18 ms·

Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

298 points by stfu 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago
My recollection is the CIA considers any military aged males in the area of a strike to be enemy combatants, which could be one cause for significantly different numbers. Here we go: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in... "It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Well it goes back to Vietnam really. The idea was that bullets fired by American soldiers towards civilians would automatically turn those civilians into Viet Cong. That was basically the unspoken policy. Another story was from a helicopter pilot. They would capture what looked like "enemy combatants", load them into a helicopter for transport, then proceed to interrogate them under a threat of being thrown down on the ground. And then they would get the information and throw them off the helicopter But the issue was that they had to count the casualties. So the policy was to _always_ count when disembarking the helicopter not before. As those two numbers were sometimes quite different.
- mladenkovacevic 13y ago
  The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge. The REALLY scary part where America goes from being a misguided but well-intentioned brute to a completely evil, opportunistic warmonger is when you think about the data that the US intelligence and military complex has access to. Don't they know that their war is creating more enemy combatants with each and every civilian casualty, and if they know that then why are they steadfastly continuing with their campaign as if it's actually producing positive results.
  - jaebrown 13y ago
    This was my point above in my comment. War is a good thing for the US.
  - jehovahrova 13y ago
    "The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge." I do not expect to convince you to change your opinion, but I would like to let you know that this is not an opinion well verified by fact. It's a supposition made by chaps like Noam Chomsky without serious data behind it. It is also counter to what we know is true, which is that serious terrorism comes from religiously-motivated intellectuals, not the down-trodden poor incited to revenge.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      I wouldn't call them intellectuals - more like college students. But I also don't think that applies in the general case, like Al Qaeda in Iraq. Attacks on western soil, like 9/11, it has definitely been stablished has mainly middle to upper-class college educated guys - engineers, dentists, that sort of thing. But in the middle east and south asia I don't think the rank file qualify.
    - j_baker 13y ago
      Don't be a hypocrite. You scold the GP for not having any factual basis, and then proceed to give your own argument without factual basis. Please show some proof, or stop scolding people for not showing proof.
    - diydsp 13y ago
      I believe civilian casualties do have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge. Examples can easily be found which show that American men enlisted in response to attacks on our soil. "One of those young men was William Grigsby, now an Army staff sergeant who enlisted in early 2002. “The events of 9/11 had everything to do with my decision to enlist,” he said." [1] "It's clear the events of Sept. 11, 2001 played a role in many peoples' decisions to join the military. The Minnesota National Guard is still benefiting from a boost in recruitment a decade later." [2] [1] http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=65272 http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=65272 [2] http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/05/sept11-recruitment http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/05/sept...
- wiml 13y ago
  That NYT article you linked to came to mind when I was reading this link as well, especially this quote from the Pakistani administration: "In the media, they said it was all children. They were absolutely wrong. There may have been some collateral damage of some children but they were not children at all, they were all militants doing training inside."
spodek 13y ago
Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did. I keep slipping back into believing the United States government believes in honesty and transparency, at least relatively more than other governments. In some areas it might, but not on major issues like war. It's painful to watch a government that instituted the Marshall Plan actively destroy its credibility like this. Or to think of the consequences. Or to see them play out.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  I grew up in the 80s in the Soviet Union. And the thing is, we never believed their propaganda because it was too ridiculous. Everyone was laughing at the bullshit they heard on the radio and TV. True believers have disappeared probably the the mid 60s or so. Even defecting spies had stopped using "ideology" as the reason for their defection it was too unbelievable. Likewise might happen in US. It seems two things has happened already. They stretched propaganda vs reality difference too thin. And the Internet. It becomes harder to keep a straight face telling others about freedom, privacy, free market, human rights in light of news about torture, drones, spying etc. Also, without an ability to get access to alternative media and if Fox was the only channel available many would still thing this country was God's gift to humanity. It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. On another note. There was an old joke from back in the 90's. "When Soviet Union fell, we found out everything they told us about Communism was a lie. And everything they told us about America was true". Good counter-propaganda after all, is often not telling lies just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. In other words I doubt the Marshall Plan America is a good ol America or is it the America that still believed in segregation, raping South American countries for profit, installing brutal dictators in South East Asia and so on.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    Good counter-propaganda after all is often not telling lies, just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. That's very well put.
gmuslera 13y ago
This numbers are a bit higher http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ And that only counts Pakistan. Afganistan, Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen were attacked by drones too http://www.policymic.com/articles/23708/guess-which-8-countries-the-u-s-is-waging-secret-drone-campaigns-against http://www.policymic.com/articles/23708/guess-which-8-countr...
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I doubt most of the other deaths were ever given much of a fair trial, so the implication of innocence should probably be applied a bit more broadly. You know, since we're defending democracy and all.
- bloaf 13y ago
  The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    A part of drone strikes are done by CIA pilots at Langley. I think you are being generous with "military, does this and thus it is ok". But no matter how generous you are, stretching "military" for CIA agents at Langely who kill kids herding goats by day and pick up their kids for soccer practice in the evening is a little too silly for my taste.
    - bloaf 13y ago
      The CIA explicitly has no law enforcement capability. Their killing therefore does not represent the enforcement of any law and as such does not require a trial. Their killing is therefore a military action.
      - zachrose 13y ago
        Then so too are gang shootings, domestic murder, and terrorism itself?
        bloaf 13y ago
        Gangs, civilians, and terrorists are not governmental entities and therefore not military. A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. Organized violence against a foreign country by citizens of another is also referred to as military (e.g. [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29
runn1ng 13y ago
They are foreigners though, so it doesn't matter that much
- Volpe 13y ago
  It doesn't seem to matter if they are US citizens either...
D9u 13y ago
One would expect better from a nation whose president was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
- future_grad 13y ago
  It sure takes a hell of a lot of killing to reach peace.
- smutticus 13y ago
  Why? The Nobel committe gave Henry Kissinger that same prize and he oversaw the invasion of Cambodia. An invasion that eventually led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the deaths of over 1 million Cambodians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu I don't think we should place too much faith in these Nobel folks getting it right much of the time.
TempleOS 13y ago
God is perfectly just. Wait for it. God says... boink eateth boldness name's strengthless instances deliver clothed gross-hearted flow commenders sciences described shortly meddle lentiles birth do_I_have_to preserve GUTENBERG-TM likely abide THIS dully leaning occur fallacies plausibility createst intellectual Fish
pivnicek 13y ago
The robots that drop bombs from the sky could never be the good guys. Who would go see such a film?
6d0debc071 13y ago
I've never really understood why they don't arm drones with cannon rather than missiles. Under computer control, those could be incredibly accurate. Can't imagine there'd be much collateral damage from them. When you have a stock of air to ground missiles, everything looks like a tank? Then again the entire drone command system strikes me as laughably badly designed, I dare say that's responsible for a hell of a lot of unnecessary deaths from bad situational awareness.
knodi 13y ago
Its stuff like this that turns people into terrorist, also known as freedom fighters to others.
- supercanuck 13y ago
  How many people would think twice about posting what you just did on the internet in light of the recent NSA revelations.
  - kamarupa 13y ago
    Who cares about people who think twice about expressing a perfectly valid sentiment in the face of illegal and immoral surveillance. They're the last people that should be considered, as they lack moral fiber and personal agency.
  - knodi 13y ago
    I didn't think twice, I almost came back and edited it to remove the last part. Then I realized I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
- sampk 13y ago
  As a Pakistani, even though am an atheist, If one of those strikes killed one of my siblings I would totes go nuts and become a terrorist for sure and try to recruit as many others as possible. It's pretty obvious that U.S. is intentionally producing terrorists.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Don't confuse the end result with the intended result. I think it is much more likely that the people making the decisions just don't give a damn. They see the situation from another perspective, one in which they have this really cool toy and they intend to use it as much as possible because as far as they know it doesn't have any downsides. The reason they don't realize the downsides is because it is such a new toy that side-effects aren't well documented. It is kind of like the way we used to use x-ray machines for shoe-fittings - it's kind of obvious it would give people foot cancer but it took people actually getting foot cancer before they stopped doing it. People have a tendency to only see what is right in front of them - right now the blowback from indiscriminate drone usage isn't in their face so they can't see it.
confluence 13y ago
Not that I'm defending the actions of the drone strikes, but assuming the numbers in this report are correct, it does seem to kill a lot fewer civilians than an invasion and full blown war would have, both in relative and absolute terms. With the Iraq war we've had over 100K civilians killed to ~40K combatants. Thinking logically, drone strikes would've severely reduced the number of civilians killed, whilst simultaneously increasing the number of combatants in both real and absolute terms for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Whether or not the combatants killed actually were combatants, or whether or not this should be done morally are for other people to discuss. But assuming that the other option would be say a full blown invasion of Pakistan or Yemen (and I'm NOT saying that it is), looking practically, if a military action had to be conducted (and I'm NOT saying that it must), I'd pick it in the form of drone strikes any day of the month.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Quite so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
- e12e 13y ago
  You cannot occupy from the air. Another point is that the Iraq war(s) was used to dump old, less accurate, ordnance -- so that the US is now largely left with much more modern weaponry (Drones or no drones, you still need to paint a target and fire some form of missile/bomb).
bloaf 13y ago
Most people I see comfortably opining on drone strikes seem to be doing so without the discomfort of thinking the issue through. My thought process is this: Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think should happen in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. There are some pretty obvious problems with that position. Countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia all have weak, corrupt, ineffective governments. Naturally, they also have weak, corrupt, ineffective police forces. Normally, the US government doesn't care. The US government is responsible for US citizens, and Pakistan's problems are the responsibility of the Pakistani people's government. However, the US now perceives some groups within those countries as threats. We could give the Pakistani government all the info we like, but unlike Canada, we can't realistically expect that to result in the arrests of the terrorists. Even if we tried to give lots of support to their police forces, it is almost certain that the terrorists would be informed about any and all police movements (e.g. Bin Laden lived down the street from a Pakistani military academy.) So what should we do? Ignoring the threat is too great a political risk. If Pakistani terrorists executed so much as a single attack on US soil, you better believe the headlines would read: "Politicians knew of terrorist threat, failed to act." No US law enforcement agency is effectively equipped to police Pakistan. We can't ask NYPD to go police the Pakistanis, that's stupid. The FBI is the best candidate, but their responsibilities are primarily investigative; the actual subduing of the terrorists is outside their purview. The only other real option is some form of military action. Technically this violates Pakistan's sovereignty, but who cares? Pakistan is a weak government, it can't even police its own country. It's politicians may object, but it is not going to start a war with the US. Moreover, Pakistani terrorists not only kill lots of Pakistani civilians, but also are incredibly costly[1]. Therefore, many politicians will actually support the US's intervention, even if they have to publicly distance themselves. Obviously military intervention carries the risk of civilian casualties, but remember that the US government's responsibilities are towards US citizens. It is the Pakistani government's responsibility to protect Pakistanis, and it is a failing of the Pakistanis if they have not created a government capable of protecting them. What sort of military intervention should we use? We could send in soldiers to try and arrest the terrorists, but that is slow, risky, and expensive (we need holding facilities, transportation, etc.) Drones are the obvious alternative. Not only are they cheap, they are pose about zero risk to US personnel. People mention that drones may create terrorists, but if we assume that Pakistani public opinion is proportional to the number of deaths, then terrorism (which has killed far more innocent Pakistanis than drones [2]) ought to be significantly less popular. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan_since_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_...
peterkelly 13y ago
Here's an idea. Now this might sound a bit crazy, but hear me out: How about working to prevent terrorism by not murdering innocent civilians in other countries and inciting massive hatred towards the US from those affected and their fellow countrymen? Can you imagine what would happen if another country was carrying out drone strikes in the US, with similar numbers of casualties?
- hoggle 13y ago
  That is exactly the kind of common sense most politicians try to fight, constantly. Ron Paul has been speaking about this for many years now, most prominently during the 2008 elections. It might have cost him quite some votes though, the truth hurts. A good read on the topic is "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-American/dp/0805075593/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374563935&sr=8-2&keywords=blowback http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-A...
- AnthonBerg 13y ago
  The current course of action in the name of peace is IMO so illogical that I worry that they might be actively mongering war. A passive disregard for war as consequences is the more likely reason though - which isn't much better.
- toble 13y ago
  Problem is, the USA is geared towards those sorts of aggressive methods because of the huge military infrastructure. The solution is to constantly cut the budget and make that aspect less influential.
  - hoggle 13y ago
    When you have approximately 1/3 of the population being somewhat dependent on that stream of income, is it still feasible to "go back"? Economically it's also far less risky to be the bully as long as you can. It would be great to see the US believe more in their productive nerds than in their bullies but at the moment they are playing it safe by somewhat (aside from populist immigration policies - probably not the best for innovation) betting on both of them.
e3pi 13y ago
I like to think these internal whistle blowers have gained moral backbone by Edward Snowden's example. May there be more leaks to foment righteous outrage and correct this disregard of slaughtering innocent foreign civilians. Whistle blowers and the net are now the new 4th++ estate.
jaebrown 13y ago
Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. We can not say are objective is to protect innocent life and then take innocent life. Giving precedent to American life makes us and NATO forces seem like evil pretentious bastards. We constantly create enemies with these tactics. If your mother, brother, sister, etc.. was killed during one of these attacks, it makes it easier for you to join an extremist group to bring down the countries that had anything to do with their deaths. From my readings, it seems that a lot of these group's efforts are a lot less religious motivated and more revenge motivated now of days, hence the increase in extremist groups post 9/11. The US foreign policy since President Truman has set precedent on innocent American life and those of our allies. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I think all of this boils down to three words a woman from Brooklyn, NY famously said best in a popular Pop-culture rap song "Money, Power, Respect". In that order as well. War is money, so keeping an enemy is important. If the US ended its War on Terrorism today, there would be no other organization, faction or nation willing to step up to be Public Enemy #1. Sure we have those that could be considered (Iran and North Korea) but they tremble in a NY minute if chosen to take up the title. A defense budget pumps trillions into the US economy; which creates return for shareholders, jobs, tax revenue (personal income), and enforces the US Foreign Policy of democracy everywhere. More spending, more borrowing; which has been the trend of the US in the past decade. Power and respect are essential to America's continued dominance as a super-force and leader amongst nations. We take a different stand on power than other rich nations. We concentrate on using our power for evil instead on good by focusing on fear. We attempt to bully with the fear of us stepping into a foreign situation; which has been manipulated over time and thru history to seem that are presence brings a win for us or our allies. Respect gives others faith to continue to believe in the US; which means continued belief in the US dollar. Any lack of faith in the US dollar means lack of investing; which then turns into countries like China trying to salvaged what money they have left on their US bonds and other securities; which do not allow them to hit maturity. We then pay out what we owe; which will be nothing because that is what we have. The results are a depression because our debt is now our currency to the world and that is deflation. Just my thoughts, first time I typed them out or shared for anyone to hear other than the audience I gather when talking about tech, startups, student load debt, sports or politics. Sorry about no data or sources, I just got into the zone typing but this comes from my research as an undergrad and somewhat grad student.
MarkMc 13y ago
I've never understood how these two positions are logically consistent: (1) We do not torture people on principle (2) We use drone strikes that sometimes kill innocent bystanders because the ends justifies the means In the case of torturing someone, you are inflicting only pain (which is not as bad as death) on someone who is probably guilty of a crime (which is not as bad as inflicting pain on someone who is completely innocent). In the case of drone strikes that kill innocent bystanders, you are inflicting death (which is worse than pain) on a completely innocent person (which is worse than killing someone who is guilty of a crime). Now I understand that torture is unreliable and that is a good reason not to do it. But if you do not use torture on principle then to be consistent you must also not use drone strikes on principle.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I agree with all you said, but it's "principle", not "principal" (I'm just correcting you because I hope others would do me the same favour :)
  - MarkMc 13y ago
    Thanks. In my defence, I had checked the definition of 'principal' and found 'something of principal or chief importance' [1] so had thought it was the correct option. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal
- AnthonBerg 13y ago
  Let's think on this - what incentive is there for the United States' to behave in a logically consistent manner? (Let alone ethical or humane.) What incentive could there be? Can? Might? What would we want to exist? How?
- Mordor 13y ago
  It would be a mistake to apply principles and logic to war which is, in the end, a political decision.
- skore 13y ago
scotty79 13y ago
Why these drone strikes are not considered acts of terrorism by international community? Are they in some way approved by the countries where they take place?
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > Are they in some way approved by the countries where they take place? Yes.
droithomme 13y ago
Stanford's independent research into this came up with different numbers on overall deaths, and on civilian deaths. http://www.livingunderdrones.org/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/
semiprivate 13y ago
These drones make us terrorists. Never knowing if the next time you or your children go outside will be the time they get destroyed by a faceless, human-less, bomb slinging, heat sensing machine in the sky is fucking terror. We're fighting terror with terror. No matter what happens, terror has won. We as a nation are fucking terrorists.
jheriko 13y ago
this stuff is not hidden... and this 'leaked report' is a distraction from the even worse truth. its not hard to find figures from reputable sources if one goes looking, and in a large part of the world its common knowledge that this sort of thing is perpetrated by the US... :/
mtgx 13y ago
"Of 746 people listed as killed in the drone strikes outlined in the document, at least 147 of the dead are clearly stated to be civilian victims, 94 of those are said to be children." And that's just the ones they are "declaring" as "innocent", while the administration unilaterally decided who's guilty and deserves to be assassinated with a drone, as an "enemy combatant".
bayesianhorse 13y ago
I'm not a big fan of the drone war. But I don't want to see it only from the one side. The big question I am asking myself is: What is the alternative? In Pakistan for example, the government condemns the drone strikes and vows to stop them. Well, they could, instantly. They can just "really" ask the US to stop it, or they could put pressure on the US by closing their borders for Afghan logistics, or they could even shoot them down. But they don't. That makes me think the Pakistani government is in tacit collusion. The alternative to these drone strikes is not peace eternal. If there is no pressure on the Taliban, they would become a bigger problem and headache for the Pakistanis. They would have to send troops into these areas. I highly doubt that Pakistani troops "cleaning" or even just policing the tribal areas would yield a significantly lower death toll among civilians...
jevyjevjevs 13y ago
Homeland is REAL!
ianstallings 13y ago
What disturbs me about this issue the most is how it's rationalized because the previous administration also did the same thing. It's like we can't seem to see Obama for who he is because he's always compared to GWB. It's like saying a Pinto is a great car, because it's not a Yugo. People can't think straight because they've been blinded by partisanship. We can't even talk about the issues clearly, let alone determine the right course of action. I wish we could fix that.
j_baker 13y ago
Here's the sad part. I have no reason to believe the Pakistanis on this. There's likely some hidden political agenda behind this, and they've likely cherry-picked the data to make us look bad. And yet, I still trust this data more than the CIA's.

298 points by stfu 13y ago

My recollection is the CIA considers any military aged males in the area of a strike to be enemy combatants, which could be one cause for significantly different numbers. Here we go: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in... "It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."

rdtsc 13y ago
Well it goes back to Vietnam really. The idea was that bullets fired by American soldiers towards civilians would automatically turn those civilians into Viet Cong. That was basically the unspoken policy. Another story was from a helicopter pilot. They would capture what looked like "enemy combatants", load them into a helicopter for transport, then proceed to interrogate them under a threat of being thrown down on the ground. And then they would get the information and throw them off the helicopter But the issue was that they had to count the casualties. So the policy was to _always_ count when disembarking the helicopter not before. As those two numbers were sometimes quite different.
mladenkovacevic 13y ago
The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge. The REALLY scary part where America goes from being a misguided but well-intentioned brute to a completely evil, opportunistic warmonger is when you think about the data that the US intelligence and military complex has access to. Don't they know that their war is creating more enemy combatants with each and every civilian casualty, and if they know that then why are they steadfastly continuing with their campaign as if it's actually producing positive results.
- jaebrown 13y ago
  This was my point above in my comment. War is a good thing for the US.
- jehovahrova 13y ago
  "The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge." I do not expect to convince you to change your opinion, but I would like to let you know that this is not an opinion well verified by fact. It's a supposition made by chaps like Noam Chomsky without serious data behind it. It is also counter to what we know is true, which is that serious terrorism comes from religiously-motivated intellectuals, not the down-trodden poor incited to revenge.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I wouldn't call them intellectuals - more like college students. But I also don't think that applies in the general case, like Al Qaeda in Iraq. Attacks on western soil, like 9/11, it has definitely been stablished has mainly middle to upper-class college educated guys - engineers, dentists, that sort of thing. But in the middle east and south asia I don't think the rank file qualify.
  - j_baker 13y ago
    Don't be a hypocrite. You scold the GP for not having any factual basis, and then proceed to give your own argument without factual basis. Please show some proof, or stop scolding people for not showing proof.
  - diydsp 13y ago
    I believe civilian casualties do have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge. Examples can easily be found which show that American men enlisted in response to attacks on our soil. "One of those young men was William Grigsby, now an Army staff sergeant who enlisted in early 2002. “The events of 9/11 had everything to do with my decision to enlist,” he said." [1] "It's clear the events of Sept. 11, 2001 played a role in many peoples' decisions to join the military. The Minnesota National Guard is still benefiting from a boost in recruitment a decade later." [2] [1] http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=65272 http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=65272 [2] http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/05/sept11-recruitment http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/05/sept...
wiml 13y ago
That NYT article you linked to came to mind when I was reading this link as well, especially this quote from the Pakistani administration: "In the media, they said it was all children. They were absolutely wrong. There may have been some collateral damage of some children but they were not children at all, they were all militants doing training inside."

spodek 13y ago

Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did. I keep slipping back into believing the United States government believes in honesty and transparency, at least relatively more than other governments. In some areas it might, but not on major issues like war. It's painful to watch a government that instituted the Marshall Plan actively destroy its credibility like this. Or to think of the consequences. Or to see them play out.

rdtsc 13y ago
I grew up in the 80s in the Soviet Union. And the thing is, we never believed their propaganda because it was too ridiculous. Everyone was laughing at the bullshit they heard on the radio and TV. True believers have disappeared probably the the mid 60s or so. Even defecting spies had stopped using "ideology" as the reason for their defection it was too unbelievable. Likewise might happen in US. It seems two things has happened already. They stretched propaganda vs reality difference too thin. And the Internet. It becomes harder to keep a straight face telling others about freedom, privacy, free market, human rights in light of news about torture, drones, spying etc. Also, without an ability to get access to alternative media and if Fox was the only channel available many would still thing this country was God's gift to humanity. It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. On another note. There was an old joke from back in the 90's. "When Soviet Union fell, we found out everything they told us about Communism was a lie. And everything they told us about America was true". Good counter-propaganda after all, is often not telling lies just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. In other words I doubt the Marshall Plan America is a good ol America or is it the America that still believed in segregation, raping South American countries for profit, installing brutal dictators in South East Asia and so on.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Good counter-propaganda after all is often not telling lies, just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. That's very well put.

gmuslera 13y ago

This numbers are a bit higher http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ And that only counts Pakistan. Afganistan, Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen were attacked by drones too http://www.policymic.com/articles/23708/guess-which-8-countries-the-u-s-is-waging-secret-drone-campaigns-against http://www.policymic.com/articles/23708/guess-which-8-countr...

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I doubt most of the other deaths were ever given much of a fair trial, so the implication of innocence should probably be applied a bit more broadly. You know, since we're defending democracy and all.

bloaf 13y ago
The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  A part of drone strikes are done by CIA pilots at Langley. I think you are being generous with "military, does this and thus it is ok". But no matter how generous you are, stretching "military" for CIA agents at Langely who kill kids herding goats by day and pick up their kids for soccer practice in the evening is a little too silly for my taste.
  - bloaf 13y ago
    The CIA explicitly has no law enforcement capability. Their killing therefore does not represent the enforcement of any law and as such does not require a trial. Their killing is therefore a military action.
    - zachrose 13y ago
      Then so too are gang shootings, domestic murder, and terrorism itself?
      - bloaf 13y ago
        Gangs, civilians, and terrorists are not governmental entities and therefore not military. A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. Organized violence against a foreign country by citizens of another is also referred to as military (e.g. [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29

runn1ng 13y ago

They are foreigners though, so it doesn't matter that much

Volpe 13y ago
It doesn't seem to matter if they are US citizens either...

D9u 13y ago

One would expect better from a nation whose president was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

future_grad 13y ago
It sure takes a hell of a lot of killing to reach peace.
smutticus 13y ago
Why? The Nobel committe gave Henry Kissinger that same prize and he oversaw the invasion of Cambodia. An invasion that eventually led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the deaths of over 1 million Cambodians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu I don't think we should place too much faith in these Nobel folks getting it right much of the time.

TempleOS 13y ago

God is perfectly just. Wait for it. God says... boink eateth boldness name's strengthless instances deliver clothed gross-hearted flow commenders sciences described shortly meddle lentiles birth do_I_have_to preserve GUTENBERG-TM likely abide THIS dully leaning occur fallacies plausibility createst intellectual Fish

pivnicek 13y ago

The robots that drop bombs from the sky could never be the good guys. Who would go see such a film?

6d0debc071 13y ago

I've never really understood why they don't arm drones with cannon rather than missiles. Under computer control, those could be incredibly accurate. Can't imagine there'd be much collateral damage from them. When you have a stock of air to ground missiles, everything looks like a tank? Then again the entire drone command system strikes me as laughably badly designed, I dare say that's responsible for a hell of a lot of unnecessary deaths from bad situational awareness.

knodi 13y ago

Its stuff like this that turns people into terrorist, also known as freedom fighters to others.

supercanuck 13y ago
How many people would think twice about posting what you just did on the internet in light of the recent NSA revelations.
- kamarupa 13y ago
  Who cares about people who think twice about expressing a perfectly valid sentiment in the face of illegal and immoral surveillance. They're the last people that should be considered, as they lack moral fiber and personal agency.
- knodi 13y ago
  I didn't think twice, I almost came back and edited it to remove the last part. Then I realized I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
sampk 13y ago
As a Pakistani, even though am an atheist, If one of those strikes killed one of my siblings I would totes go nuts and become a terrorist for sure and try to recruit as many others as possible. It's pretty obvious that U.S. is intentionally producing terrorists.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Don't confuse the end result with the intended result. I think it is much more likely that the people making the decisions just don't give a damn. They see the situation from another perspective, one in which they have this really cool toy and they intend to use it as much as possible because as far as they know it doesn't have any downsides. The reason they don't realize the downsides is because it is such a new toy that side-effects aren't well documented. It is kind of like the way we used to use x-ray machines for shoe-fittings - it's kind of obvious it would give people foot cancer but it took people actually getting foot cancer before they stopped doing it. People have a tendency to only see what is right in front of them - right now the blowback from indiscriminate drone usage isn't in their face so they can't see it.

confluence 13y ago

Not that I'm defending the actions of the drone strikes, but assuming the numbers in this report are correct, it does seem to kill a lot fewer civilians than an invasion and full blown war would have, both in relative and absolute terms. With the Iraq war we've had over 100K civilians killed to ~40K combatants. Thinking logically, drone strikes would've severely reduced the number of civilians killed, whilst simultaneously increasing the number of combatants in both real and absolute terms for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Whether or not the combatants killed actually were combatants, or whether or not this should be done morally are for other people to discuss. But assuming that the other option would be say a full blown invasion of Pakistan or Yemen (and I'm NOT saying that it is), looking practically, if a military action had to be conducted (and I'm NOT saying that it must), I'd pick it in the form of drone strikes any day of the month.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Quite so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
e12e 13y ago
You cannot occupy from the air. Another point is that the Iraq war(s) was used to dump old, less accurate, ordnance -- so that the US is now largely left with much more modern weaponry (Drones or no drones, you still need to paint a target and fire some form of missile/bomb).

bloaf 13y ago

Most people I see comfortably opining on drone strikes seem to be doing so without the discomfort of thinking the issue through. My thought process is this: Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think should happen in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. There are some pretty obvious problems with that position. Countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia all have weak, corrupt, ineffective governments. Naturally, they also have weak, corrupt, ineffective police forces. Normally, the US government doesn't care. The US government is responsible for US citizens, and Pakistan's problems are the responsibility of the Pakistani people's government. However, the US now perceives some groups within those countries as threats. We could give the Pakistani government all the info we like, but unlike Canada, we can't realistically expect that to result in the arrests of the terrorists. Even if we tried to give lots of support to their police forces, it is almost certain that the terrorists would be informed about any and all police movements (e.g. Bin Laden lived down the street from a Pakistani military academy.) So what should we do? Ignoring the threat is too great a political risk. If Pakistani terrorists executed so much as a single attack on US soil, you better believe the headlines would read: "Politicians knew of terrorist threat, failed to act." No US law enforcement agency is effectively equipped to police Pakistan. We can't ask NYPD to go police the Pakistanis, that's stupid. The FBI is the best candidate, but their responsibilities are primarily investigative; the actual subduing of the terrorists is outside their purview. The only other real option is some form of military action. Technically this violates Pakistan's sovereignty, but who cares? Pakistan is a weak government, it can't even police its own country. It's politicians may object, but it is not going to start a war with the US. Moreover, Pakistani terrorists not only kill lots of Pakistani civilians, but also are incredibly costly[1]. Therefore, many politicians will actually support the US's intervention, even if they have to publicly distance themselves. Obviously military intervention carries the risk of civilian casualties, but remember that the US government's responsibilities are towards US citizens. It is the Pakistani government's responsibility to protect Pakistanis, and it is a failing of the Pakistanis if they have not created a government capable of protecting them. What sort of military intervention should we use? We could send in soldiers to try and arrest the terrorists, but that is slow, risky, and expensive (we need holding facilities, transportation, etc.) Drones are the obvious alternative. Not only are they cheap, they are pose about zero risk to US personnel. People mention that drones may create terrorists, but if we assume that Pakistani public opinion is proportional to the number of deaths, then terrorism (which has killed far more innocent Pakistanis than drones [2]) ought to be significantly less popular. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan_since_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_...

peterkelly 13y ago

Here's an idea. Now this might sound a bit crazy, but hear me out: How about working to prevent terrorism by not murdering innocent civilians in other countries and inciting massive hatred towards the US from those affected and their fellow countrymen? Can you imagine what would happen if another country was carrying out drone strikes in the US, with similar numbers of casualties?

hoggle 13y ago
That is exactly the kind of common sense most politicians try to fight, constantly. Ron Paul has been speaking about this for many years now, most prominently during the 2008 elections. It might have cost him quite some votes though, the truth hurts. A good read on the topic is "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-American/dp/0805075593/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374563935&sr=8-2&keywords=blowback http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-A...
AnthonBerg 13y ago
The current course of action in the name of peace is IMO so illogical that I worry that they might be actively mongering war. A passive disregard for war as consequences is the more likely reason though - which isn't much better.
toble 13y ago
Problem is, the USA is geared towards those sorts of aggressive methods because of the huge military infrastructure. The solution is to constantly cut the budget and make that aspect less influential.
- hoggle 13y ago
  When you have approximately 1/3 of the population being somewhat dependent on that stream of income, is it still feasible to "go back"? Economically it's also far less risky to be the bully as long as you can. It would be great to see the US believe more in their productive nerds than in their bullies but at the moment they are playing it safe by somewhat (aside from populist immigration policies - probably not the best for innovation) betting on both of them.

e3pi 13y ago

I like to think these internal whistle blowers have gained moral backbone by Edward Snowden's example. May there be more leaks to foment righteous outrage and correct this disregard of slaughtering innocent foreign civilians. Whistle blowers and the net are now the new 4th++ estate.

jaebrown 13y ago

Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. We can not say are objective is to protect innocent life and then take innocent life. Giving precedent to American life makes us and NATO forces seem like evil pretentious bastards. We constantly create enemies with these tactics. If your mother, brother, sister, etc.. was killed during one of these attacks, it makes it easier for you to join an extremist group to bring down the countries that had anything to do with their deaths. From my readings, it seems that a lot of these group's efforts are a lot less religious motivated and more revenge motivated now of days, hence the increase in extremist groups post 9/11. The US foreign policy since President Truman has set precedent on innocent American life and those of our allies. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I think all of this boils down to three words a woman from Brooklyn, NY famously said best in a popular Pop-culture rap song "Money, Power, Respect". In that order as well. War is money, so keeping an enemy is important. If the US ended its War on Terrorism today, there would be no other organization, faction or nation willing to step up to be Public Enemy #1. Sure we have those that could be considered (Iran and North Korea) but they tremble in a NY minute if chosen to take up the title. A defense budget pumps trillions into the US economy; which creates return for shareholders, jobs, tax revenue (personal income), and enforces the US Foreign Policy of democracy everywhere. More spending, more borrowing; which has been the trend of the US in the past decade. Power and respect are essential to America's continued dominance as a super-force and leader amongst nations. We take a different stand on power than other rich nations. We concentrate on using our power for evil instead on good by focusing on fear. We attempt to bully with the fear of us stepping into a foreign situation; which has been manipulated over time and thru history to seem that are presence brings a win for us or our allies. Respect gives others faith to continue to believe in the US; which means continued belief in the US dollar. Any lack of faith in the US dollar means lack of investing; which then turns into countries like China trying to salvaged what money they have left on their US bonds and other securities; which do not allow them to hit maturity. We then pay out what we owe; which will be nothing because that is what we have. The results are a depression because our debt is now our currency to the world and that is deflation. Just my thoughts, first time I typed them out or shared for anyone to hear other than the audience I gather when talking about tech, startups, student load debt, sports or politics. Sorry about no data or sources, I just got into the zone typing but this comes from my research as an undergrad and somewhat grad student.

MarkMc 13y ago

I've never understood how these two positions are logically consistent: (1) We do not torture people on principle (2) We use drone strikes that sometimes kill innocent bystanders because the ends justifies the means In the case of torturing someone, you are inflicting only pain (which is not as bad as death) on someone who is probably guilty of a crime (which is not as bad as inflicting pain on someone who is completely innocent). In the case of drone strikes that kill innocent bystanders, you are inflicting death (which is worse than pain) on a completely innocent person (which is worse than killing someone who is guilty of a crime). Now I understand that torture is unreliable and that is a good reason not to do it. But if you do not use torture on principle then to be consistent you must also not use drone strikes on principle.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
I agree with all you said, but it's "principle", not "principal" (I'm just correcting you because I hope others would do me the same favour :)
- MarkMc 13y ago
  Thanks. In my defence, I had checked the definition of 'principal' and found 'something of principal or chief importance' [1] so had thought it was the correct option. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal
AnthonBerg 13y ago
Let's think on this - what incentive is there for the United States' to behave in a logically consistent manner? (Let alone ethical or humane.) What incentive could there be? Can? Might? What would we want to exist? How?
Mordor 13y ago
It would be a mistake to apply principles and logic to war which is, in the end, a political decision.
skore 13y ago

scotty79 13y ago

Why these drone strikes are not considered acts of terrorism by international community? Are they in some way approved by the countries where they take place?

jasonlotito 13y ago
> Are they in some way approved by the countries where they take place? Yes.

droithomme 13y ago

Stanford's independent research into this came up with different numbers on overall deaths, and on civilian deaths. http://www.livingunderdrones.org/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

semiprivate 13y ago

These drones make us terrorists. Never knowing if the next time you or your children go outside will be the time they get destroyed by a faceless, human-less, bomb slinging, heat sensing machine in the sky is fucking terror. We're fighting terror with terror. No matter what happens, terror has won. We as a nation are fucking terrorists.

jheriko 13y ago

this stuff is not hidden... and this 'leaked report' is a distraction from the even worse truth. its not hard to find figures from reputable sources if one goes looking, and in a large part of the world its common knowledge that this sort of thing is perpetrated by the US... :/

mtgx 13y ago

"Of 746 people listed as killed in the drone strikes outlined in the document, at least 147 of the dead are clearly stated to be civilian victims, 94 of those are said to be children." And that's just the ones they are "declaring" as "innocent", while the administration unilaterally decided who's guilty and deserves to be assassinated with a drone, as an "enemy combatant".

bayesianhorse 13y ago

I'm not a big fan of the drone war. But I don't want to see it only from the one side. The big question I am asking myself is: What is the alternative? In Pakistan for example, the government condemns the drone strikes and vows to stop them. Well, they could, instantly. They can just "really" ask the US to stop it, or they could put pressure on the US by closing their borders for Afghan logistics, or they could even shoot them down. But they don't. That makes me think the Pakistani government is in tacit collusion. The alternative to these drone strikes is not peace eternal. If there is no pressure on the Taliban, they would become a bigger problem and headache for the Pakistanis. They would have to send troops into these areas. I highly doubt that Pakistani troops "cleaning" or even just policing the tribal areas would yield a significantly lower death toll among civilians...

jevyjevjevs 13y ago

Homeland is REAL!

ianstallings 13y ago

What disturbs me about this issue the most is how it's rationalized because the previous administration also did the same thing. It's like we can't seem to see Obama for who he is because he's always compared to GWB. It's like saying a Pinto is a great car, because it's not a Yugo. People can't think straight because they've been blinded by partisanship. We can't even talk about the issues clearly, let alone determine the right course of action. I wish we could fix that.

j_baker 13y ago

Here's the sad part. I have no reason to believe the Pakistanis on this. There's likely some hidden political agenda behind this, and they've likely cherry-picked the data to make us look bad. And yet, I still trust this data more than the CIA's.