Eye in the Sky

Earlier this week, news outlets reported on a story about a U.S. airstrike conducted with both manned and unmanned aircraft on an al-Shabab training camp in Somalia. The attack purportedly averted an imminent threat against U.S. and African troops and killed more than 150 militants at the compound. A Washington Post story mentioned that while there appeared to be no civilian casualties, the Pentagon was “still assessing the situation,” and anyone with a nose can smell the spin on that statement.
The news item has similar overtones to the smart and taut thriller Eye in the Sky, keeping the film’s premise and the moral quandaries it presents all too salient. Directed by Gavin Hood (Ender’s Game, Tsotsi), Eye in the Sky is a cerebral film in the vein of Sidney Lumet’s Fail Safe, examining the disconnect between ethics and bureaucracy behind modern warfare’s new rules of engagement—managing to keep the suspense and drama at heightened levels as people, in essence, debate via telephone and computers on whether or not to push a button.
Leading an all-star cast is Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine Powell, a UK-based military officer who’s been tracking the actions of Susan Danford/Ayesha AL-Hady (Lex King), a Brit-turned-terrorist, for six years. The woman and her husband are numbers 4 and 5 on the East African most wanted list, and the toughened Powell is eager to capture them both. The film’s military operations take place in Kenya, but are coordinated in real time from several other locations: Las Vegas, Hawaii, London and Singapore. Under Powell’s guidance, as special forces move into position to finally apprehend her suspects, surveillance reveals that the small group is planning a suicide attack, ratcheting the operation up from “capture” to “kill.” Las Vegas drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is ordered to launch a Hellfire missile at the target house, but he hesitates. Watts and the other military officials spot something on their respective screens that throws the international operation into upheaval: A young girl has entered the “kill zone” to sell freshly baked bread.
The gut-wrenching questions begin. Is it permissible to sacrifice the life of “just one girl” in order to save dozens, if not hundreds, from impending suicide attacks? Is it justifiable to attack if military intelligence can prove, statistically, that the girl’s likely only going to be injured? What ramifications does an attack mean for the propaganda war? God forbid what happens if a video is posted to YouTube.