Thanks to Reliance on "Signature" Drone Strikes, US Military Doesn't Know Who It's Killing

[marmar]

(Truthout) Last month, on June 9, the United States launched a drone strike that killed Nasir al-Wuhayshi, a high-ranking leader in the Islamic militant group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). What makes the strike notable is that it was a coincidence: The CIA - the agency that pulled the trigger - had no idea al-Wuhayshi was among the group of suspected militants it targeted. Al-Wuhayshi's death at the hands of a US drone reveals that the United States continues to fire drone missiles at people whose identities it does not know.

Government officials confirmed the June 9 strike was a "signature strike" to The Washington Post. A signature strike takes place when a drone hits a target based on a target's patterns of behavior, but without knowing that target's identity. Thus, a US drone, in a signature strike, will target an area the government believes is filled with militant activity but will not know who exactly they are killing. While signature strikes have been happening for a while in the global war on terror, they signify a serious shift in US war-making. American warfare is increasingly placing a greater emphasis on big data, advanced computing, unmanned systems and cyberwarfare. While this approach may seem "cleaner" and more precise than previous tactics (particularly in contrast the drawn-out and bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan), it is not. High-tech militarism is far from "accurate." Even more importantly, it inflicts serious human suffering and perpetuates the US permanent-war machine.

Signature Strikes

Signature strikes began during the Bush years, in January 2008, as the US intensified drone strikes in Pakistan. When Obama entered office in 2009, his administration picked up where Bush left off and exponentially increased the number of drone strikes. During his eight years in office, Bush launched 51 drone strikes in Pakistan and killed between 410 and 595 people. Obama, so far, has launched 419 drone strikes in Pakistan, alone, and killed over 4,500 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia since 2009.

When a drone strike takes place, the US government "counts all military-aged males in a strike zone as combatant" unless posthumous intelligence proves them innocent, according to a May 2012 New York Times report. A White House fact sheet says this is "not the case." However, that contradicts what government officials leaked to the media outlets like The New York Times and ProPublica. As the Times report notes, "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: People in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good." ...............(more)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32166-thanks-to-reliance-on-signature-drone-strikes-us-military-doesn-t-know-who-it-s-killing

[Hydra]

1. ...

I keep trying to think of something to say...but...really? If someone did this to our country, even if we were not a world superpower, we'd be attacking whatever country was doing it with whatever we had, be it bombs or sharpened sticks.

[-none]

2. That is precisely why the "War on Terror" can never be won.

We keep making more terrorist than we kill.
We have already had some practice runs of terrorism in this country. Things are not going to be getting any better for us if we, the United States don't stop our murderous rampages in certain other countries.
Hydra indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra

[JayhawkSD]

3. We've been "cutting the head off the snake" for more than a decade.

And as a result are fighting "terrorists" in more places than ever, and flying more drone strikes against them than ever, and the fear mongering is still rising. Remember the Hydra? Every time you cut off one of its heads it grew three new ones. A couple of related truisms.

If what you are doing is not working doing it harder, or doing more of it, seldom works.

If what you are doing is not working, it simply makes sense to do something different.

[Blue_Tires]

4. "High-tech militarism is far from "'accurate.'"

Still more accurate than the days of carpet bombing...