Remote Warfare: A Politically Expedient but Conceptually Flawed Construct

This article argues that remote warfare is a politically expedient yet conceptually flawed construct, whose risk-averse rationale and deceptive ‘cleanness’ obscure its strategic limitations and ethical costs – ultimately undermining both military effectiveness and democratic integrity. It does this by exploring four key issues. First, it criticises its conceptual ambiguity. Second, it explores the relationship between the risk aversion mentality of Western decision-makers and their tendency to use remote warfare to achieve military goals, which could end up undermining underlying, ‘big picture’ strategic objectives. Third, it examines how the secrecy, asymmetric distribution of death, and unsubstantiated ‘cleanness’ inherent to remote warfare contribute to its use in Western democracies. Finally, this article delves into the extensive use of airstrikes – a means of remote warfare – to further explore the aforementioned relationship, since their relatively low risks lead to their indiscriminate usage regardless of context. Together, these points reveal that remote warfare functions less as a theoretical and strategic novelty than as a politically convenient alternative for decision-makers to externalise risk, obscure accountability, and pursue military objectives without addressing its underlying limitations.