[Dove]

In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1].

I think you're confused. The relevant paragraph in your link says the collateral damage -- both civilians and unknowns -- is 2% at the moment.

    The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply 
    since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," 
    those individuals whose precise status could not be 
    determined from media reports, reported killed by drones 
    in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of 
    fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under 
    President Bush it was 33%.
    
    Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been  
    rising over the life of the drone program. The number of
    militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the    
    fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush.

I think that's fantastic news. A collateral damage rate of 2%, including unknowns "whose status could not be determined from media reports" is downright unprecedented in warfare.

The statistics, taken together, say they're using drones more in regular combat than they used to, and getting better at confirming that the kills are accurate. That's great news, isn't it?

There is a later paragraph that claims only 2% of drone strikes kill leaders. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

    Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 
    militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at 
    least two credible news sources. While this represents a 
    significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 
    49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related 
    fatalities.

I don't see how that's relevant, though. Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous?

[deadbea7]

Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous

No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

[Dove]

All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top?

And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!

[n3rdy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea...

This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't.

What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them.

In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy.

So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to.

This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.

[Dove]

This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant.

If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you.

In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians.

I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.

[n3rdy]

> I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.

I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common.

The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed.. so if someone is saying its only 2%, how do 5% of these deaths turn out to be children?

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-stri...

The military is denying that the number of children killed is that high.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-reported-drone-strike-casua...

If our government would share their data with the organizations that did these investigations, maybe it would show they were wrong, but I doubt it.

We know the precise number of military causalities, we even know the precise number of police officers injured or killed, our government is meticulous about reporting on those, but try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere.

If they won't accurately report how many of us are killed by police, what are the chances that they are keeping track of foreign civilian casualties any more accurately?

[Dove]

I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common.

Ha! No. No, even clerks at the DMV get things right a whole lot more often than that. ;) And coming from drone operators and intelligence officers? That's completely unbelievable to me. Those guys are professionals.

Quite the opposite, I've seen plenty of footage of the systems in operation, and I find a collateral damage rate of 2% or lower completely believable. With a drone, you can be watching your target for tens of minutes, making sure he's really the guy you want.

Maybe you haven't seen it from a drone camera? It looks like this: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/20...

The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed..

Well, it's 2% "so far in 2012". I think they said it was 11% over the life of the program, and that it's gotten much better over time. So even if the numbers are accurate, that still works out.

The CIA says it isn't that high, though, and I'm inclined to trust them on that. They do have cameras on the target when they take the shot and all. And I don't know about you, but it's a bit too paranoid for me to believe they're making figures up out of whole cloth.

Why not share the data with news organizations? The camera footage almost certainly contains classified information about system capabilities and tactics. From their perspective, keeping systems effective is 100000% more important than looking good in the media. Especially since you look bad in the media anyway, even if you give them all the data (just ask scientists).

try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere.

What, like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce...

I put "us citizens killed annually by police" into google and it was the first link.

What are the chances that they are keeping track of foreign civilian casualties?

Pretty good. They care deeply about the effectiveness of their systems.

[Dove]

accountswu, I can't reply to you, as both comments are [dead]. I don't know if they've been downvoted to death or what, but that's why my reply is up here.

Would you support drone attacks to kill mass murderers that happen to reside in your neighborhood?

I think the level of collateral damage is too high for normal law enforcement. Police don't normally need to leave craters. ;)

If we were talking about warfare, though -- foreign spies, terrorists? Especially if my city/state were protecting them? Hell yes, bring it on.

You're a wolf in a Dove's clothing.

Ha! I'd never thought about the political connotations of the name until this moment--it means other things to me. It's not my intent to mislead; I'm nowhere close to dove territory, politically speaking.

Maybe you can tell. ;)

Can Obama kill you and then claim you are a militant leader?

That would be pretty difficult. It's not as though he operates with no oversight. Nor is it as though he doesn't have political opponents who would be all over that sort of scandal.