"U.S. Drones Kill 28 'Unknowns' for Every Intended Target"
Via the British group Reprieve comes a report asserting that U.S. drones in Yemen and Pakistan kill 28 "unknowns" for every intended target. What's more, "41 names of men who seemed to have achieved the impossible: tohave 'died,' in public reporting, not just once, not just twice, but again and again. Reports indicate that each assassination target 'died' on average more than three times beforetheir actual death."
So much for the precision of drone strikes, which promise a future of war in which civilians and other forms of collateral damage are spared ruin and destruction. As President Obama said in 2013, 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."
Well, sort of. From the Reprieve report:
As many as 1,147 people may have been killed during attempts to kill 41 men, accounting for a quarter of all possible drone strike casualties in Pakistan andYemen. In Yemen, strikes against just 17 targets accounted for almost half of all confirmedcivilian casualties. Yet evidence suggests that at least four of these 17 men are still alive. Similarly, in Pakistan, 221 people, including 103 children, have been killed in attemptsto kill four men, three of whom are still alive and a fourth of whom died from naturalcauses. One individual, Fahd al Quso, was reported killed in both Yemen and Pakistan. In four attempts to kill al Quso, 48 people potentially lost their lives.
Whole report, including interesting explanation of methodology in compiling list, here.
Hat tip: The Liberty Crier and Break the Matrix's Twitter feed.
Earlier this year, Newsweek reported that "Obama's drone war shows no signs of ending." A snippet:
Despite some spectacular drone hits that took out militant leaders in places such as Yemen and Pakistan, there are growing concerns in Washington that the net effect of the targeted-killing program may be counterproductive. "Collateral damage" is seen as an al Qaeda recruiting tool that undercuts the main rationale for the drone campaign - to make Americans safer.
"It's never a good idea to make more enemies than you get rid of," a former U.S. national security official said.
Back in 2012, Reason TV offered "3 Reasons U.S. Drone Policy is Really Freaking Scary." Watch below:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Close enough for government work?
Bug or feature?
It was reckless of Reason to print this without getting John McCain's side of the story. /sarc
Little Billy Kristol says Obama is a dove. That's all I need to know!
I read somewhere that the DOJ definition of a "militant" is a "military aged male." Like that's it. Age and a penis. That is the sole defining characteristic of a militant. Need to find that source again but it wouldn't surprise me at all that they would have such low standards.
I guess the rape culture has decided to ignore female suicde bombers.
Where's their Title IX, bitches?
Are these drones mostly under military control or intelligence? Does the Pentagon dispatch more targets with drones or does the CIA?
my best friend's step-mother makes $80 /hr on the computer . She has been without work for seven months but last month her pay was $15172 just working on the computer for a few hours. check this link right here now....
????? http://www.netjob70.com
" Reports indicate that each assassination target 'died' on average more than three times beforetheir actual death."
Now do you lbertardians see how dangerous all these terrorists are? They're damn near immortal.
It's not their death rate that bothers me.
It's their resurrection rate.
Oh the plus side, this means that eventually all the terrorists are going to have to fight each other for The Prize. Of course, the downside to that is the winner.
damn that's 216 virgins.
Yeah, this report sounds legit.
Were those known unknowns or unknown unknowns? Or maybe they were unknown knowns?
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.
For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIhDGfFm6vU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4amEsk206g
Unknown =/= innocent. It can mean low-level militant lackey.
It can also mean "cousins and friends at the target's brother's wedding".
Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. And butcher a few hogs. And milk a few cows. And harvest some green onions. And make some cheese.
You can't call it collateral damage though. These are "surgical" strikes, remember?
But at least, heaven forbid, we aren't capturing these people and keeping them alive.
I said in 2007 and 2008 that the effect of electing President Obama would be killing rather than capturing.
How to win friends and influence people
?
Uh oh, someone's been 'palin' around with terrorists?
I find it interesting that Reprieve gave no hint in their report how they determined how many casualties there were or whether they were combatants or truly bystanders. Having decided the supposed target wasn't killed, they called everyone who was killed innocents. This is no more likely to be true than calling all of them terrorists. At least a drone rocket is more discriminating than a B-52 Arclight raid or an 8-inch howitzer shell.
That is surprisingly low, yet still shockingly high ~ considering our previous statistics, I would have thought the number was more closer to 50 to 1 ... http://www.motherjones.com/moj.....s-rate-uav