In a combined effort, Stanford and NYU human rights law professors have released a disturbing but utterly important report (along with the accompanying video shown above) on the U.S. drone strike program. It incudes nine months of research and two investigations in Pakistan with more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts.
Pakistani citizens living in drone strike zones have been experiencing these terrors since 2004, at more than 340 attacks over the last eight years.
The report confirms that the government’s reassuring public statements about “exceedingly rare“ civilian deaths in drone strikes are indeed a load of crap. There are far more civilian deaths caused by drone strikes than counterterrorism officials have been willing to acknowledge. The Obama administration has propagandized the preciseness of drone attacks by adopting the word “surgical” as their trademark description. It’s assumed that words such as “surgical” and “laser-like focus” are used to convince everyone the country’s not just aimlessly blowing stuff and people up. And while drone targets may not be random, they’re certainly not “surgical” attacks. The evidence is in the numbers.
According to the study, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found—with the limited data available—that from June 2004 to mid-September 2012, drone strikes have killed 1,228-1,362 individuals, with 474-881 being civilian victims, including 176 children. And of all those killed, only an estimated 2 percent were high-level targets. That’s some “laser-like” precision.
As the study acknowledges, there are difficulties in obtaining data on strike casualties due to the administration’s secrecy and its continued efforts to cloud transparency over the controversial drone program. One such measure was revealed earlier this year when The New York Times reported that President Obama reclassified the definition of ”combatant” as “all military-age males in a strike zone.”
Counterterrorism officials defended this as “simple logic” because people in a terrorist area are “probably up to no good.” The word “probably” does not indicate 100 percent certainty, which indicates that the U.S. government is not 100 percent certain if people in the area they are targeting are actually all terrorists. If you’re going to kill somebody, you should probably first make sure they’re actually “up to no good.”
Or maybe our government doesn’t actually care about “minimizing collateral damage.” At least, that’s what the double tap strikes seem to illustrate. According to the report, the U.S. engages in a practice known as double strikes, which is when “a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession.” Furthermore, “Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike… the secondary strikes have discouraged average civilians from coming to one another’s rescue, and even inhibited the provision of emergency medical assistance from humanitarian workers.”
In 2004, an FBI alert warned law enforcement agencies that “terrorists may use secondary explosive devices to kill and injure emergency personnel responding to an initial attack.” The goal, as a senior policy analyst for defense policy explained, is to “incite more terror.”
This terror is evident in the northwestern part of Pakistan. Because drones are regularly hovering over the region, civilians in drone strike zones are forced to live under a constant state of fear and apprehension. People are afraid to leave their homes, and kids are forced to drop out of school.
“Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.”
One attack on U.S. soil eleven years ago has resulted in an endless campaign of terror enacted by our country on a region that—while does indeed harbor terrorists—is also the home of innocent civilians. That one attack does not justify our 340. It does not justify our never-ending acts of violence on those who seek to live in peace, while subjecting them to a never-ending fear that as one Pakistani father puts it, “Drones are always on my mind. It makes it difficult to sleep. They are like a mosquito. Even when you don’t see them, you can hear them, you know they are there.”
Here are excerpts of the interviews with the victims. Judge for yourself whether others’ use of terrorism allows us to label our use of terrorism as “ethical.”
This is a critically important issue.
• According to reports from the area, drone warfare has become the new terrorist recruiting line (Guantanamo Bay is sooo 2006).
• These strikes outside of established conflict zones with no apparent government oversight of their effectiveness and civilian deaths “flouts international law.” The tactic of targeting responders in a “double tap” strike is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits attacking rescue efforts. (source: http://jsexhu.gs/4b)
• Most alarmingly, American citizens aren’t immune from these strikes, which amounts to an assassination without any formal charges or trial. A 16-year-old Yemeni American, the son of the strike’s target, was killed in one attack last year: (source: http://jsexhu.gs/drones)
Together this paints a picture of an internationally and constitutionally illegal war waged by against civilian populations and even American citizens in an endless cycle that produces as many terrorists as it kills.
Hell no will Obama get my vote, for that alone.
Your article is crap. So your assessment is these drone operators and analysts see children and then say, screw it fire anyway? Whats your definition of civilian? The gun driving around a high value target? The guy driving a truck fulled of armed insurgents, or some women and children 50 feet away who get hit? I’m guessing its the latter. No agency, asset, analyst or military personnel would EVER just randomly fire on civilians. They spend weeks tracking down individuals making sure there are civilians near by. If there are, they don’t take the shot. Have you gone to these regions and interviewed locals? Others have. They say the drone strikes are accurate and only target insurgents, often to a specific room. Where as local military shoot at random. (Google it, you will find the articles I’m talking about). When you say 500 civilians were killed, you really mean 500 people who were working with terrorists and insurgents, facilitating them, they just happened to be the the “unarmed” guy out of the 12 who were armed. That does NOT make them civilians. Again…176 children? So your theory is the optics are so crappy that the analysts can’t tell who children are, or that they are so blood thirsty they don’t care? If less than 2% are actual HVTs then whats the urgency to “take the shot”, why risk hitting civilians? Your information is inflammatory and contradictory. These people live in a constant state of fear, but not of drones strikes, from insurgents. Do some research, go the area yourself and stop repeating so called “facts” that have been published by others that also have no merit. “176 children” has been thrown around for years, thanks a lot Brooking Institute.
I agree with the original poster, Jackson. Your article seems to repeat biases played out by others in the media over the years without putting forth any facts. I understand its not easy to get into these regions, however others have done so. Perhaps American born Pakistanis, Afghanis, Yemenis etc could go and interview some of the locals. I did find the article Jackson was talking about and its true. People went in and interviewed the citizens of the AF/PAK region and found that they do not fear the drones as “they only target insurgents” unlike the PAK military who apparently will send in air strikes at random. It seems that based on people on the ground there is actual support for the drone program.
I too would dispute the claim civilians ESPECIALLY children were killed. How could the program have the support of anyone in the government if children were being killed. I could understand one or two who ran up at the last second, but 176? Thats insane.
Jackson, this article links to very detailed studies with hundreds of hours of on-the-ground, first-person interviews. These people are able to provide pictures, first-hand accounts, and evidence of the strikes which killed their children. This number is not speculation, nor is it based on “optics,” it’s based on thorough reporting and study.
You, contrastingly, did not provide any factual evidence, citation, or sources to support your claims that there aren’t civilians being killed in these attacks.
You and Ralph also show incredible cognitive dissonance. Here is evidence that children are being killed, which you deny simply because the government is doing it. Time to face facts:
• When Clinton’s Sec. of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the death of an estimated 500,000 children following sanctions against Iraq, she said, “the price, we think, is worth it.” (video: http://jsexhu.gs/kids1).
• 12 people, including 2 Reuters journalists, were killed by U.S. Apache helicopters in 2007. The helicopters also fire on a van which responds to assist the injured, and two children inside the van are hurt (source: http://jsexhu.gs/kids2).
• In March of 2011, a US Army soldier went house to house through a village in Afghanistan, killing 16 civilians including 9 children and 3 women (source: http://jsexhu.gs/kids3).
The facts are clear, so let’s not mince words: U.S. kills kids. Next time you come in to my house, bring some damn sources.
Ralph, Jackson, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The drone programs are wildly successful for that reason. They are crazy accurate and only target insurgents or high value individuals. Thats the whole point isnt it? You watch a bad guy for weeks, confirms its him through a variety of sources then when he is either A. alone or B. with other people who obviously support terrorism (because they are with a terrorist, driving him around, carrying weapons etc) you kill him. I assume the guys who run this don’t just randomly fire missiles at groups of people they don’t know about, or kill indiscriminately with children nearby. How could TWO different administrations support the program if thats how it operated? Why did Lynn Zhong choose to use inflammatory words in her article like “load of crap” or point out that it is the Obama Administration that chose to use the word “surgical” even though that word was used by the Bush administration to describe UAV strikes in the past. Why is their blatant media bias in this article instead of just stating facts? Shame on NYU and their editors for letting such shoddy yellow journalism prevail.
I found an excerpt of an article possibly the one Jackson was talking about that stated:
“A solid case can be made for more drone attacks, not less.Most people in FATA think, the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants. In addition the locals wanted the Pakistani forces to also target the militants but the problem is the Pakistani forces play double game and don’t target many jihadi groups who are on ISI payroll, locals usually appreciate drone attacks when they compare it with the Pakistan Army’s attacks.”
I too agree this article is written with blatant bias. I would guess that because the program is so sensitive and covert that the real details aren’t known. Are there going to be civilian casualties…sure. Are they going to be in the hundreds? No way. Will more than a few children be killed? NO WAY. The program could not exist if that was the case. How many civilians are killed during a normal war by both sides? So now your saying that in this war on terror with a drone program that has been going on for what…8 years? That realistically 50 civilians and a dozen children were killed? AND?!?!? That is outstanding success rate! How many terror plots have stopped? How many insurgents who were going to shoot at our boys fighting in Afghanistan have been killed? Keep up the program! An educated America supports you!
Brett,
I’m confused. What house is it, that we are in, that is yours? Lines like that make you sound like the absurd student you probably are. You cited lots of references, good on you, however they were for Iraq, and Afghanistan and not the drone program in the AF/PAK region. That is the crux of the argument and the point of this article is that does it actually kill hundred and hundreds of civilians 20% of which are children.
Do you think the analysts who do this work either can’t tell that they are children or just don’t care? You point out where one man went crazy and killed people, then point out that Madeline Albirght, (who was not secretary of state during the Iraq war) said killing 500,000 children is justifiable. But in reality she was saying that sanctions related to the first gulf war lead to Saddam’s own people killing 500K children, through either lack of aid or other means. That is a bit different than saying we are ok with US personnel killing children. Of course there have been times when US servicemen have either gone crazy or b “friendly-fired” on civilians. You don’t need to cite sources, thats obvious. The point is did ANY administration say, hey its ok to kill hundreds of children to simply get a few insurgents? No. The fact is that only those in the program actually no how people are targeted, what the criteria is, if civilians are killed etc. Tell me can you tell different between a hellfire from a Predator and one from a Pakistani helicopter? How can “civilians” struck in the middle of the night know if it was a UAV or a PAKMIL counter-terror sweep? The majority of the comments on this page support the idea that the drone attacks are successful and are in fact surgical. Abu Yahya Al qaeda’s number 2 was killed in a strike. Should we have not targetted him? You prefer letting terrorists live? Even the guys on the ground said no civilians were killed. Sounds surgical to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/qaeda-deputy-killed-in-drone-strike-in-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
There will always be people who argue over this, but until people go to the AF/PAK border and see for themselves, or until the intel is declassified for sure, we will never truly know.
Ralph, Jackson, Chris, Susan: Have any of you bothered to at look at the report? Or at least read the excerpts of the interviews of victims?
You can also watch this to see some clips of the interviews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yMOzvmgVhc#!
There is no doubt that these drone strikes heavily affect civilians whether it be physical or psychological.
And if you don’t believe that civilians are being killed because drones are “crazy accurate” you might want to watch what this retired Brigadier General has to say about drones: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-retired-brigadier-general-on-how-drones-misidentify-targets/259359/
“A drone or another intelligence device is sorta like being at a football game sitting on the 50-yard line and looking through a soda straw. I mean you see what you see. But there’s a lot of other context that you don’t see.”
He goes on to recount how on a mission in 2004, the headquarters of the drone stationed on site had mistaken a group of kids and one adult playing soccer for Osama bin Laden.
Further proof: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/magazine/the-drone-zone.html?pagewanted=all
“As much as the military has tried to make drone pilots feel as if they are sitting in a cockpit, they are still flying a plane from a screen with a narrow field of vision.
Then there is the fact that the movement shown on a drone pilot’s video screen has over the years been seconds behind what the drone sees — a delay caused by the time it takes to bounce a signal off a satellite in space. This problem, called “latency,” has long bedeviled drone pilots, making it difficult to hit a moving target.”
This is also a great graphic that illustrates the administration’s inconsistent claims about the number of civilian deaths: http://www.propublica.org/special/how-obama-drone-death-claims-stack-up#
I am not implying that we are targeting civilians. But this repeated reassurance about how accurate drone strikes are and how they have very little negative impact on innocent civilians is just propaganda.
Lynn, how can you conclude your point with “propaganda” when your article has the strong influence of bias and is thus propaganda. The point is simple, sure there is going to be a need for both sides to exaggerate the number of civilians killed one way or another, but to say hundreds of children were killed is a fallacy. Maybe one day someone who works in the program will come forward and clear it up one way or the other. I’m sure they are out there, reading articles like these and just laughing or realizing how wrong we all are. I do doubt there is some analyst out there firing missile at children left and right just because. I’m sure the videos are archived, why not get a bi-partisan group special access to those videos and they can watch and look for these hundreds of civilians and children killed then report back either way.
Yes Lynn I read the report as well, and I see its inherent bias as well.
Yes Lynn I read the report as well. I still think and looks like the majority of people here agree, its biased. Hundreds of children are not being killed, and killing terrorist are a good thing. But what do I know, I just have a PhD in International Relations from Georgetown and retired as Colonel in the Army.
i freaked out after the atlantic posted “why i refuse to vote for barack obama”, and read a gagillion (minus two) different opinion pieces/studies on the drone war in pakistan. it sucks, it really does. and i don’t like it. not one bit.
it’s easy to take all of this rhetoric and not look into the issue, and that’s true for all sides. but during my freakout, i found it beneficial to try and gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue, and put it in a larger context than simply “the us sucks and kills people with robots”. because that may be true, but there is a lot of misinformation hovering overhead, and a lot to be said for thinking critically about these studies and their findings.
not that i’m arguing for the “i love unmanned warfare and really like killing children” side. but that’s not to say this isn’t a part of a larger issue about the lines we draw in the moral (quick)sand regarding terror, war, technological advancement, technological advancement and terror, technological advancement and war, etc.
i took a soc class on the morality of war las year. juan corradi. take him if you can, he rocks. what i took from the class was just how vitally important it is to make up your own mind about these issues. they matter, and they’re real. and the more people who are thinking about them, the better chance we have to find a solution (at least if you believe in math, which i only do sometimes).
here are some articles i found particularly helpful in aligning my moral compass regarding these issues, in case you’re interested – and also because ‘evidentiary support’ went a long way for elle woods.
why i refuse to vote for barack obama: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
why i refuse to refuse to vote for barack obama: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-i-refuse-to-refuse-to-vote-for-obama/263116/
response on responses (UGH): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-responses-to-why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/263057/
the economist (ROCKS):
http://www.economist.com/where-do-you-stand/drones
and last but not least, wikipedia. how you’re always there in my moments of need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle
sorry our world sucks, guyz.
The fact that any US citizen – allegiances and political opinions aside – would try to defend the use of unmanned drones shows an utter disregard for human life and a level of detachment that is frightening. Drones kill innocents and simultaneously cause massive levels of guilt for the American soldiers who sit in Florida controlling them. Whether this article is biased or not, the fact holds true that nobody fighting in the “war on terror” (which is a lovely term for a war on an abstraction) is winning. Show a little fucking empathy.
I wholeheartedly agree with Zoe, as well as the importance of this article. Well done, Lynn