The Year of the Drone: Map & Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010

Government, Military
An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010

The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network.

Our study shows that the 138 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 42 in 2010, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 997 and 1,502 individuals, of whom around 686 to 979 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 33 percent.

We have also constructed a map, based on the same reliable press accounts and publicly available maps, of the estimated location of each drone strike. Click each pin in the online version to see the details of a reported strike; the red border represents the extent of Pakistan's tribal regions in the northwest of the country. And while we are not professional cartographers, and Google Maps is at times incomplete or imperfect, this map gives our best approximations of the locations and details of each reported drone strike since 2004.

This study carries a Creative Commons license, which permits re-use of New America content when proper attribution is provided. Please click here for conditions of use, and when citing please attribute to Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann's drones database at the New America Foundation.

Secrecy News: GAO Oversight of Intelligence, Costs of Secrecy

09 Justice, 10 Security, 11 Society, Budgets & Funding, Corruption, Government, Intelligence (government), Military, Money, Banks & Concentrated Wealth, Power Behind-the-Scenes/Special Interests, Reform

GAO OVERSIGHT OF INTEL AGENCIES IN DISPUTE

One of the simplest and most effective ways to strengthen congressional oversight of intelligence agencies would be to task cleared staffers from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the investigative arm of Congress, to undertake specific audits or investigations of intelligence programs.  Perhaps the clearest indication of the power of this approach is the fact that the intelligence agencies hate the idea and the White House has threatened a veto if it is adopted by congress.

Senate intelligence committee leaders have already yielded to executive branch opposition on this point, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting that the GAO has a role to play in intelligence oversight, and she says she is trying to ensure that Congress does not willingly surrender one of its most sophisticated oversight tools.  See “Pelosi Faces Off with Obama on CIA Oversight” by Massimo Calabresi, Time, June 25 and “Acting Spy Chief Plans Departure” by Siobhan Gorman, Wall Street Journal, June 25.

An unreleased opinion from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel reportedly holds that intelligence programs are outside the purview of the Government Accountability Office and that intelligence agencies should therefore not cooperate with the GAO.

Although the GAO previously reviewed FBI counterterrorism programs prior to the 2004 intelligence reform legislation, “GAO has been essentially blocked from conducting its current work,” complained Sen. Charles Grassley (R-ID).  “The DoJ Office of Legal Counsel is arguing that GAO does not have the authority to evaluate the majority of FBI counterterrorism positions, as these positions are scored through the National Intelligence Program (NIP) Budget.”

The FBI confirmed that the GAO's access to some previously auditable programs has been denied.  “With the post-2004 inclusion of FBI counterterrorism positions in the Intelligence Community, aspects of the review GAO proposed in 2009 would have constituted intelligence oversight,” the FBI told Sen. Grassley (at pdf pp. 67-68).  “It is the longstanding position of the Intelligence Community to decline to participate in GAO reviews that evaluate intelligence activities, programs, capabilities, and operational functions.”

I recently discussed the question of GAO oversight of intelligence with colleagues from the Project on Government Oversight, which published the conversation as a podcast here.

Phi Beta Iota:  Let's not quibble here.  CIA and FBI and anyone else that is refusing GAO oversight are committing treason, plain and simple.  The US Government is out of control, and if Congress does not start living up to its Article 1 Constitutional responsibilities, there is a very real possibility of a complete over-turning of Congress along with multiple states actively nullifying federal taxation as well as as federal regulation, and some states starting with Vermont seceeding from the Union.  The Executive is betraying the public trust and not working in the public interest.  It's time We the People pulled the plug with a tax revolt that explicits demands a cessation of funding for both the Pentagon and the secret IC, until such time as they can present to congress a responsible holistic strategy and force structure that produces desired outcomes, not merely a transfer of wealth to Lockheed executives and the banks behind them.  ENOUGH!

SECRECY COSTS CONTINUED TO RISE IN 2009

The financial costs of national security classification-related activities continued to rise in 2009, reaching a record high of $9.93 billion for the combined costs of protecting classified information in government and industry, the Information Security Oversight Office reported today (pdf).

Classification-related costs include not simply the act of classification, but also everything that follows from it:  physical security for classified materials, computer security for classified information systems, personnel security, and so forth. “The agencies also reported a modest, but welcome increase in spending on declassification programs,” wrote ISOO Director William J. Bosanko in his transmittal letter to the President.

The newly reported cost data do not include classification-related costs for CIA or the large Pentagon intelligence agencies — since those costs are themselves considered to be classified.  This means that the costs incurred by the most classification-intensive agencies are outside the scope of the published report, which significantly limits its value.  See “Report on Cost Estimates for Security Classification Activities for Fiscal Year 2009,” Information Security Oversight Office, June 25, 2010.

Phi Beta Iota:  These costs are severely understated and probably come closer to $15 billion a year than $10 billion.  However, taking $10 billion at face value, this means that the costs of secrecy completely apart from the sources and methods in being, are now at least 14% of the total budget for secret intelligence (itself moderately if not substantially understated since DoD concealed a great deal from the DNI in the last 2-3 years).  This is flat out NUTS.  It is unprofessional, irresponsible, and should at a minimum be grounds for Congressional refusal to fund the secret intelligence community until a 150-250 person GAO Special Intelligence Audit (SIA) unit is formed and given full access.

Event: 30 Jun, 2010 OpenNet Initiative (ONI) Global Summit–Should Cyberspace be Secured as an Open Commons?

Civil Society, Computer/online security, Government, Media, Open Government, Policy
Event page registration

The OpenNet Initiative (ONI) 2010 Global Summit will convene three high-level panels of experts and practitioners on prominent topics related to cyberspace governance, security, and advocacy. The three panels will be organized as informal “talk show” or “Davos” style format: an active moderator, questions and answers from the audience, and high-level exchanges among the panelists and the audience (as opposed to formal presentations and Q&As;).
The panels will be open to the public and recorded for subsequent podcast.
The summit follows directly on the 2010 OpenNet Initiative Workshop held at Mont-Tremblant June 28-29, which will bring together the regional ONI Commonwealth of Independent States (Opennet.Eurasia) and Opennet.Asia networks. Both these networks will be present at the summit on June 30th.

EVENT DETAILS:

The OpenNet Initiative-2010 Global Summit/L'Initiative OpenNet-Sommet
Mondial 2010

Should Cyberspace be Secured as an Open Commons?
Le Cyberspace—faut-il défendre l’universalité de ce bien commun?

Victoria Hall (Old City Hall) 111 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
June 30, 2010
9:30 AM – 4:30 PM

Panelists and participants:
Panélistes et les participants:

BBC, Google, United States Department of State, National Endowment of
Democracy, United States Broadcasting Board of Governors,
International Development Research Centre, Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, Canada, Public Safety Canada, Bell
Canada, Sesawe, Psiphon Inc, Opennet.Asia, Opennet.Eurasia, and more….

Moderator:
Modérateur:
Jesse Brown (Search Engine)

4:30 PM – 6:30 PM

Cocktail Reception/Réception avec hors d'œuvres

Journal: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Punjab, and Taliban

08 Wild Cards, 09 Terrorism, 10 Security, Law Enforcement, Military, Peace Intelligence
Berto Jongman Recommends...
By Ahmad Majidyar  |  AEI Online
(June 2010)

Key points in this Outlook:

  • Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan and al Qaeda have teamed up with Punjabi militant and sectarian groups to destabilize Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province.
  • Although the militants have yet to assert the same control in southern Punjab that they did in Swat Valley or Waziristan, there are signs that such a scenario is possible.
  • Counterterrorism, intelligence, and police operations are more likely to make inroads than outright military operations.

See Also:  Press Release RAND 21 June 2010, Failed Strategy to Half Pakistan-Based Militant Groups Has Helped Lead to Rising Number of US Terror Plots; and report, Counterinsurgency in Pakistan.  Phi Beta Iota:  Pakistan has displaced Saudi Arabia as the primary sponsor of international terrorism (along with the Israeli Mossad that fills in when needed).  The US is deliberately blind to this reality.

Journal: Why Taliban is Winning in Afghanistan–VERY IMPORTANT

08 Wild Cards, Military
Chuck Spinney Recommends

The attached article was brought to my attention by a highly-educated, well-read medical doctor of Pashtun descent now living in the UK.  It should be studied closely and ought to be mandatory reading in the White House, before the President gets stampeded by McChrystal debacle, the accession of General Petraeus, and his fellow travelers in the War Party (Democrats as well as Republicans) into backing away from President Obama's withdrawal deadline.  CS

Why the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan
By William Dalrymple – New Statesman – 22/06/2010
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government

As Washington and London struggle to prop up a puppet government over which Hamid Karzai has no control, they risk repeating the blood-soaked 19th-century history of Britain’s imperial defeat.

In 1843, shortly after his return from Afghanistan, an army chaplain, Reverend G R Gleig, wrote a memoir about the First Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. It was, he wrote, “a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, has Britain acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated.”

FULL STORY ONLINE

Journal: Obama Misses the Afghan Exit Ramp

08 Wild Cards, 09 Justice, 10 Security, 11 Society, Corruption, Government, Military

Obama Misses the Afghan Exit Ramp

by Ray McGovern, Consortium News, June 25, 2010
Raymond McGovern (born 1939) is a retired CIA officer turned political activist (see biography).

Is President Barack Obama so dense that he could not see why Gen. Stanley McChrystal might actually have wanted to be fired — and rescued from the current March of Folly in Afghanistan, a mess much of his own making?

McChrystal leaves behind a long trail of broken promises and unfulfilled expectations. For example, there is no real security, at least during the night, in Marja, which McChrystal devoted enormous resources to conquer this spring.

Remember his boast that he would then bring to Marja a “government-in-box” and offer an object lesson regarding what was in store for those pesky Taliban in Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second largest city?

But it’s now clear that there will be no offensive against Kandahar anytime soon. On its merits, that is surely a good thing, but it is a huge embarrassment for McChrystal and his former boss, the never nonplussed Gen. David Petraeus.

When McChrystal and his undisciplined senior aides let a Rolling Stone reporter know what they really thought of the “intimidated” Obama and most of his national security team, Obama and his advisers rose to the bait.

FULL STORY ONLINE

Phi Beta Iota:  Ray McGovern is a man of intelligence and integrity.  He gives General McChrystal too much credit here for a contrived exit, while at the same time touching on the pathethic lack of integrity in the White House, happy to sacrifice lives of “the little people” if it can embroil General Patraeus, who never had a shot at the Presidency, in a one-man quagmire.  What Obama has just done is treason in the purest sense of the word: there has been no strategic analysis, no Whole of Government conceptualization of what we need to do to rescue America while disengaging from a lecacy of 50 years of colonialism, militarism, and predatory immoral capitalism.  Obama is treating the US military–and especially General Patraeus who should have known better than to accept– as a pawn on the political chess-board–at the same time that he is, with malice aforethought, doing nothing at all in the public interest, just counting the days to his Goldman Sachs retirement package.   Shame.  Shame.  Shame.

Article recommended by Chuck Spinney.

Journal: Vickers to Replace Clapper? Double-Whammy.

Military
Marcus Aurelius Recommends

W/R/T Vickers' Irregular Warfare office — that looked like a shoo-in when originally staffed 3-4 weeks ago.  More recently it has picked up significant senior-level opposition within the Building.  If for no other reason, it's inherently inconsistent with what SECDEF is now advocating about streamlining headquarters, reducing layers and reduncancy, etc. 

Morning Defense (Politico.com)
June 22, 2010

Vickers To Replace Clapper

By Gordon Lubold

If Clapper is confirmed as the new DNI, Gates is expected to nominate Michael Vickers, currently the assistant secretary of defense for
special operations/low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities, to replace Clapper as under secretary of defense for
intelligence, POLITICO has learned. Vickers, the top civilian overseer of special operations forces, is best known outside the Pentagon for his portrayal in “Charlie Wilson's War” as a national security wunderkind.  Sources tell POLITICO that Vickers would be Gates' favorite to replace Clapper, assuming Clapper's nom goes through.

A NEW OFFICE ON IRREGULAR WARFARE? – Vickers is proposing a new “Irregular Warfare Office” – IWO for short, POLITICO has also learned.  The focus of the new office would be to “identify, accelerate and monitor the implementation of the Department's top priority IW
initiatives,” according to a memo Vickers wrote in May that was obtained by POLITICO.