Research Paper格式-反恐戰爭的地緣政治如何證明干預和針對性是正當的？本文是一篇留學生研究性論文Research Paper寫作參考，本文將指出，反恐戰爭的地緣政治使得干預和有針對性的殺戮成為正當的，其依據是美國的道德例外主義，這一點通過全球軍事存在得到了證明。本篇研究論文將首先介紹經典地緣政治的概念，分析托馬斯·巴尼特的《五角大樓的新地圖》，強調以國家安全的名義代表戰略利益。

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.
巴尼特的第一個反論點將介紹想象中的地理和隱喻的關鍵地緣政治概念，以反思巴尼特如何為干預辯護；政治格局的簡化旨在在一體化概念下推進國家軍事利益。
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，本文將對911背景下的先發制人概念進行質疑，認為將911概念化為一個孤立事件，有助于產生新的美國例外主義敘事。這將通過2002年國情咨文和2002年國家安全戰略來證明，重點是時間的論述及其對緊急情況的闡述，它將西方價值觀擬人化，認為需要通過干預中東來拯救。
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，本文將以奧巴馬總統任期內的無人機襲擊為例，探討無人機襲擊的問題，作為一個直觀政權的例子，該政權通過手術執行戰爭來證明有針對性的殺殺是正當的，從而使美國的全球軍事存在及其旨在代表的價值觀合法化。
Barnett’s view of the world within Classical Geopolitics 巴內特在古典地緣政治中的世界觀
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.
巴內特基于融入全球化世界，通過將全球發達的“核心”與不發達的“差距”進行物理劃分，對全球空間進行了概念化，并認為差距只能通過美國軍事介入全球事務來整合。巴內特對此的推理可以通過經典地緣政治來理解，它依賴于像客觀科學一樣思考全球空間，以解釋國家行為。Toal將古典地緣政治定義為“將地理學制度化為一門自成一格的‘科學’學科”。因此，國家驅動的利益在自然演變的全球體系的認知下被“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”.
在巴內特的作品中，他對全球空間的概念化依賴于整合，使軍事介入自然化。Dalby指出，地緣政治是關于全球空間的“主動空間化”，“政治精英和大眾公眾在世界上行動以追求自己的身份和利益”。對于巴內特來說，這適用于恐怖主義，他說9/11“美國國家安全體系建立了巨大的優勢”，因為這樣的事件允許在核心和間隙之間劃分界限，從而使干預合法化。通過認識到需要發展的差距，實現一體化。此外，經典地緣政治依賴于在空間界限內采取行動，而巴內特則依賴于確定不安全區域。本文現在將通過引入想象中的地理和隱喻來批判巴內特，并分散西方中心主義的全球權力觀，以強調如何通過構建“他者”來證明干預是合理的。
Barnett’s Map as Imagined Geography 巴內特的地圖作為想象的地理
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.
在質疑巴內特的說法時，賽義德的想象地理概念解釋了差異的構建是如何通過將美國的影響力作為一個指定“他者”的全球解決方案而使干預合法化的；間隙。想象的地理被定義為“在人們的腦海中指定一個熟悉的空間是‘我們的’，而一個超出我們的陌生空間是‘他們的’的普遍實踐”。Gregory將這一概念描述為“想象賦予物質”，因為它在從另一個感知的現實中建立一個感知現實的主觀性。
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).
對于巴內特來說，這一差距代表了另一個，因為他對全球空間的看法存在矛盾。巴內特將全球化背景下核心與差距之間的斗爭概念化，認為“脫節定義了危險”。然而，這一代表著打破傳統邊界的全球化體系存在于美國例外主義的理解之中，在巴內特的理解中，應該通過傳統的軍事手段來加強這種例外主義。Dalby將美國霸權描述為“美國及其跨國公司建立的全球經濟體系”，概述了“大西洋主義”。
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，巴內特的理解是“包含并創造富有想象力的地理”：指明“世界是”的方式，并在這樣做的過程中積極（重新）創造同樣的世界”。“他者”的定義是通過構建間隙來實現的，而不是作為空間的自然構建，而是形成干預基礎的既定事實。維持分歧需要將對抗和政治進程非政治化，以便將分歧表現為自然過程，巴內特的這一點很明顯，因為像全球化這樣的契約化進程被簡化為遵守美國在全球空間中封裝的特定西方價值觀，主要是“連通性”。       
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).
隨后，重塑世界為軍事干預提供了理由，因為對全球空間的隱性控制是重新定義空間的結果，這可以說簡化了軍事干預的意義。此外，巴內特設想的地理位置意味著“美國的安全——無論是經濟上還是軍事上都可以得到保護”。       
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.
由于國家利益在無政府狀態下運作，古典地緣政治與現實主義思維一致，價值觀依附于地理位置，以將“我們”置于“其他”之上，作為常識的假設。為了理解古典地緣政治中的差異是如何被強化的，本文現在將討論隱喻在構成一個使干預合法化的政治景觀中的重要性。
Barnett’s Core and Gap as Metaphor 巴內特的核心與作為隱喻的差距
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, Dike? (2012) argues that space cannot be thought of in an objective way because it is constantly used to think about politics (2012, p.670).
隱喻對于理解古典地緣政治很重要，因為它們通過語言建立了由想象中的地理所描繪的現實；創造對代表特定價值觀和國家利益的全球空間的理解。Lakoff和Johnson將隱喻概括為“理解和體驗一種事物與另一種事物的關系”。此外，Dike?認為，空間不能以客觀的方式來思考，因為它經常被用來思考政治。
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.
語言“像地圖一樣在空間中繪制和粘貼物體”，并通過根據“它們”與“我們”相比不包含的價值構成“其他”的能力來實現這一點。這在巴內特的作品中是存在的，因為他寫作的主要目的是在美國海外參與推動全球化的基礎上建立世界現狀。此外，全球化作為一個拉長的過程，與美國軍事力量有著內在的聯系，更廣泛地反映了美國在與差距相關的核心中所包含的內容。
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).
表演性的概念解釋了語言如何“構成他們所說的對象”，認為國家并不存在表演。這可以與賽義德將東方理解為戲劇相比較，在那里，東方與歐洲一起“上演”，以提醒人們它不是什么。這表明，將干預合法化是一種表現，即在全球化背景下認識到差異是一種行為，因為國家根據巴尼特對全球化的描述，以美國價值觀為基礎，構成了差距，而不考慮在概念化空間中的歷史斗爭。Toal稱這是“地緣政治凝視的諷刺”，因為“對斗爭的系統性遺忘”是如何在古典地緣政治中理解世界的。
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“道德地圖”作為“需要軍事干預”的空間可視化，是正式地緣政治實踐的更廣泛反映，因為全球空間的構建是為了國家利益而進行的。Toal和Agnew將正式地緣政治定義為“戰略思想家和公共知識分子的推理“正式的陳述、描述和辯論規則”，產生了一套高度編碼的思想和原則體系，以指導治國方略”。在巴內特的案例中，他對全球“核心”和“差距”的概念是為了回答美國軍事戰略應如何適應新出現的感知威脅的問題，需要關于“他者”的預設真相來理解“我們”。為了理解這一點如何適用于反恐戰爭，本文現在將討論911如何通過合法軍事干預的前情緒概念來描述恐怖主義威脅。
Pre-emption in simplifying military action 簡化軍事行動的先發制人
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，對巴內特工作的一個批評是簡化了使軍事干預合法化的全球空間，這可以在911的背景下理解。由于將911理解為一次突襲，美國的連續外交政策都是在不可預見的基礎上制定的。這可以用先發制人的概念來理解，即在未來的基礎上采取當前的行動。在911事件中，人們主要將其理解為一個孤立事件，因此，人們對“9月11日是一個復雜的歷史進程的一部分，責任很難分配”這一論點的認識較少。
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，將911理解為一個單獨的事件，使得即時性成為軍事干預建立“反恐戰爭”的核心，正如在本例中，對軍事戰略的歷史理解正在重新定義，以適應全球化世界的當代環境和利益。這與先發制人有關，因為911事件的孤立性“促使人們重新想象日常生活中充滿了不可接受的高風險”。此外，由于“國家對其領土的主權的生存和維護至關重要”，通過恐怖襲擊破壞主權可以簡化全球格局，以加強與“其他”的分裂，從而進行合法的軍事干預。
Practical geopolitics and Discourse 實用地緣政治與話語
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.
這可以通過理解實際地緣政治來進一步分析，Toal和Agnew將其定義為“治國者、國家人士、政治家和軍事指揮官的推理”，以及“一種依賴于社會神話中的敘事和二元區別的常識類型”。與前面定義的正式地緣政治相關，實際地緣政治將前者定義的概念具體化，以適應關于世界的特定敘事。       
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.
實踐地緣政治的重要性可以通過話語來理解，涉及“一系列具體的表達和實踐，通過這些表達和實踐產生意義，構成身份，建立社會關系，并或多或少地實現政治和道德結果”。在反恐戰爭的例子中，這可以通過2002年國情咨文和2002年國家安全戰略來體現，因為這兩個例子都向公眾傳達了美國的立法和安全優先事項。在911事件的背景下，人們認為來自恐怖主義的威脅變得制度化，以便在美國例外論的基礎上進行合法的軍事干預。
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.
由于歷史上承認美國總統是自由世界的領導人，喬治·布什建立的“邪惡軸心國”證明了美國有能力指定威脅來為軍事干預辯護。賽義德認為，“任何采用東方主義的人……都會用一個詞或短語來指定、命名、指向、固定他正在談論或思考的東西，然后被認為是獲得了，或者更簡單地說是獲得了現實”。因此，與巴奈特一樣，由伊拉克、伊朗和朝鮮組成的“邪惡軸心國”也是有表現力的，因為恐怖主義的威脅只能通過這個“軸心國“來理解，在對美國發動突然襲擊的情況下，恐怖主義的威脅可以進一步轉向。對另一個的這種指定創造了一個在古典地緣政治中不被視為隱喻的簡略現實。
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，構建另一個“限制了我們的想象力和不確定的未來可能出現的無數方式”，并通過關注美國價值觀來描繪全球空間的普遍概念。2002年《國家安全戰略》指出，“我們尋求建立有利于人類自由的力量平衡……我們將通過打擊恐怖分子和暴君來捍衛和平”。
 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.
通過對話引用美國的價值觀，可以為軍事干預提供依據，為破壞性局勢提供穩定。通過提及“力量平衡”，這一點顯而易見，與“邪惡軸心國”相比，可以理解實際的地緣政治是如何旨在簡化全球空間，將美國描繪成在全球空間內在道德和軍事上更強大的國家。在不斷反思“他者”的存在以強調干預是達到目的的一種手段時，這依賴于“對某個地方的情感依戀”，這種依戀創造了“國家神話與外交政策立場之間的聯系”。例如，與反恐戰爭相關的“國土”一詞與國家混為一談，因為爭奪領土與爭奪價值觀混為一談，這在前面的例子中很明顯。將國家與國家混為一談，可以通過“美國領導層確信需要全球軍事存在”來定義一體化的概念，因此，美國價值觀被人格化，以便合法干預，將其解放給指定的另一方。這篇論文現在將考慮奧巴馬總統任期內的定點殺戮是如何通過無人機襲擊來證明其合理性的，在無人機襲擊中，對“外科手術”戰爭的認知行為使美國全球軍事存在及其所代表的價值觀合法化。
Problematising drone strikes as a scopic regime 將無人機打擊視為一個微觀政權
在古典地緣政治中，由于人們認為空間本身就是在進化的，因此視野是產生對世界的“客觀”理解的一個重要因素。這是笛卡爾透視主義理論中的概念，其中“一個
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).
在古典地緣政治中，由于人們認為空間本身就是在進化的，因此視野是產生對世界的“客觀”理解的一個重要因素。這是笛卡爾透視主義理論中的概念，其中“一個人將自我與觀察世界本身的人分開”。以無人機戰爭為例，這一點很重要，因為在反恐戰爭中證明無人機戰爭的合理性取決于對確定目標的空間進行客觀可視化。因此，與巴內特在簡化全球空間以實現戰略目標方面的做法類似，無人機通過笛卡爾透視主義的視角進行打擊，這一概念認為“精確瞄準的感知和作戰空間的威懾使人感覺到城市空間的復雜性是可以掌握的”。
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，這種認知對于問題化很重要，因為在視覺上存在“認可的知識形式”，從而允許將對“他者”的理解簡化為領土，而不是通常以“我們”和我們在合法化軍事干預中所包含的價值觀為對照的集體。Grayson和Mawdsley將笛卡爾透視主義與微觀政權進行了問題分析，以強調在建立合法無人機戰爭愿景方面的權力-知識關系。
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).
反恐戰爭中的無人機戰爭是由喬治·布什于2004年在巴基斯坦聯邦直轄部落地區使用中央情報局操作的無人機發起的，但在奧巴馬任總統期間，這場戰爭愈演愈烈，到2010年底，布什的46架無人機又遭到了170次打擊，奧巴馬政府對無人機襲擊的主要辯護是，這些襲擊是“針對塔利班襲擊的有限和合法的自衛行為”，此外，奧巴馬還表示，襲擊是“異常外科手術和精確的”。這也可以從網絡思維的角度來考慮，在網絡思維中，“新出現的威脅的網絡特征”（如基地組織）充當了一個“網絡”，涉及其感知的全球存在以及與金融和監控相關的能力。因此，無人機打擊的理由是能夠消除單個“節點”，從而產生連鎖效應，而不會造成“附帶損害”。
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，這是有問題的，因為通過使用人類操作員，無人機的感知客觀性質變得主觀。此外，使無人機襲擊合法化仍然基于一種調解形式的愿景，其目的是在創建視覺戰場的更廣泛戰略中與真相敘事保持一致。
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.
也有人認為，無人機襲擊是為了在影響無人機視線的外部因素的影響下，為未經控制的地區建立秩序。這與之前的論點類似，即價值觀如何被用來建立一種優于“他者”的形式，這一論點以軍事干預為例，因為價值觀如何建立一種主要有利于國家利益的控制基礎。例如，格雷戈里提到了奧巴馬政府創造的“阿富汗-巴基斯坦”邊界，稱其為無人機作戰的作戰空間，該邊界用連字符表示一個模糊區域。由于無人機攻擊的客觀性被自衛的主張所證明，因此，無人機行動的以視覺為中心的視角是基于在上述觀點的背景下建立秩序的基礎上證明的，這些觀點旨在描繪“他者”如何運作的真相。       
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，這也導致在區分戰斗人員和非戰斗人員時缺乏考慮，因此，這強化了無人機打擊是如何基于不考慮所謂“附帶損害”風險的“另一方”的單一觀點來進行的。例如，調查新聞局在奧巴馬的兩個任期內記錄了384-807人死于無人機襲擊，而白宮的數字是64人和116人。考慮到網絡思維理論使無人機戰爭的外科應用合法化，無法區分戰斗人員和非戰斗人員（質疑了笛卡爾透視主義的主張，即在建立關于世界的真相時將觀眾與對象分開，以及無人機戰爭如何體現了這一點。由于上述系統化觀點中存在的權力不平衡，無人機通過感知的控制能力充當權力場所是有爭議的。因此，在本例中，平民傷亡并不等同于恐怖分子的死亡，證明無人機襲擊是合理的，因為唯一的理解是，需要通過單一的視角來看待沒有文化背景的另一方；對“他者”的非人性化理解是為了美國的安全政策。
Conclusion 結論
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.
總之，本文旨在了解反恐戰爭如何證明通過無人機打擊進行軍事干預和定點殺傷是合理的。通過理解巴尼特對全球空間的劃界是如何強化有問題的“他者”概念，從而在建立全球空間利益秩序的基礎上使軍事干預合法化，從而回答了本文的問題。因此，通過國家利益的中心性以及如何代表“我們”與“其他”的對比，軍事干預試圖協調的客觀鏡頭出現了問題，9/11事件和實際地緣政治的例子，只能通過對軍隊的描述來理解。我們必須采取行動干預不是“我們”的問題，這一要求說明了話語是如何使我們對世界的理解合法化的，因為世界是對全球空間最有利的。
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，盡管傳統地緣政治在權力斗爭的基礎上推動國家對領土的控制，但國家利益是在普遍承認平衡權力斗爭的幌子下推動的。此外，通過無人機打擊實現暴力的預先確定的客觀愿景概括了經典地緣政治在簡化全球格局方面的作用，從而也概括了戰爭的人力成本，而這是領土利益的次要因素。這種理解的意義是重大的，應該通過更多地考慮價值觀等方面如何通過特殊的沖突案例“擬人化”，從而使軍事干預成為一種解放的必要性，從而使地緣政治得到更多的理解。本站提供各國各專業Research Paper代寫或指導服務，如有需要可咨詢本平臺。