Pakistani Civilian Deaths By Drones...Why Tracking Organisations Aren't Reliable...

[shaykh]

There are a few sources which are cited when dealing with statistics...one i've presented is The Bureau of Investigative Journalism below are year by year figures of civilian deaths...their numbers are higher than others...

2004 - 33%
2005 - 69%
2006 - 95%
2007 - 82%
2008 - 43%
2009 - 28%
2010 - 18%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 15%
2013 - 2%
2014 - 1%
2015 - 6%
2016 - 8%

Now does this tell the whole story...not at all...when one looks at the methodology used by tracking organisations...there are extreme flaws...this isn't an attack on these organisations who are doing what they can and dont claim their work to be definitive but when their findings are presented as definitive then thats a problem...

Problem 1 - Media Reports

One important flaw is that these figures arent gathered using on the ground research but are gathered by using media reports...and they are especially reliant on local journalists or stringers in places like Waziristan...how can their findings be verified...how also is a stringer able to determine the number of civilians who are dead?...

Now the issue you also have there is sometimes journalists wont have access due to security issues...so these tracking organisations then find themselves reliant on local officials...who are also not impartial...

Also testimony by locals can be biased from a whole range of angles...governments and militant groups can influence witness testimony...

Problem 2 - Definitions

Big problem is defining what a civilian is...the US havent done this...and depending on who is doing the reporting definitions can be very different...
So when the source is an unnamed US or Pakistani official, or a villager then clearly these statistics are flawed as they are based on partial testimony...

What defines a civilian is often contested...and the fact that the US havent provided a definition here is problematic...eg can someone who supports or provided material support be considered a combatant for instance?...depending on your source you might get different answers even within a government...

In short it seems most of the time only a child can clearly be defined as a non-militant when these reports come back...

Unnamed Pakistani Officials

Figures almost always seem to be based on 'unnamed sources'...when a Pakistani official is the one giving the quote then is it any surprise that the militant number increases and the civilian count goes down?...do they do on the ground reportage?...what is their definition of civilian?...again problematic sources being used...

In 74% of articles the source has been an unnamed Pakistani official...

This isn't to say that none of this work is useful...but when these numbers are quoted as gospel its useful to know that the methodology is flawed...

In short we don't know the actual humanitarian cost of drones...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/

 

[Black Zero]

Topic has been debated in depth in several pp threads.

Personally I have been following peter's work with new America foundation, and if we exclude few cases, then I would take those stats as reliable.

Though, I am not a big fan of naf''s reluctance to update the stats.

 

[shaykh]

Black Zero ...

Why do you prefer the New America Foundation out of interest?

 

[Black Zero]

Black Zero ...

Why do you prefer the New America Foundation out of interest?

- I believe they were the pioneer.
- They are transparent about their methodology and limitations.

However, I believe that they could easily improve the quality of their data or refresh their earlier data based on new evidence.

 

[Black Zero]

an old relevant thread:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?158529-Drone-attacks-in-Pakistan-mapped&highlight=drone

 

[shaykh]

- I believe they were the pioneer.
- They are transparent about their methodology and limitations.

However, I believe that they could easily improve the quality of their data or refresh their earlier data based on new evidence.

I believe all of these trackers are quite clear about their limitations...none of them claim to be definitive...

Have you read the Stanford report by any chance?...

This is concerning:

In July 2012, an article by TBIJ also pointed out several other glaring omissions from
New America Foundation’s data.247 These included the confirmed deaths of dozens of
children in 2006,248 and seven civilian deaths confirmed by an AP news investigation249
to which Bergen himself, along with co-author Jennifer Rowland, had cited in their CNN
piece.250 TBIJ had brought several of these errors to New America’s attention over the
previous two years, but New America Foundation had not made any changes or updates
in response until very recently. In August 2012, possibly in response to TBIJ’s criticisms,
New America Foundation updated its website and incorporated some reports of civilian
deaths that it had previously omitted, including the 69 children killed in a single strike
in 2006.

The fact that TBIJ has corrected them makes them more credible imo...

This is what Stanford has to say on TBIJ:

THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism maintains a much more dynamic database than
either New America Foundation or The Long War Journal, updating its strike
information frequently to reflect new information as it comes to light.270 This frequent
updating, together with TBIJ’s own investigations, makes its data far more reliable than
other aggregating sources. While TBIJ’s data are also highly transparent and its
investigations more thorough than others, its aggregation of information from news
articles faces the same problems as described above, and its full body of strike data is
not, and indeed cannot be, wholly accurate (nor does TBIJ purport that it is).
As of August 1, 2012, TBIJ estimated that between 482 and 849 civilians have been
killed by drones in Pakistan since 2004. That estimate represents the full range of
civilian casualties credibly reported in reliable sources, some of which TBIJ has
corroborated with its own field investigations in Pakistan and with information gathered
by “credible researchers and lawyers.”271 The use of these corroborating sources to
supplement data drawn from press accounts sets TBIJ apart from both The Long War
Journal and New America Foundation.
TBIJ’s media datasets are also more thorough and comprehensive than both New
America Foundation and The Long War Journal. As discussed above, New America
Foundation linked to only 107 news articles in support of its data on the first 27 strikes
of 2012, of which eleven were duplicates.272 TBIJ, by contrast, links to 344 sources cited
in support of those same 27 strikes, and provides information on a handful of additional
possible strikes that have not yet been verified.273 The Long War Journal does not
reveal all of the sources used to compile its database, and rarely cites to more than two
or three external sources in any given report.274 TBIJ is also more transparent than
either New America Foundation or The Long War Journal in its reporting, providing
both high and low estimates of civilian and unspecified deaths for each strike. It also
quotes heavily from reports that contradict one another, thus giving a full picture of the
range of conflicting stories about each strike.275

TBIJ is far from perfect for the reasons mentioned in my original post but most academics seem to see TBIJ as more reliable than other sources...

Being the pioneer btw has no relation to quality...

 

[Black Zero]

I believe all of these trackers are quite clear about their limitations...none of them claim to be definitive...

Have you read the Stanford report by any chance?... [BZ] I do not think I have read it. Sadly, i am not even up to date on this topic. Having said that we discussed this topic on PP long time back (i was able to find one such thread Post#5)

This is concerning:



The fact that TBIJ has corrected them makes them more credible imo... [BZ] from my earlier post "However, I believe that they could easily improve the quality of their data or refresh their earlier data based on new evidence."



This is what Stanford has to say on TBIJ: [BZ] I already agreed about dynamic part. However i strongly disagree with "The use of these corroborating sources to supplement data drawn from press accounts sets TBIJ apart from both The Long War Journal and New America Foundation"


TBIJ is far from perfect for the reasons mentioned in my original post but most academics seem to see TBIJ as more reliable than other sources... [BZ] I would appreciate, if you could point me to few cases, where TBIJ reported significantly lower number of civilian deaths as compared to NAF. (this is not a challenge, it's a question.

Being the pioneer btw has no relation to quality... [BZ] I agree

my responses in-line above.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's very difficult for any organisation to be accurate but their work is important as the perpretarures of drone strikes are known to be liars. Children are also known as 'child combatants' in many cases. The US employs a second strike strategy , so when they target a bloke with an AK47 , a second strike is carried out when the locals come out to help. So saving a dying man, who hasn't been convicted of any crime will allow the US to kill anyone who tries to help him by labelling them supporters of terrorism.

The US is disproportionate and indiscriminate when attacking civilians, history has proven this time after time. I expect the numbers to much higher.