3 ms·

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/explainers/our-methodology https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/explainers/our-methodo... The US government started p

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/explainers/our-methodology https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/explainers/our-methodo... The US government started publishing its own estimates of how many people it has killed in counter-terrorism strikes “outside areas of active hostilities”. This phrase was presumed to refer to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (not including the NATO bombing campaign in 2011 and the US strikes against ISIS around Sirte in 2016) though no US government official would confirm specifically where was outside active hostilities. The US data release was part of an executive order that included a commitment that the US would continue to publish such figures annually. However it remains to be seen if this executive order will survive into the Trump administration. Unfortunately the first data release, on July 1 2016 comprised of the total number US counter-terrorism strikes in all countries outside of areas of active hostilities for all years between January 2009 and December 2015, as well as the minimum and maximum estimates for the total number of combatants and non-combatants killed." Here's their article on Obama's presidency which includes data on the first 4 years. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2016-07-01/obama-drone-casualty-numbers-a-fraction-of-those-recorded-by-the-bureau https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2016-07-01/oba...

jerome-jh 6y ago
A quick look at TBIJ raw data (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/drone-wars-the-full-data https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/dro...), under Trump, air strikes: - went on in Afghanistan on +/- the same pace - scaled down in Pakistan and Yemen to almost zero - scaled up in Somalia, although they were already intensive in 2016 So it is a bit of a mixed answer although overall it appeared to go down compared to Obama presidency. Now of course there is the question whether a war can be won from the sky, and whether the CIA is pursuing its own goal or Trump administration's goals. My opinion is that air strikes alone do more bad than good in the long term, because basically there is no way it could put an end a conflict.
- somesortofsystm 6y ago
  Obama LITERALLY changed the definition of enemy combatant so that he did not have to report such high civilian casualty rates, as part of the CIA's program to use his popularity to sell endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. The definition was changed, essentially, to this: if they were killed by drone, they were enemies. Didn't matter if they were standing there in the market that day, lined up to buy bread. Didn't matter if they were responding in between the double taps to help their fellow citizens locate their limbs, recover their loved ones from under the rubble, etc. "If they were drone-striked, its because they were combatants." Thus, 'Obama killed less civilians' can be sold. That this was also abused under Trump is not in question. Comparing these two war criminals to each other to find out which was the nicer is an utterly ludicrous exercise.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The official civilian casualty numbers have always been pure bullshit, we know from the Manning leaks that Bush had hidden 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Obamas change did not drastically alter how the deaths were reported.
    - somesortofsystm 6y ago
      Actually, they did. Obama started counting everyone in the drone sights as enemy combatants. They were bullshit reports before Obama. They became even more bullshit during Obama. And the bullshit is out of control now.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Both numbers are made up, but do you have any source showing Obama started the military age male policy? All I can find is a government source agent said he "embraced it" in regard to drone strikes while the practice was used in several other areas during the Bush administration, such as who could face "enhanced interrogation." Further, some of the earlier sources I found retracted the statement to clarify that Obama embraced the Bush designation. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/opinion/2012-05-29/analysis-obama-embraced-redefinition-of-civilian-in-drone-wars https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/opinion/2012-05-29/ana...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >So it is a bit of a mixed answer although overall it appeared to go down compared to Obama presidency. It's an incomplete picture though, as it does not include Syria and Iraq where the majority of bombing took place.

jerome-jh 6y ago

A quick look at TBIJ raw data (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/drone-wars-the-full-data https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/dro...), under Trump, air strikes: - went on in Afghanistan on +/- the same pace - scaled down in Pakistan and Yemen to almost zero - scaled up in Somalia, although they were already intensive in 2016 So it is a bit of a mixed answer although overall it appeared to go down compared to Obama presidency. Now of course there is the question whether a war can be won from the sky, and whether the CIA is pursuing its own goal or Trump administration's goals. My opinion is that air strikes alone do more bad than good in the long term, because basically there is no way it could put an end a conflict.

somesortofsystm 6y ago
Obama LITERALLY changed the definition of enemy combatant so that he did not have to report such high civilian casualty rates, as part of the CIA's program to use his popularity to sell endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. The definition was changed, essentially, to this: if they were killed by drone, they were enemies. Didn't matter if they were standing there in the market that day, lined up to buy bread. Didn't matter if they were responding in between the double taps to help their fellow citizens locate their limbs, recover their loved ones from under the rubble, etc. "If they were drone-striked, its because they were combatants." Thus, 'Obama killed less civilians' can be sold. That this was also abused under Trump is not in question. Comparing these two war criminals to each other to find out which was the nicer is an utterly ludicrous exercise.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The official civilian casualty numbers have always been pure bullshit, we know from the Manning leaks that Bush had hidden 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Obamas change did not drastically alter how the deaths were reported.
  - somesortofsystm 6y ago
    Actually, they did. Obama started counting everyone in the drone sights as enemy combatants. They were bullshit reports before Obama. They became even more bullshit during Obama. And the bullshit is out of control now.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Both numbers are made up, but do you have any source showing Obama started the military age male policy? All I can find is a government source agent said he "embraced it" in regard to drone strikes while the practice was used in several other areas during the Bush administration, such as who could face "enhanced interrogation." Further, some of the earlier sources I found retracted the statement to clarify that Obama embraced the Bush designation. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/opinion/2012-05-29/analysis-obama-embraced-redefinition-of-civilian-in-drone-wars https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/opinion/2012-05-29/ana...
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>So it is a bit of a mixed answer although overall it appeared to go down compared to Obama presidency. It's an incomplete picture though, as it does not include Syria and Iraq where the majority of bombing took place.