James Evan I.

Obnamia
11684917
SPIL 2L-G01
Atty. Ferrer
“I wish it was that simple1”
The movie Eye in the Sky greatly captures the intricacies and complexities of
international law especially its application and the concern of its consequences in a military
operation or in any action that will concern international actors. The film provided us with a
situation where a military strike to take down high value target is not just a simple decision to
make even if it is for the purpose of the protection of civilian life. It is not enough that there is a
noble purpose, one must comply with all the strict protocols and legalities of every action they
deem to take.
The most striking scene for me during the mission was the absolute uncertainty of all
those involved in the decision making regarding how the mission should be conducted. Different
actors representing different interests were present in the decision making process: the Deputy
Chief of the Defence Staff, the secretary of foreign affairs, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, the Prime Minister, the President, and the other commanders of the operation as well as
their on-the-field agents. The single action of firing the hellfire took the entire chain of command
not only once but twice just to get the final clearance. The peculiarity of the decision making was
emphasized when they got the first clearance and yet the presence of the single child turned the
table over.
The meeting room was divided into two sides arguing their own stands: those in favor of
the striking despite the collateral damage, and those who argues for the capture and not the
assassinations of the target. One side argues that all the legalities regarding the strike are cleared
and that there is nothing to worry about the legal implications of the strike. While the other
position is on the aspect of politics and how it will affect the image of those actors involved in
the operation. The dichotomy present in their arguments is between legal and political. The legal
consultant of the army, as well as the Solicitor General are of the opinion that the operation is
legally cleared. The Defence Deputy Chief defended the strike to be of military necessity in
order to protect the civilian population against an imminent suicide attack planned by the
terrorist group. They argued that the hellfire is the most practical weapon of choice in order to
terminate the threat. However, on the other side of the room, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State argues that the issue is not a question of legality but rather a call of a sense of humanity.
The line delivered by the Under-Secretary can sum up her stand, “I know about the protocol, I’m
talking about what should be happening.” Her concern does not end with what is legal but also

1 A quote from the character James Willett, the British Foreign Secretary.
went as far as the morality of the act. She demands that the targets be captured alive and be
brought to trial.
This dichotomy showed us the different aspect of decision making in an international
level. Everything must be considered and that the fact that an act is legal does not mean that one
should take it.
After all the discussion just in order to obtain a clearance for the change of mission to a
termination of a target, the presence of the little girl in the blast zone changes the mission and
brought those in the meeting room to square one. They again have to bring the matter through the
entire chain of command in order to get another clearance. It is amazing that after considering
the number lives to be saved by killing the targets, the life of a single girl changed the stakes in
the matter. The strike was even in the brink of being cancelled due to the risk of having the girl
getting fatally wounded. It was emphasized that every single life matters in this case and that
collateral damage must be kept in the minimum thus adopting methods in order to save the girl.
During the discussion for the second clearance, there is a discomforting stand made even
by those who seemed to be very inclined to favor human rights, just like the propaganda
argument of the Under-Secretary of the State. They came to the idea that if there comes a suicide
bombing orchestrated by the terrorist group, it would mean that hatred would be directed against
the terrorist group and would even justify the future use of greater force. Then they win the
propaganda war. While if the good guys strike with a collateral casualty of a little girl, it will
suffer a lot of backlash for being negligent in their use of force, thus losing the propaganda war.
This a disturbing stand to be made since they treat the life of the little girl like a little chess piece
to be part of their strategy instead of actually advocating its protection.
In the end, the strike was made and the targets were killed, but as expected, the little girl
was caught in the impact zone and suffered serious injuries. The most moving scene in the film,
was not even the ethical struggle of the pilot pressing the fire button, but instead the most
emotional scene came from the act of the terrorists themselves. When parents of the half-dead
girl begged for help, the first ones to respond are the squad of terrorists. They even disassembled
and dumped all the weapons of their vehicles in order to make room for the girl. This was done
while they were in the middle of an attack. Priority for the terrorists shows their care for their
own people. There might be a lot of difference in ideologies, but this act shows that they are
humans too which are capable of caring and emotions.
After all the precautions and all the dillydallying, the girl still dies at the end. It shows
that there are times where casualty is inevitable, but nothing can justify the casualty. The girl’s
family is shown to be the exception from the fanatical population. They are just innocent
bystanders in a conflict they have no say about. The life of the girl might be seen by others as a
mere justified casualty for the general safety of the people, but to the family of the girl, her death
was the greatest tragedy to happen in their lives.
Finally, there was a subtle comparison between the general’s daughter and the little girl in
the impact zone. The general’s daughter enjoys the liberality of life such as getting the kind of
toys she wants in the comfort of her room while the other girl has to work just in order to
survive. This shows that international conflicts may be seen in different perspective by those in
living in the moment of the conflict and those who enjoys life in the other side of the world. This
was also mentioned by the Under-Secretary of the State when she scrutinized the apathy of
others for the life of the girl who would get caught in the impact zone. She said that they cannot
just imagine the impact since they are all seeing this “at the comfort of [their] seat.” This is one
of the best messages of the film for me: that one could not just imagine the circumstances that
people caught in the middle of an armed conflict have to go through in their everyday life just in
order to survive.