Flawed statistics on failed drone strikes U.S. military officials have defended a drone strike carried out in Kabul on Aug. 29. As many as 10 people may have been killed in the blast, according to an American official and families of the victims. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) initially described it as an operation targeting a vehicle linked to the Islamic State-Khorasan. CENTCOM said the Hellfire missile blast produced "significant secondary explosions" from the vehicle, a white sedan parked in a residential courtyard, indicating that explosives were packed inside. But the vehicle belonged to a California-based charity providing humanitarian relief. Two experts who reviewed images from the blast said they did not appear to indicate that the white sedan was carrying explosives, according to a visual forensics investigation by The Washington Post. In short: The military's own investigation into the matter is continuing, but the available evidence shows this drone strike could be marked down as a failure. How often does that happen? "Studies of our drone strikes have suggested that maybe eight out of 10 times we are hitting the wrong target," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who often appears on cable news. That would be an astonishing record of failure. But Murphy's statistic did not withstand scrutiny. In Pakistan, for instance, data from the New America Foundation show there have been a total of 414 strikes, resulting in 2,366 to 3,702 deaths, most of them militants (estimated at 1,910 to 3,071). The civilian death toll was calculated as between 245 and 303. In Yemen, there have been 374 strikes, resulting in 1,387 to 1,776 total deaths, including 124 to 150 civilians, New America says. The civilian casualty rate from drone strikes "was high initially but became smaller and smaller over time for all sorts of reasons; longer flight times, smaller payloads, better intel, more congressional scrutiny, more media scrutiny, clearer rules of engagement," said Peter Bergen, a New America vice president who has studied these attacks. However, his research is derived from news reports; official data with definitive totals are not released by the U.S. government. Murphy's staff said he was referring to a statistic in a 2015 article in the Intercept, about an operation from 2012 to 2013. The article was based on internal government documents, but it is a snapshot from years ago, not a sound basis from which to extrapolate. Murphy earned Three Pinocchios. Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this email was forwarded to you, sign up here. Did you hear something fact-checkable? Send it here; we'll check it out. Republicans fixate on fake 'mute' button To many right-wing pundits and Republican leaders, President Biden is in a dire state of cognitive decline and his aides are the ones really pulling the strings. Of course, it's all bunk and fever dreams. But any miscue or gaffe from Biden is like gasoline on this fire of conspiracy-theorizing. "It's been widely reported that somebody has the ability to push the button and cut off his sound and stop him from speaking. Who is that person?" Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho), who once chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said at the start of a hearing about Afghanistan with Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sept. 14. There is no such person, as Blinken informed Risch. What happened was actually pretty common. The White House broadcasts many of the president's events online, but the feed cuts off when the public part of the program ends. That's what happened Sept. 13, when Biden was in Boise, Idaho, to meet with state and local fire officials. The Republican National Committee, however, spun this into a mystery. The RNC tweeted a video clip from the White House livestream, showing Biden saying, "Can I ask you a question?" before the feed cuts off abruptly. This was fodder for bogus stories across right-wing media, suggesting Biden's handlers were panicking and shutting off the cameras to hide something. Risch and the RNC earned Four Pinocchios. We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @rizzoTK, @AdriUsero) or Facebook. Read about our process and rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email 
No comments:
Post a Comment