Obama releases official figures of civilian casualties from drone strikes

The Obama administration has finally released figures on the number of civilians killed in non-combat areas including Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia.

The figures exclude Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claims that between 2009 to 2015 airstrikes killed between 64 and 116 civilians in the four countries. This is the first time that the Obama administration has provided official estimates of the death toll from drones. He also issued that an executive order report on drone strikes annually including the number of combatants and non-combatants killed. The order also instructs the government to increase efforts to avoid civilian casualties and acknowledge them when they do occur. Hina Shamsi, the director of the National Security Project for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said that the order was a "positive step but riddled with caveats and weak formulations."

The official numbers are much lower than those estimated by journalists and researchers. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London estimates that at least 325 civilians have been killed in drone strikes outside of war zones by the Obama administration. The New America Foundation estimates are somewhat lower at 247 to 294. Neither estimate included Libya. The estimates are still more than double those of the official statistics. The government insists that the US government is better informed as it has classified information unavailable to outside investigators. The report notes: . "The U.S. Government uses post-strike methodologies that have been refined and honed over the years and that use information that is generally unavailable to non-governmental organizations."

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism actually gives much higher casualty figures than those attributed to it above by Mother Jones.

A Bureau article says of the US official figures:This is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian casualty range recorded by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism from reports by local and international journalists, NGO investigators, leaked government documents, court papers and the result of field investigations.

At the same time, the estimates of the total number killed are much less different. The US government total is 2,436 killed, while the Bureau's total is 2,753. The official data has been a long time coming as the White House announced three years ago it would release casualty figures. It comes four months after Obama's counter-terrorism adviser Lisa Monaco promised the data would be released.

The figures do not include those killed under the administration of George Bush who carried out an estimated 58 strikes which were estimated to have killed 174 civilians. The newly released figures are not broken down by year, nor do they provide any detail on controversial strikes. Jamel Jaffer of the ACLU said:“While any disclosure of information about the government’s targeted-killing policies is welcome, the government should be releasing information about every strike—the date of the strike, the location, the numbers of casualties, and the civilian or combatant status of those casualties. Perhaps this kind of information should be released after a short delay, rather than immediately, but it should be released. The public has a right to know who the government is killing—and if the government doesn’t know who it’s killing, the public should know that.”Jennifer Gibson of Reprieve noted that back in 2011 the US administration claimed to have only killed 60 civilians but now its estimates lead one to conclude that it is possible that there have only been four more since then to arrive at the 64 number at the low end of their estimates.

Obama said as the figures were released: “All armed conflict invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.” The statement is similar to that made by John Brennan in June 2011 who said the drone strikes were "exceptionally precise and surgical" and had not killed a single civilian since August 2010.

A Bureau investigation concluded that there had been 213 civilian killed in Pakistan alone during Obama's presidency. An investigation into a drone strike in Yemen revealed that the US hid its responsibility for a strike on a camp that killed 41 civilians many of them children and 5 pregnant women. Often the US has little idea of who was killed in a strike and the dead often remain unidentified. The situation is made worse by the use of signature strikes which target people on the basis of their behavior and double-tap strikes that target those who come to help those hit by an earlier strike. Leaked records from CIA strikes show that not only did they not know who they killed but did not know what group they belonged to. They are listed as "other militants" or "foreign fighters."

According to the figures released between 2,372 and 2,581 militants were killed. An anonymous administration official did admit to reporters that exact figures were difficult to determine since the strikes often took place in "non-permissive environments". In the past, the administration has refused even to acknowledge the drone program existed in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

UN to investigate legality of drone strikes and civilian casualties

The UN will launch a formal investigation into the legality of drone strikes and also of the casualties that result from them.

The announcement came as there is a report that the latest US drone strike in Yemen is claimed to have mistakenly killed two children. Ben Emmerson, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism said at a press conference in London that he will lead a group of international specialists who will examine drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan by the CIA and Pentagon. However, the group will also examine drone use by UK and US forces in Afghanistan, as well as Israel's use of drones against Palestinians.

The senior UK lawyer will work with international criminal lawyers, a senior Pakistani judge, and a leading UK forensic pathologist as well as other experts. A serving judge-advocate with the US military will be "assisting the inquiry in his personal capacity." More about the members of the team can be found at the end of this article.

Emmerson told reporters at the new conference:

’Those states using this technology and those on whose territory it is used are under an international law obligation to establish effective independent and impartial investigations into any drone attack in which it is plausibly alleged that civilian casualties were sustained.’

Neither the US nor others have carried out such investigations so the UN is doing so as a last resort. The UK Minister of Defence is already said to be co-operating with the investigation. The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice has indicated that Washington "has not ruled out full co-operation". We shall see. The US has refused so far even to admit officially that any such program exists.

Back in May 2010, Philip Alston had already presented to the UN a detailed report on the legal questions of targeted killing. Most of the recommendations he suggests have not been carried out by the Obama administration nor anyone else.

The UN Human Rights Council is taking action after a number of nations including, Russia, China, and Pakistan requested action be taken on covert drone strikes. Emmerson said:

‘It’s a response to the fact that there’s international concern rising exponentially, surrounding the issue of remote targeted killings through the use of unmanned vehicles.’

The group is expected to make recommendations to the UN general assembly this fall. The team will also recommend further UN action should it be justified by the findings of the inquiry. Of course nothing will get through the UN security council unless the US approves it, so there will not be any teeth in what the UN says or does. If there are any UN resolutions condemning the attacks, they will come from the General Council. Many countries ignores those resolutions since they are interpreted as advisory and consdiered non-binding, whenever they demand something a country does not want to do.

A particular area the inquiry may examine is the alleged practice of the CIA of deliberately targeting rescuers and even funeral goers in Pakistan strikes, a practice revealed in an investigation by the Bureau for the SundayTimes. In October 2012, Emmerson said:

‘The Bureau has alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns [UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killing] … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.’

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the inquiry and requested that the US cooperate with and aid the invetigators. A spokesperson noted:

‘Whether it does or not will show whether it holds itself to the same obligation to co-operate with UN human rights investigations that it urges on other countries”

The Obama administration has rejected requests from the ACLU for information on its targeted killing programs or the basis for the legality of its drone attacks. The ACLU made a Freedom of Information Act request two years ago on January 13, 2010. Two years later having gone to court as well, the group still has not been able to get the information.

The Obama administration will have to decide whether to cooperate with the UN investigation. Perhaps it will in order to try and influence the investigation but on the other hand it may decide just to take a hard line as it has so far all along about releasing any information except what could be used for propaganda purposes.

Reports on drone strikes often misleading

 News sources differ in the precise wording they choose to use in reports. This article illustrates these differences in reports on drone strikes in Pakistan.

 For several years the CIA has been launching drone attacks on targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Almost everyone knows this. However the official position of the CIA is that to even assert or deny the existence of these attacks could endanger the security of the U.S. Important officials including President Obama and the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have acknowledged the attacks and even boasted about them. Nevertheless the official position is "" The Central Intelligence Agency continues to refuse to confirm or deny the covert military use of drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas, despite President Barack Obama’s and even a former CIA director’s admission of the agency’s targeted killing program. ""


While this position appears ludicrous it has a rational function and that is to block the release of any information about the program. At the same time any information that the administration wants released for propaganda purposes can be leaked or announced. The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times attempted to obtain information about the strikes through the Department of Justice with no success. They have now turned to the courts. The case is continuing but the Obama administration has tried to have the request for documents denied."" The Obama administration has sought to block the release of documents related to its use of robot drones to strike suspected terrorists overseas, claiming that it can still not admit that the secretive programme of targeted killing exists"".
The official policy is often quite visible in reports of drone attacks. The language used in reports often avoids mentioning that the attacks are by the U.S. Phrases used vary. Some sources speak of "suspected U.S. drone attacks". Other sources simply speak of "drone attacks" with no reference as to who might have launched them. Here for example is a headline from 2010 in CNN."Drone attack kills 20 in Pakistan" Even back in 2010 some sources must have thought it ridiculous to not attribute the attacks to the U.S. A Reuters report headline from 2010 is as follows."" U.S. drone strikes kill 18 militants in Pakistan"" However in the body of the report Reuters notes that the headline statement is according to Pakistan intelligence officials. Reuters itself is simply reporting what anonymous officials said and are not themselves affirming or denying that the U.S. launched the attacks.

 CNN is still in 2012 going along with the official story even while many outlets have moved on. CNN reports recently with a headline that speaks only of a drone attack:"" 20 dead in drone attack in Pakistan ""Even when reporting what a Pakistani intelligence official said the word "suspected" is inserted before "U.S. drone strike""" A suspected U.S. drone strike killed 20 people in North Waziristan, a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, a Pakistani intelligence official told CNN Friday""

. Usually those killed in the attacks are described as militants or suspected militants or not described at all. The CNN report cited above reports that an intelligence official claims that 20 people were killed but has no description of the victims. The Reuters report cited earlier has a headline reporting that 18 militants were killed. Only later does the report note that this is according to Pakistani intelligence officials. Pakistani intelligence officials are not likely to report civilian deaths or women and children as victims. Reports of drone strikes rarely report any civilian deaths. Even if there are such reports they will be from local people and will often conflict with official statements. Estimates of how many civilians are killed by drone strikes in Pakistan vary.. Officials often give very low estimates. However the Bureau of Investigative Journalism studied the issue at some length.""Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.""

 Most reports on drone strikes provide no evidence of civilian deaths. Those killed are militants or suspected militants. Victims are identified only if they are believed to be significant militant leaders. Mainstream media reports on drone strikes seem designed to mislead the reader.

UN asks U.S. to provide justification for increased drone attacks

Christof Heyns a UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution issued a report that has called on the U.S.to justify its increasing use of drones in attacks. Heyns claims that the attacks take some innocent lives and may violate international law.

Both the U.S. military and the CIA have used drones in a number of countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Heyns says that the U.S. should clarify the legal basis for these attacks. The U.S. has so far refused to do so. In fact the practice has been to simply leak information that the government thinks will be politically positive but when the ACLU tried to get information through the Freedom of Information Act the courts have said that even admitting or denying the existence of the programs would be against national security interests. The legal nonsense continues because it is in the interest of the U.S. government.

Heyns particularly wanted to know the legal basis for killing suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders rather than attempting to capture them. The UN Human Rights Council will be debating the issue in Geneva.

Heyns report notes:"The government should clarify the procedures in place to ensure that any targeted killing complies with international humanitarian law and human rights and indicate the measures or strategies applied to prevent casualties, as well as the measures in place to provide prompt, thorough, effective and independent public investigation of alleged violations," Some of this information was also requested by the ACLU so far without any success.

Heyns noted that all studies indicate that the use of drones has dramatically escalated. The escalation has happened since Obama took office. The Pakistan Human Rights Commission claims that 957 people were killed by drones in Pakistan in 2010 alone.About 20 per cent of those killed in drone attacks are estimated to be civilians. U.S. figures are almost invariably much lower. Similar questions were raised in as 2009 report by Philip Alston to which Washington failed to respond.

Pakistan''s Ambassador to the UN Zamir Akram spoke at the opening session of the UN human rights group. He said that the Pakistani government considers the use of drones by the U.S. in the Tribal Areas is illegal, counter productive and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. So why does Pakistan not shoot them down? The U.S. has ignored the Pakistani parliament's demand the attacks stop. I expect that Pakistani politicians as in other countries have lots of hot air for domestic consumption. For more see this article.

Pakistani lawyer denied U.S. visa to speak at drone conference

Shahzad Akbar represents civilian victims of drone strikes in a case filed in Pakistan. Akbar was invited to speak at an international conference on drone strikes in Washington D.C. on April 28. However the U.S. government has not so far granted him a visa.

Akbar is a co-founder of the Pakistan-based Foundation for Fundamental Rights. Akbar would have provided information about providing legal aid to civilian victims of the CIA operated strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Akbar has traveled to the U.S. in the past. However, this is not the first time the U.S. simply refused even to answer his application for a visa. Columbia University invited him to speak there about drone strikes. Akbar filed an application in May 2011 but has yet to hear anything back. He has asked the U.S. embassy in Pakistan why his application is being held up. He has received no answer.

Come on Akbar. Don't you get the message? The U.S. does not want you in the U.S. criticizing drone strikes! For more see the full article here.

Pakistan demands end to drone strikes as a condition of renewing U.S. relations

A parliamentary committee in Pakistan's parliament has demanded an end to U.S, drone strikes as a condition for renewal of relations between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Some time ago the parliament had demanded an end to the strikes to no effect it would seem. Pakistan's parliament is discussing how to mend U.S. Pakistan relations. Relations have been particularly bad since a U.S. attack killed 24 soldiers near the Afghan border in November.

Razza Rabbani who chaired the committee making the recommendations also insisted that the U.S. should unconditionally apologize for the killings. Neither this nor the ceasing of drone attacks are likely I expect.

The U.S. seems quite willing to pay the price of having to use alternate routes as Pakistan has closed the Afghan border to supply convoys. Pakistan also forced the U.S. to close an air base in Pakistan.

Pakistan indicated recently that the issues may soon be resolved. The U.S. may pay higher transit fees for goods passing through Pakistan. On the drone issue it seems as if Pakistan might agree to the attacks if they were coordinated with the Pakistanis and they received notice of when and where they would occur. The U.S. may not be willing to grant this because militants might be notified of pending attacks. There is no trust between the two sides it seems.

A report last month by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism put the civilian death toll from the attacks at between 282 and 535. This includes 60 children. These are figures since Obama came to power. Obama has greatly increased attacks from the Bush era. For more see this article.

Photo of aftermath of drone attacks in Pakistan

The photos at this site were taken by Noor Behram who himself lives in the area. The region where the CIA drone attacks take place is virtually off limits to any outsiders or reporters. Reports of casualties are either through official sources or locals neither of which are independently verifiable.

Around 70 attacks have been launched in 2011 so far. Noor Behram the photographer lives in North Waziristan one of the areas targeted. He works in cooperation with a Pakistani lawyer and the UK activist Clive Smith. They are helping Noor get these photos to the outside world. Behram also has provided cameras to locals to take photos of the aftermath of the attacks.

Of course the Taliban no doubt approve of Behram's activity and he himself is out to discredit the drone attacks by taking these photos. Behram says:"I want to show taxpayers in the Western world what their tax money is doing to people in another part of the world: killing civilians, innocent victims"" Some photos could even be staged but nevertheless most are probably genuine. The site that publsihed these Danger Room went through them to pick out those that seemed most authentic. U.S. experts verified that the fragments purporting to be parts of Hellfire missiles were genuine.

Each photo has attached a description of the event, where it was and when. At some of the attack sites the locals were hostile to Behram. Many refused to be photographed and allowed him only to photograph ruined buildings. Behram sometimes gained their confidence by helping them clear out the rubble.

The Pakistani parliament has passed a motion some time ago demanding that the attacks stop but this has been ignored by the U.S. and the Pakistani goverment has done nothing to stop the attacks. However, the government did demand a base in Pakistan from which they sometimes operated be handed over to Pakistan. This action by the government was not in response to drone attacks but the killing of 24 Pakistani troops at a border checkpoint by NATO forces. The drones can still operate from bases in Afghanistan. The government is being sued for not taking action and the CIA is also being sued for damaages.

State Department to Provide Legal Justification for Drone Attacks.

No doubt the administration is reluctant to provide the justifications in a timely fashion because it will be immediately criticized and the administration will be held accountable. Even to find out what facts may be available the ACLU had to file a lawsuit. Even if legal basis does stand up to criticism the problem of civilian casualties still stands. The estimate given in this article is very low actually. It seems to be the preferred estimate now. This is from the Huffington Post.

Daphne Eviatar
State Department To Produce Legal Justification for Drone Attacks
State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh has promised to produce the Obama administration's legal justification for its increased use of drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists, reports Shane Harris of the National Journal.

"I have studied this question," Koh told the audience at an American Bar Association breakfast yesterday. "I think that the legal objections that are being put on the table are ones that we are taking into account. I am comfortable with the legal position of the administration, and at an appropriate moment we will set forth that in some detail."

Let's hope that "appropriate moment" comes pretty soon, because controversy over the drone attacks is heating up. The ACLU in January filed a FOIA request asking the government to turn over that legal justification, as well as the facts underlying it. Then this week, after receiving a response from the CIA that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any relevant documents, the ACLU filed a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, as Adam Serwer points out at The American Prospect, a New America Foundation study raises concerns that about a third of the victims of drone attacks have been civilians, and international lawyers have been debating for months now whether the targeted killings violate international law. (Jane Mayer's story on drone attacks in the New Yorker last October does an excellent job of laying out the controversy.)

Joseph Palermo, A Hundred Years of War.

This is a very hard hitting article showing how in part actions by the US itself helped foster Islamic extremism. He might have mentioned the US support for jihad against the Evil Empire in Afghanistan as well! There is a lot of blowback involved in what is happening. As Palermo points out a lot of the actions of the US such as drone attacks are themselves a form of terrorism. Of course acts of states or at least of the good states are never terrorist by definition. This is from the Huffington Post.

Joseph A. PalermoAuthor/Associate Professor of History

A Hundred Years of War


Are we really supposed to get excited and rejoice in the targeted assassination of enemy leaders? President Obama might end up making things worse for the opposite reasons Liz and Dick Cheney tell us. He's so unsure of himself in military matters he's leaving the big decisions to shortsighted generals.

Drone attacks are terrorism too. Killing entire families, including women and children, in the "border" areas of the "AF-PAK" theater to hit one "militant" or "extremist," without charge or trial, repeated countless times. This kind of thing is a recipe for a hundred years of war.

Al Qaeda didn't exist inside Iraq until the United States invaded. The U.S. toppled the apple cart away from the traditional Sunni (mostly secular) elites toward untested (mostly religious) Shia elements (tied, ironically, to Iran). In the 1980s, blind Cold War logic led the secular U.S. in Afghanistan to aid some of the most backward Sharia-law practicing fundamentalists.

Imperialism choked off many Islamic countries' secular resistance movements leaving only the mosques where political activity could survive. Power reinforces certain religious brands over others, like right-wing Christian evangelism in the United States or right-wing Shia fundamentalism in Iran. But powerlessness can also reinforce religious brands. (It's no surprise that the Iranian revolution of 1979 became Islamicized given that the Shah wiped out any viable secular movements for social betterment).

Since 1945, the U.S. has supported a fundamentalist theocracy in Saudi Arabia. If the problem with Al Qaeda is that they hate the West for "religious" reasons then why do they also hate the government in Riyadh? A U.S.-supported theocratic dictatorship hoarding oil wealth for a tiny elite. Here is where Osama bin Laden gets to appear honorable because he renounced his elite station in life to fight jihad. He even released a video recently citing global climate change, and the United States' disproportionate contribution of greenhouse gases, as yet another reason to hate the infidels.

People resisting occupation whether they believe in God, Jehovah, Allah, or the Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky will resist with what's readily available. In the current context that means I.E.D.s, suicide bombs, and car bombs, the newly improved and perfected instruments of urban guerrilla warfare we can thank certain U.S. and U.K. leaders for making a permanent fixture of 21st Century life.

The invasion of Iraq was the greatest terrorist recruitment program ever. It destabilized one of the most important big cities in the Arab world. It fueled pan-Arab nationalism as well as jihad against the West. It caused a sectarian bloodbath because of the jolt given to power relations by external military force.

People are brutalized for decades and then we're "shocked" -- "shocked" -- that the brutalized people turn around and behave brutally themselves. Bitter, long-term power struggles have been unleashed in the heart of the Middle East and in South Asia. They certainly will not be resolved because of some drone attacks and targeted assassinations. The only thing these desperate actions accomplish is to further radicalize and Islamicize people who would otherwise much rather peacefully coexist. How long can the U.S. go on ignoring the underlying social and political causes of "terrorism?" Nobody wants to acknowledge that there might be grievances on the other side that need to be looked at. We couldn't hear it nine years ago after 9-11, and we still can't hear it now. Ostrich-like we bury our heads and push forward.

Books & More From Joseph A. Palermo

Drone protests

There seems to have been little coverage of this process in the mainstream media but that is hardly surprising. A nice touch to mark off the protest area with crime scene tape. Perhaps the protesters should have removed it when they left and strung it around the border of the headquarters of the CIA.
The author is correct that the drone attacks are a type of net-centric warfare which is no doubt a wave of the future for many corporate contractors. The civilians killed are not Americans so collateral damage will be of little concern even when it is counterproductive it would seem.


This is from dandelionsalad.

I was invited by activist Cindy Sheehan to speak at the CIA drone protest held on Saturday afternoon (January 16) outside their Langley, Virginia headquarters. As we arrived we saw big orange barricades all along the road with yellow “crime scene” plastic tape stretched all along the highway and also draped from tree to tree in the narrow spit of woods separating the four-lane road and the CIA fortress. A 50-yard open area was our protest “zone” and was totally encircled by the yellow tape. The clear message to the many cars blasting by us was: “Don’t go near those inside the yellow tape. A crime is now being committed by them.” A massive number of CIA cops and Fairfax County police had us surrounded, even from inside the patch of woods.

Cindy had worked hard in recent weeks to promote the event, primarily by Facebook and regular emails. She told us that her Facebook page was “mysteriously” taken down in the last week creating the impression amongst some that the event had been cancelled. As it turned out just over 100 people showed up for the event. A good percentage of the folks there were the Catholic Worker activists (Witness Against Torture) who have been valiantly continuing their daily “no torture” protests in front of the White House. Dressed in their orange prison garb with black hoods over their heads they were a strong reminder of the CIA directed detentions and interrogations at Guantanamo and other such hell-holes run by the U.S. around the world

When I spoke at the protest I said how glad I was to be there for the first time in my life. The CIA, and their drone attacks, is the symbol of the corporatization and privatization of U.S. war policy. The running of wars has essentially been taken away from a neutered Congress and put into the hands of the secret cabal that now runs our government. We need to shine a light on this.

I also of course talked about how U.S. space technology controls the drones as it does most Pentagon “net centric” war fighting these days. Robotic warfare might be “hands off” and “out of sight-out of mind” but it is still dirty and is killing legions of civilians.

I reminded folks that drone and other robotic devices were ultimately just manifestations of a larger war and domination policy. We need to keep putting in front of the public the big picture and I went on to talk about “security export”, the U.S. role under corporation globalization of the world economy. Endless war is America’s future and social collapse at home will be the end result unless a movement springs up

Obama the Drone King.

These attacks are virtually war crimes and at the very least targetted assasinations which past administrations have disavowed. Obama has made them key to his Af-Pak war surge. The attacks are inflaming anti-US sentiment and often kill innocent civilians. The results of the attacks in official pronouncements are almost always different than locals report. There is an almost complete lack of discussion of the legality or morality of these attacks. The only critique seems to be that they are counterproductive not that they are surely criminal acts. Of course it may be convenient to introduce the war frame to exculpate those involved from wrongdoing. How much nicer this is than carpet bombing or dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima so why complain.


News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com -

At Least Seven Killed as US Drones Launch Two Attacks in North Waziristan

Posted By Jason Ditz

Following last night’s drone attack on a North Waziristan tribesman’s home, which killed at least four people, US drones launched a second attack on a car, also on the outskirts of Miramshah, killing at least three more.

Officials say the identities of the seven people killed were unclear, but they said the three killed in the car were apparent militants, as other militants came to recover the bodies. The four in the house were called “suspects” by intelligence officials, but security officials said they had no evidence that they were involved in any wrongdoing.

The attacks raised the overall toll of drone attacks this week to 21, as a Monday drone attack against a compound belonging to the Haqqani family killed another 14 people and seriously wounded several others.

The US has been targeting the Haqqani network for a long time, and the group has been identified as the likely culprits behind this week’s attack on a CIA compound in Khost Province, Afghanistan, which borders North Waziristan.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com

URL to article: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/01/at-least-seven-killed-as-us-drones-launch-two-attacks-in-north-waziristan/

Click here to print.
Copyright © 2009 News From Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.

US wants to launch drone attacks on Pakistan city of Quetta

Time and time again critics have pointed out that drone attacks simply turn citizens against the US and also are a powerful recruiting tool for militants since much of Pakistan is tribal and there is a duty of revenge when a member of your group is killed. But this criticism seems to have no effect on policy makers. Expansion of drone use is great for the companies that make drones, is costless in terms of US casualties and any number of often unverified claims about how many militants and leaders are killed can be made. Yet studies show that actually many civilians are killed for ever militant. The US apparently could care less. This is from antiwar.com.


US Wants to Expand Drone Strikes Into Major Pakistani City
Officials: 'Real Discussion' of Attacking Quetta
by Jason Ditz,

Top US officials say there is a “real discussion” going on right now about launching drone attacks against the Balochistan capital city of Quetta. The comments are the latest in a series of threats against the city, one of Pakistan’s largest.

Though the Pakistani government has looked the other way and even provided behind the scenes support for the various US drone attacks against Pakistan’s tribal areas, officials say a strike on Quetta would be a deal-breaker.

“We are not a banana republic,” one official declared, adding that a US attack on Quetta “might be the end of the road.” Pakistan’s military has likewise repeatedly warned against attacks on the city.

The US threats are ostensibly designed to counter the Quetta Shura, a group of Afghan exiles supposedly running much of the insurgency from the city. Pakistan has repeatedly denied that the Shura even exists, though on Friday Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar insisted that security forces had degraded them to the point they no longer pose a real threat.

Drone attack in Pakistan part of Obama's surge in Pakistan!

There seems to be little discussion of the legality or the morality of the use of drones. Obama is using them much more than Bush ever did and now is escalating their use. The same claims about Al Qaeda leaders being killed are made. By now some Al Qaeda leaders such as are left are killed many times over it would seem. As for civilian deaths they are usually not mentioned. The ratio of civilians killed to militants is quite high according to some sources.

This is from antiwar.com


Tuesday Drone Attack Part of ‘Stepped Up Campaign’ Against Pakistan

Posted By Jason Ditz

Tuesday’s US drone attack against a car in Aspalga Village is said to be the first volley in the Obama Administration’s latest approved escalation of the air war against Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The plan, never formally announced by US officials but repeatedly confirmed by anonymous officials since President Obama announced the Afghan escalation, is in no small measure controversial, the Pakistani government has warned that the attacks would further fuel anti-US sentiment and that their cooperation with the drone strikes “had limits.”

But officials are saying its “possible” that a high ranking al-Qaeda figure who is neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al-Zawahri was killed in the Tuesday, one of those convenient high profile targets reported slain whenever the Pakistani government starts seeming restless about the policy.

But such claims must be taken with a grain of salt at this point, as Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leader Hakimullah Mehsud has been “killed” at least three times in the last several months, and is none the worse for wear for it.