There is a big piece in the New York Times today (3/19/12) on the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. And, as has been the case before, the U.S. perspective comes via anonymous government officials:
A senior American official in Washington said that the CIA had consistently taken precautions to reduce the risk to civilians, and noted that some strikes had killed Pakistan’s insurgent enemies, too. “These efforts have been extremely precise and effective,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the program’s covert status.
And later readers get this:
“The overriding concern is to avoid collateral damage,” another senior United States official said.
What’s remarkable about an article like this–written by Declan Walsh, Eric Schmitt and Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud–is that it will discuss the record of U.S. officials making wildly inaccurate claims about the drone program, but nonetheless print official assurances about the program’s effectiveness:
Of the 10 confirmed strikes so far this year, six hit vehicles filled with fighters that, in several cases, were headed for the Afghan border, a senior United States official said.
“We must protect the troops, and almost all of that stuff is in Waziristan,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the drone program is classified.
Seventeen paragraphs later, we’re told that although White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan claimed that drones had not caused “a single collateral death” over the past year, independent observers counted scores of such deaths.
It’s worth noting the tone the Times uses when it discusses the debate within Pakistan. Readers are told that over there “public discourse rings with thunderous condemnations of breached sovereignty and civilian casualties.” And the paper also picks up “signs are that the Pakistani debate will be dominated by strident calls for an end to drone strikes.”
You almost get the sense that those who demand that foreigners stop using unmanned planes to assassinate people in their country need to stop being so hysterical about it.
Pakistan, they are flying drones over AMERICAN SOIL!!
Wake up people!!!
Why do mainstream news outlets insist on using these anonymous sources anyway? What is the advantage?
I distrust commercial news media to begin with; anonymous reporting only compounds my distrust. Either (a) identify the sources, and risk the possibility of no or limited access to these sources in the future, or (b) stop using them completely.
I don’t see how the public benefits from quoting or paraphrasing these shady, possibly non-existent sources of typically sensational stories. For myself, I see the use of anonymous sources as a type of backhanded condescension.
What is a” senior American official?” Any particular political party, or a department that anyone has heard of?
This “Source” gives information and then adds “it’s classified.” BUT, this person gave no information!
O.K. Rupert and Co. hacked into phones, so are these reporters now putting on fake security badges and asking each other questions? Maybe someone should start a “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” political gossip column, with anonymous writers to go with the anonymous non-news.
The New York Times is just an outlet for Establishment propaganda. No surprise there.
“Anonymous” sources/info is a well-known propaganda ploy used by Isreal in their Hasbara campaigns. One more tools the AIPAC-owned USG’s bag of tricks of propaganda, mis/disinformation.
Are these the same “anonymous sources” that told us how well we were doing in the insane and illegal war in Iraq? Are these the same “anonymous sources” that are trying to convince us that Iran is developing a WMD?
I’m trying to imagine general Patton declaring, just before he sent a brigade into the maw of war, that he was trying to “protect the troops.” Or Eisenhower saying that gee, I hope none of our fightin’ men and women get killed fighting. The whole “protect the troops” trope indicates that our leaders think that perhaps, somehow, war can be antiseptic and painless for warriors, directly engaged on the ground, in a hostile place in a war of our chosing. It only naturally follows then that it takes some effrontery on the part of the “folks we’re trying to help” to complain when an errant missle destroys a family or a wedding party or dozen or so boy sheep-herders.
I personally don’t believe a single word that issues forth from military or Government spokes-people. One must assume they are lying (especially if they’re “speaking on condition of annonymity”). One must treat their statements with at least deep skepticism if not outright contempt. The above statements from some of these freaks ( . . . six hit vehicles filled with fighters that, in several cases, were headed for the Afghan border, a senior United States official said.”) would be comically stupid in their pretense if the subject at hand (murder) weren’t so serious, and utterly damaging to our trustworthiness.
If Hitler had had drone bombers, we might all be “heil-ing” now. These diabolical killing and spying mini-machines should be outlawed by civilized nations, but the United Nations which OK’ed the rape of Libya (by the Nobel Prize recipient and his cohorts) obviously will not take on this vital task. Peace is a topic for police investigation in the aggressive U.S. today. Where are the Christians who will obey the Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill?”
Tim you just admitted that you don’t believe a single word coming from the military.What follows is that you DO believe the OTHER guy the majority of the time.I have been trying to articulate that about you for a long long time.Thankyou
The first casualty of war is the truth.