Britain doesn’t require much imagination.
Technological advancements in warfare don’t have a good track record in terms of unintended consequences. As Chris Hedges reveals in his book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, an estimated 62 million civilians perished in the 20th century’s wars – “nearly 20 million more than the 43 million military personnel killed”.
Will the 21st century repeat such foolish tragedy? Many years still remain. I’d argue we should err on the side of caution and remain immensely wary of drones.”