Seriously, check out what I’ve just reported at the Washington Independent. Complete with drone-strike numbers, broken down by month.
The spike in recent months compared to the previous year looks like the result of a combination of factors. First, the increased operational tempo of U.S. troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan’s south and east, despite the (increasingly less relevant) traditional winter lull. Second, senior military leaders like Central Command’s Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq’s Gen. Raymond Odierno have spoken for months about accelerating the transfer of combat-support assets like surveillance drones to Afghanistan; and those drones can be outfitted with Hellfire missiles. “More strikes by these aircraft is probably best understood as a function of more ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] -and-strike capable assets flowing to the theater,” Sholtis said. And finally, the precision capabilities contained within the remotely-piloted drones satisfy McChrystal’s guidance for a “a higher degree of certainty, patience and restraint in employing air strikes,” in Sholtis’ phrase. Or, as a Marine officer quoted in the Washington Post put it, “It has pinpoint precision, and it limits collateral damage.”
An increase in drone strikes corresponding with an internationally-recognized drop in U.S./NATO-caused civilian casualties. I’m surprised, to say the least.



4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Spencer, thank you for continuing to spread this news. Taliban and Al Quaeda leaders are being killed at an increasing rate. Civilian casualties are down. Al Quaeda’s strike attempts are growing sloppier and more amateurish.
We’re winning. I don’t expect the Republicans to admit it, because, in contrast to what they claimed about liberals, they really DO want us to lose. I don’t expect the mainstream media to admit it, because they’re terrified the Republican Brownshirts like Liz Cheney will claim they’re biased.
But why the hell aren’t the Democrats pushing this story? If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama go on TV and said, “we’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re making real progress,” what the hell are Liz n’ Dick Cheney and Pat Buchanan going to say? “No, we’re losing?” Good luck with that message.
This strikes me as huge, excellent reporting work.
I’ve been wondering about whether different sorts of piloted close air support have different civilian casualty rates but I never really found a good source for doing that comparison. I’d suspect that the advantage for drones is some combination of 1) longevity in the field and 2) ability to sacrifice some survivability concerns for other benefits.
We’ve got precision on a range of platforms, so I could see the ability to do precision being a key enabler for drones, but it doesn’t make sense as the driving factor.
Good news.
Back in Oct. 09 I saw this article which echoed a similar sentiment.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2bc_1262590182
The numbers may have been up slightly but as a % civilian casualties were way down.
Has anyone been charting this stuff since or?
Very good, but we can’t claim any kind of success. It would be political suicide when a terrorist attack would make it seem ridiculous.