Jul 02, 2013
Pulling from military data collected between mid-2010 and mid-2011 in Afghanistan--the height of U.S. drone attacks there--Larry Lewis, a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses and adviser to the military's Joint Staff, found that the rate of civilian casualties from drone strikes are far more drastic than what the Obama administration has alluded to.
As Spencer Ackerman at the Guardian reports, the findings appear "to undermine the claim made by President Obama in a May speech that 'conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.'"
On the contrary, the study finds that drone strikes in Afghanistan were "an order of magnitude more likely to result in civilian casualties per engagement," a fact that directly refutes Obama's justifications for the rampant use of the unmanned bombers.
_______________________
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Jacob Chamberlain
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
Pulling from military data collected between mid-2010 and mid-2011 in Afghanistan--the height of U.S. drone attacks there--Larry Lewis, a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses and adviser to the military's Joint Staff, found that the rate of civilian casualties from drone strikes are far more drastic than what the Obama administration has alluded to.
As Spencer Ackerman at the Guardian reports, the findings appear "to undermine the claim made by President Obama in a May speech that 'conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.'"
On the contrary, the study finds that drone strikes in Afghanistan were "an order of magnitude more likely to result in civilian casualties per engagement," a fact that directly refutes Obama's justifications for the rampant use of the unmanned bombers.
_______________________
Jacob Chamberlain
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
Pulling from military data collected between mid-2010 and mid-2011 in Afghanistan--the height of U.S. drone attacks there--Larry Lewis, a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses and adviser to the military's Joint Staff, found that the rate of civilian casualties from drone strikes are far more drastic than what the Obama administration has alluded to.
As Spencer Ackerman at the Guardian reports, the findings appear "to undermine the claim made by President Obama in a May speech that 'conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.'"
On the contrary, the study finds that drone strikes in Afghanistan were "an order of magnitude more likely to result in civilian casualties per engagement," a fact that directly refutes Obama's justifications for the rampant use of the unmanned bombers.
_______________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.