
Falling Short: An analysis of the reporting of UK drone strikes by the MoD - DyslexicAtheist
https://dronewars.net/2018/07/09/falling-short/
======
AdamM12
This kinda reminds me of the argument made in Ken Burns Vietnam that the brass
tried to "measure success" of the war by body count and that created a
perverse incentive to manufacture body count. And by argument I don't mean the
series as a whole but it was a thought brought up in one or more of the
episodes.

~~~
digi_owl
Not sure where i ran into the claim (may have been the Oliver Stones series),
but it went something like this:

While on patrol one of the soldiers shoots a elderly woman holding a bicycle
in a village. By the time the report reached the DC it had become an ageless,
genderless, Vietcong with a grenade.

~~~
AdamM12
I tried to watch his "Untold History of the United States" and it felt like
some of it was taken out of context or attributing malice where naivety,
incompetence or insufficient information would be a more plausible
explanation. Can't think of any specific examples. Just what I remember from
watching it before stopping.

~~~
kolpa
The dead and their mourners can't tell the difference between malice and
incompetence. Why does it matter?

~~~
AdamM12
I don't believe in consequentialism. Intent is more important imo. Not to say
the consequence isn't important it is just I don't think it should be the only
thing taken into account.

------
394549
Edit: I was responding below to the original title of the post, which is was "
_Civilians have been 'airbrushed' out of reporting by the UK on its drone
strikes (dronewars.net)_." It has since been changed to match the title of the
OP.

The "airbrushed" language seems misleading to me. The connotations are of a
coverup or deliberate post-facto erasure (e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs)).
What the OP describes seems to be more like an issue of insufficiently
standardized reports. This is clear as the recommendation it gives to address
the "airbrushing" is basically a report-writing checkbox:

> In order to improve transparency, it is suggested that each MOD report
> should include whether or not civilians were present in the vicinity of a
> strike, or whether it was unknown if civilians were in the area.

~~~
fit2rule
>insufficiently standardized reports

In fact, a standard has been established: in 96% of the reports, civilians are
simply not mentioned.

The 'standard terms' are used instead: "terrorist" and "extremist".

This is very disturbing - we, the public, are being lied to about how much
civilian damage is being caused by our ignorance of the warriors who insist
they must be allowed the freedom to kill anyone they want, without
culpability.

I, for one, hope to see more public oversight of the war-mongers, such that
our daily efforts to produce more enemies in the war-torn regions of the world
is brought to a minimum.

(EDIT:s/94%/96%/)

~~~
AdamM12
Intercept did a lot of good reporting on this.

[https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/](https://theintercept.com/drone-
papers/)

~~~
fit2rule
Indeed that is a brilliant resource for those of us with an interest in the
hidden machinations of the warrior classes. Seriously deep info.

~~~
AdamM12
Yeah I don't know what you mean by warrior class.

~~~
fit2rule
The class of people whose principle preoccupation is the fighting of war.

------
devoply
"In games without frontiers, war without tears. If looks could kill, they
probably will."

