Classified documents reveal CIA drone strikes often killed unknown people

A review of classified US intelligence records has revealed that the CIA could not confirm the identity of about a quarter of the people killed by drone strikes in Pakistan during a period spanning from 2010 to 2011.

According to a purportedly exclusive report by NBC News that mirrors findings of an April analysis by McClatchy, between September 3, 2010 and October 30, 2011 the agency’s drone programme over Pakistan routinely designated those killed as “other militants,” a label used when the CIA could not determine affiliation, if any.

The review by NBC News paints both a confusing and troubling picture of the CIA’s reported drone strike success, which three former Obama administration officials feared could have missed or simply ignored mistakes.

Of the 14 months worth of classified documents reviewed, 26 out of 114 attacks designate fatalities as “other militants,” while in four other attacks those killed are only described as “foreign fighters.”

Even more irregular are the cases when entry records conflict on the number of those killed, with one such example indicating a drone attack had killed seven to 10 combatants, and another estimating 20 to 22 fatalities.

By comparison, McClatchy’s April review of drone strikes revealed that at least 265 of up to 482 people that the CIA killed during a 12-month period ending in September 2011 were not senior al-Qaeda leaders, but were instead “assessed” as Afghan, Pakistani and “unknown extremists.” Corroborating media accounts show that US drones killed only six top al-Qaeda leaders during the same period.

One key term in analyzing drone strike records are what are known as “signature” strikes, when drones kill suspects based on behaviour patterns but without positive identification, versus “personality” strike, which is when drone targets are known terrorist affiliates whose identities are verified.

According to an anonymous senior intelligence official who spoke to NBC, at the peak of drone operations in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010 as many as half of all kills were classified as “signature” strikes.

One former senior intelligence official said that at the height of the drone programme in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010, as many as half of the strikes were classified as signature strikes.

Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence from 2009 to 2010, addressed NBC’s report with the claim that the precision of drone strikes was superior to those of traditional battlefield weapons.

“In Afghanistan and Iraq and places where you have troops in combat ... you know better with drones who you’re killing than you do when you’re calling in artillery fire from a spotter [or] calling in an airplane strike,” he said.

“This is no different from decisions that are made on the battlefield all the time by soldiers and Marines who are being shot at, not knowing who fired the shot, having to make judgements on shooting back or not. This is the nature of warfare,” added Blair.

As to just how analysts arrive at determining unverified, “signature” drone targets, that system relies on data which draws connections between the unidentified individuals and known militants. That might entail monitoring everything from the frequency that a suspect visits a particular location, meets certain individuals, or makes phone calls and sends emails.  

During a key speech defending his administration’s use of targeted drone killings in May, President Obama defended the CIA’s drone programme as a “legal,” “lethal” and “effective” counterterrorism tool, while at the same time acknowledging some civilian casualties.

A report entitled “Living Under Drones,” jointly released by Stanford University and New York University in 2012, is far less muted on civilian casualties, and argues that the civilian death toll in drone strikes over Pakistan is far higher than is reported.

In the classified reports reviewed by NBC News, for example, of the 600 some killed only one is listed as a civilian, a statistic which Micah Zenko, a drone expert at the Council on Foreign Relations described as “incredible.”

The Stanford-NYU report, for its part, bases its conclusions on 130 interviews, as well as a review of media reports, though the methodology employed can itself be a subject of debate.

Separately, an Associated Press investigation in 2012 reported that out of 10 drone strikes over a period of 18 months, Pakistani villagers claimed that only 70 per cent of those killed by US strikes were militants, with the rest either civilians or tribal police.

The new Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif has called for an end to drone strikes in Pakistan.

Courtesy: Russian Times

APC of Nigeria: Theory of the Armoured Personnel Carrier

The battle began, for the survival of a nation at war with itself. Cloudburst sounds all over the sky. Citizens wail. At the battlefield, victory is being announced. A party in the war wins. Yes! Victory. Years gone, the war never ends, the opposing sides are fragmented. With maximum chutzpah, the victorious says it will stay on for 50 years. 50 what?! The citizens cry. Agonies and pains. All expect transformation, though not miraculous but in deed and in truth they wait to see. Disappointment speaks. The homeland of tears.

The divided oppositions try yearly to offset the balance and strength of the massive firepower employed by the victor. Though seemingly poorly trained in the art of statecraft, soldiers in the victorious wing understands the esoteric undertone of stirring the water to catch fishes. Divide and Rule; victory is assured. It sets up different tiny and minute groups within the opposition, funds them and deploy them as a veritable too of distraction.

The only alternative is the voice. The united voice of the oppositions. Though all animals are equal in crime and the anomalies combating the homeland but some are more reasonable than others. Soldiers trapped in the trench call out loud. They clamour for change over the loss on the battlefield. They echo the cries of the homeland. They are all culpable though for the destruction but some soldiers are better of. They have their Armoured Personnel Carrier packed in the thick jungle of war but cannot get there because they lack the voice.

Selfish and vainglorious interests impede change and charge. The only way to counter the trenches and 'formidable' fortress of the winning and victorious side is the deployment of the APC and its monumental missiles. The missiles of the people. The undaunting voice. The commanders of the different units have never agreed on any single line of action but the APC smiles from afar in wait of usage. Covered with dust, it seems the last option otherwise the entire homeland will blow up beyond repair. Critics and foreign rapists already pray for that.

Here comes the armoured personnel carrier, a dancing golden weapon of war. The stealth of fear and perplexity for the victorious party. A drone with a political mission. The soldiers are the same but the mission is of the people only if the people will look at the years of pains and inhumanity. They have to rise. The APC must shield all from the bullets of the ruling party. It must break the trenches of warfare already planned. All must be able to queue at its back for utmost protection. All the landmines of poverty must be uprooted.

The nation the APC is about to lead to battle is the trigger of Africa. Africa waits for Nigeria. If Nigeria divides, Africa falls. Neo-colonialism will assume an unprecedented dimension. The launchpad of the APC should not be personality attacks. The warheads should not be abuse and senseless unethical views. Arguments are for advancements. Arguments must occur but it must be for developments not who gets what, when and how. Arguments must be about Nigeria not Hausa, Igbo, Niger Delta or Yoruba.

The APC must be a guardian angel. Internal Democracy must be the prism through which all arguments and discussions shall be viewed. The people not only cry of the battle but also because their homeland lacks any concrete ideology. Programmes and course of actions must be explicit in the new theatre of political war. Being tired of the ruling and winning party is not the main headache, the main morass is being led without focus. The people are led blindly. We have indigenous acts before Europe, the dynamism of the APC on the battlefield will be the marriage of history and modernism.

The principle of soldiers in an APC is always 'All for One, One for All.' Soldiers in an APC fight together as one for surviaval and victory. None looks for personal glory. If one falls, others weep. Need and aspirations must be based on societal demands not personal aggrandizement. Soldiers in the APC must learn to SACRIFICE for the people not SACRIFICE the people like the Boko Haram and various unknown gunmen as well as militant events. The people must SPEAK through the APC.