PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COUNTERTERRORISM SPEECH RAISES MORE QUESTIONS
WASHINGTON—President Obama’s counterterrorism speech at National Defense University left many questions unanswered on American drone policy. While Center for Civilians in Conflict welcomes his assertions of extensive Congressional oversight for the remote drone program and looks forward to his continuing efforts to make the program more transparent, the President’s speech also raised more questions about civilian casualties.
How is the administration defining “civilian”?
Importantly, President Obama stated that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.” This is commendable, but we’ve yet to hear exactly how a civilian is defined in these circumstances, especially in an era of signature strikes that target based on behavior not identity.
The definition of a civilian may also complicate President Obama’s calculations about who has been harmed, as the speech referenced the “wide gap between U.S. assessments of [civilian] casualties, and non-governmental reports.” Civilian casualty statistics will vary depending on the definition used of a “civilian” (as opposed to a targetable individual often dubbed a “militant” by US officials). The term “civilian” may exclude people who should not be considered a target under international law. Especially in signature strikes, the identity of the dead is unlikely to have been known in the first place, making it more likely that civilians can be misidentified as combatants. With limited troops on the ground in these areas, investigations are not carried out to verify the status of those killed.
The Obama Administration needs to prove how serious it is about civilian casualties by being clear on who is a civilian and who it considers to be a target.
How is civilian harm being measured?
The real impact of remote drone strikes on civilian populations is unknown, including by the Obama Administration. Yet a reduced risk for civilian harm is frequently heard as an argument for using drones instead of other weapons platforms, including in the President’s speech. The reality is that there are considerable impediments to knowing the true civilian cost of the current counterterrorism campaign.
Most drone strikes occur in areas largely inaccessible, making it difficult to verify if civilians had been harmed. The lack of conventional U.S. forces on the ground to conduct investigations post-strike means there is little way of corroborating evidence that the strike has indeed succeeded in avoiding civilians. Video surveillance cannot talk to witnesses or dig in the dirt for forensic evidence. A homebound sick child is unlikely to be noted by surveillance conducted prior to a strike, and may again be overlooked as the drone counts the bodies recovered from the rubble from thousands of feet above. Further, civilians have no way of notifying officials of what happened to them and their families; there are no US bases to travel to and no court to file claims.
Are drones safer for civilians than other weapons platforms?
The President noted that “Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.” Official US statements that drone “precision” is distinct in the history of warfare because drones hit their targets and avoid civilians better than other technologies belies the actual definition of “precision.” Rather, “precision” means that a particular weapon will go where the pilot or operator tells it to go—an ability that is decidedly not unique to drones. In fact, a fighter jet carrying the same missile or bomb as a drone can be just as precise.
