Middle East

U.S. civilian casualty standard eased in Iraq, Syria

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama announced in May 2013 that no lethal strike against a terrorist would be authorized without “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.”

But amid unconfirmed reports of civilian casualties, the White House said this week that U.S. bombing in Iraq and Syria is not being held to the near-certainty standard. And the Pentagon, hamstrung by limitations in intelligence gathering, has been unable to determine in many cases whether the casualty reports are true.

“We do take extreme caution and care in the conduct of these missions,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon’s press secretary, said. “But there’s risk in any military operation. There’s a special kind of risk when you do air operations.”

When Obama outlined his strategy to fight ISIS earlier this month, he cited as parallels the limited U.S. counterterrorism campaigns in Yemen and Somalia, where American drone missile strikes have targeted Al-Qaeda-linked militants. Aides said he was also thinking of Pakistan but didn’t mention those strikes because drone killings there are entirely the work of an officially unacknowledged CIA operation.

But when it comes to civilian casualties, it has become clear that the targeted killing model that Obama has expanded and honed throughout his presidency does not apply to the more intensive military operation in Iraq and Syria against ISIS and the Khorasan Group, a cell of militants believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda.

According to the White House, the reason the near-certainty standard is not applicable turns on a fine point of international law – the theory that the U.S. is not involved in “active hostilities” in Yemen and Somalia, but is in Syria and Iraq. Such distinctions are controversial, given the frequency with which American bombs and bullets have flown in both countries.

A more practical reason is that the self-imposed rules on drone strikes against Al-Qaeda are simply too restrictive for a conventional military air campaign against ISIS, which the U.S. says is both a terrorist group and an occupying army, and has ordered the Pentagon to destroy.

“It is much different in scope and complexity” than Yemen and Somalia, said Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat and an intelligence committee member. “I think it will be very hard to apply the very restrictive rules they put in place for other theaters.”

The drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan are carried out either by the CIA or, at times in Yemen and Somalia, the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. They employ Hellfire missiles, relatively small munitions designed to destroy people and vehicles.

In Iraq and Syria, the Air Force and Navy are using cruise missiles and conventional guided bombs to destroy buildings and other infrastructure that Hellfires can’t bring down. Allies, including Britain, France and Arab countries, are also using conventional bombs.

While most of the airstrikes have been directed at ISIS, the U.S. also used cruise missiles to attack the Syria headquarters of the Khorasan Group, said to be plotting attacks on the West. Syrian opposition figures have said that one of those missiles went astray on Sept. 23 and killed women and children in the village of Kafr Daryan near Aleppo.

All told, human rights groups have said that as many as two dozen civilians have been killed in U.S. and allied bombings in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. military says it hasn’t confirmed any civilian deaths but hasn’t ruled it out in every case, either.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the near-certainty standard was intended to apply “only when we take direct action outside areas of active hostilities.”

Military officials say they are taking great care to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria. But international law does not require a near certainty that civilians won’t be harmed in military strikes. U.S. officials say harm to noncombatants is inevitable in a large bombing campaign – especially when the enemy is embedded in civilian areas. Obama himself made that point in his 2013 speech, in the context of explaining why targeted drone campaigns are preferable to conventional war when it comes to counter terrorism.

“Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones and are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage,” the president said.

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on October 03, 2014, on page 11.

Recommended





Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here