It's time we faced up to the failures of drone warfare

A devastating report into the use of drones by the US Army should make us all question whether these aircraft should be America's weapon of choice.

Share

With this month’s media focus on “muslim rage”, and much Western froth about the "Islamic world", an opportunity for more sober reflection on relations between the West and Muslim countries went largely unnoticed.

A newly-published study on the impact of America’s intensive use of drones in Pakistan offered an advance on the tabloid tone of much commentary in the wake of the embassy protests. But it was swamped in the news cycle.

The report details the brutal effects of drone warfare on civilians in what is now considered the heartland of Taliban-style Islamism, around the frontier provinces close to the Afghan border. Named “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan”, the joint-study by Stanford and New York University describes how the continual presence of drones “terrorizes men, women, and children” by “striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning.”

Living Under Drones quotes civilian fatality estimates from what it considers the best available public records: “474-881...civilians, including 176 children” since the program began. This contrasts sharply with past public statements by the US, claiming that there were zero, or merely “single digit” civilian casualties from the raids.

In April this year, John Brennan, Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser stated: “in order to ensure that our counter-terrorism operations involving the use of lethal force are legal, ethical and wise, President Obama has demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards and processes.” 

The notion that drone operations in Pakistan are “legal, ethical and wise” is certainly not borne out by the findings of the report.

Nor is the idea that lethal drone strikes are “surgically” effective, as they have been made out to be. The report cites an example from Afghanistan, where two American soldiers were killed by drones after they were mistaken for Taliban fighters. Rolling Stone reported this year that a man named Baitullah Mehsud, a high-level target for the US was finally killed in Pakistan on the fifth attempt. Terrible human collateral was wrought on the previous four attempts. The article described how one of “the missed strikes, according to a human rights group, killed 35 people, including nine civilians, with reports that flying shrapnel killed an eight-year-old boy while he was sleeping. Another blown strike, in June 2009, took out 45 civilians, according to credible press reports.”

The NYU-Stanford report also touches on a truly disturbing issue: the alleged targeting of rescuers and funerals, the former a tactic that - as the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald virtually alone has addressed- had been cited by the US’ Homeland Security Unit in the past as a hallmark of terrorist practices. Inquiries by the indispensable Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) had previously uncovered cases of this in a major joint investigation with the Sunday Times in February this year. The Bureau wrote of “deliberate attacks” on funerals - which the US condemned when Al Qaeda did it in Yemen- something that would almost certainly amount to a war crime under international law if proven.

Innocent


These are alarming findings. And it cannot be said that the study was not thorough. It drew its damning conclusions after “nine months of intensive research”, having conducted “over 130 detailed interviews”. The report adds that witnesses "provided first-hand accounts of drone strikes, and provided testimony about a range of issues, including the missile strikes themselves, the strike sites, the victims' bodies, or a family member or members killed or injured in the strike".

By all indicators, then, this is a serious study by serious academics from two of the most prestigious law schools in the world - so why didn’t it get more coverage?

A mundane explanation might suffice: publically raking over the moral failures of “our side” has never been popular to mainstream media consumers or editors. Piously condemning the atrocities of others has always had greater appeal.

What appears clear, however, is that the current approach is counter-productive. The report quotes New America Foundation estimates that only 2% of those killed in drone attacks are high-level targets. Among the other 98% killed, it seems, are hundreds of civilians and well over a hundred children, augmented by a traumatised, bitterly resentful and increasingly radicalised local population.

The report concludes that “publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best” and may be a major recruitment and propaganda tool for local Islamists who feed off resentment toward the US. This is hardly a resounding endorsement given the apparently dreadful human cost inflicted upon communities in west Pakistan. Can such slender gains be worth the large-scale loss of innocent life?

Illegal


It seems impossible to justify in any kind of ethically-minded cost-benefit analysis. What’s more, there is a strong case to be made this kind of drone use is criminal under international and US law. President Obama - who wound down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but intensified the drone assault - should heed the sensible recommendations made in the report in order to increase accountability and limit the possibility of loss of innocent life.

Additionally, he should follow the advice of UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, and open the US to an independent investigation of its use of drone strikes.

Of course, knowing the power structures in the world we live in, that’s unlikely to happen. The US, like Britain and many other western nations, is simply too powerful to be persuaded to be held to the standards it typically expects of others.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

SQL Technical Implementation Consultant (Java, BA, Oracle, VBA)

£45000 - £55000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: SQL Technical ...

Head of IT (Windows, Server, VMware, SAN, Fidessa, Equities)

£85000 per annum: Harrington Starr: Head of IT (Windows, Server, VMware, SAN, ...

Lead C# Developer (.Net, nHibernate, MVC, SQL) Surrey

£55000 - £60000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: Lead C# Develo...

Technical Software Consultant (Excel, VBA, SQL, JAVA, Oracle)

£40000 - £50000 per annum: Harrington Starr: You will not be expected to hav...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

The leak of Jennifer Lawrence's nude photos isn't her fault. But try telling that to the internet's idiots

Grace Dent
US first lady Michelle Obama (2nd L) and her mother Marian Robinson (L) share a light moment with Chinese President Xi Jinping (2nd R) and his wife Peng Liyuan  

Europe now lags behind the US and China on climate change. It should take the lead once more

Joss Garman
Alexander Fury: The designer names to look for at fashion week this season

The big names to look for this fashion week

This week, designers begin to show their spring 2015 collections in New York
Will Self: 'I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity'

'I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity'

Will Self takes aim at Orwell's rules for writing plain English
Meet Afghanistan's middle-class paint-ballers

Meet Afghanistan's middle-class paint-ballers

Toy guns proving a popular diversion in a country flooded with the real thing
Al Pacino wows Venice

Al Pacino wows Venice

Ham among the brilliance as actor premieres two films at festival
Neil Lawson Baker interview: ‘I’ve gained so much from art. It’s only right to give something back’.

Neil Lawson Baker interview

‘I’ve gained so much from art. It’s only right to give something back’.
The other Mugabe who is lining up for the Zimbabwean presidency

The other Mugabe who is lining up for the Zimbabwean presidency

Wife of President Robert Mugabe appears to have her sights set on succeeding her husband
The model of a gadget launch: Cultivate an atmosphere of mystery and excitement to sell stuff people didn't realise they needed

The model for a gadget launch

Cultivate an atmosphere of mystery and excitement to sell stuff people didn't realise they needed
Alice Roberts: She's done pretty well, for a boffin without a beard

She's done pretty well, for a boffin without a beard

Alice Roberts talks about her new book on evolution - and why her early TV work drew flak from (mostly male) colleagues
Get well soon, Joan Rivers - an inspiration, whether she likes it or not

Get well soon, Joan Rivers

She is awful. But she's also wonderful, not in spite of but because of the fact she's forever saying appalling things, argues Ellen E Jones
Doctor Who Into the Dalek review: A classic sci-fi adventure with all the spectacle of a blockbuster

A fresh take on an old foe

Doctor Who Into the Dalek more than compensated for last week's nonsensical offering
Fashion walks away from the celebrity runway show

Fashion walks away from the celebrity runway show

As the collections start, fashion editor Alexander Fury finds video and the internet are proving more attractive
Meet the stars of TV's Wolf Hall... and it's not the cast of the Tudor trilogy

Meet the stars of TV's Wolf Hall...

... and it's not the cast of the Tudor trilogy
Weekend at the Asylum: Europe's biggest steampunk convention heads to Lincoln

Europe's biggest steampunk convention

Jake Wallis Simons discovers how Victorian ray guns and the martial art of biscuit dunking are precisely what the 21st century needs
Don't swallow the tripe – a user's guide to weasel words

Don't swallow the tripe – a user's guide to weasel words

Lying is dangerous and unnecessary. A new book explains the strategies needed to avoid it. John Rentoul on the art of 'uncommunication'
Daddy, who was Richard Attenborough? Was the beloved thespian the last of the cross-generation stars?

Daddy, who was Richard Attenborough?

The atomisation of culture means that few of those we regard as stars are universally loved any more, says DJ Taylor