
Thousands of deadly U.S. military airstrikes have gone unreported - 3131s
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/airstrikes-unreported-syria-iraq-afghanistan-islamic-state-al-qaeda-taliban
======
educar
If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have to
break it to you that you have been played. Brainwashed by years and years of
media programming.

One man's terrorist is another man's hero. The U.S routinely bombs other
sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity. If the bombed
people retaliate, they are terrorists. The truth is not black/white. Same way
U.S data surveillance is OK but same thing done by China is seen as backward
regime.

~~~
csallen
_> If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have
to break it to you that you have been played._

People don't know the half of it, and in my experience, they don't _want_ to
know. It's comforting to feel like the good guys. The media is complicit, in
that it intentionally leaves out relevant facts that might make us look bad.

For example, take Iran. In 1953, we overthrew their democratically-elected
government in favor of the opposition, because their citizens didn't want BP
to have control of their oil. We bribed politicians, street thugs, and
demonstrators; incited deadly riots; bombed houses; etc. BP actually
contributed funds to help out:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état)

Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US
cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial
airplane in Iranian airspace. 290 fatalities, including women and children.
8th deadliest disaster in aviation history, nary a peep in the US media:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655).
But they are the reckless terrorists to watch out for.

And it gets worse, much much worse. Look into our activities in South America,
especially Guatemala. Our terrorist activities in Cuba. Our "defense" of
Vietnam. Our thinly-justified and roundly-condemned embargoes. (Quite common
to see UN votes that are 190-1, everyone vs the US. Or the US and Israel.)
We've killed hundreds of thousands, millions of people in many cases. Often
explicitly for US business interests.

Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN
at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read
this stuff.

~~~
starik36
I am not sure what your point is in bringing Iran, maybe its to blame the US
for the current situation there.

Keep in mind that 1953 was over 60 years ago. To keep on blaming US for acts
committed that long ago and apply to today...well, it's ridiculous.

~~~
csallen
My point isn't that the US is to blame for all the bad that happens in the
world. There are plenty of places that are worse than we are. However, we act
as if that absolves us of all wrongdoing, which is plainly absurd. I would
like to counter that notion.

In addition, we simply don't _acknowledge_ what we've done. Our media won't
report on it. I would like to see an end to this mass propaganda and willful
ignorance.

Finally, keep in mind that we only know what comes out during congressional
hearings, via FOIA requests, and via heavily-redacted releases of classified
documents. In other words, we only know the tip of the iceberg. This is not an
accident. The US government makes heavy use of classification, often more to
keep the public in the dark than to protect sensitive info from foreign
enemies. Given these tactics, you can't fault citizens for relying on what
information they have access to. And of course, there's no reason to assume
that everything has magically changed and we are now angels.

~~~
RodericDay
> In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done.

This is spot on, and the biggest difference between America and other
countries which commit atrocities. America is allowed to forget. And it's not
a trivial or minor difference at all.

Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with
Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there
but it's completely incomparable.

~~~
seppin
> Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with
> Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and
> there but it's completely incomparable.

This is a completely subjective statement. The US has slavery museums in its
Washington DC, and it's a topic that is never far from public
conscientiousness.

Compare that to Brazil, who's slave trade dwarfed that of North American, no
formal recognition or ongoing efforts.

Or Russia slowly and methodologically erasing the crimes of the Soviet union
(and Stalin particularly) from public view.

Or China reintroducing Mao as a folk hero, a mass murderer on par with Stalin.

These are real omissions and cover ups. The US could be better, absolutely.
But compared to others, it at least tries to reconcile their past with modern
society.

~~~
RodericDay
The US has "slavery museums". You don't even name them. It's utterly
incomparable to Auschwitz.

Then you go on to compare the USA to China, Russia, and Brazil. High
standards.

Lastly, there's a lot to be said for 1984-style repression like in those
three, and Brave New World-style repression like in America.

Even comedians have nice bits about how a lot of Americans can't even really
place slavery well in a timeline, it's something that happened aeons ago and
descendants should "stop complaining". The majority of americans treat the
idea of slavery reparations like a joke.

America doesn't really try. It makes a good show of trying, though.

~~~
seppin
> Then you go on to compare the USA to China, Russia, and Brazil. High
> standards.

I am comparing one country to another, one that does better than the rest. You
know, how any comparison is made in any discipline. You can't just hold up an
imaginary standard that no country fulfills to make your point that X country
could be better.

Some people live in the real world.

~~~
RodericDay
> You can't just hold up an imaginary standard that no country fulfills

I can't tell if you're joking. My post was literally about Germany, Nazism,
and Auschwitz.

> Some people live in the real world.

The classic riposte of someone who prefers rationalizing to themselves why
they are at an optimum than trying to do better. Nice try, Dr. Pangloss.

------
dcposch
i'm disappointed that hardly any members of the media or Democratic party
establishment talk about Obama's expansion of the drone program.

we have a long list of names. the executive branch of our government curates
the list unilaterally and in secret. then, we cross names off the list by
killing them. sometimes, they're American citizens. often, they're in
countries we're at peace or even allied with.

there are children in Yemen right now who are afraid of blue skies. drones fly
high enough to be invisible to the naked eye; most strikes are carried out in
clear weather.

i'm near certain that history will judge us harshly.

in any case, it's Trump's drone program now. i hope the technologists who
created this infrastructure think about that when they try to sleep.

~~~
kurttheviking
> i'm disappointed that i haven't seen a single member of the media or
> Democratic party establishments talk about Obama's expansion of the drone
> program.

I have been hearing and reading about the expansion of Obama's drone program
for years in "the media". Some quick Googling shows several examples.

\- [http://www.npr.org/2013/04/28/179597464/leading-senate-
democ...](http://www.npr.org/2013/04/28/179597464/leading-senate-democrat-has-
concerns-with-u-s-drones)

\- [http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155389081/are-drones-obamas-
le...](http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155389081/are-drones-obamas-legacy-in-
war-on-terrorism)

\- [http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/obama-drone-warren-
we...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/obama-drone-warren-weinstein-
hostages/)

\- [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-drone-war-
is-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-drone-war-is-a-
shameful-part-of-his-
legacy/2016/05/05/a727eea8-12ea-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html)

\-
[http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-o...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-
on-obamas-presidency/obamas-embrace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy)

One can argue that consumers of media have chosen to ignore or accept these
stories, but I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest the issues aren't
being raised at all.

~~~
proee
Just because you posted a few example articles, does not negate the fact that
the media fails to provide front-page coverage of such an important issue.

~~~
mongmong
I dont understand this notion of media responsibility to report on matters of
grave importance and substance. As long as media is profit driven (which the
vast majority it is) I expect nothing from them other than to please their
shareholders. If reporting on drones drove more clicks and generated more page
views we'd see media rushing to report on such coverage. The fact that they
don't to me says it's a demand problem. People just are not interested in
facing up to news that their government is bombing other countries in their
name.

Public news organisations, on the other hand, should definitely be held to the
expectation of reporting on issues in priority of importance, with not a shred
of concern placed on how popular the reporting will become.

This is not surprising at all that npr has been covering this extensively, and
also nobody bothered to listen.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> As long as media is profit driven (which the vast majority it is) I expect
> nothing from them other than to please their shareholders. If reporting on
> drones drove more clicks and generated more page views we'd see media
> rushing to report on such coverage.

You're oversimplifying this issue greatly. The media can (and do) manipulate
the public, their opinions and interests. Don't think that just because we're
the "good" guys that propaganda isn't practiced in the US. "Trust Me: I'm
Lying" is a good book about this subject.

------
megous
Other thing that is massively underreported on much bigger scale than actual
air strikes are civilian casualties. Presumably so that Americans, or Russians
or whoever of the other N countries that bomb people regularly can justify
killing thousands of civilians in middle east a year by mistake. It is not a
mistake though, it's a calculated acceptable collateral murder where the
government determines some acceptable ratio of civcas vs combatant deaths and
goes with that. Of course, now if civcas are underreported by the order of
magnitude, ...

[https://airwars.org/](https://airwars.org/)

Other thing to ponder is that US claims it killed around 50 000 terrorists in
the last two years. Think about that. Those are supposed to be people who are
said to be threat to US citizens or allies and therefore are OK to be killed
by USG even at the cost of killing bystanders. Americans should start asking
themselves who are these people they are supporting the murder of. Don't stop
at the terrorist label.

Humanizing "them" might not be fun though, because you'll inevitably run into
your propagandized fellow citizens, and start feeling decidedly not good about
their capacity for empathy or nuance in understanding the world.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Don't forget that as far as body counts go, the USG defines "terrorists" as
any male appearing to be of military age. There is no such thing as a dead
civilian male in a strike zone.

~~~
jacobush
Kill box

------
jessriedel
This is a definitional thing, right? Laymen think of "airstrike" in terms of
anything coming from the air, but the military use of the term has always
reflected the very different nature of long-range bombing mission and (say)
helicopter support of infantry units.

> "Apaches for example, conduct close combat attacks as a maneuver element
> supporting a ground force in contact with the enemy. I would not consider
> this in the category of 'airstrike.'"

This is reflected in the fact that the helicopters are parts of the Army, not
Navy or Air Force.

So you can certainly criticize the use of this term since it may prey on
predictable/reasonable civilian misunderstanding of military language, but
it's hard to agree with the author that

> The media and others have depended on these figures for years with the
> understanding they are a comprehensive rollup of all American and coalition
> activity...no one from the military ever has come forward to clarify that it
> is wholly incomplete.

unless the Army was _also_ failing to include it in something like
"groundstrikes".

My grandmother might think that the terms "wireless carrier" and "wireless
data" should clearly cover WiFi, based on the plain meaning of the words, but
it just turns out that this isn't included in the technical definitions. Yes,
if someone technical was profiting off this predictable confusion it would be
bad and possibly malicious, but it's not accurate to describe someone using
these technical names as "inaccurate" or "quietly excluded".

~~~
strainer
>unless the Army was also failing to include it in something like
"groundstrikes".

The article includes multiple statements from army sources which indicate no
such figures are published. If someone could turn them up, that would be
something.

~~~
jessriedel
The point is that if there was also a category released to the general public
called "groundstrikes" (or better yet "everything but airstrikes") and the
Army was not including attack helicopter mission in that either, then there
would be a clear intent to decieve. Likewise if these missions were not
contributing to public tallies like "total casualties". But so long as it's
public knowledge that the Army has large categories of missions that are _not_
included in these public reports, this is plausibly just a definitional
confusion, and so it's not very damning.

~~~
strainer
They already stated 'unequivocally' there is no intent to deceive --its just a
complete accident then that it takes a lone journalists inquiries to clarify
that for over a decade the officially quoted figures of military strikes have
been misunderstood. Its not really about damning the military, they do what
they are ordered to do - its about realistic accounting of what they have been
ordered to do.

*and of course, not being able to trust what we are told about what they are doing

------
jackvalentine
President Trump wasn't wrong when he said terror attacks are under reported
but sadly the underreported ones are committed by the United States and her
allies.

What exactly is the "big picture" I'm missing here that is achieved by
levelling Yemen one mud brick building at a time?

~~~
shard972
And he wasn't wrong when he said in that recent super bowl interview "we
aren't so innocent". Everyone is still jumping on him like he was saying the
US is just the same as Russia, unable to accept the nuance that America has a
lot of crimes to answer for.

~~~
tremendo
When O'Reilly mentioned Putin, the person, being a killer, Trump answered that
the U.S. (not a person) isn't so innocent either, which yes true, also clearly
deflecting and avoiding saying or acknowledging anything bad about Putin. What
immediately came to my mind was O'Reilly could have followed up with "is the
President of the U.S. a killer?". I thought missed opportunity, but of course,
that could have never aired.

~~~
exodust
Missed opportunity for what? Click-bait word games?

This is exactly the problem we have with popular news media, they want these
"hard-hitting" soundbites for their promos and clickbait.

The point was clear enough for everyone to understand. Leaders of countries
take military action, and people die as a result on both sides. Russia has
killed, America has killed. Whats funny is that O'Reilly said "I don't know of
any leaders who are killers".

O'Reilly represents the sleeping American who believes USA is good, everyone
else evil. Trump woke him up!

------
sytelus
Wow... 1,700 air strikes just last year alone. That's more than 1 air strike
every 6 hour for entire year! I'm wondering how much damage is being inflicted
on civilians here. Not just people getting killed, but people becoming
homeless or their livelihood getting destroyed. If these are not ultra-precise
air strikes then we would be giving birth to future heavily disgruntled middle
east population.

~~~
amenghra
Some countries use cluster munition for some of their strikes. The usa last
did this in 2009. The opposite of precise...

~~~
megous
Cluster munitions are bad, but you have to consider that people often try to
hide in houses, in cellars during air raids in the city. Cluster munition will
not do much to those people, other than being insanely noisy and terrifying.
What will kill those people is a bomb that will drop the house on them.

Indiscriminate killing is a function of decision making process, not the
munition itself.

~~~
DanBC
> Cluster munition will not do much to those people,

Not all of the bomblets explode, so when those people come out of their houses
they've got to not disturb any of the bomblets.

~~~
megous
I understand that. People try to collect the bomblets afterwards though,
especially in the city. So the harm is somewhat limited.

------
rconti
> “I can tell you, unequivocally, we are not trying to hide the number of
> strikes," the official said. "That is just the way it has been tracked in
> the past. That’s what it’s always been.”

That may be true, but I do not have a high level of confidence that there's
not someone further up the chain saying "hey, let's use the Army for this one,
eh?" with a wink.

------
fsloth
I feel the best popular representation of US military policy is the comic
"Addicted to War" by Joel Andreas.
[http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html](http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html)

Everyone should be offered that as a reference before Chomsky, and then
prodded onwards to Chomsky if they want to read more on this topic.

------
cyberferret
I understand that for operational secrecy reason, not all action would be
published, but I would have thought there should be at least post mission
briefings and outcomes being discussed by news sources and political leaders
after the fact?

For instance, here in Australia I know there has been a squadron of F/A-18s
conducting bombing and strike campaigns in Afghanistan, but we don't hear
anything at all about the sorts of missions they have been running, nor their
effectiveness. Indeed, many Australians I have spoken to actually have no idea
that we had a sizeable amount of our Air Force over there conducting
operations.

~~~
RileyJames
I had no idea, what (if any) details are reported and where? Do you suggest
any sources I can follow to stay more informed of Australian involvement?

~~~
cyberferret
There is really no public channel that I am aware of. Googling around I see
news articles from ABC etc., but those seem to be more of a PR spin on our
involvement over there.

The reason that I personally know is that my sister in law and her husband are
both in the RAAF and have been deployed in the Middle East a few times (though
not Afghanistan).

------
montyboy_us
Diplomacy alone doesn't afford us the lifestyle we so enjoy. I believe we are
lucky to even have the option to ignore the where and how our privileged
position in global society is sustained. No one is really hiding this from us,
it is that we choose not to look.

------
theincredulousk
Is there any realistic expectation that there be a news story for every
airstrike?

I'm not saying we're always the "good guys", but every airstrike looks bad
without any context. We never get all of the intelligence that goes into
ordering an airstrike, so how are we supposed to make the same judgements
about collateral damage, effect, etc.? How many other airstrikes happen
flawlessly?

Aside from hindsight being 20/20, it is naive to assume that the public is
capable of reviewing complex, difficult decisions about military action based
on anecdotal information in a 1-page news article.

~~~
wamsachel
Spare me, there's nothing difficult about deciding whether or not to blow up
hospitals and children. This mission is not about freeing people from terror
and was _never_ about that. Rather, quite the opposite, we are there to
terrorize them into being profitable to the hegemony. The propaganda about
minimizing casualties is to keep civilians protected from the atrocities that
they are sponsoring.

~~~
theincredulousk
Are you sure there is nothing difficult about that? When you're reasoning
against your own hospitals, and your own children? When a nightmare of a human
being keeps his own children near him as human shields?

If I'm to understand correctly, "We" are there to blow up hospitals and
terrorize children, but also create propaganda to protect civilians from
feeling bad?

Can you describe to me this large, tens of thousands at least, group of people
that murders children on purpose but also cares about the feelings of all
civilians? Specifically, without reinforcing the point that you'd be
responding based on a tiny fraction of the intelligence that goes into these
decisions.

~~~
wamsachel
You're fantasizing.

The bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital wasn't some ethical
decision between good and bad, rather it was military members getting orders
to bomb a target, not being able to find the target but deciding to bomb a
near by building because...that's just it, they didn't have a reason. Now,
being the good guys the US punished these war criminals right? Not really,
wrist slaps and nothing more.

------
kchoudhu
So the military faces the same regulatory reporting challenges banks do:
ambiguous orders on what to report come down from regulatory committees with
no context attached, which you are in turn forced to interpret. When your
interpretation is judged (usually unfairly) to be incorrect by some smartass
in the press whose understanding of the ground realities is incomplete at
best, resulting in a dustup which usually ends up with you being hauled in
front of a regulatory committee to grovel, admit fault and promise not to
repeat the mistake again.

Bitter? Why would you think I'm bitter?

------
arca_vorago
'When war is declared, truth is the first casualty' \- Arthur Ponsonby

Our issue should focus on the war itself, and less on the many untruths that
have propagated because of it. For me, a primary question is one of
constitutional power of the president to wage war, and if legislative actions
such as the Authorization of Use of Military Force are sufficient enough to
meet those constitutional requirements for checks and balances. I've listened
to as many debates and talks on the subject as possible, and I think there is
a lot of nuance ignored by the more radical right and left than there should
be. In the end though, my primary issue (as a combat vet) is the complete
misdirection of the American people for the true reasons of the war(s).

If truth is the first casualty, that may be to be expected, but at least tell
us the truth about the reasons for the war(s) in the first place, otherwise
even the founders recognized the dangers of the power of the executive to
unilaterally wage war and declare emergencies and in doing so violate
individual liberties.

I will say this though; I'm tired of hearing Kissinger style realpolitik
subscribers abusing Hanlons razor in dismissing the idea of malice in such
actions, for at some point not only is incompetence indetinguishable from
malice, but incompetence is ripe for manipulation and abuse from malice.

The question is then, who is the malicous group, and what are their
intentions?

------
ryanmarsh
There's only one way to find out the truth: FOIA the mission logs

~~~
dcposch
hah. you, sir, are either an optimist or a satirist.

FOIA responses are routinely denied or heavily redacted even for much more
mundane requests than asking for details of unacknowledged drone kills.

~~~
ryanmarsh
I'm not saying it's gonna happen just that's where the real truth is. No
officer wants to get UCMJ for having falsified his logs. I have no idea how
weapons releases are counted but I doubt they're from the logs.

------
facepalm
This is part of how I explain to me the outrage over the travel ban: people
have been denial over being at war with certain countries. Travel ban makes it
public - people get angry because their self-perception is challenged. (And of
course there are the inconveniences of not being allowed to travel - but imo
it is not completely nonsensical to limit travel from countries one is at war
with).

------
capex
There's a documentary on Netflix[0] that might explain why all the 'extra'
sorties are needed. Provocation? Seeding? Who knows, but its an interesting
connection.

[0] [http://dirtywars.org/shop/product/details/538/watch-on-
netfl...](http://dirtywars.org/shop/product/details/538/watch-on-netflix)

------
adjwilli
How difficult would it be to create a map of worldwide military strikes, not
just by the US, but all countries? Where is data like that available? What
other countries are so transparent as the US in publishing that data? Do
Russia and China? Could be an interesting project that serves the public
interest globally. Sort of like crime maps, but at world scale.

------
habosa
What exactly do we (America) gain from doing a drone strike against your
average 'terrorist' (I'll be generous and use their terminology). At this
point the idea that we're there to control the oil is past its time. Many of
these countries have pretty much nothing we can't get elsewhere. Is it just
about projecting power? Paying military contractors? Some sick game.

I truly don't believe that our government is stocked with wannabe murderers
but clearly we commit murder at a distance with this drone program. I just
can't figure out why we do it.

------
arprocter
I was reading this[0] yesterday which fleetingly mentioned "RAND’s data is
incomplete, as it doesn’t include statistics on drone strikes and from Army
attack helicopters"

[0][https://warisboring.com/the-explosive-rise-
in-a-10-warthog-s...](https://warisboring.com/the-explosive-rise-
in-a-10-warthog-strikes-visualized-376ba336b8c)

------
desireco42
I like methodology they used to estimate number of airstrikes.

------
helthanatos
This is why the US should get out of foreign affairs and tell hostile nations
they are not allowed to communicate with the US unless they want an actual
war.

------
rascul
Probably just nobody thought to tell the Army to send these numbers in, or
possibly even to track them.

~~~
lostlogin
"We don't do body counts"

------
lloydatkinson
Deadly airstrikes? no shit

------
hkjgkjy
War! What is it good for?

~~~
oniMaker
Profit and population control, mainly.

~~~
hkjgkjy
Personally, I fail to see how that would be (except for stock holders of arms
companies etc). Surely the American state would save a ton of money by having
their army shrunk by 1/3.

Population control? Is the US worried about there being too dense population
of arabs in the world? I don't think that's true - and not for when they waged
war in Korea or Vietnam either.

Seems to me war is only good for absolutely nothing.

~~~
oniMaker
[https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html](https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html)

------
tadufre
this is not hacker news. if I wanted this dribble, I would have stayed on
Slashdot.

~~~
grzm
If you feel a submission is inappropriate for HN, flag and move on. If you're
new to HN, adding comments like this is just adding noise. Similar to the
guidelines regarding comparing HN to Reddit, please refrain from making
comments on HN submission quality until you've been around for a while.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

