The 'willy-nilly' drone doctrine
By Erica Gaston and Christopher Rogers
Thursday, March 1, 2012 - 3:00 PM
Share
Last weekend, the Associated Press released a study of ten drone strikes in Pakistan in the last 18 months. This is the most ambitious journalistic investigation of drones so far, which also does what the Obama administration has so far failed to do: to meaningfully investigate claims of civilian casualties and publicly evaluate why those killed were targeted.
The study found that at least 138 militants were killed, while the remaining 56 were civilians and tribal police. It is difficult to extrapolate much from ten cases. But if the same pattern held true for other strikes, the civilian casualty rate would be far less than is commonly asserted in Pakistani public discourse -- but also far higher than the Obama Administration has suggested previously. Senior counterterrorism official John Brennan has in the past suggested the civilian casualty rate was zero, whereas President Obama has described it as "few." In contrast, Pakistani public discourse often suggests that most casualties of drone strikes are civilians. The AP article quotes prominent Pakistani public figure Imran Khan on drones: "Those who lie to the nation after every drone attack and say terrorists were killed should be ashamed."
The coverage of the AP study so far (and even the headline of the story itself) has largely focused on the discrepancy between the AP's finding that mostly militants were killed in the drone strikes it examined, and the common assertion in Pakistani media and politics that drones are primarily killing innocent civilians. Inflated civilian casualty claims due to drones are certainly a problem in Pakistan. They not only distort public discourse and policy-making, but they also inhibit sound analysis of what is causing civilian casualties, and possible steps to prevent and mitigate civilian harm in the future. However, reading the AP reporting as only exposing the hot air behind bogus civilian casualty claims misses the real contribution this study makes to the overall debate about drones.
The AP study is novel because it is based on something more substantial than the whispers of anonymous officials in the halls of Islamabad and Washington. AP took the time (and risk) to actually speak to those who knew the individuals killed, who saw the strike take place, and in some cases buried family members.
What's more, contrary to those who suggest that any ground reports will be hopelessly compromised by propaganda and anti-American bias, what the villagers interviewed told the AP smacks of truthfulness. If the local villagers were motivated to lie to inflate civilian casualties -- as one of the anonymously cited intelligence officials in the AP story seems to suggest -- they certainly gave AP the wrong impression. According to the 80 villagers AP interviewed, militants were the only victims in six of the ten strikes examined.
And while the AP found that militants were killed more frequently than civilians, it did find civilian casualties in a number of strikes. This begs the question: if the AP is doing assessments like this, why isn't the U.S. government? To the best of our knowledge, U.S. review of drone strikes consists of video footage before, during, and after the incident. For example, following one strike in which AP found that three women and two children were killed, the anonymous intelligence officials' rebuttal was that women and children had not been observed prior to the strike. Certainly no public investigations of drone strike cases -- of the type that typically follow allegations of civilian casualties by the U.S. military in Afghanistan -- have been forthcoming.
This is problematic because, while video surveillance can be an aide to investigation, it often presents an incomplete picture. Even with the best intelligence in the world, the conflict in the tribal areas of Pakistan is murky, as are the activities and affiliation of individuals operating within it. Across the border in Afghanistan, where troops have years of experience with the terrain and the communities, and greater field intelligence and access, mistakes are regularly made. The Administration's claims that such mistakes are almost impossible to avoid, or its attempts to dismiss claims to the contrary as propaganda alone, willfully disregards all the military has learned in its past ten years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In addition, video surveillance is often not enough to determine who is a civilian or who is a combatant under international law. Under international law, members of an armed group that is party to the conflict, or civilians who directly participate in hostilities can be directly targeted. While there are ongoing international legal debates about what constitutes "direct participation," the provision of food, shelter or medical care to one of the parties to a conflict, or mere association with one warring party does not constitute participation.
In Afghanistan, our organization, Open Society Afghanistan, has had more access to investigate such cases, and found that civilians have sometimes been killed or detained because their proximity to insurgent groups led to a sort of "guilt by association." Studies like the AP report raise concerns that the United States may be applying the same broad standards for direct participation in Pakistan. In one strike documented by the AP, 38 civilians and tribal police were reportedly killed at a public jirga -- a level of civilian harm that U.S. intelligence officials disputed on the grounds that "the group targeted was heavily armed, some of its members were connected to al-Qaida," according to the article. The AP analysis of the incident based on villagers' accounts found that some militants were present but that the majority was comprised of civilians, tribal elders, and tribal police -- many of whom may well have been armed given the cultural context and insecurity in Waziristan.
The lack of transparency in the Obama's Administrations' drone policy have made it impossible to know how the U.S. government chooses its targets in any given incident, and thus difficult to get any real traction on important questions of civilian harm. The Obama Administration's response to such concerns has ranged from outright denial to mere assertions that its strikes comply with international law (for example, in speeches by Legal Advisor Harold Koh and counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan). In a recent chat forum, President Obama dismissed the potential civilian harm from drones, as "not huge" concerns and assured those on the chat room that the U.S. use of drones was "judicious" and not "willy-nilly." Such remarks were the most candid, but also disturbingly casual in addressing these critical concerns.
The AP's findings starkly illustrate where the Obama Administration is falling short on public accountability for civilian casualties. At the same time, reaction to the AP report demonstrates how the debate over the percentage of civilian casualties can distract attention from equally critical issues, specifically the complete lack of transparency and how the U.S. distinguishes between militants and civilians. The Administration's closeted response to serious public concerns about its drone program does not befit its stated democratic values. Given the prominence of drones to U.S. national security policy, and the demonstrated consequences of these strikes, we need to move beyond the "willy-nilly" standard of killing.
Erica Gaston is a human rights lawyer for the Open Society Foundations specializing in civilian casualty issues. Chris Rogers is also a human rights lawyer for the Open Society Foundations specializing in human rights and conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFPAK POSTER 11, FLASH POINTS, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, AL QAEDA, HUMAN RIGHTS, LAW, MILITARY, PAKISTAN, SECURITY, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
In light of Pakistan’s refusal to eliminate Haqqani’s and Mullah Omar’s sanctuaries in its territory or permit US forces to mount a ground attack on those sanctuaries, U. S. does not have much choice left other than the drone attacks to go after the terrorists who have been killing US/NATO and Afghan forces from those sanctuaries.
As former Pentagon official Gen (rtd) Jack Keane said at a discussion on Afghanistan organized by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think-tank on June 30, 2011: "The truth is, the (Pakistani) ISI aids and abets the sanctuaries in Pakistan that the Afghan (Taliban) operate out of. They provide training for them, they provide resources for them and they provide intelligence for them. From those sanctuaries, every single day Afghan fighters come into Afghanistan and kill and maim us (US/NATO troops)". General Keane also added that “There are two ammonium nitrate factories in Pakistan. 80 per cent of the explosive devices that are used to kill our soldiers, kill Afghan security forces and kill Afghan people come from Pakistan."
With an ally like Pakistan, US is forced to resort to such means to protect its troops, atleast until American troops are in Afghanistan.
I'd love for the author to discuss the alternatives to the use of drones.
1. US Boots on the ground, which means invading Pakistan. Definitely not an option and not one the American public would support.
2. Leave and go home. Definitely not an option.
So what are we left with? We are left with drone strikes, which the American public seems to support.
aggressor US/NATO troops have only the right to die!
US/NATO aggressors have no rights.
They should be shot on sight.
The US/NATO killers do this.
Why not the AF/PAK/Taliban military?
Pakistan owes the US 'nada.'
The US needs to release Dr/Mrs Anfa Siddiqui
kidnapped, raped and tortured by the CIA at
Bagram- NOW!
Are we asuposed to feel sorry for the murderous thugs that have decided the Afghan/Pakistani people are lower than dirt?
Marty Martel - The Great Indian Friend
Before commenting, may I request your honour to please break your disguise of a western name and identify yourself with your original identity - India.
The sampling of ten cases is not a good basis to offer an objective opinion on such a sensitive issue. The fact is that Drones have failed to achieve the intended effects. The practice has not only added to anti - Americanism in Pakistan by killing innocent people, including children and women; it has also added thousands to extremists who want to revenge against the killing of their kiths and kins in such attacks. The repeated violation of the resolutions adopted by the Pakistani Parliament against teh drone attacks further damages the US desires and efforts to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan. US has no legal grounds to conduct these attacks - something being said so strongly by sane voices in US.
Marty, please avoid instigation / advocating morally and legally wrong strategies. Even a true "Realist" should consider this advice.
There is no simple solution; you are right. First option has indirectly been tried in the past and has utterly failed.
Nevertheless, the most pragmatic option remains winning back the trust and support of Pakistan and respecting its soverignty, asking its Government to eliminate the terrorists within its own territory. Besides requisite capacity - building of Pakistani Armed Forces, this essentially entails curtailing Indian activities directed at destabilizing Pakistan in FATA and Balochistan, using Afghan soil. This is THE SOLUTION ? OPTION, if you are looking for resolving the wicked problem at hand.
"asking its Government to eliminate the terrorists within its own territory".
This has been done time and time again. After a while it is a waste of time.
The Pakistani government either refuses to go after them or claims that they do not have either resources to go after them or evidence to convict them if they have gotten a hold of them.
In many cases, the "establishment" has been supportive of these terrorists and has given them covering fire as they cross the border to do their dirty work.
You reap what you sow, AmeriKKKa.
Blood is thicker than water Bubba.
Would US citizens attack and kill neighboring
Canadians just because a Muslim/foreign aggressor
breached our borders? We have murdered so many
human beings in Iraq/AF/PAK (1.5m+) that its a
wonder Americans can even walk the streets of
AF/PAK.... or look themselves in the mirror.
.......will certainly strike as novel to the Afghan civilians. 138 militants killed and only 56 civilians in 10 drone strikes.
The report ignores:
1. Drone strikes on funeral processions
2. strikes on weddings ceremonies
3. strike as revenge deliberately targeting civilians.
Why:
1. choose just 10 strikes (pick and choose)
2. not also look at period when the strikes were at their peak
3. not talk to a wide number of civilians in are where strikes are more regular.
The report is a total nonsense.
.....with the likes of Marty Martel, Dr. Kuchbhi and other Hindu-Indians prowling sites for anything anti-Pakistan.
What little information they have picked up, they keep recycling it. They are not very imaginative with it either and are becoming such a bore; Just the Indian movies often copied and pasted from American and European scripts
They vomit forth the filth that fills their little minds without realising what they are saying.
They are retired "gentlemen" with no other means to pass time.
very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.
We will give you a discount
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
=== http://www.plzzshop.com
thank you!!!
Believe you will love it.
We have good reputation, fashion products,
come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com
Opportunity knocks but once
I second you 100%.
Erica Gaston and Christopher Rogers don't know what "begs the question" means, but use it anyway. They have a further misfortune here, a silly headline that does not well guide to what they have to write.
Beyond that, they make a lot of assumptions that don't seem all that sensible. Those interested in whom the drones kill know there as been plenty of existing official evidence that drones kill lots of civilians, always have, always will. Official announcements from AFPAK in earlier years were along the lines of "a drone killed four (or more) people today; one of them was a known bad guy". This practice stopped once Human Rights Watch started racing to places where the drones had struck and supplying photographs of the coffins used for the interral of the drone victims. In some cases, the number of coffins exceeded the number of claimed drone victims. This led to officialdom's abandoning any public estimates who whom the drones were killing. It's taken years for AP to do some form of catchup.
How meaningful or otherwise the AP account might be was well suggested by STRIKER's excellent questions.
There's an intermittent Love The Drones campaign, and the AP report seems another triumph for those who want critics of drone attacks to just shut up. Last year, foreignpolicy.com published a much sillier illustration of this propaganda stream: a college professor and graduate student wrote that the drones are not weapons because they don't kill anybody. Yep, just like rifles, which don't kill many people at all. Of course, their bullets do.
How long till we see a "Pakistani civilians plead for more drones" offering?
Long War Journal credible date on drone strikes
interesting that no one has mentioned the Long War Journal's data on strikes, casualties and locations
http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php
Lingering questions, 2 out of many:
1. once hit by missiles fired from drones, bodies are anniahlated beyond recognition.
2. The information provided for the strikes has to be real-time and I mean absolutely precise in that the agent-spy must be stadning next if not not-too-far from the 'Taliban' at the moment of the strike to be sure it is the Taliban who has been hit, do a body count of the taliban and a separate count of the civilian bodies.
I challange anyone who can proivde such accurate inforamtion on the number of Taliban hit by the drones strikes.
Most statistical data and projections therefrom is based on assumptions.
What is certain however, is the people of the area and the relatives of the victims will provide much more accurate information than that collected by some overpaid box-ticker.
Time to get out AmeriKKKa: "God's ready to nuke you!"
You sound like a chicken plucker that gets paid by the truck load. Those are 'real' people Bubba, and 'Thou shall not kill.' (Or is this 'only' in AmeriKKKa and not when you are aggressing against a hapless people that never invited you to go and destroy their country, murder their people, and steal their natural resources?).
I see some very calloused opinions and judgements on this site.
You people ever go to church? Ever sing the 'Star Spangled Banner' or 'AmeriKKKa, the beautiful' and/or can you say the 'Lords Prayer? (Something about "please forgive our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us?).
Didn't think so, trolls!
Ambassador of Death: Attack of the Drones
In our world and our time, Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), which were experimentally manufactured in 1916, were first armed in order to attempt to kill Osama bin Laden.
They were and still are proven to be unreliable due to the fact that their target abilities are far from surgical precision, they are unstable when flying in less than perfect weather and they crash very often. In addition, loss of communication with these drones is one of the many technical issues that lead to their sub par performance. After consideration, President Clinton decided to shut down the project.
Later on, Bush reopened the project, refinanced it and made used of these drones 44 times, despite the acknowledgement of the performance reports. The attacks evidently lead to casualties; bodies were often hidden and buried by troops on the ground.
However, for now, most drones aren’t exploited for military purpose. They are mostly used for surveillance, reconnaissance, news reporting, border patrolling, intelligence and inspection.
As such, most industrialized countries such as China, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, India, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Japan and Brazil do “harvest” drones. Some of the super drones have even been baptized. Israel named theirs Heron; the United States upgraded their Predator with the Avenger; and, last but not least, Iran named theirs Karrar, which is Farsi for Striker. President Ahmadinejad infamously nicknamed his Persian Menace: the Ambassador of Death.
Episode X : The Persian Menace
Do not let the Ambassador of Death mislead you into being alarmed. The Ambassador of Death is not Darth Vader’s vehicle of choice. This drone is intended for, and I quote: “Peace and Friendship“. Logically, why should we be nervous over Iran since they have not initiated any attack towards any other country in over 200 years? And yes, the Persian Gulf War has been taken in consideration when making that statement.
That being said, it evidently is not the case when shifting our attention towards the previously mentioned pro-drone countries. Over 239 drone strikes were ordered under the Obama administration. Many of these attacks were carried out against the advice of U.S. Officials and Diplomats.
In fact, that tendency has led the Obama Administration of being responsible for at least 85% of drone strikes around the world, particularly in Pakistan.
This is the same Obama that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. Even then, his addition seems unsuited and undeserved, when one remembers past laureates.
As mentioned in a previous article of mine, the five countries (United Kingdom, United States, France, Russia and China) that have secured permanent United Nation seats are also the top global arm dealers. These same countries have been accusing Iran of secretly building nuclear weapons and pressuring them to halt their nuclear program.
It is important to understand or remember that the U.S. did not only assist but also coordinated the launch of the Iranian Nuclear Program in the 50s. This program was maintained for decades, until the 1979 revolution.
This support was even symbolized and categorized as the “Atoms for Peace” Program, implemented in 1953 by Eisenhower. Let’s acknowledge that a program would not be complete without an appropriate inaugural speech. And where else but at the United Nation General Assembly can a prestigious one take place? In this case, the cleverly named “Atoms for Peace” speech quickly followed Eisenhower’s “Chance for Peace” speech.
All this backing did result in the inception of Iran’s first nuclear power plant, which was completed and activated thanks to Russian assistance, in 2011.
The irony! The Atoms for Peace Program’s main principle was to reassure the world during the Cold War (between 1945 and 1991). Sarcastically, the Russians presided over its closing ceremony.
As a counter attack, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board, nations and multinational entities officially reprimanded and sanctioned Iran. This judgment was internationally supported by detailed tangible and evidence. The Iranian authorities, or should I say THE Iranian Authority, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini khamenei, has not yet been successfully coerced by the international pressure. The U.N. inspectors can come and go as often as necessary, it’s all in good faith, from both parties.
Remember, it’s a ll about Peace and Friendship.
“Look up in the sky, it’s a bird, it’s a plane… No, it’s a drone!”
The Empire Will Strike Back. It is just a question on which Empire will strike first.
Guess who’s building nuclear power plants now?
READ MORE AT : THUSALWAYSTOGENIUS
It is a principle of logic that for every position, the Thesis, the is an opposite position, the Antithesis. If you combine the two you get a Synthesis, which is more likely to appoach truth than either of the poles. In todays political arena things are more complicated since you have way more than just two positions, rather than look for one source to trust, try regarding all presented truths as half-truths, get as many viewpoints as possible, then compare verifiable events with what the various sources said in advance. This will allow you to construct a synthesis of your own. Even if you end up dead wrong, you'll still be the best informed dead wrong person on your block..
"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait bloque inevitable ?"
MaximB
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
(19)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE