Civilian Toll: The Startling Truth about Drone Strikes

[The Northerner]

Sunday’s death of Fahd al-Quso in a CIA drone strike was a significant US success. The admitted al Qaeda bomber had long been sought for his role in the deadly attack on the US navy ship the USS Cole back in 2000.

At the Bureau we logged al-Quso’s name – along with his nephew Fahed Salem al-Akdam – in our Yemen database. Another two names added to the many hundreds we’ve now recorded for the US covert war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

The Bureau has so far identified by name 317 civilians killed in US attacks in Pakistan. Between 170 and 500 further civilians have yet to be identified.

A day earlier, a CIA strike in Pakistan also killed around ten people. Here the information was less clear, with reports vague about who had died. While most claimed that a militant training camp had been struck, a single source claimed those killed were ‘local tribesmen.’ This clearly needs further investigation.

Although we’re not alone in recording US covert drone strikes, the Bureau also tries to identify by name all of those killed – both civilian and militants. And those names – which the Bureau recently presented at a Washington DC drone summit – reveal some startling truths about the US drone campaign.

Read more: http://mideastposts.com/2012/05/civilian-toll-the-startling-truth-about-drone-strikes/


Considering that the drone-strike slaughters have been occurring for so long, why hasn't there been mass protests in the streets of the US or mass legislative opposition to the drone strikes in Congress?

Are there not enough people who care about the deaths of civilians slaughtered by drones on many days of nearly ever week?

[gratuitous]

1. No, there are not enough people who care about this

Summary executions have now graduated into the realm of legitimate exercises in foreign policy. For us, anyway. But anyone else who uses it against the United States for the sin of raining down sudden death from the sky is a terrorist, and anyone who says such an attack against the United States is justified is a terrorist, and anyone who notes that such an attack against the United States is the normal and expected consequence of our own actions is a terrorist.

It's good to be the Keeper of the Keys to the Kingdom in the High Church of Redemptive Violence. Our violence is always good and correct; everyone else's is evil and wrong.

[stevenleser]

2. So are you requesting a bombing strike by a flight of F-16's instead?

I mean, since drones are your issue.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Sadly that's a very weak response

since killing innocents is his issue.

[stevenleser]

4. Thats not his issue. He mentions a specific weapons platform

Innocents always die in military strikes. If the killing of innocents was that persons issue, their message would have read quite differently.

Raising drones as an issue is a red herring that never stands up to scrutiny. If you are anti-war, be anti-war. If you really are against a particular weapons platform, be prepared to back up why.

Drones kill many fewer people than any other military strike option would and they do it without putting any American servicepeople at risk, and they also use fewer resources. So, again, if one is going to attack the use of drones as the weapon of choice, they need to be prepared to address those points.

If you don't want the US attacking at all in those situations, that is what one should say, not raise drones as the issue.