About those civilian fatalities
By Peter Bergen
Friday, December 4, 2009 - 2:06 PM
Share
By Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann
Scott Shane has a must-read in today's New York Times about the possible expansion of the CIA's program of drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas to Baluchistan, the large and sparsely populated southern Pakistani province where the Afghan Taliban is headquartered.
Having written about the drones a bit ourselves, we read it with great interest and were struck by one of Shane's anonymous sources, a government official who claims that the more than 80 drone strikes in less than two years have killed "more than 400" enemy fighters and "just over 20" civilians.
A study we conducted in mid-October, based on a careful analysis of the most accurate media counts of the strikes, found that between some 370 and 540 militants were killed by drone strikes in Pakistan since the start of 2008. There have been a few more strikes since the study was released, bringing the total of militants killed to between 384 and 578. So that's close enough to be in the same range as the government official's estimate of more than 400 militants killed.
What is troubling -- and in our view, highly unlikely -- is the official's claim that only some 20 civilians have been killed by these drone strikes, a fatality rate of only around 5 percent. Given that one strike alone on the funeral of a suspected Taliban militant in South Waziristan in late June killed at least 18 people described as civilians, according to a report in the London Times, it seems implausible that only a handful more were killed in all of the 81 drone strikes that have occurred since the beginning of 2008.
The methodology by which the anonymous government official arrived at his conclusion of "just over 20" civilians and "more than 400" militants killed by drone strikes since the start of 2008 is unknown, but we worry that the official may be putting a good deal of spin on the figures about civilian casualties because of the unpopularity of the drone strikes in Pakistan; Pakistanis often complain that they not only violate national sovereignty but cause large numbers of civilian casualties.
Our own data shows that if we consider just the period from 2008 until the present, the average civilian fatality rate is between 35 and 40 percent; far more than the five percent claimed by the government official.
Peter Bergen, AfPak Channel editor, is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, where Katherine Tiedemann is a policy analyst.
JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty Images
Who, precisely, is a "civilian?" I am not being facetious--rather, I am genuinely curious as to the definition of a civilian. For example, is anyone except the intended target(s) of a drone attack automatically defined as a civilian? Or should those victims who had previously engaged in armed conflict (and/or financial or materiel support to the conflict) against the U.S., Afghan, Pakistani and/or Indian governments not be considered civilians even if they were not the intended targets of the drone attack?
More broadly...I'm sure you're aware that Hamas claims that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian because every Israeli (or at least every non-Arab Israeli) adult has to undergo a stint in the Israeli military. Similarly, I am sure there are those in Israel who believe that any Palestinian who chants "Death to Israel" is not a civilian (though thankfully this is far from being official Israeli policy). I find such reasoning quite reprehensible; yet, vis-a-vis the drone attacks, I would not automatically assume that everyone who is not intentionally targeted is a "civilian."
Surely someone has articulated a middle ground in the definition?
I find it highly unlikely that only 20 civilians would have died altogether, considering the nature of the weaponry used to carry out the strikes. Explosives are very indiscriminate weapons. As a note however, simply being reported as civilians does not make it so. I doubt that any reporters made an effort to get to the region of Pakistan where the strikes took place, so they were in essence totally reliant on claims made by locals (who had a strong chance of being linked to the Taliban), U.S officials (who would have an interest in minimizing civilian casualty reports), and Pakistani officials (whose statements I trust even less than the Taliban or the U.S).
Also, would the writers consider a clarification? Phrases like "careful analysis of the most accurate media counts" don't mean much to me unless I know what qualifications were used.
On your last point:
They included a link to the report that relied on "careful analysis of the most accurate media counts."
If you had clicked through, you would have found:
"But first, a word on our methodology. Our analysis of the drone campaign is based only on accounts from reliable media organizations with substantial reporting capabilities in Pakistan. We restricted our analysis to reports in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks--the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC--and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan--The Daily Times, Dawn, and The News--as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network. (Links to all those individual reports can be found in Appendix 1 of this paper.)"
Going back in time here, during early 2002, the early years, I have this memory of an aerial photograph showing scores of mourners attending funeral of a fallen Taliban leader. Unmollested, in the heat of the battle.
If this policy has been changed, it is for the good.
As regards the actual number of civilian deaths, it is hard to believe but then again, if one reads the NYT article in full, it is evident that the source speaks with some authority. The description where the drone circles the spot, till the time is right and innocents out of the way goes to prove the point. Even if the true number is say ten times that estimate, it would be about 200.
Compare this with a count from The Long War Journal, since 2007, in Pakistan alone, over 400 muslims have been killed by terrorists IN MOSQUEs. IN MOSQUES.
Whats the percentage of civilians killed by suicide bombers?
Seriously.
A few weeks ago I heard some Pakistani college
students peppering Hillary Clinton about the
number of innocents killed by our drones and
was hoping that Secretary Clinton would point out
that, while we are trying NOT to kill innocents,
the Taliban are often trying kill as many as possible. I am no genius but that does strike me as a gigantic difference.
Sadly, insurgents will often set up in a village to use innocents
as shields because insurgencies are an ugly business.
The Pakistani Army heavily restrict access to NWFP and even if a reporter got past that the tribesman are deeply suspicious and could also bar access. And then it could be hours before they could find the strike area. by then the population would have claimed and buried every discernible body part.
Secondly, please disabuse oneself of the notion that "victims" don't lie, cheat and engage in subterfuge. Western media likes to portray these areas as poor, ill-informed, country folk and far from.. The persons who speak at all (who do not represent the majority of the population) are media and politically savvy and know exactly whom the reporters report to and for- probable consumption by sympathetic Pakistani Islamic parties and Western aid organizations.
Third, a stringer can suddenly be working for nearly any news outlet in that part of the world by exchanging a few negotiating e-mails and presto a "reporter". It is next to impossible to verify veracity of reporting. So many Western, accreditted journalists I spoke to confessed to this fact- a Western face cannot actually go and check.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE