Challenging US Claims on Civilian Deaths in Drone Attacks

Challenging US Claims on Civilian Deaths in Drone Attacks

Challenging US Claims on Civilian Deaths in Drone Attacks

Dennis Blair opposes drones, but stays mum on victims.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Dennis Blair, President Obama’s first Director of National Intelligence, reiterates today in the New York Times a view he enunciated recently at an Aspen Institute event, namely, that the unchecked use of Predator and Reaper drones against Al Qaeda in Pakistan is a bad idea. In “Drones Are Not the Answer,” Blair says that the drone attacks are increasing “hatred” of the United States in Pakistan and damaging our ability to work with the government of Pakistan on things that really matter. While acknowledging that past drone attacks have weakened Al Qaeda, Blair asserts:

“Drone strikes are no longer the most effective strategy for eliminating Al Qaeda’s ability to attack us.… The important question today is whether continued unilateral drone attacks will substantially reduce Al Qaeda’s capabilities. They will not.”

And he concludes:

“If we are ever to reduce Al Qaeda from a threat to a nuisance, it will be by working with Pakistan, not by continuing unilateral drone attacks.”

Blair, who’s in a position to know, fails to dispute the Obama administration’s contention that drone attacks in Pakistan have been 100 percent accurate, killing zero civilians. (He does point out that “media accounts of heavy civilian casualties are widely believed” in Pakistan, but he ought to have told us if the administration’s hard-to-believe statements are inaccurate.)

Just last week, the Times reported on a study by the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism that “concluded that at least 45 civilians were killed in 10 strikes during the last year.” And the Times’s own reporting “suggests reasons to doubt the precision and certainty of the agency’s civilian death count.” In recent years, there have been widely divergent accounts of various drone strikes, with the United States saying that a particular attack killed only Al Qaeda militants while local authorities, villagers and some anti-US elements cite numerous innocent bystanders killed. While some reports of civilian deaths are obviously inflated for propaganda value, the US claim that civilian casualties are minuscule and that in recent attacks not a single noncombatant has died are ludicrous. The British report says that between 385 and 775 civilians died in 291 drone attacks.

In an editorial yesterday, the Times opines:

“Perfection is rare in life; in war, rarer still. Yet the Central Intelligence Agency says it has a yearlong perfect record of no civilian deaths from its campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan. We find that hard to believe. So do many Pakistanis, journalists and independent experts, including those who support the drone program. Lacking proof, the claim fuels skepticism about American intentions and harms United States-Pakistani relations.”

And the editorial concludes:

“Drones are becoming central to modern warfare. The United States needs to be honest about what it can do and about its failings as well. It will have little ground on which to fault other countries for strikes that cause civilian casualties if it does not own up to its own errors, compensate victims’ families and keep working hard to make fewer errors in the future.”

Like this blog post? Read it on The Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x