Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States turned to drone warfare in its fight against terrorism, as drones proved to be both cost-effective and politically safer than manned fighter jets. The Obama administration, believing in the effectiveness and morality of drones, expanded and intensified drone operations compared to its predecessor. However, Andrew Niccol’s 2014 film, Good Kill, uncovers the injustices of the CIA-led drone strikes and the growing opposition against them. The movie highlights the psychological burden on drone pilots, who face an identity crisis due to their detachment from direct combat, and struggle to balance family life with the stress of participating in unequal warfare. Their families, unable to help alleviate the pilots’ psychological anxiety, instead experience crises brought on by the pilots’ stress.
Additionally, the film emphasizes the undemocratic nature of CIA-led drone warfare, characterized by a lack of transparency and limited oversight by the public, media, and Congress. The CIA’s arbitrary application of signature strikes and threats of imminent attacks has led to civilian casualties, the division of communities, and the violation of international law. Drone strikes have been conducted within the territories of non-conflicting countries such as Pakistan and Yemen, undermining their sovereignty. These actions have fueled anti-American sentiment, support for extremist militants, and violent counterattacks against U.S. drone strikes, leading to a vicious cycle of violence and global instability.
In response, the film’s protagonist, Tommy, sympathizes with his co-pilot, Suarez, and decides to sabotage the CIA’s operation arbitrarily applying the principles of signature strikes and proportionality. He makes an overt protest against drone warfare by leaving the military. Ultimately, Good Kill warns of the danger posed by drone warfare and calls for a ban on armed drones to prevent further proliferation and to protect the world from uncontrollable dangers.