The New York Times International - 30.08.2019

10 | FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2019 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION

Last year, more than 4,600 Google

employees signed a petition urging the

company to commit to refusing to

build weapons technology. A response

to Google’s work with the military on

an artificial intelligence-based target-

ing system, the petition made a power-

ful and seemingly simple moral state-

ment: “We believe that Google should

not be in the business of war.” Simi-

larly, Microsoft employees in February

demanded that their company with-

hold its augmented reality HoloLens

headset technology from the Army,

saying they did not want to become

“war profiteers.”

As a Marine who has been in harm’s

way a few times, I am glad that my

peers in the tech industry have initiat-

ed this discussion. America is long

overdue for a conversation about how

we engage in war and peace; the

difference between the decision to go

to war and decisions about what hap-

pens on the battlefield during warfare;

and what it means to fight, die and kill

for our country.

My job has put me in places where I

have witnessed and taken part in

significant battlefield decisions. From

my experience, I have learned that

working with the military to develop

systems would actually support the

tech workers’ goal to reduce harm in

warfare. (I need to note here that I am

speaking for myself, and my views do

not necessarily reflect those of the

Department of Defense.)

Tech workers might not realize that

their opposition to the work their

companies do on military technology

does not change the decision-making

of the American leaders who choose to

go to war, and therefore is unlikely to

prevent any harm caused by war.

Instead, it has the unintended effect of

imperiling not only the lives of service

members, but also the lives of innocent

civilians whom I believe these workers

want to protect.

My first deployment, in 2009, was to

an area known as the “Sunni triangle”

in Iraq. Another young officer and I

each led a police training team of

about a dozen Marines through some

famously hostile towns: Falluja, Ra-

madi, Habbaniya. People frequently

threw objects of all sizes at our vehi-

cles in anger and protest. Aside from

roadside bombs, the biggest threat at

the time, particularly in crowded ar-

eas, was an armor-piercing hand-held

grenade. It looked like a dark soda can

with a handle protruding from the

bottom. Or, from a distance and with

only an instant to decide, it looked just

like many of the other objects that

were thrown at us.

One day in Falluja, at the site of a

previous attack, an Iraqi man threw a

dark oblong object at one of the vehi-

cles in my sister team. The Marine in

the turret, believing it was an armor-

piercing grenade, shot the man in the

chest. The object turned out to be a

shoe.

In another case, a Marine I knew,

with two Purple Hearts from wounds

in combat, shot into the cab of a speed-

ing truck approaching his position like

the vehicle-borne suicide bombs that

were prevalent at the time. Afterward,

he discovered that it was a father

rushing his young daughter to the

hospital, and that he had shot and

killed her. That Marine’s physical

wounds healed, but like so many who

experienced “moral injury” or a

“bruise on the soul,” as Pulitzer Prize-

winning war correspondent David

Wood describes it, overcoming the

emotional damage was even more

difficult.

These Marines were not bloodthirsty

killers. They were young men, college

age, sent overseas by their country,

trying to defend themselves and make

life-or-death decisions under harrow-

ing conditions with imprecise informa-

tion.

The military’s goal in warfare isn’t to

kill as many people as possible, but to

accomplish missions that our country

sends us to accomplish while minimiz-

ing harm to civilians. As an institution,

we emphasize the rules that protect

civilians — known

as the law of war —

and always focus

on the need to

retain honor in

combat so that we

can come home

whole. I experi-

enced this not only

in Iraq, but also on

two special opera-

tions task forces in

Afghanistan, where

I was part of a

decision tree that

frequently let

known terrorists

live in order to

avoid harming

civilians.

When I think

about A.I. and

weapons develop-

ment, I don’t imagine Skynet, the

Terminator, or some other Hollywood

dream of killer robots. I picture the

Marines I know patrolling Falluja with

a heads-up display like HoloLens, tied

to sensors and to an A.I. system that

can process data faster and more

precisely than humanly possible — an

interface that helps them identify an

object as a shoe, or an approaching

truck as too light to be laden with

explosives.

We need tools that enhance situa-

tional awareness, provide information

that overcomes fear and fatigue, and

enable fast, effective and precise com-

bat decisions for both commanders

and individuals. If tech companies

work with the military, then technolo-

gies from applications of A.I. to aug-

mented reality would save innocent

lives and reduce suffering.

For me, it’s hard to understand why

tech employees would not want to help

their fellow Americans survive on the

battlefield and accomplish their mis-

sions in the safest and least damaging

WOODY HARRINGTON

It has the

power to

protect those

on the

battlefield

and carry

out military

missions

without

harming

civilians.

Lucas Kunce

The tech industry

can make war safer

Tech workers

might not

realize that

their opposi-

tion to the

work their

companies

do on military

technology

does not

change the

decision-

making of

the American

leaders who

choose to

go to war.

KUNCE, PAGE 11

My favorite moment in Donald

Trump’s trip to France came when

America’s president was doing a little

riff about North Korea and Kim Jong-

un. Not only had he come to know Kim

well, Trump told reporters, “the first

lady has gotten to know Kim Jong-un

and I think she’d agree with me, he is a

man with a country that has tremen-

dous potential.”

Melania Trump has never met Kim

Jong-un. Paging the cleanup crew.

“President Trump confides in his

wife on many issues including the

detailed elements of his strong rela-

tionship with Chairman Kim,” his press

secretary, Stephanie Grisham, ex-

plained. “And while the first lady

hasn’t met him, the president feels like

she’s gotten to know him too.”

Definitely the most creative expla-

nation of the week for Stuff Trump

Makes Up. Second prize may also go to

Grisham, who tried to clear up her

boss’s wildly meandering positions on

China trade.

After going back and forth several

times, the president was asked if he

was having second thoughts (or third,

or eighteenth... ) about the tariff war.

He replied, “I have second thoughts

about everything.”

Apparently not the message the

White House was hoping to send.

“The president responded in the

affirmative — because he regrets not

raising the tariffs higher,” said Grish-

am. Desperate, but pretty darned

good. So much better than what Treas-

ury Secretary Steve Mnuchin came up

with: “He has no second thoughts, no

second thoughts.”

Trump’s long-and-kind-of-scary

news conferences were just about the

only news coming out of the meeting of

major industrialized countries known

as the Group of 7. Any attempt to come

up with a united stand on climate

change, Iran, trade, etc., was torpe-

doed by American intransigence. At

the end there was just a pathetic one-

page statement and an agreement to

raise $22 million to help battle the

Amazon rainforest fires.

Which the president of Brazil, Jair

Bolsonaro, turned down imperiously.

Before he appeared to be changing

course. “Did I say that? Did I? Did Jair

Bolsonaro speak?” he demanded of

reporters. Guess how Trump and

Bolsonaro get along. Great pals?

Bingo.

If anything important came out of

the Group of 7 meeting, it was proba-

bly further evidence that our president

is... getting worse.

We know, of course, that he makes

things up and doesn’t try to correct

himself even when the whole world

knows he’s wrong. But he did seem

even more befuddled and confused

than usual.

His talks with reporters were a good

example. He claimed he had person-

ally gotten many important “high-level

calls” from Chinese officials who

wanted to “make a deal,” something

the Chinese seemed to know nothing

whatsoever about.

On this occasion Mnuchin, playing

the part of translator, said something

vague about how there had been some

sort of “communication.” Too bad he

wasn’t creative enough to tell the

world that the Chinese and Trump had

become so close they could exchange

thoughts without having to pick up the

telephone.

The meeting in France wasn’t the

only recent exchange with world lead-

ers that suggested Trump is suffering

from something more worrisome than

the lack of a coherent foreign policy.

Back in April, after talking with NATO

officials in Washington, he said that

despite his complaints about Germany,

he had “great respect” for the country

from which his father emigrated. “My

father is German... born in a very

wonderful place in Germany.”

Fred Trump was born in the Bronx.

“To mental health professionals like

me, the red flags are waving wildly,”

wrote the psychologist John Gartner.

The only time at the Group of 7

when Trump seemed very focused was

when he got to the plans for next

year’s meeting. It’s our turn to pick the

location and set the agenda. The presi-

dent told the international media that

his “people” had already been looking

for the best possible site, and that they

had determined it was — yes! — his

Doral hotel in Florida.

“It’s right next to the airport...

People are really liking it,” he said

enthusiastically, going on to describe

the Doral’s “tremendous acreage,”

great views and extensive accommo-

dations. He brought this up at two

different news conferences. “And what

we have also is Miami,” he concluded.

Donald Trump does not actually

have Miami.

In response, reporters naturally

asked whether it wasn’t a violation of

the Constitution for the chief executive

to receive valuables — like, say, a huge

hotel contract — from foreign govern-

ments.

Trump complained he’d already lost

“from $3 to 5 billion” by being presi-

dent. “I did a lot of great jobs and great

deals that I don’t do anymore,” he said.

“I don’t want to do them because the

deals I’m making are great deals for

the country, and that’s to me, much

more important.”

This was the appearance in which he

used the word “deal” 58 times. We will

not go into the evidence that when it

comes to any business other than

marketing his name as a celebrity

reality show star, Trump has been a

terrible failure.

So what do you think? Mental de-

terioration or just Trump as usual? No

fair saying they’re both the same.

Hard to

judge when

business

as usual

is bonkers

Is Trump, um, slipping? Even more?

President Trump on Monday at the Group of 7 Summit in Biarritz, France.

ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Gail Collins

Opinion

RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws

RELEASED

BY

"What's

News"

vk.com/wsnws

t.me/whatsnws