What was the total number of drone strikes authorized by Barack Obama in Pakistan and Yemen?

1. What the competing tallies actually claim—and why the numbers vary dramatically

Analyses supplied to this query present three competing frames for counting Obama-era strikes. The CFR’s consolidated figure of 542 strikes treats a set of reported incidents as the baseline and couples that with a casualty estimate of 3,797 total deaths, including 324 civilians ^[1]. Independent trackers produce larger totals: New America lists 413 strikes in Pakistan and 374 in Yemen for 2009–2016 — a combined ~787 strikes — while other investigative outlets report totals clustered around 540–563 or 571 when Somalia and other theaters are aggregated ^{[2] [4] [5]}. These datasets disagree not because of arithmetic error but because of different inclusion criteria and source choices, producing materially different policy narratives about scale and oversight.

2. The CFR low-mid estimate: 542 strikes and its evidentiary posture

The CFR figure of 542 strikes is often treated as a conservative, government-proximate compilation and is used in policy discussions that emphasize verified incidents and official confirmations. That dataset pairs the strike count with an estimated 3,797 deaths and 324 civilian casualties, presenting a relatively narrow window into lethality while avoiding more expansive inclusion of unconfirmed or disputed incidents ^[1]. This framing privileges incidents that meet higher corroboration thresholds, which lowers the strike count relative to activist or investigative tallies; proponents of this approach argue it avoids double-counting and rumor-driven inflation, while critics call it likely to understate the true operational footprint due to classified operations and unreported events.

3. The higher tallies: New America, Bureau figures, and why they push totals up

Independent trackers like New America and investigative outlets record substantially higher strike counts; New America’s published breakdown yields 413 strikes in Pakistan and 374 in Yemen for Obama’s tenure, summing to about 787 strikes in those two countries alone ^[2]. Other investigative tallies cite 563 or 571 strikes when Somalia and Pakistan/Yemen totals are combined, reflecting variations in whether US-attributed strikes by partner forces or covert CIA operations are included ^{[3] [4]}. These higher estimates aim to capture incidents omitted from government-confirmed lists — including covert operations, disputed attributions, and locally reported strikes — which yields a fuller but less-verifiable operational count.

4. The mechanics behind the disagreement: classification, attribution, and secrecy

All sources converge on one explanation for divergent counts: methodological differences about what counts as a strike and who is authorized to order it. Some datasets include only strikes publicly acknowledged by the U.S. government; others incorporate local media, NGO reporting, and claims by militants to compile broader catalogs ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Attribution matters: strikes carried out by partner forces, drone-launched munitions by non-U.S. platforms, or missions initially planned by CIA but later executed by the military can be counted differently. Secrecy around covert programs, shifting interagency responsibility, and regional reporting limits create inevitable uncertainty that produces the range of tallies seen across respected trackers.

5. Casualty figures and the policy stakes tied to counting choices

Beyond strike counts, casualty estimates diverge with direct policy significance. The CFR dataset pairs the 542 strikes with 3,797 deaths (324 civilians), while New America and investigative tallies report wider civilian-death ranges and thousands more total fatalities when including disputed incidents ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Counting rules thus shape both the human-cost narrative and legal oversight debates: more conservative tallies feed arguments that civilian harm was limited relative to battlefield gains, while expansive tallies underpin calls for greater transparency, accountability, and legal scrutiny. Each dataset’s framing reflects differing institutional priorities — government corroboration versus comprehensive independent documentation.

6. Bottom line for citation and further research: what to state and what to caveat

If a single authoritative figure is required, cite the CFR’s 542 strikes as a conservative, widely referenced official-style total and pair it with the CFR casualty estimates for context ^[1]. If the objective is to capture the campaign’s maximal documented footprint, cite New America’s Pakistan+Yemen total of ~787 strikes and note that investigative outlets report similar or higher aggregates that include disputed and covert events ^{[2] [4]}. Always qualify any single number with a brief caveat about counting methodology and transparency gaps; the core fact is that credible sources differ materially, and the choice of dataset reflects whether one privileges verification or comprehensiveness.