ABSTRACT
The controversy that erupted when the (then) U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta announced plans to award Distinguished Warfare Medals, which would have outranked U.S. combat medals such as the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, to the operators of drones highlighted the deep-seated ambivalence that exists within both the U.S. public and the U.S. military about the extent to which these weapons represent an honorable way of warfare. 1 On the one hand, drones—and their operators—are lauded for their capacity to find and kill those the U.S. government identifies as its enemies anywhere in the world and to do so with—at least in theory—the minimum number of civilian casualties. On the other hand, the unwillingness of the public and of at least some sections of the U.S. military to countenance awarding drone operators combat medals suggest that they do not believe that those who operate the systems are really “at war” or deserve the honor accorded to those who risk their lives in the service of their nation.
