The Inefficiency of British Politics from Eyes in the Sky

Nakia 2022-04-19 09:02:08

"Eye in the Sky" tells a story: After six years of tracking, the British intelligence agency, represented by Colonel Catherine, discovered the whereabouts of a well-known female terrorist and found her when the joint multinational action team was monitoring her. A human bomb attack on civilians is about to be launched. Katherine requested immediate precision bombing of the target by the U.S. drone enforcement team in the multinational team. As the bombing order was about to be carried out, drone controller Steve found a small local girl in danger within the blast radius.

Is it to immediately execute the bombing order and to stifle the upcoming terrorist attack with a casualty level of about 100 people in the cradle? Or take the risk of missing the plane and take all the means (including letting nearby agents risk their lives to approach the little girl) to keep the little girl out of danger first? Around this issue, the plot of the film continues to expand and deepen.

It can be seen that Katherine is going to launch an attack, and there are many obstacles in front of her.
Obstacle 1: Legal supervisors on site. She will be reminded of the legal dilemmas she may encounter.
Obstacle 2: The general commanding behind.
Obstacle 3: The command team where the general is located includes the general himself, the inspector general, the female political adviser, the foreign minister and several other important government officials.
Obstacle 4: Joseph, the drone operator who carried out the order. He has the power to request to examine the bombing environment and predict the casualty rate.

Almost everyone has a veto power, but they are all swaying; an important decision in the blink of an eye is first reported from the general to the command group; the command group did not discuss the result, and then reported it to the foreign secretary, American allies and even the Prime Minister. In order to avoid responsibility, no one makes a decision.

If the counter-terrorism team is regarded as a team of the enterprise, it can be seen that this is a very inefficient team. As a front-line business manager, Catherine almost missed the opportunity due to the inefficiency of the decision-making mechanism when the terrorists who had been tracking them for six years were under the gun of the team and made great achievements in minutes.

This kind of situation is like in an enterprise, the sales department has been tracking a large project for 6 years, and it is about to be tendered, but a staff member of the client side suddenly asks for a rebate, about a few thousand dollars. The sales manager needs to report this matter to the management team, and it can only be implemented after full discussion and affirmation by the financial director, general manager, purchasing director, and even the personnel director and engineering director. However, in the implementation process, if the salesperson has a negative attitude towards this practice, the work still cannot be completed.

This is actually a typical British (European) democratic society. European-style democracy is full democracy and pursues the ultimate fairness. Everyone in the team is equal, everyone has the right to speak and make decisions, and the opinions of all team members are fully considered when making decisions. However, due to the different positions and starting points of each person, the process of reaching a decision will be very difficult and painful, and because "groups usually have only very general talents and wisdom" ("The Crowd"), the final decision-making is often not the most scientific. It is also impossible to achieve "optimal allocation of resources".

If it is a Chinese team, this problem does not exist. There is a power center in the Chinese team, and the team's execution will be very strong. The problem with Chinese teams is the distribution of benefits. Interest must flow to the center of power. The problem with Chinese teams is that there is no guarantee of fairness.

The American team is a compromise between the two. Powerful oversight, but not so dispersed that it affects the efficiency of the team. Therefore, watching the American drama "Homeland", the commanders on the scene are specially authorized to issue bombing orders immediately during wartime, and check after the event to judge the legality and rationality; the President of the United States has the right to launch military operations for a period of not more than 90 days, and if more than 90 days It is necessary to report to Congress to apply for support; in the United States, the vote winner takes all in the general election, forming a de facto two-party system, which not only supervises and restricts each other, but also prevents the proliferation of power and causes wrangling and internal friction.

From confirming the identity of the terrorists to executing the bombing order, the "wonderful" wrangling between politicians for at least half an hour really broke the audience. The terrorists are ready. Hundreds of innocent people outside the compound are constantly facing threats to their lives. The fake mercy and Virgin Mary's feelings of British politicians are disgusting. This is reminiscent of the recent serious security incidents in Europe due to the opening of borders to refugees.

Under the director's arrangement, the terrorists waited patiently for them to finish their discussions, and then suddenly "committed" when the drone dropped the bomb. I have a little suspicion that there are traitors among the terrorists, and they deliberately delay time to apologize to death.

View more about Eye in the Sky reviews

Extended Reading
  • Ephraim 2021-12-19 08:01:08

    (i) The anti-terrorism of the left is too cowardly (ii) The bureaucrats are pushed and pushed around and portrayed very well, with a little shadow of yes minister (iii) The woman in the British cabinet is as annoying as nicola sturgeon (iv) The end of the film appears The words "in loving memory of Alan Rickman" (v) Politicians are afraid that the people are really sad to some extent. (vi) Using expensive technology to fight terrorists forward and backward, how can we win this war...

  • Doug 2021-12-19 08:01:08

    To say that this film is fake, the focus of this film lies in the discussion, which lies in the interests of the country in the war, the interests of the individual, the responsibility and selfishness of everyone, and the last remaining moral code. Human progress lies in denying and reflecting on things that were taken for granted before. No matter how cynical people are, it is impossible to deprive others of the right to dream. If you live by yourself, you will be happy if you are so realistic. In addition, the plot details of the movie, the character expressions are all in place, praise

Eye in the Sky quotes

  • Lt. General Frank Benson: Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war.

  • James Willett: Revolutions are fueled by postings on YouTube.