US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan: report

[Abu Zolfiqar]

a third-rate indian ''journalist'' residing in the US (washington dc)

what a great, neutral source....

 

[TruthSeeker]

Why do you think he is "third rate"? Seems to be a serious journalist. His bio in Wiki:

Sadanand Dhume
Born New Delhi, India
Occupation Writer, Journalist
Ethnicity Indian
Subjects Asia, fundamentalism, globalization
Notable award(s) Bernard Schwartz Fellow, Asia Society

Sadanand Dhume is an Indian writer and journalist based in Washington, D.C. who writes on Asian affairs. He is the author of My Friend the Fanatic: Travels with a Radical Islamist, a travel narrative about the rise of fundamentalism in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country.

Between 1999 and 2004 Dhume lived in Asia. He served as India bureau chief of the Far Eastern Economic Review and as Indonesia correspondent of FEER and The Wall Street Journal Asia. His essays, op-eds and reviews have also been published in The Washington Post, Forbes, Commentary, YaleGlobal and Foreign Policy. His television appearances include CNN, PBS, BBC World, Al Jazeera International, CNBC Asia and ABC Television; he has also been interviewed by BBC World Service Radio, ABC Radio and ABC Radio (Australia).

Dhume holds a master’s degree in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, a master’s in journalism from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and a bachelor’s degree in sociology from the University of Delhi.

In 2007 Dhume was an inaugural Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the Asia Society. He is currently working on a nonfiction book about the impact of globalization on India. He is represented by Aitken Alexander Associates in London.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

his stories sure are spicy, but they lack depth and are very superficial and sensationalist......he also clearly has an anti-Pakistan agenda....which is no surprise, given his indian background

his credibility is zilch as far as im concerned

 

[TruthSeeker]

his credibility is zilch as far as im concerned

Well, of course. 1) He doesn't agree with your position on the drone strikes; and 2) he's an Indian. End of story.

 

[unicorn]

Top U.S. Officials Weigh In As Drone Debate Escalates
16th August

A controversial new report has reignited debate on the effectiveness of covert CIA drone strikes targeting Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Last week the London-based Bureau for Investigative Journalism reported that CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s border regions occurred 8 percent more and resulted in a higher number of civilian casualties than previously reported. It concluded that while civilian casualties declined in the past year, at least 45 civilians were killed, a number in stark contrast with the claim made by President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan in June that there hadn’t been a single civilian death in more than a year.

The bureau’s charges — the most headline-grabbing of which is that the strikes resulted in the deaths of 168 children over seven years — have garnered significant attention in the past few days, prompting U.S. officials to fire back.

Speaking only on the condition of anonymity, U.S. officials dismissed the bureau’s findings as “way off the mark” and credited the drone program with killing about 600 militants. Anonymous officials also told The New York Times that the drone program had only killed 50 non-combatants since 2001, what reporter Scott Shane described as “a stunningly low collateral death rate by the standards of traditional airstrikes.”

Proponents of the drone program argue it is less risky than on the ground combat operations and is based on significant intelligence that ensures accuracy and precision.

But high-profile former U.S. officials are raising questions about the overall effectiveness of the policy. In an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times, former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair argued that drone strikes “are no longer the most effective strategy for eliminating Al Qaeda’s ability to attack us,” and went on to warn that militants killed by drones will only be replaced. “The group’s structure will survive and it will still be able to inspire, finance and train individuals and teams to kill Americans,” he wrote.

Though Blair did not assess the rate of civilian casualties, he noted that “news media accounts of heavy civilian casualties are widely believed” in Pakistan, further fueling anti-Americanism and eroding America’s ability to work with Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda.

Blair’s argument echoes what Robert Grenier, the former head of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center, told FRONTLINE in an interview for Kill/Capture. Grenier questioned whether the drone program has become contradictory and counterproductive, posing the question: “By launching those attacks, are we creating more militants than in fact we are killing?”

Drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas have been a key part of American strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has dramatically expanded their use. The program is considered successful enough that, according to the Wall Street Journal, the CIA is moving to establish a similar program in Yemen.

Top U.S. Officials Weigh In As Drone Debate Escalates | Afghanistan / Pakistan | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[CardSharp]

Drones bring a very important moral dilemma. Since time immemorial, a warrior risked being killed himself to kill the enemy, and that's what made war distinct from other forms of violence. But with hunter-killer drones, the risk is removed from the person doing the killing. Is that person still a warrior? Do drones still fall into the category of war or do they becomes instruments of murder and assassination.

 

[Vassnti]

That argument goes back to Agincourt and before, how a coward with a longbow could bring down a brave knight with out meeting him hand to hand.

What range is "fair" 5 feet, bow shot, rifle shot, artillery, air strike, cruise missile?

 

[fatman17]

US lawmaker terms killings in drone strikes as ‘extra-judicial’


* Dennis J Kucinich says challenging the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan is vital

ISLAMABAD: US Congressman Dennis J Kucinich has strongly criticised drone strikes by the United States against militants in Pakistan and elsewhere, terming these as “summary executions” and “extra-judicial killings”.

Kucinich, the Representative from Ohio’s 10th District, who is known for voicing his concerns over America’s war policies, says challenging the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and bringing to light their “indiscriminate nature” is vital. In his article titled ‘Drones Direct Hit Upon Rule of Law’ published in the US daily Huffington Post, the congressman said the dangerous precedent could allow international law and the laws of war to be stretched to justify strikes elsewhere. “The legal justification for their [drones] use in Pakistan can and will be used to justify their use in other countries,” he said, and added that under such legal framework, the battlefield could be stretched to anywhere in the world. Kucinich mentioned a recent report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates that at least 2,292 people have been killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, including 350 civilians.

He quoted a July 2009 Brookings Institution report stating that 10 civilians die for every one suspected militant from US drone strikes. He cited another study by the New American Foundation concluding that out of 114 drone attacks in Pakistan, at least 32 percent of those killed by the strikes were civilians.

Kucinich said drone attacks undermined the United States’ moral standing in the world as they fomented anger and resentment against the country.

“We have spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of nurturing democracy and the rule of law, while at the same time, our use of unmanned drones severely undermines the rule of law,” he said.

He said President Obama had greatly expanded the use of drones over the past several years, authorising more drone strikes during his first 15 months in office than President Bush did during his entire eight years in office. He regretted that America which once stood for the rule of law, the constitution and Bill of Rights risked causing unprecedented collateral damage. “As it’s fearful leaders continue to kill suspects and innocent alike, mindlessly unaware that the hellfire we are sowing will surely be reaped by Americans in the future,” he concluded. app

 

[Vassnti]

US lawmaker terms killings in drone strikes as ‘extra-judicial’


* Dennis J Kucinich says challenging the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan is vital

ISLAMABAD: US Congressman Dennis J Kucinich has strongly criticised drone strikes by the United States against militants in Pakistan and elsewhere, terming these as “summary executions” and “extra-judicial killings”.

Kucinich, the Representative from Ohio’s 10th District, who is known for voicing his concerns over America’s war policies, says challenging the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and bringing to light their “indiscriminate nature” is vital. In his article titled ‘Drones Direct Hit Upon Rule of Law’ published in the US daily Huffington Post, the congressman said the dangerous precedent could allow international law and the laws of war to be stretched to justify strikes elsewhere. “The legal justification for their [drones] use in Pakistan can and will be used to justify their use in other countries,” he said, and added that under such legal framework, the battlefield could be stretched to anywhere in the world. Kucinich mentioned a recent report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates that at least 2,292 people have been killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, including 350 civilians.

He quoted a July 2009 Brookings Institution report stating that 10 civilians die for every one suspected militant from US drone strikes. He cited another study by the New American Foundation concluding that out of 114 drone attacks in Pakistan, at least 32 percent of those killed by the strikes were civilians.

app

Interestingthe NAF found of the 118 drones strikes in 2010 748 killed were militants 46 civilians thats more like 6.1% than 32.
I blame the american education system for the failure of its politicians to be able to count.

The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it's a failed strategy by the Americans, and one reason for rising anti-Americanism in Pakistan which they then wonder why it exists.....


it slows down their ability to operate, but they can regroup and strike again. The best way for NATO to avoid being attacked would be to vacate Afghanistan (which is what is planned soon anyways)

the drones issue would be fine if Pakistan was in control of them; if they want it to be our war, then treat it like that


drones are being used for political purposes too....during RD saga, they ended drone strikes. So if they had intel, they still didnt act. Whereas they used drones as some kind of 'retaliation' against Pakistan when we did release RD (something i was against).

a very unprofessional and emotional way to deal with the issue of militancy. Swat is free from terrorism and militancy to a large extent. That is because of Pakistan Army's approach to the problem. Whereas Afghanistan could not be contained even by the world's mightiest powers. Afghanistan is much worse off today than it was in 2001-2004.


why? well, it's evident. And the funny thing is, we have had a much shorter span of time to work towards perfecting COIN ops. We are learning on the go, and despite limited resources, we've had greater succeses.


so those in favour of drones are the ones who only believe in temporary band-aid solutions to a larger problem; and those who believe in these band-aid solutions will be prepared one day to see that hardly any of their objectives were met.


the writing is on the wall really.....some people just refuse to open their eyes and see it. Afghan end game would be approaching soon, especially with the debt-ridden nature of some of the countries in the 'coalition of the willing'


and as for others, who ask why the drones dont get shot down --- well, look at Xeric's profile signature and you would have the answer.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Interestingthe NAF found of the 118 drones strikes in 2010 748 killed were militants 46 civilians thats more like 6.1% than 32.
I blame the american education system for the failure of its politicians to be able to count.

The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

uh huh.....the world should follow New Zealand education instead. Do they even have proper schools there?