Seven years of drones

A little bit of history was made last week. The US released casualty information regarding drone strike operations into the public arena for the first time ever. President Obama also issued an executive order, pretty much ordering his successor to keep publishing this data annually. Depending on your point of view, this is either a transparency milestone, or a well-timed effort to get out ahead of mounting pressure about the drone programme.

Whichever lens the data is viewed through, it is important to understand that the numbers only span Obama’s time in office and that they exclude air strikes carried out in areas deemed to be in active conflict. Although Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria numbers are among those excluded, these figures purportedly include any casualties from operations within Pakistan. That being said, the administration’s estimated tally of civilians lost due to air strikes is between 64 and 116. The high end of that range is still lower than the lowest independent figures available and just more than 10 per cent of the highest NGO estimate mentioned in the report.

Missing from the report was a clear explanation of how the US differentiates between combatants and noncombatants. This is a sure sign that methodology is questionable to say the least and, quite likely, intentionally misleading. Is there a national security reason for not being forthright about who is counted as a civilian? You would expect the more than 30 women and children killed during a 2009 air strike in Yemen to be included. If we’re to believe the low end of the US estimate, that means there were only 30 innocent lives taken in the other 472 attacks. New practices such as second strikes on those attempting to rescue casualties make the US estimate even more difficult to accept.

The report shows that 473 attacks were carried out during this time frame, but a quick look at data recorded by the New America Foundation shows 495 reported drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan alone. How can there only be 473 air strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya and elsewhere if there were 495 in just two of those countries in the same time frame? Most are willing to concede that the definition of what constitutes a combatant is subjective to a great degree, but it’s hard to debate the actual number of air strikes. If anything, we should expect the numbers reported by the US to be higher than those captured by the news since there could be targeted strikes in remote areas that never make headlines.

What are we to make of these figures, none of which are in line with those that are already available in the public sphere? As pointed out above, the numbers themselves do not appear to have much value. The most telling part of the report is that it ever saw the light of day in the first place and that the administration has committed to updating figures on an annual basis. It’s not so much the content, but the fact that the government was compelled to release any information to the public that counts. The scrutiny about drones and their use outside of combat areas has certainly played a part in this event. Another takeaway is that the US still strongly believes in the importance of the drone programme. Otherwise, they would have likely shut it down altogether rather than touting benefits while conceding to the world that they’ve killed at least several dozen innocent bystanders.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 11^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.