Trump Has Killed More Civilians with Illegal Drone Strikes in 9 Months Than Obama Did in 8 Years

While the mainstream media focuses on anything but the current state of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, the Trump Administration is breaking records by accumulating a horrific number of civilian deaths.

Former President Obama earned the nickname of “Drone King” when he dramatically escalated the use of drone strikes, while also downplaying the number of innocent civilians who became “collateral damage.” In the two years that his administration devoted to publicly spending millions of taxpayer dollars to fight the Islamic State group, the estimated civilian death toll ranged from 2,300 to 3,400, according to Airwars, an organization tracking deaths in the war against ISIS.

During @BarackObama"s 29 months at helm of ISIS war we tracked 855 alleged civilian casualty events which likely killed 2298-3398 civilians pic.twitter.com/RUVvcy5zX9

— Airwars (@airwars) August 22, 2017

President Trump has been in office for just 9 months, and he has already surpassed Obama’s murderous record with estimated numbers as high as 4,500 civilian deaths.

Advertisment

Trump made headlines in December 2015, when he declared that if elected, he would not only kill members of ISIS—he would also “take out their families.” He is following through on that promise, according to a report from Steven Feldstein, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

Feldstein noted that researchers have documented the rise of “frequent killing of entire families in likely coalition airstrikes” under the Trump Administration. This trend led to “the deaths of at least 57 women and 52 children in Iraq and Syria” in May.

READ MORE:  It"s Official: NSA Data Will be Used for Domestic Policing that Has Nothing to Do With Terrorism

While this may come as no surprise, considering the fact that Trump promised to “bomb the hell out of ISIS” while on the campaign trail, his administration’s offensive against the Islamic State is not the only ongoing war that is killing civilians.

According to a report from United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documenting civilian causalities during the first half of 2017, “aerial operations” led to a “43 percent increase in civilian casualties compared to the first six months of 2016, including a 67 percent increase in civilian deaths.”

While Trump bragged about giving military commanders “total authorization” to make combat decisions in Afghanistan, Washington Rep. Adam Smith said he believes that this move is contributing to the increase in civilian deaths.

“You really have the military making decisions that were designed to be made by the civilian authorities running the military,” Smith said. “We’ve seen an increase in civilian casualties. … I think they’ve become a little too indiscriminate in what they’re doing.”

The report from Feldstein noted that the Trump Administration has “substantially escalated air strikes and bombings” and the U.S. military “has already used 20 percent more missiles and bombs in combined air operations in 2017 than in all of 2016.”

The alarmingly high civilian death toll has continued to build up over the months. For example, from May 23 to June 23 of this year, at least 472 civilians were killed by U.S. airstrikes. That is significantly more than the 459 civilians who have been killed by terrorist attacks in Europe—in the last 12 years.

READ MORE:  US Proves Its Allegiance to Terrorism by Threatening War With Russia All to Protect ISIS 

While the argument can be made that Trump is doing the same thing Hillary Clinton would have done if she was elected, the question has to asked as to how anyone can justify killing innocent civilians in the first place.

Obama surpassed Bush’s record, and now Trump has surpassed Obama’s record—but the only thing that has actually been “accomplished” is that thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives, hundreds of thousands of civilians have lost their homes and their communities, and the civilians who do survive in the countries the United States is targeting now, will grow up hating America for destroying their home in the name of “Freedom.”

As Americans Celebrate Independence, US Bombs Yet Another Sovereign Nation

In the midst of festivities leading into Independence Day, the U.S. opportuned the distraction to bomb yet another sovereign nation in the name of fighting terrorism, launching airstrikes against al-Shabaab militants rebelling against the U.N.-backed Somali government headed by U.S. citizen, President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” Mohamed.

These strikes on Sunday follow the granting of expanded powers to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) by President Trump earlier this year, and seems to be the second of its kind.

“We are currently assessing the results of the operation, and will provide additional information as appropriate,” AFRICOM spokesman Chuck Prichard asserted Monday.

Following the airstrikes, AFRICOM spokesman Patrick Barnes also noted, “U.S. forces remain committed to supporting the federal government of Somalia, the Somali National Army and our AMISOM partners in defeating al-Shabab and establishing a safe and secure environment in Somalia.”

AMISOM, the African Union Mission, is a coalition of East African nations supporting the U.S. in an effort to quash al-Shabaab in Somalia — which it has reportedly done for years.

Advertisment

Pentagon officials refused to provide details about Sunday’s strike — including an exact location or what target was hit — but described it as similar to another which took place mid-June.

State-run Voice of America reports, “Local sources said the strike on Sunday targeted vehicles in Kunya Barrow, in the lower Shabelle region. Sources also said the strike was conducted against a high-ranking al-Shabab militant, without going into further detail.”

According to Reuters, “Since being pushed out of the capital Mogadishu in 2011, al Shabaab has lost control of most of Somalia’s cities and towns. But it retains a strong presence in swathes of the south and center and carries out major gun and bomb attacks.

“The group aims to topple Somalia’s government, drive out African Union peacekeeping troops and impose its own harsh interpretation of Islamic law.”

Allied with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab — which means “The Youth” in Arabic — “emerged as the radical youth wing of Somalia’s now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts, which controlled Mogadishu in 2006, before being forced out by Ethiopian forces,” the BBC described in December.

“There are numerous reports of foreign jihadists going to Somalia to help al-Shabab, from neighbouring countries, as well as the US and Europe. It is banned as a terrorist group by both the US and the UK and is believed to have between 7,000 and 9,000 fighters.

“Al-Shabab advocates the Saudi-inspired Wahhabi version of Islam, while most Somalis are Sufis.”

U.S. ground troops were deployed to Somalia earlier this year — for the first time since 1994 — nearly a quarter century. Al-Shabaab vacated capital city, Mogadishu, in 2011, but has retained control over significant areas, posing serious risk to the weak regime of the president installed by the U.S. in February.

According to the U.S. Military, the first such drone strike had been conducted on June 11, killing eight militants, and a Navy Seal was killed in May in a joint operation with Somali government forces against the al-Qaeda-allied group.

“The United States military has been training and advising African Union and Somali government forces in the country while becoming more directly involved in its civil war for the past several years,” the New York Times reports.

“Soon after Mr. Trump took office, the Defense Department proposed an escalation of force against the Shabab. The Pentagon wanted Mr. Trump to declare parts of Somalia to be an area of active hostilities, exempting it from the need to obey special targeting limits, known as the Presidential Policy Guidance, that President Barack Obama imposed in 2013 for counterterrorism strikes outside conventional war zones.

“In late March, Mr. Trump signed off on the Pentagon’s proposal to exempt much of Somalia from the 2013 limits, clearing the way for the American military to carry out purely offensive strikes, and without going through interagency vetting.”

In other words, AFRICOM has essentially an unfaltering green light to act aggressively in Somalia — a nation also in the grips of stultifying famine, putting six million people in danger — in order to rein in al-Shabaab.

Despite having received expanded authority, General Thomas D. Waldhauser, head of AFRICOM, has exercised extreme caution in carrying out drone strikes — vowing to greatly reduce or eliminate civilian casualties incidental to targeted actions.

Minimal reporting and limited information from the Pentagon leave a number of details about the Sunday morning strike unknown or murky, including whether or not there were civilian casualties.

Meanwhile, the bulk of Americans will continue celebrating Independence Day, unaware or apathetic when the nation whose flag many consider a sacred sign of freedom instead means death, misery, and destruction from above in places like Somalia and Syria.

Think Banning Refugees Is Bad? Then You Need to Know How They Were Created

January 30, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) On Saturday, Reuters obtained a report conducted by U.N. experts advising the U.N. Security Council that the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition’s attacks in Yemen “may amount to war crimes.” The report investigated ten coalition air strikes between March and October that killed over 292 civilians, including some 100 women and children.

“In eight of the 10 investigations, the panel found no evidence that the air strikes had targeted legitimate military objectives,” the experts wrote. “For all 10 investigations, the panel considers it almost certain that the coalition did not meet international humanitarian law requirements of proportionality and precautions in attack…The panel considers that some of the attacks may amount to war crimes.”

Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan. Out of all of these countries wreaking havoc on Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, only Sudan makes Trump’s ban list of refugees. Yemen, the victim of the onslaught, also makes the list.

Even before the start of the Saudi-led war in March 2015, Yemen was already suffering a humanitarian crisis, including widespread hunger and poverty. Over 14 million people are starving, and seven million of them do not know where they will get their next meal.

To date, the Saudi-led coalition has struck over 100 hospitals, including MSF (Doctors without Borders)-run hospitals. The coalition has struck wedding parties; factories; food trucks; funerals; schools; refugee camps; and residential communities.

According to Martha Mundy, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics, the Saudi coalition has also been hitting agricultural land. Noting just 2.8 percent of Yemen’s land is cultivated, she argued that “[t]o hit that small amount of agricultural land, you have to target it.”

Further, she pointed out that the Saudi coalition “was and is targeting intentionally food production, not simply agriculture in the fields.” This direct attack on civilian infrastructure comes in tandem with a blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia that has created a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.

The coalition has also been caught using banned munitions, including British-made cluster bombs, meaning that unnecessary losses and excessive suffering have been exacted (another apparent war crime).

As a result, more than three million Yemeni civilians have been displaced, according to the U.N. This is exactly how and why refugee crises happen in the first place — unnecessary war and suffering at the hands of the rich and powerful players on the world stage.

But what does this have to do with the United States? This is Saudi Arabia’s problem, not America’s. Right?

The support the U.S. has given to Saudi Arabia to enable these war crimes is quite extensive. According to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister, U.S. and U.K. officials sit in the command and control center to coordinate air strikes on Yemen. They have access to lists of targets. The Obama administration provided airborne fuel tankers and thousands of advanced munitions.

In addition to regularly drone-striking Yemen, killing countless civilians in the process, the U.S. has also provided intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition that has been gathered from reconnaissance drones flying over Yemen. In arms sales, the U.S. has made an absolute killing – quite literally. So much so that in December 2016 the Obama administration was forced to halt a planned arms sale to Saudi Arabia because of the mounting civilian death toll. It is hard to get an exact figure on the amount of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but as it stands, it was well over $115 billion during just Obama’s eight years as president .

The Obama administration was also well aware of the inexperience of the Saudi-led coalition in conducting wartime operations. As the New York Times reported:

“The first problem was the ability of Saudi pilots, who were inexperienced in flying missions over Yemen and fearful of enemy ground fire. As a result, they flew at high altitudes to avoid the threat below. But flying high also reduced the accuracy of their bombing and increased civilian casualties, American officials said.

“American advisers suggested how the pilots could safely fly lower, among other tactics. But the airstrikes still landed on markets, homes, hospitals, factories and ports, and are responsible for the majority of the 3,000 civilian deaths during the yearlong war, according to the United Nations.”

America has played its part in this war. But what about Iran? They are allegedly arming the rebels in Yemen to provoke Saudi Arabia, so they should face some of the blame — right?

According to the U.N. experts, this highly perpetuated propaganda is not even remotely true.

“The panel has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm any direct large-scale supply of arms from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although there are indicators that anti-tank guided weapons being supplied to the Houthi or Saleh forces are of Iranian manufacture,” the experts stated.

Okay, fine. But that was Obama. Donald J. Trump clearly has new and improved plans for foreign policy and immigration and for dealing with refugees across the board. Correct?

Well, not really. Barely hours after his inauguration, the military conducted drone strikes in Yemen. This is in light of the fact that former drone operators wrote an open letter to Barack Obama claiming the drone program is the single most effective recruitment tool for groups like ISIS. Then, on top of these drone strikes, Trump ordered a raid involving Navy SEALs that reportedly killed at least one eight-year-old girl, as well.

Refugees don’t appear out of thin air. While Trump uses refugees from seven Muslim-majority nations as a scapegoat for the inner turmoil facing the United States and other Western nations, his policies will only help exacerbate the refugee crisis, leaving parts of Europe and the wider Middle East to deal with the fallout.

By all means, close your doors to Yemen — but only after you withdraw all your personnel, equipment, aircraft, and material and financial support for war crimes committed in one of the world’s poorest countries. Until then, the least one can do is welcome with open arms those who are fleeing a horrific war conducted by an inexperienced, cowardly, violent coalition to avoid further radicalization of those civilians innocently caught up in geopolitically motivated wars.

---

This article (Think Banning Refugees Is Bad? Then You Need to Know How They Were Created) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Upholding Tradition: Suspected Drone Strikes Continue as Trump Takes Office

January 23, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) Just hours into Trump’s presidency, suspected U.S. drone strikes killed three alleged al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen’s southwestern Bayda province.

According to anonymous security and tribal officials, two strikes killed an area field commander by the name of Abu Anis al-Abi, along with two others. Considering the two others are identified merely as “alleged al-Qaeda operatives,” it seems more than apparent that Trump will continue Obama’s longstanding practice of classifying any military-age male in the strike zone as a combatant, whether or not they were actually al-Qaeda militants.

Before Obama left office last week, U.S. intelligence officials claimed 117 civilians had been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere during his presidency. This was the second public assessment issued in response to mounting pressure for more transparency regarding Obama’s counterterrorism programs, and it was ludicrously inaccurate. Regardless, the program shows no signs of stopping.

According to CNN, the U.S. military carried out drone strikes on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, killing a “handful of al Qaeda militants.” The strikes did not require Trump’s signature to be delivered, and in practice, the authority to order strikes has been passed down to a four-star commander.

Should Trump decide to allow these strikes to continue, he will be keeping Obama’s controversial program alive despite the fact the drone program has been documented as grounds for war crimes investigations, mostly due to its reliance on “signature strikes” and so-called “double tap” strikes. A “signature strike” is a strike that targets people suspected of being militants even when the exact identity of the target is unknown. The assessment is based on “behavioral characteristics” that could be classified as typical of militants. A “double tap” is where an initial drone strike is launched and followed by a second strike that targets those who come to aid and rescue the initial victims.

A signature strike is a clear violation of the international legal principle of distinction, namely that combatants and civilians are to be stringently distinguished to reduce the risk of civilian harm. If the identity of the individual is not known but an assessment is based solely on their behavior, almost any civilian could be killed as a result. A “double tap” would be illegal for the same reason; if the identities of those killed initially are unknown, those who jump to their rescue would also be unknown and could very well be civilians — or even aid workers.

So there we have it. The Trump administration appears to be continuing a highly controversial mode of warfare in Yemen — the poorest nation in the Arab world — at the same time the country faces a humanitarian crisis due to a brutal U.S.-backed, Saudi-led assault.

---

This article (Upholding Tradition: Suspected Drone Strikes Continue as Trump Takes Office) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.