U.S. authorities overseeing the war against the Islamic State in Syria have failed to respond to evidence of hundreds of civilian casualties resulting from coalition airstrikes and potential violations of the laws of war, according to a startling new account from Amnesty International.
In a press release issued Tuesday night, Amnesty said it has presented the Pentagon with evidence that 11 coalition airstrikes in Syria over the past two years appear to have led to the deaths of as many as 300 civilians — and that so far that evidence has been met with silence.
“U.S. authorities have provided no response to a memorandum Amnesty International sent to the Department of Defense on September 28 to raise questions about the conduct of coalition forces in Syria,” the group claimed.
“We fear the U.S.-led coalition is significantly underestimating the harm caused to civilians in its operations in Syria,” Lynn Maalouf, deputy director for research at Amnesty’s Beirut regional office, said in a statement. “Analysis of available evidence suggests that in each of these cases, coalition forces failed to take adequate precautions to minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”
Maalouf added that some of the strikes in question “may constitute disproportionate or otherwise indiscriminate attacks.”
U.S. Army Maj. Josh T. Jacques said CENTCOM, the component of the U.S. military running the coalition war against the Islamic State, “is aware of the letter from Amnesty International and is currently evaluating the allegations of civilian casualties it contains.”
“The coalition takes great care — from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements — in order to minimize the risk of harm to non-combatants,” Jacques said in an email to The Intercept. “Civilian casualty allegations come from various sources, including our own internal reviews and unit self-reporting, media reports, non-governmental organizations, or other U.S. government departments.”
While the Syrian military and its Russian allies have been responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties resulting from airstrikes within Syria’s borders, the 27-page memorandum Amnesty sent to the Pentagon last month painted a detailed picture of nearly a dozen incidents in which coalition operations frequently described by U.S. officials as the most careful and precise in the world appear to have gone deeply awry.
“For several incidents, no military objective could be discerned and reports indicate that the only casualties were civilian,” the memo noted. “The loss of civilian life was so high in a few attacks that it is difficult to see how a significant enough military advantage could have been anticipated that would have outweighed the risk to civilians.”
More than a third of the deaths Amnesty catalogued were the result of bloody operations to liberate areas around and in the Syrian city of Manbij from Islamic State control over the summer. While death counts from airstrikes during that offensive varied, Amnesty claims that attacks launched on one village, al-Tukhar, may have resulted in the greatest loss of civilian life in the history of the coalition’s war on ISIS, with 73 civilians — including 27 children — killed, according to evidence Amnesty compiled.
While the U.S. has confirmed that it launched an investigation into the high-profile incidents in Manbij, its broader efforts at investigating alleged civilian casualty incidents in the war on the Islamic State have been repeatedly called into question.
A Defense Department official said that the Pentagon had not yet incorporated Amnesty’s report, but as of October 13, had received 249 allegations of civilian casualties stemming from coalition operations in Syria and Iraq. Of the complaints received, 62 resulted in closed investigations, with 31 conclusions announced publicly — 13 in Syria and 18 in Iraq. The Pentagon deemed 179 of the allegations not credible. In Syria, five investigations remain open. All told, the Pentagon claims that 55 civilians have been killed and 29 injured over two years and thousands of airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.
The figures pale in comparison to civilian casualty estimates offered up by human rights organizations and other monitoring groups, which claim that anywhere from 600 to more than 1,000 civilians have died in coalition airstrikes. In the case of the 11 strikes Amnesty examined, the human rights group reported that to date CENTCOM has acknowledged only a single civilian casualty resulting from those operations.
“Based on Amnesty International’s research and analysis, some attacks known or suspected to have been carried out by coalition forces may have violated international humanitarian law,” Amnesty’s memorandum to U.S. officials noted.
The reported failure to follow up on alleged civilian casualties, the group argues, appears to fall short of an executive order issued by President Obama in July, which requires U.S. authorities to investigate when civilians are believed to have died in U.S. counterterrorism operations.
“This is totally contrary to the president’s stated commitments to transparency and accountability on this issue,” said Naureen Shah, director of Amnesty’s Security with Human Rights program. “The Defense Department must acknowledge and investigate these civilian deaths immediately.”
INSIDE THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT: WAR, PROPAGANDA, CLINTON & TRUMP
http://johnpilger.com/articles/inside-the-invisible-government-war-propaganda-clinton-trump
The US military will just declare them all terrorists, and say their actions were just. The police call young black men gangsters, shoot them and are acquitted because they were ‘afraid for their lives’.
What’s the difference, Mr. President?
This is so so horrible and sad…. WHO is going to punish the “war criminals”….. ALL of them….???
In Syria’s Ravaged Cities and Beyond, A Lack of Space to Bury the Dead
The body count from the Syrian conflict is so vast, there aren’t enough cemeteries to accommodate the deceased.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/10/syria-cemeteries-at-capacity-struggle-to-bury-dead/505397/
2004 Pentagon-commissioned report specified in listing the causes of terrorism: “American direct intervention in the Muslim world”; our “one-sided support in favor of Israel”; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.” The report concluded: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.” Countless individuals who carried out or plotted attacks on the West have said the same.
Nobody should need official reports or statements from attackers to confirm what common sense makes clear: If you go around the world for years proclaiming yourself “at war,” bombing and occupying and otherwise interfering in numerous countries for your own ends — as the U.S. and U.K. have been doing for decades, long before 9/11 —
Washington is as much responsible as the bombs themselves
(from an article in the Intercept -Chilcot Report and 7/7 London Bombing Anniversary Converge to Highlight Terrorism’s Causes
Glenn Greenwald
America’s ruling class has no interest in decreasing terrorism. War profiteers capitalize on every ounce of fear they can squeeze out of the American population.
America’s crusade against Muslims has cost the American public over $5,000,000,000,000.00 so far.
The fact that these wars were started by war profiteers, SHOULD be enough reason for even the most stubbornly uninformed to LOOK at how brutally dishonest these wars are.
First, America’s war-mongers did what was certain to create enemies (invade sovereign countries and attack innocent people).
Then, America’s war-mongers feigned blindness, until the whole world FORCED them to look at the fact that they were so indiscriminately hostile that they were simply MAKING enemies of random innocents.
Now – despite undeniably KNOWING that their tactics only INCREASE the number of enemies America has – America’s war-mongers KEEP repeating the same behaviour.
Weapons manufacturers, and the politicians they own, CREATE the enemies with which they coerce a cowering American public into submitting to this never-ending, perpetually escalating, multi-trillion dollar protection racket.
gee, really?
Obviously we need Hellary the Lyin Queen to get the truth for us.
Actually no. Because she already told us that no matter how many casualties of collateral damage there are… ZERO! Zero? But how can that be? Simple, all those other dead women children and men other than the targeted person – RUSSIA DID IT.
stupid me.
Why am I hearing the audio of another article when I am reading this article??
Technical incompetence would be my guess. Or a new way of producing click bait. Either way, it is quite annoying.
After listening to it twice, I finally hit mute.
But TI really needs to get on this.
Yes, and this is not the first time this has happened. It’s not only annoying and aggravating but even worse than that it caused me to think twice about sending someone a link to an article here during a “debate” or discussion I was having with them on twitter. Imagine visiting The Intercept because someone recommended an article you should consider reading, but while you were reading the article a background sound track shockingly interrupted the silence. This is not a small or insignificant error or problem.
Had no idea. My ‘puter is connected to both a standard monitor and my TeeVee, and the sound is set to play only on the latter. This avoids obnoxious ads blaring at me when I’m surfing — because when the TeeVee is off (as is usual) I don’t hear them.
What you all describe would really be obnoxious. Have you let anyone in TI IT know?
@24b4Jeff and @altohone
Have just sent them an email to fix this…. REALLY annoying while I am writing this…
Hopefully, someone will fix it!
Received a reply….
” Thank you for contacting us. I’ve forwarded your note along to the appropriate team here at First Look Media and they’ll take a look.”
Take a look?? Fix it please!
Thank you FLM….. problems solved!
Good reporting Mr. Devereaux. I predict that comments from certain quarters are going to either ignore that your piece included this, or are going to want to discuss nothing but this aspect of the piece:
What no pro-interventionists will ever do — and I mean I have not seen it, at all — is directly deal with the fact that Russia believes it has vital interests in Syria and how, therefore, Russia could reasonably be expected to respond to U.S. military actions against it and/or its interests.
James Clapper recently observed:
For pro-interventionists, that is an unpleasant reality best ignored.
I would prefer that Amnesty cite their report/source for that “vast majority of civilian casulaties” in the article. Leaving it up to the reader to track down makes me suspicious that the line is a bone thrown to their mostly Western funding sources…
Actually, if the Russians and Syrians have been responsible for the vast majority of the fight against the extremists (moderate or immoderate) then they are likely responsible for the ‘vast majority of civilian casualties’ even if they kill less on a proportional basis. To put it another way, the pitcher who goes 6 innings will almost certainly throw more balls than the reliever who pitches the other 3, not because they are a bad pitcher, but because they were on the mound longer.
“For pro-interventionists, that is an unpleasant reality best ignored.”
Unless, of course, you are also interested in restarting the cold war. Hillary had her first Freudian slip on this shortly after taking office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HNFJyZCJDY
I don’t think it is necessarily because she thinks Putin is a bad guy, and suspect she secretly admires him. They do after all share certain similarities in their dealings with opponents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
No, I think the reason is to consolidate the position of the US’ hegemony over the west, and to promote the single industry in which the US is the world’s leading exporter. We can’t be letting peace break out now, can we?
The framing of this statement
“While the Syrian military and its Russian allies have been responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties resulting from airstrikes within Syria’s borders…”
is the problem.
A military expert just the other day pointed out that only 1 out of 4 civilian casualties are occurring from airstrikes. 3 out of 4 stem from small arms and ground fired weapons.
Thus the civilian casualties caused by “rebels” who do not have the ability to conduct airstrikes are downplayed by the focus on just airstrikes.
The credibility problems of the US military civilian casualty numbers are obvious… and typical. They are just as nonsensical as their civilian casualty numbers from Iraq, Afghanistan, and our drone strikes… minimized for PR purposes.
But the bigger picture really is missing a central player.
Comparing civilian casualties from the US airstrikes to Russian/Syrian government airstrikes, while never reporting on the civilian casualties caused by the US/Saudi backed rebels is highly misleading.
Just because they aren’t dropping bombs from planes doesn’t mean they aren’t killing thousands of Syrian civilians.
This is why my struggle meant nothing to you as I can see that 300 deaths do not equal one Housewife but I have fought for civil liberties and my own discretion to write letters annomously which should not be a crime and I have endured rape and torture over it. Goodbye Ryan