Iraq

Iraq continues to bedevil American foreign policy, and the world. Now the Kurds will vote on their own state.

Reading selections for the weekend of September 1, 2017.

Reading selections for the weekend of August 11, 2017.

Reading selections for the weekend of July 28, 2017.

Reading selections for the weekend of June 23, 2017.

Voices from the Field features contributions from scholars and practitioners highlighting new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges. This piece to mark World Refugee Day is authored by Mandana Hendessi, Women for Women International’s Syria Response and Iraq Director based in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. 

Today, I have an op-ed in the New York Times, which they titled: “Why Is the U.S. Killing So Many Civilians in Syria and Iraq?” The piece documents the sudden increase in civilian deaths from the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. According to numbers provided by the U.S. military, 60 percent of all the documented noncombatant deaths in the thirty-four-month air war have occurred in the past four months—or since Donald Trump took office. Two important caveats: First, "coalition" means primarily American soldiers and airmen—the U.S. military has been responsible for 95 percent of airstrikes in Syria and 68 percent in Iraq. Second, non-governmental organizations, such as the monitoring group Airwars, has assessed that there are more than eight times as many civilian deaths (3,962) from coalition strikes, than the latest military estimate (484). U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the military command responsible for overseeing the air war, has become far more forthcoming and honest about its claims of civilian harm. Recall that by November 2015, the command had only admitted to two instances of “likely” civilian fatalities in the 8,300 airstrikes that had killed more than 20,000 Islamic State fighters in a fifteen month period. By the following November, CENTCOM had acknowledged one hundred and seventy-three civilians inadvertently killed. In addition, it began offering monthly estimates of civilian fatalities, and provided far greater access to journalists investigating the target selection and decision-making processes. Despite the limited efforts at greater transparency, we know relatively little about how airstrikes are conducted in Iraq and Syria, nor the procedures for evaluating the possibility of civilian deaths from those strikes. Pentagon officials have contended for months that the rules of engagement—or guidance that delineates the circumstances and limitations under which bombs may be dropped—have not changed under Donald Trump. At the same time, Secretary of Defense James Mattis has emphasized repeatedly that the goal is no longer to “defeat” the Islamic State, but rather an “annihilation campaign so we don't simply transplant this problem from one location to another." Why then, have so many more civilians been killed recently compared to earlier stages of the war? What specific steps could CENTCOM undertake to prevent and mitigate harm to noncombatants trapped between a horrifically brutal terrorist army, and U.S.-allied ground forces backed by close air support? Read my piece in the Times today for my best answers to these two framing questions. It is an honor to be published in this so-called “paper of record,” and I sincerely hope that, in some small way, it elevates the importance of this issue within the White House, the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill, and among concerned American citizens.”

Welcome to “Women Around the World: This Week,” a series that highlights noteworthy news related to women and U.S. foreign policy. This week’s post, covering June 3 to June 10, was compiled with support from Becky Allen and Anne Connell.

Reading selections for the weekend of May 5, 2017.

Reading selections for the weekend of April 28, 2017.

This blog post was coauthored with my research associate, Jennifer Wilson.  Last week, the U.S. military announced an accomplishment that has come to define progress in the war on terrorism—the death of yet another senior terrorist leader. These now-routine reports are touted by officials as bringing “justice” to terrorists, delivering a “significant blow” to their ability to maneuver and operate, and even "eradicating" the threats they pose. On Friday, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Colonel John Thomas, told reporters that special operations forces had killed “a close associate” of the leader of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This announcement came fifteen days after the ground raid that killed him on April 6—coincidentally, the same day as President Donald Trump’s cruise missile strike on an airfield in Homs, Syria. As the United States ramps up its airstrikes and targeted raids against the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, there has been a corresponding increase in reported civilian casualties. Airwars estimates that at least 3,111 civilians have been killed in U.S.-led coalition airstrikes since the anti-Islamic State air campaign began in August 2014. However, CENTCOM implausibly assess that “at least 229 civilians have been unintentionally killed” in all 19,607 strikes. CENTCOM publishes a monthly civilian casualty report including reported non-combatant casualties found credible (meaning a strike more likely than not resulted in the death or injury of a civilian), those found non-credible (meaning there is not sufficient information to determine whether a civilian was harmed), and ongoing investigations. There are currently forty-three open investigations, one of which has been going on for over a year. On average, it has taken CENTCOM ninety-five days to announce whether a coalition strike resulted in a civilian casualty over the past six months. Meanwhile, on average, it has taken just eleven days for the Pentagon to announce that a strike has resulted in the death of a “key leader” of a terrorist organization over the past year. (We averaged the time elapsed between the alleged incident and the U.S. military announcement of 115 cases of civilian casualties and 19 announcements of killed terrorists, after removing the highest and lowest number of days passed for both to avoid distorting the mean.) We can only speculate why there is such a vast disparity between the time it takes to investigate the death of a civilian versus the death of a terrorist. However, what this inconsistency demonstrates is that publicizing the deaths of terrorists is a higher priority for the U.S. military than determining the deaths of civilians. For example, last week, a coalition spokesperson, Colonel Joe Scrocca, even acknowledged “we don’t have any means of going and searching out people and, honestly, we don’t have the manpower” to conduct rigorous investigations of reported civilian casualties. The Pentagon claims that it “takes all reports of civilian casualties seriously and assesses all reports as thoroughly as possible.” If this were the case, though, then there would be sufficient surveillance and analytical resources dedicated to thoroughly and more quickly investigate reported civilian casualties. As the former U.S. Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, Lieutenant General Bob Otto (ret.), observed in October 2015, “If you inadvertently—legally—kill innocent men, women, and children, then there’s a backlash from that. And so we might kill three and create ten terrorists.” If Otto’s concerns are to be believed, then investigating claims of civilian harm, holding those in the chain of command responsible to account, and assuring that past errors are not repeated should be as high a priority as is killing yet another in the seemingly inexhaustible supply of senior terrorist operatives. Unfortunately, the military is more committed to boasting about killing alleged terrorists than determining when non-combatants are harmed in the process.

Reading selections for the weekend of March 31, 2017.