Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1241301496-scaled

New Pentagon report vastly understates civilians killed by the US military

Humanitarian groups also wonder why victims’ families have not been compensated.

Analysis | Global Crises

This week the Pentagon released its annual report outlining the civilian harm caused by operations across the globe. It vastly undercounts the number of civilians the United States is killing in conflicts.

Annual reports, such as this 21-page “Annual Report on Civilian Casualties In Connection With United States Military Operations in 2020,” have been a requirement of U.S. law since 2018. They are meant to cover all civilian harm caused by ongoing U.S. military actions around the world, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen.

For 2020, the Department of Defense concluded its forces had killed 23 civilians and injured a further 10. But that number is nearly five times lower than the tally we at Airwars produced. In total, our estimate (which we believe to be conservative) concluded that at least 102 noncombatant deaths likely resulted from U.S. attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Syria alone.

The biggest discrepancy comes in Afghanistan. The United States admitted killing 20 civilians in seven events during 2020. Yet the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan found the death toll to be more than four times higher, at 89 killed and a further 31 injured by international military forces. U.S. personnel made up the great majority of those international forces.

In Iraq and Syria, the end of the Islamic State as a territorial entity has seen the ferocity of the U.S. campaign subside significantly in recent years. Yet, the Pentagon’s estimate of only one death still stands in sharp contrast to our records, which found between three and six deaths that were likely caused by U.S. strikes.

Rather than serving as a good example of transparency, this one casualty showcases the ways in which the Pentagon undercounts casualties. The civilian casualty occurred on March 13 last year when U.S. forces targeted Iranian linked militias at Karbala airport. The United States concluded that a 23-year-old civilian security guard, Karrar Sabbar, was killed. Public reporting claims that two more civilian police officers also died. It remains unclear why they weren't included in the Pentagon toll.

In Somalia, between seven and 13 civilians were likely killed by U.S. actions during the year, according to Airwars’ monitoring of local communities. But DOD declared only one civilian death from U.S. actions in that time. It is only in Yemen that monitoring organizations and the Pentagon can agree with both groups’ finding no likely civilian deaths caused by U.S. actions during the year.

This is not to say there are no positive aspects to the new Defense Department report. While it is easy to criticize, the report still represents a significant transparency benchmark for other militaries and represents a precedent to follow. Put bluntly, none of the U.S.'s closest allies, including the United Kingdom, France, and other European nations, even come close to reporting on civilian fatalities in such a systemic manner.

Nevertheless, the discrepancies between Pentagon estimates of civilian casualties and those of independent organizations are worrying.

At the same time, the report also reveals that no condolence payments were made to the families of the victims that the Pentagon did acknowledge, despite Congress allocating $3 million for exactly this purpose. This has been a common trend in the United States in recent years and we are scratching our heads trying to understand why it still isn't happening.

In cases such as those of Karrar Sabbar, the security guard killed in that Iraqi strike, the United States has admitted accidentally killing him and there is money available to support his family who have been left behind. So why isn't the U.S. military establishment giving it to them? It suggests a worrying lack of interest in the devastating impact of those U.S. actions which killed or injured civilians.

Later this year, the Pentagon will issue a major update of its civilian casualty mitigation policies, known as a Department of Defense Instruction, which has been in review in consultation with human rights organizations for several years. On May 25, new Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr. Colin Kahl confirmed in writing to NGOs that the new policy would be published by the Biden administration shortly. This is a welcome development, and it seems the Biden administration is actively engaging on civilian harm. But many good laws are already on the books and yet estimates of civilian harm are consistently low and no compensation is given to families.


Image: anasalhajj via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Global Crises
Friedrich Merz
Top photo credit: German Prime Minister-in-waiting Friedrich Merz (Shutterstock.Penofoto)

German leaders miscalculated popular will for war spending

Europe

Recent polls show the center right Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) headed by prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz losing ground against the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD), even before the new government has been formed.

The obvious explanation is widespread popular dissatisfaction with last month’s vote pressed through the outgoing parliament by the CDU-CSU and presumptive coalition partner the SPD (with the Greens) to allow unlimited increases in defense spending. This entailed disabling the constitutional “debt brake” introduced in 2009 to curb deficits and public debt.

keep readingShow less
Bernie Sanders Chris Van Hollen
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

Can Bernie stop billions in new US weapons going to Israel?

Middle East

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz have been roundly criticized for the security lapse that put journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat where administration officials discussed bombing Houthi forces in Yemen, to the point where some, like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have called for their resignations.

But the focus on the process ignores the content of the conversation, and the far greater crime of continuing to provide weapons that are inflaming conflicts in the Middle East and enabling Israel’s war on Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians.

keep readingShow less
Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?
Top Image Credit: The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), foreground, leads a formation of Carrier Strike Group Five ships as Air Force B-52 Stratofortress aircraft and Navy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft pass overhead for a photo exercise during Valiant Shield 2018 in the Philippine Sea Sept. 17, 2018. The biennial, U.S. only, field-training exercise focuses on integration of joint training among the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This is the seventh exercise in the Valiant Shield series that began in 2006. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erwin Miciano)

Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?

QiOSK

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) conducted an airstrike in Somalia against ISIS targets on Saturday, killing “multiple ISIS-Somalia operatives.” It was the eighth such strike in the short time that Trump has been in office, reflecting a quiet, but deadly American campaign in a part, of the world that remains far below the public radar.

“AFRICOM, alongside the Federal Government of Somalia and Somali Armed Forces, continues to take action to degrade ISIS-Somalia's ability to plan and conduct attacks that threaten the U.S. homeland, our forces, and our civilians abroad,” a Sunday AFRICOM press release stated.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.