Governing Global Security by the Logic of “disposability”: The Meaning of US Drone Warfare within the War on Terror

Governing Global Security through the Logic of “disposability”: The Meaning of US Drone Warfare in the War on Terror


The altering nature of latest modes of warfare is a well-rehearsed subject. The legal-political complexities and moral pitfalls accompanying the ever-growing phenomenon of ‘remote control’ fight, are many and conjure mandatory questions on morality, regulation, and struggle. What narratives of human value, or the protagonists and belligerents of worldwide politics, are manifested by at present’s celebration of distant management struggle? What can these adjustments, and tales, inform us concerning the underlying rationales governing international safety impulses and practices within the 21st century?

This piece explores the manifestation of a logic of ‘disposability’ in modern safety practices, specializing in the securitisation, policing, and killing of designated our bodies and areas within the title of defending ‘humanity’. To perceive what is supposed by a politics of disposability, I draw on each the Foucauldian idea of biopower because the late trendy kernel of (neo)liberal governmentality and Mbembe’s (2003) dialogue on necropolitics because the inescapable different facet of biopolitics. Within the processes of finding the menace, and offering safety, in relation to the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the logics of ‘making live’ and ‘letting die’ are mutually constitutive and floor as epistemology, ontology, and methodology respectively. As such, they’re equally seen within the discourses justifying using power within the GWOT, as within the particular practices they generate.

Noting how debates over ‘the liberal problematic of security’ have a tendency to separate between these advocating for a traditionally materialist account of liberal violence over a biopolitical problematisation of liberal struggle, this paper seeks to reconcile such a divide by an illustration of how sovereign and biopower converge within the training of worldwide safety. This entails elucidating materials and bio-necropolitical logics as simultaneous drivers behind international safety practices.

To this finish, I discover drone assassinations, and their justification below the rubric of the WoT, as a key setting by which to interrogate the enactment of ‘disposability’ in empirical phrases, and the parallel discursive frames by which sure our bodies are rendered harmful, undesirable, and undeserving in order to guard these deemed as deserving of life. This means learning GWOT fight drone applications as an epitomised illustration of late trendy liberal violence, tapping into the prevailing literature on how the preparations linked to liberal peace, somewhat than making the world ‘safer’ de facto generate and legitimise liberal struggle. Viewing these practices and discourses by the lens of the politics of disposability, and the bio-necropolitical nexus whereby a particular lifestyle is protected by securitising and making killable alternative routes of life, additional permits us to reveal such processes of liberal struggle/liberal peace as a part of a protracted historical past of liberal rule.

The “martial face” of liberal peace:
Security as policing, pacification and governmentality

The notion of governmentality comes from Foucauldian writing on the trendy shift in European practices of energy from the sovereign to the biopolitical (see De Angelis 2003). This shift entailed that state rulers not sought to manage their populations by exercising their sovereignty as demonstrated in ‘the right to take life or let live’, however as an alternative by the governing of life. Biopower is thus the converse “power to make something live or to let it die” (Berlant 2007, 756). Though initially supposed to seize the perform of presidency in late trendy Europe, or to be utilized to totally different instances of ‘governmental rationality’, latest scholarship has sought to use the notion of governmentality to the worldwide. This has given rise to a scholarly division between these emphasising the continued significance of the nation-state, sovereign energy, and neo-imperial wishes for ‘reterritorialisation’, and people stressing the rise in biopolitical network-centric relations of energy, disintegrating the eminence of the nation-state and territorial boundaries (usually described as “global governance”; Dingwerth and Pattberg 2006) in explaining the workings of the modern world order (see Kelly 2010; Reid 2005; Wai 2014).

As a part of this debate, ample consideration has been paid to the actual nature of liberal violence and struggle and its position inside latemodern worldwide relations. The literature splits into two overarching camps akin to the divide over whether or not biopower will be stated to have changed sovereign energy within the making of the worldwide. While the previous, in explaining the motivations behind liberal types of struggle, emphasises extra conventional materialist accounts of the necessity for “expanding spaces of capitalist accumulation,” the latter seeks to know the identical system however from the diverging angle of the “global liberal governmentality” (Mabee 2016, 242). Instead of attributing the underlying motivational logic behind liberal problematisations of safety to a direct curiosity in streamlining the amassment of personal capital globally, the rationale is enlarged to include a wider system of inhabitants management, amounting to the management of life itself.

The first is thus extra involved with standard types of political-material and geostrategic incentives and relations of energy – designated as a return of standard territorial imperialist urges (Kelly 2010; Khalidi 2004; Wai 2014). Conversely, governmentality theorists are extra involved in energy as productive, and the numerous methods by which the liberal ‘system’ perpetuates the social relations and types of subjectivity which can be required by the latemodern or neoliberal mode of manufacturing, globally and regionally (Kienscherf 2011; Neocleous 2011b; Rampton and Nadarajah 2017). This type of subjugation can be colonially rooted (Anghie 2007; Scott 1995), as are most issues pertaining to liberal philosophy and political thought (Bell 2014; Losurdo 2011; Mehta 1999). However, the emphasis lies on a special logic of authority and energy much less involved with the outright conquest and rule of territories, sources or labour, and extra with the mechanisms by which these areas and persons are self-regulated into the circuits of liberal governance. To this finish students have rethought modern practices of worldwide safety together with their rootedness in an extended historical past of colonial and imperial governmentality, by way of the ‘policing’ and ‘pacification’ methods by which ‘recalcitrant’ populations or ‘non-liberal worlds’ are subdued to be reintegrated into the liberal social order.

Pacification, in distinction to traditional notions of struggle, implies the act of disciplining or to “police civilisation” (Neocleous 2011a). Rather than worth the direct or full destruction of areas and folks to impress their give up, as could be the standard intention of warfare (colonial and in any other case), to pacify and police means to safe the subjugation of territory and subjectivites in ways in which harness and facilitate their exploitation, versus their demolition and loss. As described inside trendy each insurgency- and counterinsurgency (COIN) technique, the final word goal of such warfare is to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of the inhabitants (see: Bennett 2009; Egnell 2010; Gilmore 2011; Khalili 2012; 2010a; 2010b; Kienscherf 2011; Kilcullen 2006). Rooted in centuries of colonial COIN insurance policies – from the French in Algeria, the British in Malaya and India, to the settlers within the Americas, the US in Vietnam, the Israelis in Palestine, and past (Khalili 2010a; 2012) – the logic of pacifying in order to police, and vice versa, ‘unruly’ populations has engendered a signficant shift from overly ‘kinetic’ or force-based navy technique, to a merging of civil and navy goals and methods (Kienscherf 2011; Kilcullen 2006). Corresponding with the general flip to a human safety paradigm (see UNDP 1994) in worldwide peace, safety, and growth frameworks for the reason that Nineteen Nineties, 21st century COIN doctrine, exacerbated by the safety problematics of the War on Terror, has thus successfully harnessed the colonial ‘hearts and minds’ basis and introduced it into the broader biopolitical undertaking of governing life globally.

Biopower and biopolitics thus assist illuminate this shift to pacification as civil-military technique inside modern international safety practices.  Through “[attending] to the design and deployment of specific governmental rationalities meant to respond to a biopolitical problematization of human (in)security,” Kienscherf (2011, 518) evaluates US latest COIN doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan as a crucial instance of “a program of global pacification.” It shouldn’t be forgotten that American insurance policies in and in the direction of the Middle East for the reason that Thirties have been overtly involved with securing and controlling regional entry to grease, main many to conclude on American ‘democratisation’ tasks within the area as crucial cases of neo-imperialist conquest (of which Iraq and Afghanistan for the reason that early 2000s are key examples; Jones 2012; Khalidi 2004). However, by the biopolitical problematisation of the practices by which the ‘West’ has (a minimum of in rhetoric) approached points of worldwide safety and peace, a way more sophisticated image emerges tying such geopolitical and materials incentives to a bigger and deeper operating association of rationalities, applied sciences, information(s) and logics constituting the liberal order as an entire.

From this view, Kienscherf (2011) can find US COIN doctrine inside an ethical-moral and legal-political discourse strongly rooted in an extended historical past of ‘liberal peace’ traditions (Asad 2010; Khalili 2012; Mamdani 2009; Rampton and Nadarajah 2017), now coming alive once more by the practices enabled throughout the post-9/11 umbrella logic of the War on Terror. Liberal peace, and the Euro-Christian ‘just war’ traditions on which it attracts, is basically predicated upon ‘practicing difference’ whereby each life, violence and types of intervention and justice, are labelled and categorised alongside a valorisation scale of simply v unjust, good v evil (Asad 2010; Krever 2014). Counterinsurgent violence or liberal democratic state warfare is labelled mandatory and ‘civilized’ violence, whereas terrorism or intolerant state violence is demarcated as ‘barbaric’. Interestingly, this distinction holds even when examples of the previous sheds extra civilian and different lives than the latter (see Mamdani 2009). Through moreover “[biopolitically differentiating] between ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ forms of life” (Kienscherf 2011, 517), connecting the latter to a generalised class of “enemies of humanity” and imbuing the previous with the fitting to kill stated enemy to defend the remainder of humanity (Çubukçu 2013, 43; Mamdani 2009), the modern liberal regime of COIN operations and humanitarian intervention has claimed the priviledge of biopolitically defining who poses a hazard to mankind, who must be protected, and by which sovereign types of violence and justice safety is delivered.    

‘Making live’ by ‘letting die’: training disposability 

Attention to the notion of a liberal governmentality additional exposes how the discourses whereby life is valued, differentiate between secure and harmful in keeping with an individual’s utility within the bigger networks of liberal governance and international capital accumulation. This entails that modern worldwide safety practices make judgements on who to guard from whom, how, and why, based mostly on a categorisation of deserving versus undeserving life: who’s of use and who’s dispensable throughout the liberal ontology (see Berlant 2007; Kienscherf 2011; Lafer 2004; Puar 2017; Shakshari 2014). These classifications wouldn’t be doable with out an underlying rationale predicated upon the biopolitical urge to handle and make ‘life live’ (in designated methods). Yet, the administration of life is inseparable from, and necessitates, the simultaneous administration of demise. This is the place the notion of necropolitics takes centre stage (Mbembé 2003), acknowledging that it’s unimaginable to make use of methods of governing life with out additionally governing demise.

To regulate how demise is distributed internationally requires an ethical-moral rationale and social-political rhetoric by which to legalise and legitimise how life and demise is managed, and thus to justify who’s killed within the title of whom (Asad 2010; Çubukçu 2013; Mamdani 2009; Shakshari 2014). This is the place the system attracts upon the metric of secure in opposition to harmful life-forms, and simply in opposition to unjust modes of intervention and violence, basically steered by their positioning inside liberal productive circuits, finally perpetuating a logic of disposability. This can be the place the kernel of liberal types of warfare makes itself recognized within the try to “humanise” the state’s or “international community’s” use of power and acts of violence by regulation (Asad 2010, 3) – significantly seen within the discourses round drone violence, explored beneath.

Disposability implies the without delay biopolitical and necropolitical structuring of populations both throughout the nationwide borders of the liberal world (as seen within the social marginalisation of migrant, diasporic or poor populations in liberal democracies; Giroux 2006; Puar 2017) or throughout the worldwide organisation of useful resource allocation, manufacturing patterns, routinized civil, navy, and financial intervention websites (to call a number of points), in ways in which favour the safety and sustenance of sure populations on the expense of others (see Sabaratnam 2017, on how this results growth support constructions). Thus, the notion of disposability is relevant each to cases the place the worldwide humanitarian regime or unilaterally appearing liberal democracies, in varied methods step in to ‘protect humanity’ by the lively use of power, usually with massive numbers of civilian casualties (higher generally known as ‘collateral damage’ – central examples being Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Côte d’Ivoire and Libya 2011, Mali 2013); as to much less overt processes of nationwide and worldwide structural violence, the place designated components of the world’s populations are marginalised in ways in which expose them to the realities of social or gradual demise (see Berlant 2007; Mbembé 2003; Sabaratnam 2017).  

Slow demise or the development of ‘death worlds’ check with the suspended types of dying deriving from people or communities’ simultaneous exclusion from the infrastructures by which life (in its fullest sense) is sustained, whereas hindering their instant dying – what Puar (2017, 144) defines because the logic of “will not let or make die.” This can occurr when being denied entry to the state’s social safety nets, properly exemplified by Giroux’s (2006) demonstration of the disposability politics at play within the US within the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It may also come up from being unable to partake on equal phrases within the worldwide financial system writ massive, as illustrated by the results of an prolonged imposition of financial sanctions in opposition to states resembling Iran (Shakhsari 2014). Of curiosity to this paper is how the logic of disposability, with accompanying simply struggle discourses, have develop into integral to the justification and perpetuation of each social demise and the ‘kinetic’ or ‘quick’ demise related to the navy practices exercised within the title of humanity below the rubric of the War on Terror. The subsequent part will discover drone warfare as one such central aspect of 21st century liberal violence, in rhetoric in search of to “extinguish” terror and promote secure “species-life” by defending it from its harmful kin (Kienscherf 2011, 521).

But first, a word of clarification. The level with this contribution is to not make a case for the authority of worldwide governmentality theories over these extra traditionally realist and materialist (say, ‘capitalist imperialist’), however to discover the methods by which the bio- and necropolitical nature of liberal peace and struggle depend on the train of sovereign energy – and vice versa. Taking subject with the concept that the modes of energy and underlying rationalities explored above need to be mutually unique, I don’t search to disqualify materialist accounts of worldwide liberal order and the sovereign safety practices necessitated inside this regime. Rather, the aim right here is to focus on the extent to which the fabric imperatives of increasing international capitalist accumulation coalesce with, and compel, the rationalities and pacification applied sciences enabled by a bigger association of liberal governmentality.

The logic of disposability and the essentially necropolitical deliberations biopolitical problematisations of safety give rise to, are thus integral templates to either side of the liberal struggle debate. Exploring the relationality, somewhat than exclusivity, between these types of energy and motivational constructions is crucial to raised perceive each the pursuits which can be being safeguarded within the title of the War on Terror, and the previous and novel (social, political, financial, authorized) dynamics which can be forming because of this. This piece thus follows within the steps of Reid (2015), who got down to show the mutual structure of sovereign energy and biopower (reterritorialisation and deterritorialisation) within the present world order. A declare he made by revealing the extent to which the US sovereign invasion of Iraq in 2003, relied upon the authorized and logistical infrastructures erected by the UN and the worldwide biopolitical humanitarian regime as an entire.

Death by drone: training international safety within the War on Terror

‘Remote control war’ by the utilization of missile-equipped uninhabited aerial autos (UAVs), or ‘drones’, has develop into institutionalised as one of many chief counterinsurgency/terrorist ways in US international coverage since 9/11. Though initially solely directed at targets related to al-Qaeda, the 60 phrases on the coronary heart of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) written within the hours after the assaults in 2001 that may kind the War on Terror’s authorized basis, cemented the ambiguous definition of who is taken into account a justified goal of American state power.

… the President is permitted to make use of all mandatory and acceptable power in opposition to these nations, organizations, or individuals he determines deliberate, licensed, dedicated, or aided the terrorist assaults that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or individuals, with the intention to forestall any future act (Public Law 107-40-Sept. 18, 2001).

Two drone applications had been established, one hooked up to the navy and working publicly in ‘recognised war zones’ resembling Iraq and Afghanistan. The different was appended to the covert operations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), authorised to secretly goal terror suspects anyplace on the earth together with the place US troops are absent (Sterio 2012, 198). This program was considerably expanded below the Obama administration, granting the CIA additional govt rights of who to focus on in addition to much less transparency relating to how these choices are made. The important theatres of US drone warfare, aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, are Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. In Pakistan, there was a minimal of 440 confirmed strikes since 2004, reporting between 2500 to 4000 deaths of which 400 to 1000 are believed to be civilian casualties (The Bureau 2020). In September 2019 studies had been manufactured from greater than 40 strikes a day in Afghanistan (Purkiss 2019), a rustic that additionally noticed a threefold rise in civilian casualties on account of US airstrikes in comparison with the identical interval in 2018 (Cheeseman 2019).

The utilization of drones has easily adopted in step with latest authorized/ethical discourses depicting Twenty first-century liberal navy applied sciences as able to “sanitary, sensitive and scrupulous” struggle: deploying cleaner, sharper, totally optimised, and controllable modes of power understood as “surgical” strikes and “precision” warfare (Gregory 2011, 188; Nixon 2012, 207). These scientific tropes incise the drone program inside a bigger regime of ‘techno-biopolitical’ experience by which American, and different liberal democratic policymakers, can symbolize drone killings as an moral, smart, and finally virtuous, type of struggle. Via this narrative, technological practices are legitimated as mandatory cures prescribed to extinguish and deal with the “political cancers, diseases, and illnesses” constituted by terror suspects (Gregory 2011; Schwarz 2016, 59).

The rising variety of critics difficult the technocratic and ethical frames drawn on to legitimise navy drone utilization has illuminated a variety of paradoxes and dilemmas, from the inherent asymmetry of the drone struggle and the flawed foundations of such intelligence gathering and precision concentrating on to the difficulties of delineating civilians from enemies (Espinoza and Afxentiou 2018, 296). The notion of ‘clinical’ warfare is illusory at greatest, and collateral harm numbers are a lot greater than advocates admit. In addition, the destruction of dwelling areas and the disruption of social, political, financial, and by extension psychological worlds, have devastating results on whole communities (see Cavallero, Sonnenberg, and Knuckey 2012). The spatial, psychological, physiological and environmental penalties of such social ruptures (Behrouzan 2016; Das et. al. 2000) stretch far past the instant aftermath of particular person strikes. Combat drone utilization additionally extends American warmakers’ detachment from the precise websites of violence, making the notion of “virtuous war” (Gregory 2011) ring hole in gentle of the disproportionality between executors and recipients of power.

Seen as focused drone killings have been a staple use of power since 9/11, drone applications have moreover develop into seamlessly embedded throughout the narrative frames of the War on Terror, which pre-emptively criminalise something associated to Islam or the Arab world (see Howell and Shryock 2003; Kapoor and Narkowicz 2017; Li 2018; Sabsay 2012; Puar 2017). Through this logic, liberal democracies and wider worldwide safety frameworks, have come to securitise all ‘illiberal’ Muslim communities, states and areas, to warrant more and more militarised types of intervention and preventive measures in opposition to them. Drone violence has develop into central to this militarised hierarchy, whereby sure our bodies by way of covert decision-making processes are deemed harmful and thus killable exterior of the rule of regulation, within the title of humanity writ massive. The extent to which drone strikes thus map on to GWOT frames of the Muslim Other as the final word “denizen” (Kapoor and Narkowicz 2017), harmful species-life, or Enemy of Mankind within the post-Cold War period, underpin the drone as a key characteristic in American practices of disposability.

In this regard, drone warfare reappears as an epitomised expression of the political-moral narratives and authorized frames constituting the liberal peace/liberal struggle nexus, because it so neatly corresponds with the binary tales of the great (liberal) order versus the unhealthy (intolerant, right here named Muslim) order in worldwide politics. To this extent, Neocleous (2013) demonstration of the colonial policing character of airpower generally, of which drone energy is the most recent manifestation, additional elucidates the simultaneous bio-necropolitical and sovereign character of drone power. Biopolitical within the sense that drone applications search to manage ‘unruly’ areas by eliminating the inhabitants pathologies GWOT narratives mark as potential liabilities, finally exercising necro energy by the sovereign use of power.

Uniting these modes of energy and underlying motives, are the logics and rhetorics by which necropolitical practices of distributing demise are justified and facilitated. Drone violence exemplifies one such observe. At the identical time, drone struggle contains a aspect of latest warfare applied sciences significantly exposing the methods by which the liberal peace/liberal violence nexus perpetuates the disposability of designated populations, by concurrently granting their immediate and suspended dying. This is seen in the truth that drone strikes kill ‘kinetically’, whereas additionally engendering the manifestation of demise worlds and the suspended types of dying ensuing from the infrastructural destruction they wreck, demolishing city in addition to rural milieus, properties, technique of subsistence, and communal life-worlds – even when (claiming to) straight goal solely particular person our bodies. The sensation of suspended demise additionally arises from the fixed concern amongst these communities who’re designated as enemies of the liberal order throughout the GWOT metric, of firstly turning into outlined as harmful species-life which secondly warrants their demise by drone, with or with out warning (see Cavallero, Sonnenberg and Knuckey 2012).

Global safety and personal capital

This far, we now have explored the convergence of bio- and necropolitics and sovereign energy, in facilitating the utilization of fight drones in 21st century types of distant warfare, together with how the logic of ‘disposability’ allows, and justifies, decision-making throughout the post-9/11 worldwide peace and safety structure. There is, nonetheless, an important facet lacking on this account of the ‘drone-era’, particularly: the situation of worldwide non-public capital in worldwide safety practices.

It is estimated that the worldwide navy drone market will generate a income of USD 21.76 billion by 2026 (FBI 2020). The key gamers encompassing massive shares of this market are within the majority North American, together with GA-ASI, Northrop Grumman Corporation, AeroVironment Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation and Boeing. Other important producers emanate from Israel and France, in addition to China and the UAE (AT 2019; M&M 2018). As acknowledged in a report from 2017, “the global UAV market will be dominated by the US throughout the [decade long] forecast period” (GD 2017). GA-ASI accounts for the manufacturing of what’s thought of probably the most deadly (learn profitable) fight/armed UAV, named Predator C Avenger. The Avenger is a growth of the earlier groundbreaking Reaper, each of which have been extensively utilized by US forces in Afghanistan (Gregory 2011, 207).

The undeniable fact that GA-ASI, exemplifying the type of actor current on the coronary heart of the worldwide navy drone market, is a personal firm working throughout nationwide governments and non-state beneficiaries motivated by non-public revenue considerations (see:, elucidates the extent to which nationwide and worldwide safety practices are compromised by and compelled to compromise with, the logic of capital accumulation. Though temporary, this abstract thus confirms the scale, and consequent clout, of each nationwide and personal capital pursuits in sustaining a world safety local weather by which navy drones are accepted to the purpose of constituting frequent observe. Despite the Asia Pacific area comprising a central market, manufacturing patterns additional spotlight the diploma to which stated applied sciences are foremost produced by and traded between liberal states.

In gentle of this essay’s dialogue on how drone violence is getting used – in opposition to whom, for what functions, inside which narrative frames and securitised contexts – the worldwide navy drone trade helps disclose the methods by which capital accumulation imperatives, sovereign energy, and ‘return to imperialism’ rationalities, intersect, and overlap with, much less tangible techniques and applied sciences of biopolitical governance. Global non-public capital circuits represent a curious setting, because it makes clear the free boundaries between, and frequent coalescence of, international governance (the worldwide decentralisation of energy and lessened authority of nationwide borders) and sovereign energy practices (the power of the nation-state to nonetheless regulate and defend the circulation of capital, items, and labour). Given the extent to which distant warfare is stimulated by the income generated by the drone market, drone violence thus affords a very attention-grabbing web site by which to review the mutuality between bio-necropolitics and sovereign energy on the one hand, and their intersections with non-public capital pursuits, on the opposite.

This web site, thus, constitutes a revealing know-how of liberal safety praxis, whereby demise is allotted in order to pacify recalcitrant populations, justified by the rhetorics of ‘clean’, ‘surgical’, and so ‘humane’ warfare (simply violence, for a simply trigger; Asad 2010; Mamdani 2009). However, on the identical time, drone warfare makes equally seen and tangible, the networks and pursuits aligning in a world military-industrial complicated by which non-public, company, and nationwide considerations for capital accumulation encourage the manufacturing and utilisation of drone applied sciences in late trendy types of struggle and policing. This additional demonstrates how financial drivers are allowed to trump such alleged liberal hallmark considerations as selling peace, safety, human rights, and the rule of regulation (see Lafer 2004) – regardless that the narratives surrounding drones declare to have these rules in thoughts. Such is the oxymoron inherent in liberal peace practices.   


Drawing on the fabric and discursive processes that naturalise and normalise the utilization of fight drones within the worldwide, I conclude that liberal struggle, whereas wrapped within the rhetorics of liberal peace, governs modern international safety practices by the simultaneous train of biopower and sovereign energy. Here, pacification and pre-emption within the type of merged civil-military methods, have develop into the central mechanisms by which to attain the type of worldwide safety envisioned and required by the liberal ontology. The necropolitical logic of disposability is firmly embedded inside these modes of energy, together with the ethical-moral and social-political rationalities and practices of categorisation – good in opposition to evil, simply in opposition to unjust, secure in opposition to harmful, and, finally, liberal in opposition to intolerant – to which they’re hooked up.

In this sense, disposability – understood as a precept structuring each the administration of life and the distribution of demise, nationally and internationally – serves the pursuits of personal/company, nationwide and transnational actors in search of to broaden the areas of capital accumulation, as a lot because the extra diffuse networks of energy and accumulation included inside international liberal governmentality.

Drone applications, and their surgical rhetorical justifications, provide yet one more illuminating instance of the lengthy view of the ‘martial face’ of liberal rule, and the violence embedded throughout the practices and problematics of liberal peace (Dillon and Reid 2009); manifesting repeatedly within the “bloodied hands and honeyed tongues” (Khalili 2012, 5) of liberal democratic policymakers. As such they’re half and parcel in a protracted historical past of worldwide liberal governmentality and former colonial, now turned ‘humanitarian’, governmental rationalities. Yet, in as a lot as they function by the justifications offered by bio-necropolitical problematisations of life and demise globally, they proceed to depend on the power of the state and the worldwide group as an extension of the liberal democratic order, to train older types of sovereign energy and facilitate the ‘reterritorialisation’ makes an attempt now demanded by the Global War on Terror.

The classes right here learnt, are many. However, one factor stands out as key in lastly addressing the numerous points arising from modern distant management warfare, together with the lack of legality, ethics and transparency in governing the practices of struggle. Specifically, to acknowledge the triparty mutual structure between: liberal emancipatory discourses (related to the establishments of worldwide governance fending for the safety of ‘humanity’ and ‘democracy’); sovereign assertions of energy (seen within the US’ skill to kill ‘enemy others’ with out neither accountability nor warning removed from the sovereign territory of America); and the authority of capital over shaping the that means of safety and peace throughout the globe. Without exposing this continuum of pursuits and motivations, the actual politics of liberal demise dealing within the worldwide, will stay hidden behind a generations’ previous monopoly on ‘protecting humanity’.

Works Cited

Anghie, Antony. 2007. “Governance and Globalization, civilization and commerce.” In Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of worldwide regulation., by Antony Anghie, 245-272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Asad, Talal. 2010. “Thinking about terrorism and just war.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1): 3-24.

AT. 2019. “The world’s top combat drones”, Army Technology, (27 Jun 2019). Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

Behrouzan, Orkideh. 2016. Prozak Diaries: Psychiatry and Generational Memory in Iran. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bell, Duncan. 2014. “What is Liberalism?” Political Theory 42 (6): 682–715.

Bennett, Huw. 2009. ““A Very Salutary Effect”: The Counter-Terror Strategy within the Early Malayan Emergency, June 1948 to December 1949.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 32 (3): 415-444.

Berlant, Lauren. 2007. “Slow Death (Sovereignty, Obesity, Lateral Agency).” Critical Inquiry (The University of Chicago Press) 33 (4): 754-780.

Cavallero, J., S. Sonnenberg, and S. Knuckey. 2012. “Living under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan.” Stanford: International Human Rights and Conflict Resolutions Clinic (Stanford Law School).

Cheeseman, Abbie. 2019. “Threefold rise in civilian casualties from US air strikes in Afghanistan”, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, July 31 2019. Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

Çubukçu, Ayça. 2013. “The Responsibility to Protect: Libya and the Problem of Transnational Solidarity.” Journal of Human Rights 12 (1): 40-58.

Das, Veena, Arthur Kleinman, Mamphela Ramphele, and Pamela Reynolds, . 2000. Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

De Angelis, Massimo. 2003. “Neoliberal Governance, Reproduction and Accumulation.” The Commoner 7.

Dillon, Michael, and Julian Reid. 2009. The Liberal Way of War. London: Routledge

Dingwerth, Klaus, and Phillip Pattberg. 2006. “Global governance as a perspective on world politics.” Global governance: a evaluate of multilateralism and worldwide organizations 12 (2): 185-203.

Egnell, Robert. 2010. “Winning “hearts and minds”? A crucial evaluation of counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan.” Civil Wars 12 (3): 282-303.

Espinoza, Marina, and Afxentis Afxentiou. 2018. “Editors’ introduction: drones and state terrorism.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 11 (2): 295-300.

FBI. 2020. “Military Drone Market Size to Reach USD 21.76 Billion by 2026”, Fortune Business Insights, (17 Feb 2020). Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

Foucault, Michel. 2003 [1976]. “Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France.” Lecture 11, 17 March 1976. Picador Press. 239-264.

GD. 2017. “The Global Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Market 2017-2027”, Global Data, (Oct 2017). Retrieved at:–the-global-military-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uav-market-2017-2027/ [Accessed 07-05-20]

Gilmore, Jonathan. 2011. “A kinder, gentler counter-terrorism: Counterinsurgency, human security and the War on Terror.” Security Dialogue 41 (1): 21–37.

Giroux, Henry. 2006. Stormy climate: Katrina and the politics of disposability. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers.

Gregory, Derek. 2011. “From a View to a Kill Drones and Late Modern War.” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (7-8): 188-215.

Howell, Sally, and Andrew Shryock. 2003. “Cracking Down on Diaspora: Arab Detroit and America’s “War on Terror”.” Anthropological Quarterly 76 (3): 443-462.

Jones, Toby. 2012. “America, Oil, and War in the Middle East.” Journal of American History 99 (1): 208-218.

Kapoor, Nisha, and Kasia Narkowicz. 2017. “Unmaking citizens: passport removals, pre-emptive policing and the reimagining of colonial governmentalities.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 1-18.

Kelly, M.G.E. 2010. “International Biopolitics: Foucault, Globalisation and Imperialism.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 57 (123): 1-26.

Khalidi, Rashid. 2004. Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America’s Perilous Path within the Middle East. Boston: Beacon Press.

Khalili, Laleh. 2010b. “Gendered practices of counterinsurgency.” Review of International Studies 37 (4): 1471-1491.

Khalili, Laleh. 2010a. “The Location of Palestine in Global Counterinsurgencies.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 42 (3): 413- 433.

—. 2012. Time within the Shadows: Confinement in Counterinsurgencies. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kienscherf, Markus. 2011. “A programme of global pacification: US counterinsurgency doctrine and the biopolitics of human (in)security.” Security Dialogue 42 (6): 517–535.

Kilcullen, David. 2006. “Twenty-Eight Articles: Fundamentals of Company- Level Counterinsurgency.” IO Sphere Journal 29–35.

Krever, Tor. 2014. “Dispensing Global Justice.” New Left Review 85: 67 – 97.

Lafer, Gordon. 2004. “Neoliberalism by other means: the “war on terror” at house and overseas.” New Political Science 26 (3): 323-346.

Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. 2005. “Policing and global governance.” In Power in Global Governance, edited by Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall , 59-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li, Darryl. 2018. “From Exception to Empire: Sovereignty: Carceral Circulation, and the ‘Global War on Terror.’.” In Ethnographies of U.S. Empire., edited by Carole McGranahan and John Collins, 456-475. Duke University Press.

Losurdo, Domenico. 2011. “What is Liberalism? .” In Liberalism: A Counter-History. . Verso Books.

Mabee, Bryan. 2016. “From ‘liberal war’ to ‘liberal militarism’: United States security policy as the promotion of military modernity.” Critical Military Studies 2 (3): 242-261.

Mamdani, Mahmood. 2009. “Responsibility to Protect or Right to Punish?” In Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror, by Mahmood Mamdani, 271-300. Doubleday.

Mbembé, J.-A., and Libby Meintjes. 2003. “Necropolitics.” Public Culture (Duke University Press) 15 (1): 11-40.

Mehta, Uday Singh. 1999. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

M&M. 2018. “Military Drones Market Report”, Markets and Markets, (Oct 2018). Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

Neocleous, Mark. 2013. “Air power as police power.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31: 578 – 593.

Neocleous, Mark. 2011b. ““A Brighter and Nicer New Life”: Security as Pacification.” Social & Legal Studies 20 (2): 191-208.

Neocleous, Mark. 2011a. “The police of civilization: the war on terror as civilizing offensive.” International Political Sociology 5 (2): 144-159.

Puar, Jasbir Okay. 2017. The Right to Maim. Durham: Duke University Press.

Puar, Jasbir. 2017. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press.

PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18. 2001. “Joint Resolution”, 107th Congress, 115 STAT 225. Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

Purkiss, Jessica. 2019. “Almost 40 strikes every day in Afghanistan last month”, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, October 29 2019. Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

Rampton, David, and Suthaharan Nadarajah. 2017. “A long view of liberal peace and its crisis.” European Journal of International Relations 23 (2): 441-465.

Reid, Julian. 2005. “The Biopolitics of the War on Terror: a critique of the ‘return of imperialism’ thesis in international relations.” Third World Quarterly 26 (2): 237-252.

Ringmar, Erik. 2013. “”How to battle savage tribes”: The international struggle on terror in historic perspective.” Terrorism and Political Violence 25 (2): 264-283.

Sabaratnam, Meera. 2017. Decolonising Intervention: International Statebuilding in Mozambique. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Sabsay, L. 2012. “The emergence of the other sexual citizen: Orientalism and the modernization of sexuality.” Citizenship Studies 16 (5-6): 605-623.

Schwarz, Elke. 2016. “Prescription drones: On the techno-biopolitical regimes of contemporary ‘ethical killing’.” Security Dialogue 47 (1): 59–75.

Scott, David. 1995. “Colonial Governmentality.” Social Text 43: 191-220.

Shakhsari, S. 2014. “Killing me Softly with Your Rights: Queer Death and the Politics of Rightful Killing.” In Queer Necropolitics, edited by J. Haritaworn, A. Kuntsman and S. Posocco, 93-111. Abingdon: Routledge.

Sterio, Milena. 2012. “The United States’ Use of Drones in the War on Terror: The (Il)legality of Targeted Killings under International Law.” Case W. Res. Journal of International Law 45 (1).

The Bureau, 2020. “Strikes in Pakistan”, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Retrieved at: [Accessed 07-05-20]

[UNDP], United Nations Development Programme. 1994. ‘Human Development Report’, Retrieved at: [Accessed 06-05-20]

Wai, Zubairu. 2014. “The empire’s new clothes: Africa, liberal interventionism, and contemporary world order.” Review of African Political Economy 41 (142): 483-499 .

Written at: SOAS University of London
Written for: Meera Sabaratnam and Fiona Adamson
Date Written: May 2020

Further Reading on E-International Relations

You may also like...