Over the past year, the Bureau has produced a trilogy examining reports of US covert activities in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The information is collated into three extensive data sets:
1. A complete picture of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan since 9/11.
2. A data set of all known US covert actions, including airstrikes and drone strikes, in Somalia since 2001. The strikes have been placed within a timeline of other significant events to provide context, and sometimes an explanation, for US actions.
3. A timeline of all known US covert actions, including airstrikes and drone strikes, in Yemen since 2001. The strikes have been placed within a timeline of other significant events to provide context, and sometimes an explanation, for US actions.
The analysis is based on months of research by a team of journalists, led by senior reporter Chris Woods. For each known US attack, the Bureau has sought to accurately identify the time, location and likely target; to obtain as clear an explanation as possible of what took place during the event; and to detail the numbers, and names where possible, of those killed and injured, whether militant or civilian.
This article breaks down our approach into two sections: our sources and our methodology.
Our sources
Every strike or event covered in our database contains reference links to all news reports, statements, documents or press releases considered while researching that incident. The data sets also contain a number of images and video clips relating to specific events.
For each data set, the most comprehensive information on casualties generally lies in the thousands of press reports of drone strikes filed by reputable national and international media outlets.
This is certainly true for the Pakistan drone data, since the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign there, and the Pakistani government does not publish a count of those killed and injured. In January 2012, President Obama admitted use of US drones in Pakistan for the first time.
For Somalia and Yemen, the US war on terror is almost as secret, although officials do on occasion publicly admit specific strikes. The US government has also sometimes obliquely referred to strikes: for instance Attorney General Eric Holder’s March 2012 speech at Northwestern University’s School of Law addressed targeted killings of US citizens by the Obama administration. The speech was clearly an attempt to justify the September 2011 assassination of radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. However, the address was vague, and did not mention Awlaki by name.
Thus, the majority of information stems from the media. For all three data sets, a number of major international media sources are used, including CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, Fox News, Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, TIME, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, the Atlantic, Salon, Xinhua, Army Times, Navy Times, Bloomberg, AFP, NPR, Al Jazeera, and Al Arabiya.
Other international sources include the New America Foundation, Critical Threats, Long War Journal, Jamestown Foundation, Jihadology, Empty Wheel, Wired, WikiLeaks, the UN and Amnesty International.
Pakistani media sources include Dawn, Express Tribune, The Nation, Jang and Geo TV.
Somali media sources include Somalia Report, Africa Confidential, AllAfrica and Bar Kulan.
Yemeni media sources include Yemen Post, Yemen Times, Yemen Observer, Saba News Agency, Gulf News, Waq-al-Waq, Al-Shorfa and Akhbar al-Youm.
For Pakistan, the Bureau has also carried out its own field investigations into possible civilian deaths on two occasions. It has also incorporated other sources include the fieldwork of credible researchers and lawyers who have been examining the drone attacks in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. For example, legal cases have been brought in Pakistan against the CIA on behalf of civilian victims of the attack.
For all datasets, a number of leaked US intelligence reports and WikiLeaks diplomatic cables also deal directly with specific drone attacks or airstrikes – these are cited by the Bureau where relevant. We have incorporated relevant material from research papers, books and articles by journalists, academics, politicians and former intelligence officers.
On most occasions, there is a reasonable consensus between sources. Where contradictory accounts occur, we indicate this in our material. We have striven to speak with particular journalists and sources about their reports to clarify discrepancies. We have also endeavoured to find new material which has not been in the public domain, but for which there is a strong public interest in publishing.
For instance, we reveal in English the full names of all 44 civilians, including 22 children, killed by a December 2009 US airstrike on al-Majala, Yemen. The Bureau translated the details from an original report carried out by a Yemen parliamentary commission.
How the Bureau’s sources and data compares with others
Pakistan
Although the CIA is understood to have extensive data on each strike in Pakistan, that information is not made available publicly. A US counterterrorism official, speaking with the Bureau on background terms, has however provided US estimates of the numbers killed in the US strikes.
A number of other organisations also record details of Pakistan drone strikes. The New America Foundation and the Long War Journal have both done invaluable work, for example, and are a useful cross-referencing tool. However neither resource actively collects and presents data on reported civilian casualties of the drone strikes. Where estimates of civilian casualties have been made, both show significant under-reporting, according to the Bureau’s own findings.
Somalia
As far as the Bureau is aware, while strikes and covert acts in Somalia have been reported, no organisation has collated data fully.
Yemen
As with Pakistan, the Long War Journal has collated data on strikes in Yemen. By March 27, 2012 the Long War Journal recorded 22 airstrikes by the US. The site also estimates casualty numbers.
Our methodology
How we list the strikes:
We have given each strike a unique code. This is a sequential number, with a letter prefix.
For Pakistan, the strikes are numbered with the prefix B for the Bush years, or Ob for Obama years. A number of single-source reports have additionally been identified, which may or may not be drone strikes. These also occur in sequence, with the suffix C (see Ob28C, Ob39C and Ob130C, for example). Ob0 is not classified as a drone strike but we have included it in our data for reference purposes.
For the simpler datasets in Somalia and Yemen, each strike is numbered with the prefix of SOM or YEM respectively.
How we reconciled the material:
Even within a specific report there can be contradictory information. Reconciling multiple sources can present particular challenges.
Looking at the Pakistan data for example, Ob15 was a strike which took place against a former school and a vehicle in Tabbi Langhar Khel, North Waziristan on May 9 2009.
The Daily Times reported the following: ‘Officials claimed ten Taliban had been killed, a deputy Taliban commander said five were killed, the political administration claimed nine Taliban were killed, while tribesmen claimed they had counted 25 bodies.’
On this occasion we give our casualty range as 9-25. Although initial reports, such as Reuters, also recorded five deaths, casualty estimates rose in later coverage of the incident. The News reported that eight bodies were removed from the rubble, while UPI gave details of nine fatalities. In this case, initial reports appear to have been underestimated, and the Bureau’s reporting reflects this.
What are our definitions of who has been killed and injured?
Of the thousands of people that the Bureau has identified as being reported killed in US attacks, under 500 have been identified by name. We do not know who the majority of the dead are. However, field reports from journalists, government officials and militant sources often provide clear suggestions that they are allegedly militants.
A house or compound might be identified as being linked with a particular militant faction. A destroyed vehicle may be claimed to have contained militants. In such cases – and where the Taliban in Pakistan, al Shabab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, have not confirmed an attack – we refer to those injured and killed as ‘alleged militants’. The bulk of those killed fall into this category.
We use the term ‘militant’ to describe all organised, named groups that bear arms and that are not part of Pakistani, Somali, or Yemeni military, police, paramilitary or militia forces. In the case of Somalia, UN and African Union forces are also on the ground, and are distinguished from militants.
We report all instances where civilians are credibly reported to have been killed or injured. Where accounts vary as to whether civilians or militants were killed, we report this and present a minimum and maximum reported number of casualties. We have also identified a number of cases where media sources refer only to ‘people’ killed (and not the more usual ‘militant’). Here we indicate that civilian casualties may be possible. Although we show a minimum and maximum range of civilians killed, other civilian deaths are likely to remain unreported, based on the findings of our field workers and others.
When reporting on casualties among children we employ the United Nations-designated age range of 0-17 years inclusive. Where possible we report the child’s age. All times and dates used are harmonised to Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen local time.
* Last modified March 27 2012. This was to clarify methodology used in the Somalia and Yemen datasets.
August 21st, 2011 at 6:12 pm (#)
Curious why Pakistan Body Count is not referenced as a source.
August 27th, 2011 at 5:26 pm (#)
Even more curious why the study by the Jamestown Foundation in Washington DC which contradicts this study has not been mentioned.