Research Paper格式：How Do the Geopolitics of the War on Terror Justify Intervention and Targeted Killing?

Research Paper格式-反恐战争的地缘政治如何证明干预和针对性是正当的？本文是一篇留学生研究性论文Research Paper写作参考，本文将指出，反恐战争的地缘政治使得干预和有针对性的杀戮成为正当的，其依据是美国的道德例外主义，这一点通过全球军事存在得到了证明。本篇研究论文将首先介绍经典地缘政治的概念，分析托马斯·巴尼特的《五角大楼的新地图》，强调以国家安全的名义代表战略利益。

Introduction 引言
This research paper will argue that the geopolitics of the war on terror has allowed intervention and targeted killing to be justified on the basis of American moral exceptionalism exemplified through a global military presence. This research paper will firstly introduce the concept of classical geopolitics, analysing Thomas Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map” in highlighting the representation of strategic interests in the name of national security.
The first counter-argument to Barnett will introduce the critical geopolitical concepts of imagined geographies and metaphors to reflect upon how Barnett justifies intervention; where a simplification of the political landscape aims to advance state military interests under the concept of integration.
巴尼特的第一个反论点将介绍想象中的地理和隐喻的关键地缘政治概念，以反思巴尼特如何为干预辩护；政治格局的简化旨在在一体化概念下推进国家军事利益。
This paper will then problematise the concept of pre-emption in the context of 9/11, arguing that conceptualising 9/11 as an isolated event has allowed for the production of a renewed narrative of American exceptionalism. This will be exemplified through the 2002 State of the Union Address, and 2002 National Security Strategy, focusing on the discourse of time and its articulation of emergency that personifies western values as in need of saving through intervention in the Middle-East.
然后，本文将对911背景下的先发制人概念进行质疑，认为将911概念化为一个孤立事件，有助于产生新的美国例外主义叙事。这将通过2002年国情咨文和2002年国家安全战略来证明，重点是时间的论述及其对紧急情况的阐述，它将西方价值观拟人化，认为需要通过干预中东来拯救。
This research paper will then problematise drone strikes in the context of Barack Obama’s presidency as an example of a scopic regime that justifies targeted killing through a representation of a surgical execution of war, consequently legitimating the global military presence of the U.S and the values it aims to represent.
然后，本文将以奥巴马总统任期内的无人机袭击为例，探讨无人机袭击的问题，作为一个直观政权的例子，该政权通过手术执行战争来证明有针对性的杀杀是正当的，从而使美国的全球军事存在及其旨在代表的价值观合法化。
Barnett’s view of the world within Classical Geopolitics 巴内特在古典地缘政治中的世界观
Barnett (2010) conceptualises global space through a physical demarcation of the global developed “core” from the underdeveloped “gap”, based on integration into a globalised world, and argues that the gap can only integrate through U.S military involvement in global affairs (2010, p.74). Barnett’s reasoning for this can be understood through classical geopolitics, which relies on thinking about global space like an objective science in order to explain state behaviour. Toal (1996) defines classical geopolitics as “the institutionalization of geography as a self-fashioned ‘scientific’ discipline” (1996, p.21). Consequently, state-motivated interests are “naturalised” under the perception of a naturally evolving global system.
巴内特基于融入全球化世界，通过将全球发达的“核心”与不发达的“差距”进行物理划分，对全球空间进行了概念化，并认为差距只能通过美国军事介入全球事务来整合。巴内特对此的推理可以通过经典地缘政治来理解，它依赖于像客观科学一样思考全球空间，以解释国家行为。Toal将古典地缘政治定义为“将地理学制度化为一门自成一格的‘科学’学科”。因此，国家驱动的利益在自然演变的全球体系的认知下被“自然化”。 
In Barnett’s work, his conceptualisation of global space relies on integration to naturalise military involvement. Dalby (2003) states that geopolitics is about the “active spatialization” of global space in which “political elites and mass publics act in the world in pursuit of their own identities and interests” (2003, p.62). For Barnett, this applies to terrorism, stating that 9/11 “did the U.S national-security establishment a huge favor” (2010, p. 76), as such an event allowed for the demarcation between the core and the gap to be made thus legitimating intervention via. integration by recognising the gap as in need of development. Moreover, classical geopolitics is dependent upon acting within demarcations of space, and for Barnett relies on identifying areas of insecurity (Bialasiewicz et al. 2007, p.411) to act upon. This paper will now critique Barnett through introducing imagined geographies and metaphor, and decentralise a western-centric view of global power to highlight how intervention is justified through the construction of an “other”.
在巴内特的作品中，他对全球空间的概念化依赖于整合，使军事介入自然化。Dalby指出，地缘政治是关于全球空间的“主动空间化”，“政治精英和大众公众在世界上行动以追求自己的身份和利益”。对于巴内特来说，这适用于恐怖主义，他说9/11“美国国家安全体系建立了巨大的优势”，因为这样的事件允许在核心和间隙之间划分界限，从而使干预合法化。通过认识到需要发展的差距，实现一体化。此外，经典地缘政治依赖于在空间界限内采取行动，而巴内特则依赖于确定不安全区域。本文现在将通过引入想象中的地理和隐喻来批判巴内特，并分散西方中心主义的全球权力观，以强调如何通过构建“他者”来证明干预是合理的。
Barnett’s Map as Imagined Geography 巴内特的地图作为想象的地理
In problematising Barnett’s claims, Said’s (1978) concept of imagined geographies explains how the construction of difference legitimates intervention by representing American influence as a global solution to a designated ‘other’; the gap. Imagined geographies are defined as the “universal practice of designating in ones mind a familiar space which is ‘ours’, and an unfamiliar space beyond ours which is ‘theirs’” (1978, p.54). Gregory (2004) describes this concept as “imaginations given substance” (2004, p.17), due to its subjectivity in establishing one perceived reality from another.
在质疑巴内特的说法时，赛义德的想象地理概念解释了差异的构建是如何通过将美国的影响力作为一个指定“他者”的全球解决方案而使干预合法化的；间隙。想象的地理被定义为“在人们的脑海中指定一个熟悉的空间是‘我们的’，而一个超出我们的陌生空间是‘他们的’的普遍实践”。Gregory将这一概念描述为“想象赋予物质”，因为它在从另一个感知的现实中建立一个感知现实的主观性。
For Barnett, the gap represents the other due to a contradiction in his perceptions of global space. Barnett conceptualises the struggle between the core and the gap in the context of globalisation, arguing that “Disconnectedness defines danger” (2010, p.74). However, this globalised system that represents a break down of traditional borders exists within the understanding of American exceptionalism that in Barnett’s understanding, should be reinforced by traditional military means. Dalby (1990) outlines “Atlanticism” in describing American hegemony as the “global economic system built by the US and its multinational corporations” (1990, pp.173-174).
对于巴内特来说，这一差距代表了另一个，因为他对全球空间的看法存在矛盾。巴内特将全球化背景下核心与差距之间的斗争概念化，认为“脱节定义了危险”。然而，这一代表着打破传统边界的全球化体系存在于美国例外主义的理解之中，在巴内特的理解中，应该通过传统的军事手段来加强这种例外主义。Dalby将美国霸权描述为“美国及其跨国公司建立的全球经济体系”，概述了“大西洋主义”。
Consequently, Barnett’s understanding is “containing and making imaginative geographies”: specifying the ways ‘the world is’ and, in so doing, actively (re)-making that same world” (2007, p.411). The “other” is defined by constructing the gap not as a natural construction of space, but established truths that form the basis of intervention. Sustaining difference requires that antagonisms and political processes be depoliticised in order to represent divisions as natural processes (1996, p.54), evident with Barnett because a contracted process like Globalisation is simplified to adherence to particular western-oriented values the U.S encapsulates in global space, primarily “connectedness”.
因此，巴内特的理解是“包含并创造富有想象力的地理”：指明“世界是”的方式，并在这样做的过程中积极（重新）创造同样的世界”。“他者”的定义是通过构建间隙来实现的，而不是作为空间的自然构建，而是形成干预基础的既定事实。维持分歧需要将对抗和政治进程非政治化，以便将分歧表现为自然过程，巴内特的这一点很明显，因为像全球化这样的契约化进程被简化为遵守美国在全球空间中封装的特定西方价值观，主要是“连通性”。       
Subsequently, re-making the world justifies military intervention because an implicit form of control over global space is the consequence of redefining space, which arguably simplifies the significance of military intervention. Moreover, Barnett’s imagined geography means “U.S security-both economically and militarily-can be preserved” (2007, p.411).
随后，重塑世界为军事干预提供了理由，因为对全球空间的隐性控制是重新定义空间的结果，这可以说简化了军事干预的意义。此外，巴内特设想的地理位置意味着“美国的安全——无论是经济上还是军事上都可以得到保护”。       
As classical geopolitics aligns with realist thinking because state interests operate within a state of anarchy (Ashley, 1987, p.404), values are attached to geographical location to place “ourselves” above the “other” as a presumption of common knowledge. In understanding how difference is reinforced in classical geopolitics, this research paper will now discuss the importance of metaphors in constituting a political landscape that legitimises intervention.
由于国家利益在无政府状态下运作，古典地缘政治与现实主义思维一致，价值观依附于地理位置，以将“我们”置于“其他”之上，作为常识的假设。为了理解古典地缘政治中的差异是如何被强化的，本文现在将讨论隐喻在构成一个使干预合法化的政治景观中的重要性。
Barnett’s Core and Gap as Metaphor 巴内特的核心与作为隐喻的差距
Metaphors are important to understand regarding classical geopolitics because they establish a reality delineated by imagined geographies through language; creating understandings of global space that represent particular values and state interests. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) summarise metaphors as “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in relation to another” (1980, p.455). Furthermore, Dikeç (2012) argues that space cannot be thought of in an objective way because it is constantly used to think about politics (2012, p.670).
隐喻对于理解古典地缘政治很重要，因为它们通过语言建立了由想象中的地理所描绘的现实；创造对代表特定价值观和国家利益的全球空间的理解。Lakoff和Johnson将隐喻概括为“理解和体验一种事物与另一种事物的关系”。此外，Dikeç认为，空间不能以客观的方式来思考，因为它经常被用来思考政治。
Language “charts and affixes objects in space, just like a map” (Toal, 1994, p.528), and achieves this through the ability to constitute an “other” based on what values “they” don’t encompass in comparison to “us”. This is present within Barnett’s work, as the main aim of his writing was to establish the present state of the world based on American overseas involvement in promoting globalisation. Moreover, globalisation as an elongated process becomes intrinsically connected to American military power, acting as a broader reflection of what the U.S encompasses within the core in relation to the gap.
语言“像地图一样在空间中绘制和粘贴物体”，并通过根据“它们”与“我们”相比不包含的价值构成“其他”的能力来实现这一点。这在巴内特的作品中是存在的，因为他写作的主要目的是在美国海外参与推动全球化的基础上建立世界现状。此外，全球化作为一个拉长的过程，与美国军事力量有着内在的联系，更广泛地反映了美国在与差距相关的核心中所包含的内容。
The concept of performativity explains how language “constitute the objects of which they speak” (2007, p. 406), arguing that states don’t pre-exist performances (2007, p.407). This can be thought of in comparison to Said’s understanding of the Orient as theatre, where the Orient is “staged” alongside Europe to project a reminder of what it isn’t (1987, p.61). What this shows about legitimising intervention is that recognising difference in the context of globalisation is performative because states constitute the gap based on Barnett’s depictions of globalisation, with the underlying representation of American values, without considering historical struggles in conceptualising space. Toal refers to this as the “irony of the geopolitical gaze”, because “a systematic forgetting of struggle” is how to make sense of the world in classical geopolitics (1996, p.53).
表演性的概念解释了语言如何“构成他们所说的对象”，认为国家并不存在表演。这可以与赛义德将东方理解为戏剧相比较，在那里，东方与欧洲一起“上演”，以提醒人们它不是什么。这表明，将干预合法化是一种表现，即在全球化背景下认识到差异是一种行为，因为国家根据巴尼特对全球化的描述，以美国价值观为基础，构成了差距，而不考虑在概念化空间中的历史斗争。Toal称这是“地缘政治凝视的讽刺”，因为“对斗争的系统性遗忘”是如何在古典地缘政治中理解世界的。
Moreover, the use of “moral cartographies” as a visualisation of space that “requires military intervention (Dalby, 2008, p.424) is a broader reflection of the practice of formal geopolitics due to the construction of global space that is thus acted upon for state interests. Toal and Agnew (1992) define formal geopolitics as “the reasoning of strategic thinkers and public intellectuals…who…produce a highly codified system of ideas and principles to guide the conduct of statecraft” through “formalized rules of statement, description and debate” (1992, p.194). In Barnett’s case, his conceptualisation of the global “core” and “gap” was established with the intention of answering questions of how American military strategy should adapt alongside emerging perceived threats, requiring presupposed truths about the “other” to understand what “we are”. To understand how this can be applied to the War on Terror, this paper will now discuss how 9/11 depicted terrorist threats through the concept of pre-emotion to legitimate military intervention.
此外使用“道德地图”作为“需要军事干预”的空间可视化，是正式地缘政治实践的更广泛反映，因为全球空间的构建是为了国家利益而进行的。Toal和Agnew将正式地缘政治定义为“战略思想家和公共知识分子的推理“正式的陈述、描述和辩论规则”，产生了一套高度编码的思想和原则体系，以指导治国方略”。在巴内特的案例中，他对全球“核心”和“差距”的概念是为了回答美国军事战略应如何适应新出现的感知威胁的问题，需要关于“他者”的预设真相来理解“我们”。为了理解这一点如何适用于反恐战争，本文现在将讨论911如何通过合法军事干预的前情绪概念来描述恐怖主义威胁。
Pre-emption in simplifying military action 简化军事行动的先发制人
As mentioned, one critique of Barnett’s work is the simplification of global space that legitimises military intervention, which can be understood in the context of 9/11. Due to the understanding of 9/11 as a surprise attack, successive American foreign policy has been constituted on the basis of the unforeseen. This can be understood with the concept of pre-emption, in which action is taken in the present on the basis of the future (Anderson, 2010, p.779). In the case of 9/11, it has been understood primarily as an isolated event, and consequently there is less recognition of the argument that “11 September is part of a complex historical process in which responsibility is difficult to assign” (2003, p.70).
如上所述，对巴内特工作的一个批评是简化了使军事干预合法化的全球空间，这可以在911的背景下理解。由于将911理解为一次突袭，美国的连续外交政策都是在不可预见的基础上制定的。这可以用先发制人的概念来理解，即在未来的基础上采取当前的行动。在911事件中，人们主要将其理解为一个孤立事件，因此，人们对“9月11日是一个复杂的历史进程的一部分，责任很难分配”这一论点的认识较少。
Moreover, understanding 9/11 as a singular event has allowed for immediacy to be central in justifying military intervention in the establishment of the “War on Terror”, as in this example, historical understandings of military strategy are being re-defined to suit the contemporary circumstances and interests in a globalised world. This relates to pre-emption because the isolated nature of 9/11 “prompts a reimagining of the landscapes of everyday life as suffused with an unacceptably high level of risk” (Hannah, 2006, p.623). Moreover, as “What is at stake is the survival and maintenance of the sovereignty of the state over its territory” (Agnew, 1994, p.60), undermining sovereignty through terrorist attacks can simplify the global landscape in order to reinforce divisions with the “other” in order to legitimate military intervention.
此外，将911理解为一个单独的事件，使得即时性成为军事干预建立“反恐战争”的核心，正如在本例中，对军事战略的历史理解正在重新定义，以适应全球化世界的当代环境和利益。这与先发制人有关，因为911事件的孤立性“促使人们重新想象日常生活中充满了不可接受的高风险”。此外，由于“国家对其领土的主权的生存和维护至关重要”，通过恐怖袭击破坏主权可以简化全球格局，以加强与“其他”的分裂，从而进行合法的军事干预。
Practical geopolitics and Discourse 实用地缘政治与话语
This can be analysed further by understanding practical geopolitics, defined by Toal and Agnew as “the reasoning of practioners of statecraft, of state persons, politicians and military commanders” as well as being “a common-sense type which relies on the narratives and binary distinctions found in societal mythologies” (1992, p.194). In relation to formal geopolitics, as defined earlier, practical geopolitics materialises the concepts defined by the former to fit particular narratives about the world.
这可以通过理解实际地缘政治来进一步分析，Toal和Agnew将其定义为“治国者、国家人士、政治家和军事指挥官的推理”，以及“一种依赖于社会神话中的叙事和二元区别的常识类型”。与前面定义的正式地缘政治相关，实际地缘政治将前者定义的概念具体化，以适应关于世界的特定叙事。       
The importance of practical geopolitics can be understood through discourse, involving “a specific series of representations and practices through which meanings are produced, identities constituted, social relations established, and political and ethical outcomes made more or less possible” (2007, p.406). In the example of the War on Terror, this can be exemplified through the 2002 State of the Union Address and 2002 National Security Strategy, as both examples communicate America’s legislative and security priorities to the public. In the context of 9/11, the perceived threat from terrorism became institutionalised (2006, p.630) in order to legitimate military intervention on the basis of American exceptionalism.
实践地缘政治的重要性可以通过话语来理解，涉及“一系列具体的表达和实践，通过这些表达和实践产生意义，构成身份，建立社会关系，并或多或少地实现政治和道德结果”。在反恐战争的例子中，这可以通过2002年国情咨文和2002年国家安全战略来体现，因为这两个例子都向公众传达了美国的立法和安全优先事项。在911事件的背景下，人们认为来自恐怖主义的威胁变得制度化，以便在美国例外论的基础上进行合法的军事干预。
Due to the historical recognition of the U.S president being the leader of the free world, George W. Bush’s establishment of the “Axis of Evil” exemplifies America’s ability to designate threats to justify military intervention (BBC, 2002). Said argues that “anyone employing Orientalism…will designate, name, point to, fix what he is talking or thinking about with a word or phrase, which is then considered either to have acquired, or more simply to be, reality” (1978, p.72). Consequently, akin to Barnett, the “Axis of Evil” comprised of Iraq, Iran and North Korea is performative because the threat of terrorism could only be understood through this “Axis”, that in the context of a surprise attack on the U.S, can pivot further. This designation of the other creates an abridged reality that in classical geopolitics, isn’t recognised as metaphor.
由于历史上承认美国总统是自由世界的领导人，乔治·布什建立的“邪恶轴心国”证明了美国有能力指定威胁来为军事干预辩护。赛义德认为，“任何采用东方主义的人……都会用一个词或短语来指定、命名、指向、固定他正在谈论或思考的东西，然后被认为是获得了，或者更简单地说是获得了现实”。因此，与巴奈特一样，由伊拉克、伊朗和朝鲜组成的“邪恶轴心国”也是有表现力的，因为恐怖主义的威胁只能通过这个“轴心国“来理解，在对美国发动突然袭击的情况下，恐怖主义的威胁可以进一步转向。对另一个的这种指定创造了一个在古典地缘政治中不被视为隐喻的简略现实。
Furthermore, constructing the other “limits our imagination and the uncountable ways the uncertain future could have played out” (Goede, 2008,p.171) and does so through the focus on American values in portraying a universal conceptualisation of global space. The 2002 National Security Strategy states “We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom… We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants” (US State Department, 2002, p.3).
此外，构建另一个“限制了我们的想象力和不确定的未来可能出现的无数方式”，并通过关注美国价值观来描绘全球空间的普遍概念。2002年《国家安全战略》指出，“我们寻求建立有利于人类自由的力量平衡……我们将通过打击恐怖分子和暴君来捍卫和平”。
 Referencing American values through discourse can justify military intervention on the basis of providing stability to a situation defined by disruption. This is evident through the reference to a “balance of power”, and when contrasted to the “Axis of Evil” can provide an understanding of how practical geopolitics aims to simply global space to portray the U.S as inherently morally and militarily stronger in global space. In consistently reflecting upon the presence of an “other” to highlight intervention as a means to an end, this relies on an “emotional attachment to a place” that creates “a link between national myths and foreign policy stances” (Güney,2010, p.24). For example, the term “Homeland” (2007, p.414) in relation to the War on Terror conflates the nation with the state because fighting for territory is conflated with fighting for values, and is evident with the previous examples highlighted. Conflating the nation with the state allows for the notion of integration to be defined by the “conviction of U.S leadership that global military presence is required” (Gregory, 2011, p.238), and as a result American values are personified in order to legitimate intervention as liberation to the designated other. This paper will now consider how targeted killing during Obama’s presidency was justified through drone strikes, in which the perception of a “surgical” war acts to legitimate the global U.S military presence and the values it aims to represent.
通过对话引用美国的价值观，可以为军事干预提供依据，为破坏性局势提供稳定。通过提及“力量平衡”，这一点显而易见，与“邪恶轴心国”相比，可以理解实际的地缘政治是如何旨在简化全球空间，将美国描绘成在全球空间内在道德和军事上更强大的国家。在不断反思“他者”的存在以强调干预是达到目的的一种手段时，这依赖于“对某个地方的情感依恋”，这种依恋创造了“国家神话与外交政策立场之间的联系”。例如，与反恐战争相关的“国土”一词与国家混为一谈，因为争夺领土与争夺价值观混为一谈，这在前面的例子中很明显。将国家与国家混为一谈，可以通过“美国领导层确信需要全球军事存在”来定义一体化的概念，因此，美国价值观被人格化，以便合法干预，将其解放给指定的另一方。这篇论文现在将考虑奥巴马总统任期内的定点杀戮是如何通过无人机袭击来证明其合理性的，在无人机袭击中，对“外科手术”战争的认知行为使美国全球军事存在及其所代表的价值观合法化。
Problematising drone strikes as a scopic regime 将无人机打击视为一个微观政权
在古典地缘政治中，由于人们认为空间本身就是在进化的，因此视野是产生对世界的“客观”理解的一个重要因素。这是笛卡尔透视主义理论中的概念，其中“一个
In classical geopolitics, vision is an important element in producing “objective” understandings of the world due to the perception that space is itself evolves on its own. This is conceptualised in the theory of Cartesian Perspectivalism, where “one separates the self from who is viewing the world itself” (Agnew, 2003, p.15). With the example of drone warfare, this is important to consider because justifying drone warfare in the War on Terror relies on the production of an objective visualisation of space that determines targets. As a result, akin to Barnett in simplifying global space for strategic aims, drone strikes through the lens of Cartesian Perspectivalism conceptualise that “the perception of precision targeting and the deterritorialization of battlespace give rise to the sense that the complexity of the urban space can be mastered” (Coward, 2013, p.113).
在古典地缘政治中，由于人们认为空间本身就是在进化的，因此视野是产生对世界的“客观”理解的一个重要因素。这是笛卡尔透视主义理论中的概念，其中“一个人将自我与观察世界本身的人分开”。以无人机战争为例，这一点很重要，因为在反恐战争中证明无人机战争的合理性取决于对确定目标的空间进行客观可视化。因此，与巴内特在简化全球空间以实现战略目标方面的做法类似，无人机通过笛卡尔透视主义的视角进行打击，这一概念认为“精确瞄准的感知和作战空间的威慑使人感觉到城市空间的复杂性是可以掌握的”。
However, this perception is important to problematise because of the presence of “sanctioned forms of knowledge” (1996, p.24) in terms of vision, thus allowing for the understanding of the “other” to be simplified to territory, and not a collective that is usually contrasted in terms of “us” and the values we encompass in legitimising military intervention. Grayson and Mawdsley (2018) problematise Cartesian Perspectivalism with scopic regimes to highlight power-knowledge relations in establishing a sight of vision to legitimate drone warfare.
然而，这种认知对于问题化很重要，因为在视觉上存在“认可的知识形式”，从而允许将对“他者”的理解简化为领土，而不是通常以“我们”和我们在合法化军事干预中所包含的价值观为对照的集体。Grayson和Mawdsley将笛卡尔透视主义与微观政权进行了问题分析，以强调在建立合法无人机战争愿景方面的权力-知识关系。
Drone warfare in the War on Terror was initiated by George Bush in 2004, using CIA operated drones in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, but was intensified under Barack Obama’s presidency, with 170 further strikes to Bush’s 46 by the end of 2010 (Gregory, 2011, pp.189-190), and the primary defence of drone strikes by Obama’s administration are that they’re “limited and legitimate acts of self-defense against attacks from the Taliban” (2011, p.190), in addition to Obama stating that strikes are “exceptionally surgical and precise” (Purkiss, 2017). This can also be thought about in terms of network thinking, in which the “networked character of emerging threats” such as Al-Qaeda, act as a “network” regarding their perceived global presence and capabilities related to finance and surveillance (Coward, 2018, p.441). Consequently, drone strikes are justified on the ability to eliminate single “nodes” that has resulting knock-on effects without causing what can be considered “collateral damage” (2018, p.453).
反恐战争中的无人机战争是由乔治·布什于2004年在巴基斯坦联邦直辖部落地区使用中央情报局操作的无人机发起的，但在奥巴马任总统期间，这场战争愈演愈烈，到2010年底，布什的46架无人机又遭到了170次打击，奥巴马政府对无人机袭击的主要辩护是，这些袭击是“针对塔利班袭击的有限和合法的自卫行为”，此外，奥巴马还表示，袭击是“异常外科手术和精确的”。这也可以从网络思维的角度来考虑，在网络思维中，“新出现的威胁的网络特征”（如基地组织）充当了一个“网络”，涉及其感知的全球存在以及与金融和监控相关的能力。因此，无人机打击的理由是能够消除单个“节点”，从而产生连锁效应，而不会造成“附带损害”。
However, this is problematic because the perceived objective nature of drones becomes subjective through the use of human operators (2018, p.14). Moreover, legitimating drone strikes is still based on a mediated form of vision that aims to align with narratives of truth, within a broader strategy in creating a visual battlespace (2018. p.14).
然而，这是有问题的，因为通过使用人类操作员，无人机的感知客观性质变得主观。此外，使无人机袭击合法化仍然基于一种调解形式的愿景，其目的是在创建视觉战场的更广泛战略中与真相叙事保持一致。
It can also be argued that drone strikes act to establish order to unchartered territory that is mediated by the external factors influencing the drone’s line of sight. This is similar to the previous argument of how values are used to establish a form of superiority over the “other” that’s exemplified by military intervention, due to how values establish a basis of implementing control that benefits states’ interests primarily. For example, Gregory (2011) refers to how the “Af-Pak” border that the Obama administration coined as the battle space in which drones operate has a hyphen to indicate an ambiguous zone (2011, p.240). As the perceived objectivity of drone strikes are justified by claims of self-defence, the ocular-centric perspective in which they operate is justified on the basis of establishing order in the context of the view from above acting to portray a truth of how the “other” operates.
也有人认为，无人机袭击是为了在影响无人机视线的外部因素的影响下，为未经控制的地区建立秩序。这与之前的论点类似，即价值观如何被用来建立一种优于“他者”的形式，这一论点以军事干预为例，因为价值观如何建立一种主要有利于国家利益的控制基础。例如，格雷戈里提到了奥巴马政府创造的“阿富汗-巴基斯坦”边界，称其为无人机作战的作战空间，该边界用连字符表示一个模糊区域。由于无人机攻击的客观性被自卫的主张所证明，因此，无人机行动的以视觉为中心的视角是基于在上述观点的背景下建立秩序的基础上证明的，这些观点旨在描绘“他者”如何运作的真相。       
Consequently, this also leads to a lack of consideration when distinguishing combatants and non-combatants (2018, p.454), which as a result reinforces how drone strikes are justified on a singular view of the “other” that doesn’t consider the risk of so-called “collateral damage”. For example, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recorded 384-807 deaths from drone strikes during Obama’s two terms, compared to the White House figures of 64 and 116 (Purkiss, 2017). Considering the theory of network thinking in legitimating a surgical application of drone warfare, the inability to distinguish combatants from non-combatants (2018, p.454) questions the claim of Cartesian Perspectivalism to separate the viewer from the object in establishing a truth about the world and how that is exemplified in drone warfare. Due to the power imbalance present in the systemised view from above (2018, p.14), it’s arguable the drones act as a site of power through the perceived ability to impose control. In this example, therefore, civilian casualties are not equated with the deaths of terrorists, and justifying drone strikes enables this because of the sole understanding of the need to view through a singular lens what constitutes the other without cultural context (2013, pp.115-116); adding to the de-humanising understanding of the “other” is for American security policy.
因此，这也导致在区分战斗人员和非战斗人员时缺乏考虑，因此，这强化了无人机打击是如何基于不考虑所谓“附带损害”风险的“另一方”的单一观点来进行的。例如，调查新闻局在奥巴马的两个任期内记录了384-807人死于无人机袭击，而白宫的数字是64人和116人。考虑到网络思维理论使无人机战争的外科应用合法化，无法区分战斗人员和非战斗人员（质疑了笛卡尔透视主义的主张，即在建立关于世界的真相时将观众与对象分开，以及无人机战争如何体现了这一点。由于上述系统化观点中存在的权力不平衡，无人机通过感知的控制能力充当权力场所是有争议的。因此，在本例中，平民伤亡并不等同于恐怖分子的死亡，证明无人机袭击是合理的，因为唯一的理解是，需要通过单一的视角来看待没有文化背景的另一方；对“他者”的非人性化理解是为了美国的安全政策。
Conclusion 结论
To conclude, this essay has aimed to understand how the War on Terror has justified military intervention and targeted killing through drone strikes. The essay question has been answered through understanding how Barnett’s demarcation of global space reinforces the notion of an problematic “other” in order to legitimise military intervention on the basis of establishing order in the interests of global space. Consequently, the objective lens in which military intervention tries to orchestrate is problematised through the centrality of state interests and how representing “us” in contrast to the “other”, the case of 9/11 and the example of practical geopolitics, can only been understood through depictions of the military. The requirement that we must act to intervene in what isn’t “us” problematises how discourse acts to legitimate our understanding of the world as what is best for global space.
总之，本文旨在了解反恐战争如何证明通过无人机打击进行军事干预和定点杀伤是合理的。通过理解巴尼特对全球空间的划界是如何强化有问题的“他者”概念，从而在建立全球空间利益秩序的基础上使军事干预合法化，从而回答了本文的问题。因此，通过国家利益的中心性以及如何代表“我们”与“其他”的对比，军事干预试图协调的客观镜头出现了问题，9/11事件和实际地缘政治的例子，只能通过对军队的描述来理解。我们必须采取行动干预不是“我们”的问题，这一要求说明了话语是如何使我们对世界的理解合法化的，因为世界是对全球空间最有利的。
Moreover, state interests are pushed under the guise of a general recognition to balance power struggles, despite classical geopolitics acting to motivate state control over territory on the basis of power struggle. Furthermore, the pre-determined objectivity of vision in enabling violence through drone strikes encapsulates the role of classical geopolitics in simplifying the global landscape and consequently, the human cost of warfare that is secondary to territorial interests. The implications of this understanding are significant and should allow for geopolitics to be understood more through greater consideration of how aspects such as values become “personified” through exceptional cases of conflict in order to neutralise military intervention as a liberating necessity.
此外，尽管传统地缘政治在权力斗争的基础上推动国家对领土的控制，但国家利益是在普遍承认平衡权力斗争的幌子下推动的。此外，通过无人机打击实现暴力的预先确定的客观愿景概括了经典地缘政治在简化全球格局方面的作用，从而也概括了战争的人力成本，而这是领土利益的次要因素。这种理解的意义是重大的，应该通过更多地考虑价值观等方面如何通过特殊的冲突案例“拟人化”，从而使军事干预成为一种解放的必要性，从而使地缘政治得到更多的理解。本站提供各国各专业Research Paper代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。