US Again Dramatically Downplays Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes in Iraq and Syria

The Pentagon dismissed more than 90% of incidents as “non-credible.”

(ANTIWAR.COM) — As another month winds down, another official Pentagon report on civilian death tolls in Iraq and Syria has been released, and as usual dramatically underreports the true death toll of an increasingly aggressive air campaign in densely populated cities.

Most of the deaths came in Raqqa, and reports on the ground documented roughly 100 civilians killed in a single 48 hour span in mid-August. This was the result of bombardment of residential areas in Raqqa, something which was realistically happening almost daily throughout the entire month.

100 civilians dead in 48 hours, and Airwars documented hundreds of incidents besides. Yet the Pentagon boiled this all down to a preposterously low claim of only 50 civilians killed in the entire month, despite documentation that there were multiple individual days that had bigger tolls from US action than that.

It’s still not clear where the Pentagon gets the nerve to keep overtly lying about their death tolls, but we do know the method. The Pentagon said they were aware of 185 reports of them causing civilian casualties. The 50 killed came from the 14 that they believed, and the other 171 incidents, and the hundreds of deaths associated with them, were labeled “non-credible” and discarded.

As always, the “non-credible” distinction appears to be wholly arbitrary, since the Pentagon has admitted it makes no formal effort to confirm body counts to begin with, believing such figures are not militarily useful. Lying to the American public about the people you killed, however, has proven an extremely practical side effect of this, and the lack of even nominal record-keeping gives them at least some deniability.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…

…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us

    8