Obama’s drone war relies on propaganda to keep the American public from understanding the inhumanity of high-tech drone killings.<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n
America’s never-ending war on terrorism is almost always depicted in the mainstream media as a military and intelligence agency fight on a global battlefield. But it is also a propaganda war where the public is fed inaccuracies from Washington, especially when it comes to overseas killings by U.S. military drones.<\/p>\n
Here are five myths perpetuated by the military and its weapons makers that seek to make Americans feel good about drones and the White House\u2019s policy of targeted assassinations.<\/p>\n
Myth #1: They Target High Level Terrorists<\/b><\/p>\n
Only two percent of drone strikes have killed “high value targets,” former counter-terror advisor to David Patreus, David Kilcullen, notoriously remarked in a New York Times\u00a0column<\/a>\u00a0early in the Obama presidency, where he said that 50 civilians were killed for every “high-value target” assassinated. That means that 98 percent of drone-caused deaths have been a mix of low-level militants, civilians, or another dubious Pentagon classification called “unknown militants.”<\/p>\n This spring\u00a0McClatchy<\/a>\u00a0and later\u00a0NBC<\/a>\u00a0reported that 25 percent of those killed in drone strikes in Pakistan have been classified as “unknown militants.”\u00a0So by its own admission, the CIA has no idea whom they are killing about a quarter of the time.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0Keep in mind that if a military-aged male is killed in a strike they are automatically presumed to be militants.\u00a0The implication being, there is a huge room for error, and many of these “unknown militants” are likely civilians.\u00a0\u00a0In one case, the CIA classified 20-22 “unknown militants” killed.\u00a0This strike actually killed around\u00a040 civilians<\/a>.<\/p>\n Myth#2: Drones Are Accurate<\/b><\/p>\n The Pentagon rhetoric touting “pin point” and “laser” accuracy of drones is baseless. Dr. Larry Lewis, a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses, a research group with close ties to the US military, studied the record in Afghanistan and found that\u00a0drone strikes were no more accurate<\/a>\u00a0than traditional air power.\u00a0So, after all this talk about the ability to discern enemies through surveillance, they are no more accurate traditional fly-bys.\u00a0This rhetoric has allowed us to kill innocent children.<\/a><\/p>\n Notably, this study was done in Afghanistan, where there is ample ground and human intelligence for selecting and assessing targets, as well as people who investigate the aftermath of the strikes. But that is not the case in Pakistan and Yemen, which means that the strikes have been more deadly for civilians. The implications from this reality are cynical and cavalier:\u00a0Either the information on the ground is faulty, or drone operators are okay with certain levels of civilian casualties.\u00a0Regardless, drones fall far short of the hyped rhetoric coming from the Obama administration.<\/p>\n Myth #3: Drone Targets Imminently Threaten America<\/b><\/p>\n The mainstream media have played into the CIA\/Administration’s selective leaks about drones, especially the concept of a “kill list.” This military branding conjures up a process of carefully selected enemies who pose imminent threats to the U.S.\u00a0However, the reality of “signature strikes” undercuts this P.R. construction.<\/p>\n Never officially acknowledged by the administration,\u00a0signature strikes<\/a>\u00a0target unknown suspected militants who display “pattern of live” behavior associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban<\/a>.\u00a0What the “patterns” consist of is officially a secret.\u00a0What we do know is that as soon as signature strikes were implemented there was a spike in number of drone strikes and the number people killed in strikes.<\/p>\n Furthermore, reporting has recently revealed that the original authorization for drone strikes in Pakistan came from now deposed President Musharraf.\u00a0The only way he would approve of the strikes was if the CIA killed his enemies.\u00a0These\u00a0“side-payments”<\/a>\u00a0became a characteristic of the CIA program.\u00a0Instead of focusing on enemies of the U.S., the CIA played along with Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, and its military to hit targets who posed no threat to the U.S.<\/p>\n Myth #4 Drones Are Cheap<\/b><\/p>\n Setting aside the moral, legal, and efficacy arguments about drones, the mantra from the administration, lobbyists and their lackeys in Congress has been drone’s low per-unit cost of $4 million to $5 million.\u00a0According to Winslow Wheeler<\/a>\u00a0of the Project On Government Oversight, “This is quite incorrect.” He states, “The actual cost for a Reaper unit is $120.8 million in 2012 dollars.” This is far above the $27.2 million dollar F-16C or the $18.8 million A-10.\u00a0Seemingly, this “aura of inevitability” about investing in this new revolutionizing weapon is the military-industrial-complex at its self-serving worst.<\/p>\n Myth #5: Drones Are Making Americans Safer<\/b><\/p>\n They are not, in fact.\u00a0Not only are drones effectible destabilizing a nuclear power, Pakistan, in one of the most conflict-ridden regions of the world, they are inciting waves of suicide bombers to attack Pakistan. They are also directly threatening the U.S.<\/p>\n In a global age connectivity there is a new phenomenon of self- radicalization.\u00a0People who identify with the Muslim Diaspora are seeing their kinsmen being murdered by America in a most brutal way.\u00a0The Boston Marathon bombers are only the latest example of this phenomenon.\u00a0The most notorious self-radicalized terrorist was Faisal Shahzad, who, in 2010, tried to blow up New York’s Times-Square.\u00a0When asked about his motive, he\u00a0directly cited drones<\/a>.<\/p>\n These rebels with a cause will sadly become the norm as we push and provoke more of the world’s 1.3-1.4 billion Muslims into the political fringes where American violence begets more violence.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Last fall I traveled to Pakistan where I witnessed first-hand the horror and challenges people of Pakistan face while living under drones. I went to Pakistan to investigate the civilian casualties caused by U.S. drone strikes and to speak with Pakistani people about how drone strikes impact their families, their communities, and their lives. During my travels I met many people including Rafiq ur Rehman, his son, and his two young daughters whose mother was killed in a drone strike. She was out in a field with no one else around except grazing cattle.<\/p>\n I met with others who had lost limbs and loved ones in the senseless strikes that cause anxiety and terror to everyone in the community.\u00a0 During my visit, it became clear that I had to bring these stories back to the United States so that everyone could know the horror that occurs in our name.\u00a0 This fall my organization, Brave New Foundation, will release a documentary on this experience in Pakistan.<\/p>\n We’re working to break through the myths and expose the truth about drone strikes.\u00a0 This fall we plan to bring victims of drone strikes in Pakistan to the United States to speak with Congress about the horrors that they face daily living under drones.\u00a0 Will you help bring these victims here to help expose the truth?\u00a0\u00a0Please donate today.<\/a>\u00a0Every dollar makes a difference.<\/p>\n _______________________<\/p>\n Robert Greenwald is a producer, director and political activist. He is the founder and president of\u00a0Brave New Films,<\/a>\u00a0a new media company that uses moving images to educate and empower viewers to take action around issues that matter. He is a board member of the Independent Media Institute.<\/i><\/p>\n