Collateral damage: “‘As long as it’s under 10,” a soldier said, “we’re good to take the shot.”

[jakeXT]

WASHINGTON — One day last year, a team of U.S. soldiers working in the military’s special operations drone program sat tucked away in a secret facility discussing the rapidly accelerating campaign against ISIS.
One of the operators was asked about collateral damage assessments in a war that is rooted in U.S.-led airstrikes and that is increasingly being fought in urban centers — cities still crowded with those who have not joined the millions who have fled places like Syria and Iraq. ISIS, meanwhile, has used that to its advantage, moving military assets into cities to hide them among the remaining civilians. How, a U.S. intelligence official asked, did they decide when there were too many civilians present to risk the strike?
“‘As long as it’s under 10,” a soldier said, “we’re good to take the shot.”
The story, relayed by the U.S. intelligence source present for the discussion, underscores a new reality for a country that’s growing more and more accustomed to remote warfare. The White House has repeatedly said it strives to avoid civilian casualties in its ongoing drone wars and attempts to uphold the same standard in the fight against ISIS. But as the fight against the terror group has drawn on, the White House has become increasingly willing to balance civilian lives against military priorities.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/syria-civilian-casualties-policy#.pxG03X6Ey

[bemildred]

2. So this is cold hard science:

“‘As long as it’s under 10,” a soldier said, “we’re good to take the shot.”

That sounds more like an attempt to make high civilian casualties acceptable.