Drone campaign: Unsuspecting victims of a ‘precise’ warfare

A majority of 168 children reportedly killed in the seven-year CIA campaign were less than 17 years old.

Chris Woods August 12, 2011
Drone campaign: Unsuspecting victims of a ‘precise’ warfare


Din Mohammad had the misfortune to live next door to militants in Danda Darpakhel, North Waziristan. His neighbours were reportedly part of the Haqqani Network, a group fighting US forces in nearby Afghanistan.

On September 8, 2010, the CIA’s Reaper drones paid a visit. Hellfire missiles tore into the compound killing six alleged militants. One of the Hellfires missed its target, and Din Mohammad’s house was hit. He survived. But his son, his two daughters and his nephew all died. His eldest boy had been a student at a Waziristan military cadet college. The other three children were all below school age.

Although the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s field researchers have verified the details of this strike, the US continues to deny civilians are being killed in Pakistan strikes, while one in seven of all US strikes may have resulted in child fatalities.

Children have been killed throughout the seven years of CIA strikes. The Bureau has identified credible reports of 168 children killed in CIA drone attacks in the tribal areas. (For this research, the UN’s definition of a child as being someone aged between 0 and 17 years old has been adopted. The majority of children killed have been younger than 17, according to the Bureau’s reports.)

Unicef, the United Nations children’s agency, said in response to the findings: “Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many.”

‘One in three’

The highest number of child deaths occurred during the Bush presidency, with 112 children reportedly killed. More than a third of all Bush drone strikes appear to have resulted in the deaths of children.

On only one occasion during Bush’s time in office did a single child die in a strike. Multiple deaths occurred every other time. On July 28 2008, for example, CIA drones struck a seminary in South Waziristan, killing al Qaeda’s chemical weapons expert Abu Khabab al Masri along with his team. Publicly the attack was hailed a success.

But the Agency’s strike also killed three young boys and a woman. Despite the secrecy surrounding the drones campaign, details emerged in May of this year that not only was the US aware of this ‘collateral damage’, but that the then-CIA chief Michael Hayden personally apologised to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for the error.

Escalating war

President Obama, as commander-in-chief, has ultimately been responsible for many child deaths in Pakistan. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has identified 56 children reported killed in drone strikes during his presidency - although child deaths have dropped significantly in recent months.

On February 14 2009, the eight-year-old son of Maezol Khan reportedly lost his life. More than 25 alleged militants were killed in a massive strike on a nearby house. But flying shrapnel killed the young boy as he slept next door. His grandfather later asked: “How can the US invade our homes while we are sleeping, and target our children?”

But one 2009 incident in which children died gives a chilling insight into the tactics of those the CIA are hunting. On August 11 of that year drones attacked an alleged Pakistan Taliban compound, killing up to 25 people. At the time there were reports of women and children killed.

Two years later, young survivor Arshad Khan, now in Pakistani police custody, told reporters that the compound was a training camp for teenage suicide bombers. He named four young victims. Arshad says he was recruited without realising he was to be a suicide bomber.

Commenting on children killed by drone strikes, Unicef’s south Asia regional spokesperson Sarah Crowe told the Bureau: “Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many. Children have no place in war and all parties should do their utmost to protect children from violent attacks at all times.”

Reducing deaths

There are indications that the Obama administration is making efforts to reduce the number of children being killed. Following the incident in September last year that killed Din Mohammad’s children, and another strike just weeks earlier in which a further three children died, there has been a steep fall in the number of child fatalities reported by media.

That is partially in line with claims by some US intelligence officials that drone targeting strategies have been altered to reduce civilian casualties. Although the Bureau has demonstrated that CIA claims of ‘zero casualties’ are false, there are far fewer reports of child casualties since August last year.

Along with two undefined reports of ‘children killed’, a 17-year-old student was killed in November last year. And on April 22 this year, two drones destroyed a house and guesthouse in Spinwan, North Waziristan. A 12-year-old boy, Atif, was killed in that strike, according to researchers working with the Bureau in Waziristan.

Mirza Shahzad Akbar, an Islamabad-based lawyer representing a number of families caught up in drone strikes said: “All these children are a big recruitment agent for militants in the area. When you can show people that children are being killed in the drone strikes, all those who are so far non-aligned, that gets them onto the other side. That is what most worries me as a Pakistani.”

A US counter-terrorism official, commenting generally on the Bureau’s findings, denied that civilians were now being killed and said: “Nobody is arguing perfection over the life of the programme, but this remains the most precise system we’ve ever had in our arsenal.”

Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2011.


G. Din | 12 years ago | Reply

@Basit Siddiqui: *"Why not American just simply fully accept that they carrying out drone attacks ? Simply, because they know it is illegal by international laws.

Making babies has nothing to do with drones."*

How did it escape you, sir, that: 1. Americans have sought facilities for those drone attacks from Pakistan and been given those; 2. Americans are the only ones with such precision technology. 3. they are not illegal by international laws unless you show how?; 4. if they were illegal, isn't it Pakistan's duty to bring it to the attention of the world? Instead Pakistan has made its facilities available without which it would not have been possible to fire those drones. And, if Pakistan does do that, that would be your fault, per se. 5. you must not have heard the expression everything is fair in love and self-defence. If Agent Orange was not illegal in Viet Nam, how can such precision strikes be illegal?

So, where is the need to accept on America's part when it is clear as daylight to the whole world. You don't think that they are frightened that you might expose them, do you? As far as making babies is concerned, when you have a bountiful supply of such bomb-carriers, you don't value each one of them as you would if you had only one. They wouldn't be near their parents, the terrorists, in large numbers to be killed collaterally. You would protect that one instead of selling him or handing him to mullahs, which is not much different! So, making babies with abandon without caring about them has much to do with drone-strikes!

Basit Siddiqui | 12 years ago | Reply


A failed US war, which is struggling to find moral support even in its own country, has many, if not all, well wishers in the country where they committing crimes. No wonder they had many in Vietnam when they killed in millions.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ