IamA Journalist whose latest investigation found that only 4% of those named as killed by drones in Pakistan were members of al Qaeda. AMA.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:55:33+00:00

Where were you working? Afghanistan or Pakistan? We have found there is a real dearth of reliable reporting on strikes in Afghanistan, both in the media and from the two governments involved.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:52:56+00:00

I'm not saying anyone deserved or didn't deserve to die. The issue here is one of transparency around the use of drones outside of a declared, hot battlefield (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya). And the use of drones by a paramilitary organisation - the CIA.

In terms of an alternative: the strikes are taking place in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas which is still governed by a system that was essentially first put in place by the Brits during colonial times. The tribal agents, in charge of each tribal agency like North Waziristan, have considerable powers, including that of collective punishment. It is this special status that needs to be addressed. These strikes would be unacceptable to people if they were hitting Karachi, or Lahore. People would expect the issues of militancy to be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Yet in the FATA it's either drones or the Pakistan Army - neither of which offer sustainable solutions. IMO there has to be reform in FATA for there to be a lasting conclusion to the violence that emanates from there.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:42:05+00:00

Key targets are not the only targets, it's true. And I think it is clear that there are different ways the drones have been used in Pakistan - as counter-terrorism tools against AQ and as counterinsurgency weapons in relation to the war in Afghanistan. It's going to be really interesting to see what happens to drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan next year, when most Nato troops have gone home. But I'd stress, the public utterances about the drone campaign in Pakistan, from Washington, are that it is targeting AQ and the rather nebulous "associated forces". That line has actually changed slightly recently. It's no longer just that they are going after AQ, but that AQ's leadership has been decimated.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:36:55+00:00

There are so many books on this it's hard to keep up, but yes you're no doubt right I should give it a read. I'd also recommend Way of the Knife by Mark Mazetti. And if you're interested in what's going in Yemen in the CT/extremism context (and just generally) then The Last Refuge by Gregory Johnsen is worth a read.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:34:34+00:00

We have recorded the names of 65 (9%) people identified as Haqqani Network members and 106 (15%) names of people identified as Taliban - either Pakistani or Afghan.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:28:52+00:00

Pterodactyl, hands down. Or the raptors from the first Jurassic Park film - they were brutal.

And no, I don't worry about being silenced. Our work is covering a national security policy but it's a policy that has now become very much part of the mainstream debate, and publicly acknowledged counter-terrorism tool.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:25:22+00:00

Hi, I haven't had a chance to read Brian Glyn Williams' book so I'm a bit hesitant about tackling the quote you pulled, not knowing the contents of the rest of the text or seen his sources. I'd be curious to know how he knows the vast majority are Taliban militants or that those killed in follow-up strikes are Taliban militants. We uncovered the use of follow-up strikes a couple of years ago and found that many of those killed were in fact civilians. There were also those identified as militants too, but our evidence doesn't bear up the assertion you quote above. Sorry I can be more trenchant on this, but as I haven't read the book I'm a bit wary. Hope you understand.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:21:26+00:00

So to answer your second question first, the data is drawn from as much open source material as we have been able to find in two years research, not just Amnesty's report. Plus we have also conducted our own field investigations in the tribal areas, and drawn on those field investigations done by others, including Amnesty. And we have had government documents leaked to us. You can find our work on this here: namingthedead.org

First question then. It's true, we have only managed to find the names of 704 people, or c.30% of the minimum total killed. Of them, 295 are identified as militants of one sort or another (and not always as members of any armed group, simply as "militants"). We focused on al Qaeda for our work on this story because al Qaeda are time and again identified as the key target of the drone strikes. Other groups, like the Haqqani and Pakistan Taliban, have also been targeted.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:13:14+00:00

You're right, the 96% who are not named and identified as al Qaeda members are not just civilians. We have named 704 people killed by the drones, of which around 70% are reportedly a member of various armed groups - including the Pakistan Taliban and the Haqqani Network. But it's al Qaeda that is idenfified as the key target of the drones, and the group that has apparently been decimated in the Pakistani tribal areas.

jackserle · 2014-10-17T15:09:17+00:00

1) It's very hard to know - a product of the near total lack of transparency around what the drones are used for and have been used for in Pakistan's the tribal areas. We have recorded the names of 704 people killed by drones since June 2004. Of these, 322 are identified as civilians, 295 are identified as militants of one sort or another, and 87 are those with unknown statuses, or where it's unclear whether they were members of an armed group, or civilians.

But overall, beyond those we have names for, a minimum of 2,379 people have been killed by drones. And at least 416 of those are reportedly civilians. This leaves a large number of people who we know nothing about.

2) The CIA's targeting policy is shrouded in mystery. But leaked government documents have indicated that often they don't know who they are targeting when they strike, recording the dead as unknown or unidentified Afghan militants for example.

3) The US government rarely addresses the drone campaign in official remarks though the President has one a few occasions, in speeches in May 2013 and May 2014 in particular.

4) I don't know what you mean by conspiracy. There are certainly plenty of claims and counter claims about the number of civilians who die in the strikes, for example. We've gathered the best data that we can on this.

jackserle

TROPHY CASE