White House Shrugs Off Dead Civilians in Syrian Strikes


"Freedom" is just another word for nothing left to bomb.

Winning hearts and minds! In the wake of reports that our airstrikes on Syria may have killed a dozen civilians, including children, Yahoo News asked the administration whether the policy the White House put in place to limit drone strikes applied to these bombings. The drone rules President Barack Obama has put into place require they can only be used if there is a "near certainty" that there will be no civilian casualties. (These rules are mere empty gestures, though. There have been civilian casualties from drone strikes anyway, regardless of policy).

But the citizens of Syria and Iraq won't even get this lip service. This is an area of "active hostilities," which is what I guess we're calling undeclared wars at the moment. The drone assassination policy does not apply here, Yahoo News has been informed:

The "near certainty" standard was intended to apply "only when we take direct action 'outside areas of active hostilities,' as we noted at the time," [National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin] Hayden said in an email. "That description — outside areas of active hostilities — simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now." 

Hayden added that U.S. military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Syria, "like all U.S. military operations, are being conducted consistently with the laws of armed conflict, proportionality and distinction."

The laws of armed conflict prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilian areas and require armed forces to take precautions to prevent inadvertent civilian deaths as much as possible.

Read more here.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: DON'T PANIC, S.S. Follies, Libertarian Spoilers, Peter Suderman on Obamacare, Why Are We Still in Afghanistan, Intel vs. Obama, Plastic Bans, Are Hot Dogs Sandwiches, and Aftershow!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. News: our approval rating among Syrians dropped from a high of 7% in 1947 to an all time low of 4%.

    1. And it took us only 57 years to achieve this only -3% increase in dirty furener love! There almost just like us now! ALL HAIL MURIKA, FUCK YEA!

    2. So there’s only a one in 25 chance that those dead civilians are pro-American? Seems like pretty good odds….

  2. Ooops! Well, it was just those dirty fureners. I mean, they aren’t really like humans are they? Well, unless they sneak across the border into the US and get free housing, healthcare, and all the free shit, and then they suddenly transform from ditry fureners into righteous voters of the democracy, right?

  3. I guess that’s what those people get for living in an area of active hostilities.

    1. We are all in an area of active hostilities. Always have been

      1. But these civilian casualties are truly in an area that actually is currently an area of active hostilities. We’re raining bombs, hellfires, and tomahawks on them. That seems to be the epitome of active hostilities.

        And the beauty is that anywhere our bombs/missiles land is, by definition, an area of active hostility. Yeah, we’re the ones being hostile, but there isn’t anything written in the imaginary fine print about that.

    2. Yep, they signed that ‘ol ‘social contract’, right?
      I mean if they wanna be civilized, well, we’re here to help!

    3. “There goes the neighborhood.”

    4. We’re giving them a good, hard dose of some American Exceptionalism?.

      I hope they’re appreciative, but I’m not optimistic about this.


  4. Islamic State has a cat blog? So does the FSA. Which one is better? You decide.

  5. The laws of armed conflict prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilian areas and require armed forces to take precautions to prevent inadvertent civilian deaths as much as possible.

    Perhaps someone should have told the Islamists about those laws. But of course the civilian deaths they cause aren’t exactly “inadvertent,” are they?

    1. Foreseeable Consequences, something, something….Iron Lawz….

    2. Were procedures followed?

  6. “Well, if you didn’t want a Hellfire missle in your kid’s playpen, you shouldn’t have moved in with Muslim extremists.”

    Works for the War on Drugs…

  7. That’ll teach them to behead our journalists!

  8. Ok ISIS, you’ve awoken a sleeping giant *covers mouth* asshole.

  9. There’s no way not to kill civilians when there is war. All that smart bomb bullshit will never completely avoid the piles of little mangled bodies under the blown out elementary school or hospital. AFAIC, this is one of the best reasons not to get involved. Lots of people are going to die in Syria and Iraq, but they don’t have to be on our conscience or dime.

  10. Of course some civilians are going to inevitably die. Much, much more will die without U.S. intervention. How much more? Let’s start with a few genocides.

    1. Just like how US intervention saved all those people in Iraq, and Syria? Yeah, great fucking idea you have there.

      1. There was no intervention in Syria. Obama pulled out of Iraq without a residual force. We are in the position that we are because of a lack of intervention by the U.S. NOT because of too much of it.

        1. You can’t be this stupid.


          1. “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

  11. We’re helping Assad stay in power and this is the thanks we get?

  12. Why would the US government care about Syrian civilian casualties? It doesn’t care about *American* civilian casualties in the WoD.

    1. But they do care! They are ruining and ending people’s lives for their own good.

  13. I just caught Team America World Police on TV the other night.

    Do you think Obama is a fan?

  14. Making omelets.

  15. You know the old saying; “If you want to make an omelet, you have to casually murder non-combatants and swiftly dismiss the immorality of your actions.”

  16. “like all U.S. military operations, are being conducted consistently with the laws of armed conflict, proportionality and distinction.”

    Am I reading this correctly ? Is it saying that there are laws governing the proportionality of use of force ?

    What the eFf does proprotionality have to do with fighting a war, or kinetic action, or man made act of agression, or whatever the current PC name is ?

    1. it means you respond with only the appropriate amount of force to neutralize the threat. For example, you don’t nuke a city because a sniper in that city shot at your patrol. distinction refers to focusing the attacks onto enemy combatants and minimizing civilian casualties. when the enemy combatants use civilians as human shields and actually believe it is righteous to do so, civilian casualties will become inevitable if you want to win the fight.

  17. “We had to destroy the village to save it.” A winning strategy since Viet Nam!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.