Skip to main content

Civilian casualties plummet in drone strikes

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst, and Jennifer Rowland, Special to CNN
July 14, 2012 -- Updated 1620 GMT (0020 HKT)
A man burns the U.S. flag in protest of a drone strike in Multan, Pakistan, on July 7.
A man burns the U.S. flag in protest of a drone strike in Multan, Pakistan, on July 7.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Peter Bergen, Jennifer Rowland: Civilian toll of drone attacks has dropped sharply
  • They say lower munitions, better targeting, more oversight has enabled more accurate strikes
  • Civilian casualty rate using conventional warfare would arguably be higher, they say
  • Authors: Rate of drone attacks has slowed considerably

Editor's note: Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, is a director at the New America Foundation and the author of the new book "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad." Jennifer Rowland is a program associate at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that seeks innovative solutions across the ideological spectrum.

(CNN) -- Last week, a U.S. drone attack killed 19 suspected Taliban militants at a compound in North Waziristan on the Afghan border, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Dawn, a leading English-language Pakistani newspaper, later reported that the drone actually launched two separate strikes, the second of which occurred "when tribesmen were still carrying out rescue work," and killed an additional three people.

It was unclear whether the three were civilians or militants. If they were civilians, the incident would run counter to a marked decline in reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan caused by CIA drone strikes.

The New America Foundation has been collecting data about the drone attacks systematically for the past three years from reputable news sources such as the New York Times and Reuters, as well as Pakistani media outlets such as the Express Tribune and Dawn.

According to the data generated by averaging the high and low casualty estimates of militant and civilian deaths published in a wide range of those outlets, the estimated civilian death rate in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan has declined dramatically since 2008, when it was at its peak of almost 50%.

Not just for military use, drones turn civilian

Today, for the first time, the estimated civilian death rate is at or close to zero.

Peter Bergen
Peter Bergen

Over the life of the drone program in Pakistan, which began with a relatively small number of strikes between 2004 and 2007, the estimated civilian death rate is 16%.

And in the Obama administration, between 1,507 and 2,438 people have been killed in drone strikes. Of those, 148 to 309, or between 10% and 12%, were civilians, according to the New America Foundation data.

The drop in the number of civilian casualties since 2008 came as a result of several developments, one of which was a directive issued from the White House just days after President Obama took office, to tighten up the way the CIA selected targets and carried out strikes. Specifically, Obama wanted to evaluate and sign off personally on any strike if the agency did not have a "near certainty" that it would result in zero civilian casualties.

The CIA began utilizing smaller munitions for more pinpoint strikes. And drones can now linger for longer periods of time over targets, ascertaining whether civilians are around the target area, than was the case several years ago.

The drone program has also come under increasing congressional oversight in the past couple of years, a layer of accountability that one former CIA official said was unheard-of when he left the agency in 2009.

Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees now hold monthly meetings at CIA headquarters to watch video recordings of specific drone strikes, as well as to review the intelligence upon which CIA agents on the ground in Pakistan based their target selection.

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times in May, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, wrote that "Committee staff has held 28 monthly in-depth oversight meetings to review strike records and question every aspect of the program including legality, effectiveness, precision, foreign policy implications and the care taken to minimize noncombatant casualties."

And in 2012, there have been far fewer drone strikes: just 27 as of July 11, compared with 45 during the same period in 2010.

All these factors have contributed to the steep decline in civilian deaths in drone strikes in Pakistan.

See more drone coverage on CNN's Security Clearance

According to a 2010 report by the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a Washington-based advocacy group, which was based on field work in Pakistan's tribal areas where all of the drone strikes occur, most residents of the tribal regions believed the strikes are largely accurate and primarily killed militants. However, the report said civilian casualties were higher than the U.S. government had claimed.

In February, The Associated Press conducted a rare on-the-ground investigation of 10 of the deadliest U.S. drone strikes carried out over the previous 18 months.

Reporters interviewed about 80 villagers from the areas affected by these 10 strikes and found that of the 194 people reported killed in the attacks, at least 138 -- about 71% -- were identified as militants.

The remaining 56 victims were either local tribesmen or police officers: about 29% of the total number, 38 of whom were reportedly killed in a single strike on March 17, 2011.

If that single attack is excluded, the civilian casualty rate for the 10 deadliest strikes of 2010 and 2011 was 9%, which is in the range of the New America Foundation estimate of 5% civilian casualties for all of the 141 strikes during that same time period.

Obama administration officials, including the president's top counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, said publicly in 2011 that there were no civilian casualties as a result of the strikes. And it has been reported that the administration considers as a "militant" any military-age male in the strike target area. The New America data is not based on the U.S. official definition of a militant and does not rely on any U.S. official counting of the strikes.

The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism also maintains a count of drone casualties in Pakistan. It reports that between three and 24 civilians have been killed in 2012.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism's high estimate of 24 civilian deaths in 2012 came in part from reports provided by an unreliable Pakistani news outlet as well as the claims of a local Taliban commander, which contradicted all other reports. And even if the bureau's estimates of between three to 24 civilian casualties are assumed to be correct, the civilian casualty rate for drone strikes in 2012 would still be between 1% and 10%.

That is far below the civilian death rate that the Pakistani government and other private research groups such as Pakistan Body Count have claimed. A report released by Pakistani authorities in 2010 estimated that for every militant killed in a drone strike in 2009, 140 Pakistani civilians also died, and that the civilian casualty rate for that year was more than 90%. And Pakistan Body Count's ongoing tally estimates the civilian casualty rate over the life of the drone campaign to be between 75% and 80%.

Pakistani security officials acknowledged during background interviews with the Washington Post in mid-2010 that, in fact, better technology, a deeper network of informants on the ground and better coordination between U.S. and Pakistani intelligence officials had all contributed to a significant drop in civilian deaths in drone strikes.

And Maj. Gen. Ghayur Mahmood, a commander of Pakistani troops in North Waziristan, where the majority of drone attacks take place, last year conceded publicly that "Myths and rumors about U.S. Predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it's a reality that many of those killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners."

Pakistani officials now rarely base their criticism of U.S. drone strikes on the incidence of civilian casualties and instead point, quite reasonably, to another objection: the U.S. violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty.

The Obama administration maintains that international law does not prohibit the use of lethal force against an active enemy "when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."

And many U.S. officials have argued that the unprecedented precision of drones makes them by far the most effective weapon for striking a target and for avoiding civilian casualties.

Conventional warfare against the Taliban and allied groups such as al Qaeda in Pakistan's northwest would arguably result in far higher civilian death tolls.

Amnesty International reported in 2010 that 1,363 civilians died in fighting (PDF) between insurgents and Pakistani security forces in the tribal regions in 2009, compared with the estimated 103 to 223 civilians who were reported to have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in 2009, according to the data compiled by the New America Foundation.

The drone program persists, in part it seems, just because it can. The Pakistanis complain about the drones' infringement of their national sovereignty and yet have never shot down the relatively slow-moving drones with their F-16 fighter jets.

Then-CIA Director Leon Panetta said a year ago that the U.S. is "within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda."

That point seems to have come, yet the drone strikes rumble on.

July 6: 20 dead in drone attack in Pakistan

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1952 GMT (0352 HKT)
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2312 GMT (0712 HKT)
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1914 GMT (0314 HKT)
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2027 GMT (0427 HKT)
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 0335 GMT (1135 HKT)
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1257 GMT (2057 HKT)
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 0429 GMT (1229 HKT)
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2115 GMT (0515 HKT)
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1811 GMT (0211 HKT)
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 1808 GMT (0208 HKT)
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 1853 GMT (0253 HKT)
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 2019 GMT (0419 HKT)
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 2239 GMT (0639 HKT)
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 0112 GMT (0912 HKT)
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2345 GMT (0745 HKT)
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2113 GMT (0513 HKT)
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
December 10, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1734 GMT (0134 HKT)
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 1740 GMT (0140 HKT)
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
ADVERTISEMENT