Hospital bombed in the Afghan city of Kunduz. [Archive]

Lonewolf_50

5th Oct 2015, 17:41

The last news I got is that the Pentagon said the ground forces, Afghanistan, called in the drop.

If true (and if this day and age of spin, who the heck knows?) that makes this technically "close air support" and not "an air strike" but unless one's been in the business one misses such distinctions.

From what I remember of close air support called in by ground troops: the general rule on "is this a legit target or not?" is that the ground commander has to determine that before the call for air launched weapons arrive.

While I have no idea what RoE the Afghan forces are under, I suspect that they are somewhat like our own with the past 10-14 years of training/liaison and such.

But nobody wants to blame that local guy, they want to blame the Americans because it's fashionable.

Just a quick note: form the air, most hospitals look like any other building.

If the ground commander did not identify it as a hospital, and the crew in the aircraft didn't have info that it was, and that was the grid where the weapon was called for ... what a mess no matter how you look at it.

airsound

5th Oct 2015, 18:49

LonewolfIf the ground commander did not identify it as a hospital, and the crew in the aircraft didn't have info that it was, and that was the grid where the weapon was called for ... what a mess no matter how you look at it. This is what MSF says about that, Lonewolf
Coalition knew hospital location.
The bombing took place despite the fact that MSF had provided the GPS coordinates of the trauma hospital to Coalition and Afghan military and civilian officials as recently as Tuesday 29 September, to avoid that the hospital be hit.
As is routine practice for MSF in conflict areas, MSF had communicated the exact location of the hospital to all parties to the conflict.http://www.msf.org.uk/node/29536 (http://www.msf.org.uk/node/29536http://) has much more.

I have supported MSF for many years, because I believe they do an unparalleled job in places that most of us don't even want to think about. They are also totally non-political. Their ethos is based solely on medical and international humanitarian principles. This was the only hospital in Kunduz.

I fully support MSF's call for an independent inquiry. A Pentagon inquiry does not do it for them, nor for me.

airsound

Cazalet33

5th Oct 2015, 20:11

that makes this technically "close air support" and not "an air strike" but unless one's been in the business one misses such distinctions.

I don't suppose the doctors, nurses and patients in that targeted hospital would recognise the distinction.

Just like they probably don't think that these mass murders should ever be dismissed as "collateral damage".

Lonewolf_50

6th Oct 2015, 21:57

I don't suppose the doctors, nurses and patients in that targeted hospital would recognise the distinction.
I don't much care. They are in a war zone, and that carries with it risks, be it of accidental or deliberate cases of things blowing up nearby.

As I don't know how the targeting decision was made, and probably won't until a public release of elements of the board in inquiry are available, I was commenting on that had to do with my profession for a few decades, which was military aviation. I am not certain that you are a member of that profession, past or present.

Are you familiar with difference between close air support and other sorts of air strikes? Depending on a bunch of different situational variables, the RoE for them are significantly different, which means the decision to release the weapons goes through a different logic chain.

In either case, error is possible, which is why procedures were developed to mitigate/reduce errors in weapons deployment.

Kinger

6th Oct 2015, 22:46

....and you wonder why the war on terror isn't going so well. Such a compassionate attitude will really endear you to the average onlooker.

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 10:14

Apparently it was close air support. A Joint Terminal Attack Controller attached to US special forces was on the ground. Afghans were apparently under attack from the area of the hospital (though no one has said "from the hospital"). Even if they were - hypothetically - under attack directly from the hospital, self defense against an attack from a medical facility would need to be proportional. The amount of casualties (22 dead and 37 wounded) seems very high. I think US commanders are very much aware of this fact, and now state the attack was a mistake.

They are in a war zone, and that carries with it risks, be it of accidental or deliberate cases of things blowing up nearby

True. These medical professionals are very much aware of the risks, probably more than most, they see the consequences on a daily basis. They volunteered to help, and they made a calculated decision to take some risks. Probably they didn't expect a US attack on this scale, and I don't think they should have reason to expect that.

Those who are responsible for the decisions that led to this mistake should also be aware of the risks to them, even if they're small in comparison. Unfortunately, it's exceptionally rare for a country to try it's own soldiers for war crimes (deliberately attacking a medical facility is a war crime). I think certain standards of humanity should be upheld, and thorough investigation that isn't a cover-up seems appropriate. I'm not holding my breath for it to happen though

Stupidbutsaveable

7th Oct 2015, 11:14

@Lonewolf
Your post is a perfect example of what leads so many less enlightened souls around the globe to despise the US.
Your explanation of the 'different logic chain' is spot on and I am sure you were/are a consummate professional in the employment of Air Power.
However, the crass lack of compassion, even used for effect to slap down the uninformed, is just so wrong.
If just an isolated post on a forum, it matters not a jot; but that underlying mindset, IMHO, runs deeps throughout the US military and makes 'winning the 'peace' so much more of a challenge.

PS. In no way am I having a dig at the JTAC or crew involved, who I'm sure are having a hard time regardless of how perfectly they tried to follow RoE in the heat of the fight.

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 11:53

dig at the JTAC or crew involved

I suspect this involves a whole chain of mistakes and failures. Yet, "anonymous sources" have already leaked that RoE were broken (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/world/middleeast/doctors-without-borders-airstrike-kunduz.html?_r=0):

"The Special Operations Forces most likely did not meet any of the criteria, the commander, Gen. John F. Campbell, has said in private discussions, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
The Special Operations Forces also apparently did not have “eyes on” — that is, were unable to positively identify — the area to be attacked to confirm it was a legitimate target before calling in the strike, the officials said."

seems a bit fishy to me..."leaked anonymous statements"...smells of trying to find a convenient scapegoat.

airsound

7th Oct 2015, 12:06

According to the New York Times report cited by deptraiAmerican troops responded to a call for help on Saturday by dispatching an AC-130 gunship, a powerful and precise attack aircraft that is typically used to support raids and other counterterrorism operations by Special Operations Forces.Did we know it was an AC-130? I certainly hadn't heard it mentioned.

airsound

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 12:18

I've seen it mentioned before, not only in NYT, I think it's quite certain, and it would make sense, they're used to support Special Forces. (Another detail...Doctors without borders repeatedly stated they give GPS coordinates to various forces. Afaik AC-130 don't target coordinates, but instead use direction and distance to the enemy from friendly forces to visually acquire a target...this is considered less likely to cause civilian casualties than a fast jet high up)

barnstormer1968

7th Oct 2015, 12:23

Airsound
Several of the reports I heard or saw said it was an AC130, so yes we had been told that.

What has struck me about this thread were the words 'I don't much care. They are in a war zone'

The last times I heard that bandied around was directly after 911 and referring to those who died in the twin towers. I thought it was a stupid and ignorant comment then too.

glad rag

7th Oct 2015, 12:47

"Several of the reports I heard or saw" Sorry but the way the press feeds off each other dilutes any legitimacy of these "reports" -not saying that you are wrong though ;)

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 12:52

in this case the press feeds off

Department of Defense Press Briefing by Gen. Campbell in the Pentagon Briefing Room > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Transcript View (http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/621848/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-gen-campbell-in-the-pentagon-briefing-r)
GEN. CAMPBELL: I think it's been reported that it was an AC-130 gunship. That in fact was what it was.

not that he couldn't be wrong, he has revised his statements several times already.

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 12:55

I don't much care. They [doctors, nurses and patients in a targeted hospital] are in a war zone

What?! Do you believe that there should be no medical facilities in a war zone?

Do you have any comprehension of what the Geneva Convention is all about? Or was that just a bit of subtle self-deprecating humor, taking the piss out of the type of mouth-breathing American drongos who wear their IQ-reducers back to front?

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 13:01

AC-130 don't target coordinates, but instead use direction and distance to the enemy from friendly forces to visually acquire a target

Isn't it possible to train these people to read a map? Maybe get the most intelligent one of the crew to grasp a crayon in his fist and plot the position of the only hospital in the province on a map with a big red + and annotate it with words like: Do not attack the hospital.

Else, just call the hospital "friendly".

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 13:04

....and you wonder why the war on terror isn't going so well. Such a compassionate attitude will really endear you to the average onlooker. In case you hadn't noticed, this forum is for Military Aviation sorts, past and present. That is my audience. The appeal to "the dead people don't care how it all blew up" is a load of bollocks as well as misdirection. I am directly addressing the problem of the application of force, which is what MILITARY people do. The folks in that Hospital are dead, and can't care anymore about anything. None of us can go rewind reality and make that untrue. Sad, but true.
@stupidbutsaveable.
I retired ten years ago, plus a week.

One of the most pressing concerns we had in coordinating close air support and strikes of various kinds was to not kill anyone we didn't intend to. Besides the RoE being very strict, the ongoing concerns included

(a) hearts and minds. I kid you not. We were keenly aware of how hard it is to work with people when you just bombed their neighborhood.
(b) helping whomever was trying to sort out things on the ground, with means both combative and non combative (the latter exceeded the former by a few orders of magnitude). This included our forces, coalition forces, and various factions in those countries. Volunteers from NGO's were also supported where possible, but NGO's create serious problems in a lot of ways, for all of their altruism and desire to help people in a crap situation. One is the lie of "because I am here to help, I should be invulnerable." That applies to some journalists as well, though most of the war correspondents were very candid about how aware they were of the risks in their jobs.
(c) our various ground commanders whom we supported were hell on very discrete use of air power. They didn't want anyone blowing up people they weren't fighting: they were trying to maintain a modicum of control in a fluid situation. It was hard enough to do what they were trying to do without one more damned thing providing grief to the people the commander was trying to work with while at the same time killing other people.

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 13:08

What?! Do you believe that there should be no medical facilities in a war zone?\No, but you are willing to try and spout that lie, Cazalet33, thanks to your standard axe to grind.

When you go to where bullets are flying, and bombs are falling, and mortars are lobbed, and where people drive truck bombs into buildings with maddening frequency, you know good and damned well that you may catch some of it. If you don't acknowledge that, you need to go elsewhere.

For DWOB to knee jerk into calling this error "a war crime" is the kind of ignorant crap that people like yourself spout as a kneejerk response if the US is in the news story.

I note that you remain silent regarding your criteria for participating in a discussion with military aviation professionals, past and present.
Go back under your bridge.

airsound

7th Oct 2015, 13:08

Thanks for that DoD link, deptrai - should have found it myself :(

airsound

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 13:09

Cazalet33, I'm quite confident they're rather good at reading maps :) Just to clarify, I wasn't implying they can't read a map, or coordinates. I was just thinking out loud, since AC-130 is considered direct fire, and they visually acquire targets, there's different procedures to assess the risk/proportionality of civilian casualties, and those might be somewhat interesting in this case.

airsound

7th Oct 2015, 13:26

LonewolfWhen you go to where bullets are flying, and bombs are falling, and mortars are lobbed, and where people drive truck bombs into buildings with maddening frequency, you know good and damned well that you may catch some of it. If you don't acknowledge that, you need to go elsewhere. I may be wrong, but I get the impression you're lumping MSF in with all NGOs, Lonewolf.

I admit to being biased about it, but, in my view, MSF is an unalloyed force for good in an often extremely bad world.

Their staff and volunteers are, to a person, fully aware of the risks they take. If you look at the map in this link Search | MSF UK (http://www.msf.org.uk/where-we-work) you will see that they are present in just about all the hotspots of the world, and often, as in Kunduz, they are the only people providing medical care there.

And, as I said, MSF is totally non-political. They're not 'do-gooders' in the derogatory sense of the term - they genuinely do an unbelievable amount of good, often in places where no one else is trying to do anything similar.

And yes, I am ex-RAF.

airsound

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 13:30

And, as I said, MSF is totally non-political. Not quite true. You may wish to consider their PR organ leaping to a conclusion and accusing the US of a War Crime. That is political speech, particularly if the case is, as I suspect, one of an error. (Actually, a major as well as tragic :mad: up because of how hard medical care is to come by in Afghanistan ... )

On the other hand, they do a lot of good in a lot of places. No question there.
And yes, I am ex-RAF.

airsound
Tip my cap.

glad rag

7th Oct 2015, 13:32

in this case the press feeds off

not that he couldn't be wrong, he has revised his statements several times already.

Exactly deptrai it's all smoke and mirrors since the trigger was pressed.

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 13:42

You may wish to consider their PR organ leaping to a conclusion and accusing the US of a War Crime. That is political speech

Maybe I misread their statements, but I was under the impression that they didn't conclude it was a war crime, but asked for a thorough investigation to determine whether it was, considering that disproportionate attacks on medical facilities are indeed among clearly defined war crimes. Obviously this was also a statement crafted by PR professionals (and/or fundraisers) to get attention in the media, but I don't think it was entirely unreasonable or political. Everyone accepts that civilian casualties are unavoidable, but medical facilities enjoy a special protected status for a reason. You don't shoot the medic. Reminding people of the Geneva Conventions isn't political, and they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. I don't think they're political (or anti-American in any way), they're just doing their job.

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 15:22

Here's what MSF actually said:

On Saturday morning, MSF patients and staff killed in Kunduz joined the countless number of people who have been killed around the world in conflict zones and referred to as ‘collateral damage’ or as an ‘inevitable consequence of war’. International humanitarian law is not about ‘mistakes’. It is about intention, facts and why.

The US attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz was the biggest loss of life for our organisation in an airstrike. Tens of thousands of people in Kunduz can no longer receive medical care now when they need it most. Today we say: enough. Even war has rules.

In Kunduz our patients burned in their beds. MSF doctors, nurses and other staff were killed as they worked. Our colleagues had to operate on each other. One of our doctors died on an improvised operating table - an office desk – while his colleagues tried to save his life.

Today we pay tribute to those who died in this abhorrent attack. And we pay tribute to those MSF staff who, while watching their colleagues die and with their hospital still on fire, carried on treating the wounded.

This was not just an attack on our hospital – it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions. This cannot be tolerated. These Conventions govern the rules of war and were established to protect civilians in conflicts – including patients, medical workers and facilities.

They bring some humanity into what is otherwise an inhumane situation.

The Geneva Conventions are not just an abstract legal framework - they are the difference between life and death for medical teams on the frontline.

They are what allow patients to access our health facilities safely and what allows us to provide healthcare without being targeted.

It is precisely because attacking hospitals in war zones is prohibited that we expected to be protected.

And yet, 10 patients including three children, and 12 MSF staff were killed in the aerial raids.

The facts and circumstances of this attack must be investigated independently and impartially, particularly given the inconsistencies in the US and Afghan accounts of what happened over recent days.

We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the US, NATO and Afghan forces.

Today we announce that we are seeking an investigation into the Kunduz attack by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission.

This Commission was established in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions and is the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.

We ask signatory States to activate the Commission to establish the truth and to reassert the protected status of hospitals in conflict.

Though this body has existed since 1991, the Commission has not yet been used. It requires one of the 76 signatory States to sponsor an inquiry.

Governments up to now have been too polite or afraid to set a precedent. The tool exists and it is time it is activated.

It is unacceptable that States hide behind ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ and in doing so create a free for all and an environment of impunity.

It is unacceptable that the bombing of a hospital and the killing of staff and patients can be dismissed as collateral damage or brushed aside as a mistake.

Today we are fighting back for the respect of the Geneva Conventions. As doctors, we are fighting back for the sake of our patients. We need you, as members of the public, to stand with us to insist that even wars have rules.

It is unacceptable that States hide behind ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ and in doing so create a free for all and an environment of impunity.

It is unacceptable that the bombing of a hospital and the killing of staff and patients can be dismissed as collateral damage or brushed aside as a mistake.

Today we are fighting back for the respect of the Geneva Conventions. As doctors, we are fighting back for the sake of our patients. We need you, as members of the public, to stand with us to insist that even wars have rules.

For those who will will not or cannot read such a long piece of text, here's a video of Dr Joanne Liu's statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=52&v=3167V8u-W-Y

barnstormer1968

7th Oct 2015, 15:23

Glad rag
Sorry I wasn't clearer for you, but the reports included the ones from the general mentioned above.

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 15:27

Lonewolf50, Accusing doctors of being political when they care for their patients is a bit like accusing the pope for being political when he speaks up for the poor. Fox news (!) had a good answer to those accusing the pope of being political:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnzRjck4Jcw

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 15:43

For DWOB to knee jerk into calling this error "a war crime" is the kind of ignorant crap that people like yourself spout as a kneejerk response

Has MSF called this "error" a war crime? Who's knee jerked with that assertion? Who produced that ignorant crap?

Sure, attacking a known hospital is, de facto, a war crime. No doubt about that.

What MSF has called for is for a pre-existing but never used channel of independent investigation to be invoked. That is very different from claiming that a de facto war crime is a de jure war crime.

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 16:06

Has MSF called this "error" a war crime?

Sure, attacking a known hospital is, de facto, a war crime. No doubt about that. Deliberately targeting and attacking a hospital, when you know it is a hospital, is a war crime. That statement by MSF is thick with political attitude. "Brush this off as a mistake" is one of many untruths and pieces of spin imbedded in that lengthy press release. I suppose it doesn't matter to that person that there is a difference in intention between an error and a deliberate act, even though this "spokesperson" addresses intention in the opening paragraph.

I want you to think about the kind of political bias you have to have to assume that the Americans deliberately attacked a hospital. Why, it smells like your attitude. To even raise that point, which was all over the press in less than 24 hours, even though "war crime" was in scare quotes, takes something other than a neutral attitude.

Back to the nuts and bolts of the matter:

I'd be interested to find out just what is behind this tragic :mad: up.

A few posts back up the page someone pointed out that Doctors Without Borders provides GPS coordinates to ... whom? I tend to believe that, since we all live in the era of Silver Bullet Warfare and are inundated with information about precision weapons.

Given that this NGO has worked in conflict zones before, I believe that their organization is sharp enough to realize that they have to communicate with people handling military hardware. Won't comment further about how they do that.

So, assuming that point is true (I'll bet the over on it)
who did they inform
, how did the inform them, and then ... where I begin to care how it happened ...
What was done with that information?
Who had it, or didn't, and how was it disseminated through the chain of command and through various Afghan/Coalition/ISAF organizations?
How did that information (or lack of it) fold into a subsequent targeting decision?

I have some pretty concrete ideas but will not further speculate. I'll leave that to those of you with an agenda.

deptrai

7th Oct 2015, 17:08

"What was done with that information?
Who had it, or didn't, and how was it disseminated through the chain of command and through various Afghan/Coalition/ISAF organizations?
How did that information (or lack of it) fold into a subsequent targeting decision?"

Fully agree, I also think those are the most interesting questions. I wouldn't for a second think the US deliberately attacked a hospital. And the last I would blame are the crew or the JTAC.

I suppose it doesn't matter to that person that there is a difference in intention between an error and a deliberate act

Again, agreed. But just because errors weren't deliberate, just because it wasn't done in bad faith, doesn't necessarily absolve from responsibility. And more importantly, there may be something that can be learned from this. Friendly fire is an issue, next time it could be US troops.

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 17:17

Again, agreed. But just because errors weren't deliberate, just because it wasn't done in bad faith, doesn't necessarily absolve from responsibility.
And I have not advocated that. I'd like to know who is at the root of this :mad: up and see whomever it is called to account. We've been in and around Afghanistan for over a decade, it's not like various RoE and restraints/discipline on the use of air launched ordnance is anything new. There's a way to do it right. It's not a mystery, and isn't even that complicated if you are trained in that arena. (If SF guys are involved, they tend to be better than average in most tasks military). So, where's the root cause?
Friendly fire is an issue, next time it could be US troops. Exactly. It could be anyone. Reminds me of an eye opener behind a certain green door one afternoon, which sort of went like this:

The reason you were weapons tight, sir, is that someone on our side was in there. That's where the "weapons tight" call came from. You didn't have a need to know those few days ago, but as they are out of there ... so that you understand in the future ... and why you check with us, why you always check with us ...

airsound

7th Oct 2015, 19:35

Friendly fire is an issue, next time it could be US troops. Don't really know how to say this - but I guess US troops might be accustomed to that idea.

On the other hand, MSF people would have no expectation of it - and why should they? After all, they're not war-fighters - they're the people who cope with the results.

airsound

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 19:56

On the other hand, MSF people would have no expectation of it

Strictly speaking, I'd disagree given the organization claims to have informed the US and Afghani officials of its location. These are not naive folks, they know they're near the fight.

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 20:13

Don't really know how to say this - but I guess US troops might be accustomed to that idea.

On the other hand, MSF people would have no expectation of it - and why should they? After all, they're not war-fighters - they're the people who cope with the results.
airsound, Doctors Without Borders have, as an organization, been in some pretty rough places over the years, to include conflict zones. I seem to recall that they were in Afghanistan as long ago as when the Soviets were still there. That's 30 years of knowing that this is a rough neighborhood, especially when the fighting is back on ... as it is in Kunduz.

I thus believe it reasonable to assume that they have at least some corporate knowledge -- even if a few current members may not have personal experience -- of how dangerous it can be to provide their assistance in a conflict zone when things heat back up again.

airsound

7th Oct 2015, 20:16

Surely, having informed the appropriate parties, they should have every expectation of protection from friendly fire. But perhaps, as you suggest, West Coast and Lonewolf, they're not as naïve as that, and they've heard about - or even experienced - the dangers of relying on the words of upper-level commanders.

But, expected or not, is this not a gross failure of everything the Geneva Convention is supposed to stand for?

airsound

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 20:28

On the other hand, MSF people would have no expectation of it - and why should they? After all, they're not war-fighters - they're the people who cope with the results.

Nicely put, AS.

MSF people are not naiive. They deal with the consequences of American (and other) aggression literally every hour and every day of their working lives.

Their problem is that they cannot easily engage with the 'politics' of those who disregard the Geneva Convention(s) and/or with those who disregard the norms of civilisation.

That is the problem which was addressed by the MSF person in the light of the American aggression which obliterated a well known hospital in Kunduz (the only hospital, actually).

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 20:31

But, expected or not, is this not a gross failure of everything the Geneva Convention is supposed to stand for?
No, nothing so grandiose. Geneva wasn't written for the kinds of wars that have been going on for the last 20 years, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn them into it.

This is a :mad: up, make no mistake. If it was deliberate (which I seriously doubt) it is far more serious and in that case may approach the matter of how allegedly civilized nations wage war.

It strikes me as a failure in C3I, or C4I, and IMO not a complex one, particularly when you look at the tools available and the experience base available to do the job correctly. As a US taxpayer and someone once involved in stuff like this, I am not pleased to see what looks like numerous errors in the decision chain resulting in a tragic outcome.

As I pointed out, and as Caz' citation form the NGO points out, it's hard enough to get modern medical care in Afghanistan as it is without someone (accidentally or otherwise) blowing up a hospital.

KenV

7th Oct 2015, 20:41

But, expected or not, is this not a gross failure of everything the Geneva Convention is supposed to stand for?

My understanding is that the Geneva Convention is supposed to prevent certain deliberate actions by combatants. It does not and cannot address the accidents that happen in the fog of war. And please keep in mind that this is a very non conventional war where the various "combatants" are difficult if not impossible to identify.

KenV

7th Oct 2015, 20:57

That is the problem which was addressed by the MSF person in the light of the American aggression which obliterated a well known hospital in Kunduz (the only hospital, actually).

How do you define "well known"? By a set of GPS coordinates? The next time you fly over any "well known" town, please try to identify the "well known" school, hospital, orphanage, etc from above 10,000 ft AGL. Things look a lot alike at that altitude.

Let' try an experiment. Below is a link to an aerial photo of Kunduz. Can you identify any "well known" hospital, orphanage, school, mosque, etc in that photo?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7186698,68.861133,3167m/data=!3m1!1e3

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 21:18

But, expected or not, is this not a gross failure of everything the Geneva Convention is supposed to stand for?

I don't believe the nexus to the Geneva convention and this is there unless you believe the US knowingly attacked the hospital, knowing full well what was there.

Courtney Mil

7th Oct 2015, 21:24

Well said, KenV. I was about to make a similar illustration.

For the non-mil aviation people that suddenly seem to have pitched up here itching to sling some mud at mil aircrew and the rest of the mil chain, here's a couple of questions for you.

Where is N34°32'38.0256'' E69° 9' 38.3472'' in this cockpit view?

http://www.fhsclassmates.com/images/kabulR.jpg

How many other significant locations are also notified?

How long do you have before you miss the opportunity to attack your designated target?

How many friendly forces will die if you do not commit to the target you have been directed to by ground forces? - hence the importance of Lonewolf's distinction between an air strike and CAS.

Repeated, ill-informed references to the Geneva Convention are not only incorrect, they demonstrate a desperation to seek out any old reason to start shouting "war criminals". We don't even know what actually happened yet.

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 21:39

Try plotting the only known hospital in a city on a map.

Then pick your target.

Then think about your actions.

Then think about the consequences of your actions.

Not necessarily in that order.

You figure it out.

Courtney Mil

7th Oct 2015, 21:42

And you really believe that's the only important Lat and Long active on that particular day?

Now try answering all the above questions, not just one of your own invention.

Mach Two

7th Oct 2015, 22:01

Cazalet33, a different question for you. How hard did you find it to identify the target, positions of friendly ground forces and civilian areas the last time you did a CAS mission?

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 22:16

M2, the bombers didn't have any difficulty in identifying the hospital when they targeted it.

Targeting the only hospital in a region as large as that really isn't difficult, especially when you've had the co-ords for months.

Just do it, if that's what turns you on.

It's not as if the hospital might have moved or shot back or something.

It really wasn't something seriously threatening to the Empire, like a pheasant or a grouse or a goose or something. Not something really worth shooting at like that.

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 22:22

So the answer is never.

Cazalet33

7th Oct 2015, 22:30

So the answer is never.

Yup.

Never bomb hospitals. Not ever, ever.

Just never worth the profit. Ever.

We wrote a rule about that, but the type who just don't understand the rule will never ever respect it.

That's a limitation of all Geneva Conventions.

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 22:35

The Geneva convention prohibits mistakes?

Mach Two

7th Oct 2015, 22:37

Cazalet33

Your avoidance has answered my question very well. You have clearly never flow CAS.

Your statement demonstrates very well that you have come here to criticise the mil pilots. It is based on an assumption that the instruction was to target "a hospital" and not "a building". Your posts are so contradictory that I suspect you are only here for one reason. Earlier you wanted them to mark the hospital on their "map", now you suggest that they identified it in order to target it.

This was a CAS mission. I am not about to go into a long and involved description of how CAS is done, but I will remind you to consider the targeting role involved.

The latter part of your post and your insistence that this was a deliberate act are simply trolling. Not necessary here. The rest is simplistic and somewhat naive.

Just to remain you: Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

deptrai

8th Oct 2015, 01:55

April 2015 satellite imagery of the coordinates provided, roughly 1km2:

http://i58.tinypic.com/29vne8.jpg

the (almost) cross-shaped larger building in the center is identified as "Kunduz District Hospital" in older maps.

(direct link here TerraServer - Aerial Photos & Satellite Images - The Leader In Online Imagery (http://www.terraserver.com/?tid=21&cx=487673&cy=4063660&proj=32642&mpp=1.942&pic=img&prov=dg&stac=4062ed1b789b418614841d7bffcb7214) )

closeup, 0.1km2:

http://i59.tinypic.com/15xsvw9.png

this is a recording of CAS as seen through AC 130 sensors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOG9GHVV0c

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 06:58

Are we expected to believe that the US military did not know that the targeted building was a hospital?

Is the denial in any way credible?

It's not a very plausible denial, but the murderers should be given a chance to make their excuses to a properly constituted war crimes tribunal.

If the Americans cannot or will not abide by the Geneva Convention(s) then it's probably best for everyone that they just go away. Leave Afghanistan and Iraq and just go away.

MSF's task is hard enough without American-style thuggery being added to the problem list of the NGOs.

deptrai

8th Oct 2015, 07:13

If you watch the video above you'll see how the crew identifies a mosque, to NOT fire on it. I don't believe for a second that that the US would deliberately sustain fire on a hospital. I do believe this is an accident. The question is, how did it happen. We can only speculate here, we weren't there, and maybe we shouldn't speculate but it's a rumor forum. To me, the most likely speculation is that the crew didn't have the information that it's a hospital.

West Coast

8th Oct 2015, 07:22

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 07:31

Pontius Navigator

8th Oct 2015, 07:48

Caz, we were invited in by the Afg Government to fight the Taliban.

The pictures of that hospital might suggest it is recognizable but I see no visible indications, no crescent, no help pad, nothing. While 'everyone' should have known it was a hospital you presume the aircraft crew also knew. They may have been new in theatre. This may have been a very early sortie in their tour.

Just because it is a hospital does not mean it is only a hospital.

In WW 2 the Germans stored ammunition in the underground hospital in Guernsey.

In Iraq terrorists place a huge bomb outside a hospital. The target was the EOD officer, the hospital was bait.

Wait for the facts.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 07:49

The fundamental problem is that the US military just don't know when to stop. There's no restraint and there's no mindset for peace.

Thomas Barnett gave a rather good talk on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs

deptrai

8th Oct 2015, 08:15

Pontius, Doctors without borders stated "Our staff reported no armed combatants or fighting in the compound prior to the airstrike". Without any information to the contrary, I do believe this is credible, as they regularly and loudly protest when armed combatants enter the hospital.

( In a statement posted online in July, they said "heavily armed men from Afghan Special Forces entered the [Médecins Sans Frontières] hospital compound, cordoned off the facility and began shooting in the air."

"The armed men physically assaulted three MSF staff members and entered the hospital with weapons," the statement continued. "They then proceeded to arrest three patients." )

Afghan forces don't like that medical treatment is given to insurgent combatants. This may be a wild conspiracy theory, but maybe some Afghans wanted to use the US to destroy the hospital? Again, pure speculation. Anyway the US has accepted full responsibility, and stated the decision was taken within their chain of command. President Obama called Doctors without borders to apologize ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/07/readout-presidents-call-doctors-without-borders-international-president ) - it's exceptionally rare that a US president offers apologies, so I think it's clear this was indeed a major blunder, and everyone is aware of that.

What I don't like is the leaks that RoE weren't followed, it looks like a hunt for a scapegoat. Given that the building looks recognizable, and that publicly available maps identify it as a hospital, and that Doctors without borders provide coordinates, and that AH-130 have capable sensors to visually acquire a target with great precision, and in 99.999% of all cases do exactly that (doctors without borders stated that surrounding buildings were more or less unharmed), this seems odd. I'd suspect there was a communication breakdown somewhere. In the absence of more information, my best guess is that someone - probably by oversight - didn't give the crew and JTAC enough information.

Courtney Mil

8th Oct 2015, 09:28

Cazalet/JH has moved beyond asking questions, indeed he has arrived at a conclusion minus the data to do so. I think M2 has nailed it in the description of this man as a troll and as such should be ignored, which is exactly what I plan on.

It's the standard shout of 'condemn and demand a hanging first, then discover the facts.' It's a tragic event, but it is clear that the facts are currently few and far between. That Cazalet33's 'arguments' and accusations continually change shows that he is purely seeking a response. That attempt at provocation is called trolling.

The abundant repetition of anti-war, anti-military, anti-West in his posts highlights exactly where he's coming from and his lack of interest in discovering the facts. His continual refusal to acknowledge any members' responses (apart from subtle changes in his attack direction) indicates that his posts are not intended as discussion, but rather as provocation.

deptrai

8th Oct 2015, 09:40

a quick google search for "Cazalet33" reveals the following (https://twitter.com/cazalet33): "I am a former high fashion model and am now an entrepreneur in the field of health, nutrition and beauty helping people to create their own financial destiny."

Stanwell

8th Oct 2015, 10:14

CM,
A pretty fair analysis, I reckon. :ok:

glad rag

8th Oct 2015, 12:33

Perhaps Cazalet33 would be better served venting their ire at the reason for the military action in the first place...

Just saying.......

Lonewolf_50

8th Oct 2015, 12:52

If the US military did not know that the hospital was located at that very prominent position (http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=36.717938&lon=68.862278&z=18.1&r=0&src=msa), right at the head of the Nasvan-e-Markazi Road, then they should not have been attacking the city at all. That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen posted in a while. For all of the wonderful kit the military of today have, one still doesn't have omniscience. To demand that is nonsense.

But you asked a previous question related to what a board of inquiry (JAG investigation) will also ask, which is
"did you know that the building you identified as the target was a hospital?"
and it's follow on question
"What building was it that you called on the aircraft to attack?"
(@Deptrai, your post makes sense to me)

I suspect that someone in an HQ a few links up the chain could have found that hospital and had it marked on a map as a hospital. Likewise marked are things like schools.

What is unclear to me is how well this information was passed or disseminated to whomever needed to use it in the field. The investigation ought to be able to figure that out.

The possible problem of a local calling in for fire support and getting it ... could happen.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 12:57

The building is quite unmistakable from the air, as well as from the ground. It really can't be confused with any other.

One wonders what on Earth the attackers thought the building was when they attacked it.

Above The Clouds

8th Oct 2015, 13:05

Cazalet33
The building is quite unmistakable from the air, as well as from the ground. It really can't be confused with any other.

One wonders what on Earth the attackers thought the building was when they attacked it.

Just to pickup on CM and M2 earlier requests for your aerial identification skills, can you confirm that you have flown over this hospital in a CAS role, yes or no ?

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 13:09

maybe some Afghans wanted to use the US to destroy the hospital?

An interesting postulate, deptrai.

The problem is that it beggars belief that the Afghans could have expected the US forces to do anything so monstrous as to "raze" the province's only hospital.

The splashback against US imperial aggression was so predictable and the embarrassment would so predictably go to the very highest level that surely the Afghans could not have expected the attackers to fall for such a trick.

As ever, I think the cockup theory is vastly more plausible than any "conspiracy" theory. It was just the Americans doing what the Americans do. Not much different from bombing Sudan's only medicine factory or a baby milk factory in Baghdad or shooting down an Airbus or any of a hundred other atrocities.

Lonewolf_50

8th Oct 2015, 13:20

An interesting postulate, deptrai.

The problem is that it beggars belief that the Afghans could have expected the US forces to do anything so monstrous as to "raze" the province's only hospital.

The splashback against US imperial aggression was so predictable and the embarrassment would so predictably go to the very highest level that surely the Afghans could not have expected the attackers to fall for such a trick.

As ever, I think the cockup theory is vastly more plausible than any "conspiracy" theory. It was just the Americans doing what the Americans do. Not much different from bombing Sudan's only medicine factory or a baby milk factory in Baghdad or shooting down an Airbus or any of a hundred other atrocities.If you'll kindly take your axe grinding to Jet Blast and get it off of the Mil Forum, it would be appreciated.

deptrai

8th Oct 2015, 13:39

An AC-130 allegedly blew up a wedding party in Afghanistan some time ago. 140 casualties. Wedding parties aren't identified on any maps. As awful as it may be, it wouldn't make me think twice. Mistakes happen.

(disclosure: unlike CM I was never courteous enough to disclose my credentials or real identity, although those who know me and those who want to spend some time could piece it together from my post history. I'll disclose I was trained as a simple sailor/cadet on a traditional tall ship, in a NATO country, rarely involved with air force issues, later SIGINT, then I joined the merchant navy, and later dabbled in civilian aviation. And even if I wasn't a military aviator, I can spot a "high fashion model", maybe it's my SIGINT training...)

Pontius Navigator

8th Oct 2015, 13:56

Deptrai, #63, I agree. I was pointing out that this hospital in a war zone did not display any recognition signs if that earlier image was correct.

If no such signs were displayed then their case is weakened.

Caz,
That it beggars belief that Afghans would have the Province's only hospital razed to the ground would only astound someone with no knowledge of people in that region.

I refer to my earlier reference to a car bomb placed deliberately outside a hospital in Iraq.

There are also instances in the region where they have bombed their own people so as to blame the opposition.

The Middle East rule book is not written in English.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 14:00

As was pointed out by Thomas Barnett, if the US had put funds into building and staffing American hospitals, then the motivation for this particular atrocity would have been removed.

There is no American hospital in Kunduz. More's the pity.

Perhaps an appropriate reparation might be for the US to build a large provincial hospital in each of Afghanistan's 34 provinces and make a commitment to staff it with US medical personnel for at least 30 years. That would keep the hospitals safe from air attack.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have attacked the hospital if it had been an American one, staffed by American doctors nurses and other medical staff.

deptrai

8th Oct 2015, 14:04

can I ask you a simple, direct question? are you Amanda Cazalet, aka cazalet33? https://twitter.com/cazalet33

Archimedes

8th Oct 2015, 14:05

An interesting postulate, deptrai.

The problem is that it beggars belief that the Afghans could have expected the US forces to do anything so monstrous as to "raze" the province's only hospital.

Does it? They have form for using larger powers as proxy means of doing this. There were several cases to be found in Russian memoirs/accounts where the Soviets were convinced that there was a clear necessity to bomb/rocket/strafe a target by their Afghan advisor/LO, only to discover they'd been used to settle a tribal or family blood feud (sometimes dating back years).

The splashback against US imperial aggression

It's very good of you to chin off the Privy Council meeting for our benefit, Mr Corbyn, but couldn't you have met with Her Majesty and asked one of your assistants to post that little bit of tired old invective?

Pontius Navigator

8th Oct 2015, 14:16

Caz, now your proposal for the US to build hospitals in ever province and staff them for 30 years beggars belief.

They well be safe from US air attack but they would be a rocket, bomb, and bullet magnet for everyone else.

Anyways, carry on lightening an otherwise dull afternoon.

PS,

Remember we are talking about a tragic event and not your stance that the nasty imperialistic war mongers are guilty of war crimes. Rather than a blame game, how can risk of future tragedies be minimised.

KenV

8th Oct 2015, 14:19

The problem is that it beggars belief that the Afghans could have expected the US forces to do anything so monstrous as to "raze" the province's only hospital. It beggars belief?!! What mindless belief system do you operate under and under what rock have you lived the past dozen or more years that you are so clueless about the routine barbarity committed by the folks in this region? The folks in this region put IEDs on children's soccer fields, suicide bombers in crowded markets, car bombs next to hospitals, truck bombs next to dormitories, blow up ancient archeological ruins, turn airliners full of hundreds of passengers into missiles, burn captured prisoners alive, methodically execute entire schools full of children.......the list goes on and on. For every Afghan killed by an American, there are 10s of thousands killed by fellow Afghans. What truly "beggars belief" is that you imagine these folks care one wit about the Geneva Convention, assuming they've even heard of it.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 14:55

I was pointing out that this hospital in a war zone did not display any recognition signs if that earlier image was correct.

If no such signs were displayed then their case is weakened.

That's a good point.

Unfortunately there are a few problems with the idea of painted an appropriate symbol on the roof.

For one thing, paint doesn't show up particularly well on IR. For another, rebelling tribesmen in Afghanistan tend not to abide by the Geneva Conventions and it wouldn't be long before they spoofed the system by painting red crosses or crescents on all sorts of building all over the place if they felt it might give them some immunity from air attack.

Do any buildings anywhere in Afghanistan have such symbology to prevent or dissuade air attack?

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 15:04

Rather than a blame game, how can risk of future tragedies be minimised.

One way to minimise future war crimes is to ensure that those who are blame are brought to account and face severe criminal penalties.

The feeling of immunity from prosecution for war crimes in the International Criminal Court is quite certainly a factor in the mindset of the type of people who perpetrate such atrocities. If they thought they would face a a life imprisonment term for their actions they might apply a bit of self-restraint when attacking the environs of a hospital. Then that might, just might, dissuade them from committing the crime.

Courtney Mil

8th Oct 2015, 15:11

Cazalet33,

Once again, your ignorance is showing. The International Committee of the Red Cross studied the visibility of Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols way back in 1970 and conducted tests in the '90s. The appropriate materials were are identified to ensure their visibility to electro-optical sensors.

Not displaying the symbol on the grounds of EO detection is not a valid argument.

Above The Clouds

8th Oct 2015, 15:32

I think this particular "Troll" Cazalet33 has an office based in St Petersburg.

Pontius Navigator

8th Oct 2015, 16:16

Caz, your comment about paint and IR betrays your ignorance.

IR is based on temperature differential and different paint pigments have different thermal properties.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 16:34

Not much if the two paints come from the same source and if the background metal has cooled down after solar radiation during daylight. It's the metal which emits the IR, not the paint.

Courtney Mil

8th Oct 2015, 16:48

Wrong wavelength. But the ICRC research must clearly be wrong according to you.

Pontius Navigator

8th Oct 2015, 17:04

CAZ, I could post links to IR paint but I doubt you would believe r bother to prejudice your prejudices.

Cazalet33

9th Oct 2015, 01:00

I've seen enough very large painted signs and labels of the sides of ships on IR optoelectronic displays to recognise the limitations at night of reading painted signs on IR displays.

A more serious problem with the idea of painting warning on the roofs of every non-acceptable target in Asia and Africa which might become a target for you-know-who is that there are just so many inappropriate targets. Not just hospitals but a hundred or more categories of inappropriate targets.

Don't forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. If we demand that every potential target for inappropriate air attack paint such recognition symbols, then it is sure that sooner or later the US military will claim that they had a right to attack one because the symbol was not clear enough. You know what they're like.

I think that MSF did all that could reasonably be required of them to inform the potential aggressor that the provincial hospital in Kunduz was where is was.

It was the attack which was unreasonable, not the target.

glad rag

9th Oct 2015, 02:56

CISTRS

9th Oct 2015, 04:28

Hey Caz,
A more serious problem with the idea of painting warning on the roofs of every non-acceptable target in Asia and Africa which might become a target for you-know-who is that there are just so many inappropriate targets. Not just hospitals but a hundred or more categories of inappropriate targets.

Why not paint the roofs of just appropriate targets? Or am I missing something?

Above The Clouds

9th Oct 2015, 05:43

@cazallet33

Your posts read as though they are cut and pasted straight from the propaganda book you get issued with. :)

Pontius Navigator

9th Oct 2015, 07:09

I have my suspicions that our troll is ex-maritime.

Two clues, IR/EO, and 1c buoys.

Mach Two

9th Oct 2015, 22:14

Your troll, Sir, only kept coming back because people kept reacting to him and so that he could fulfil his quota of message plants. Left alone they tend to grind their axe a bit and then move on.

mini

9th Oct 2015, 23:25

Standards are slipping.

Can't believe you lot responded to this idiot. The ignore button is there for a reason.

Heathrow Harry

10th Oct 2015, 09:03

"I think that MSF did all that could reasonably be required of them to inform the potential aggressor that the provincial hospital in Kunduz was where is was."

Interesting use of the singular tense there."

wellll - there is only one force out there with an airforce no???

But I also sure the local insurgents are careful about who they strike and where, checking their Geneva Convention booklet as they go................

Lonewolf_50

19th Oct 2015, 14:18

Afghanistan defense minister says Taliban was in MSF Doctors Without Borders hospital blown up by US - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-taliban-msf-doctors-without-borders-hospital-us-airstrike/)

It is interesting to listen to the Afghanistan defense minister. He argues that Taliban were using the hospital as "Safe Haven" for fighting forces ... and that the request for airstrike on the basis that it was being so used again was integral to the call for airborne fires.

This points to a tricky problem of a coalition operation and who is using what RoE. It's a bit of a minefield, as this instance shows.

Also tricky is the tidbit of info (not sure of its quality) that a Pakistani operative was involved in this whole mess and was in aid of the Taliban in Kunduz. Nothing quite as simple as it seems, but one thing I learned is that RoE has (in some cases) restrictions placed on the operators for political reasons ... which means that the political sorts are willing to accept more friendly casualties for the political aim of ... not looking bad. (Or worse, since bad is a given anymore ...)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-analysts-suspected-taliban-at-hospital-doctors-deny-it/
The intelligence suggested the hospital was being used as a Taliban command
and control center and may have housed heavy weapons.
-- snip--
It would be significant if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Pakistani spies were continuing to play an active role helping the Taliban. The U.S. and Afghan governments have long accused Pakistan of aiding the Taliban, but U.S. rhetoric on the issue has cooled over the past year as American-Pakistani
counterterrorism cooperation has improved.

The Old Fat One

20th Oct 2015, 12:10

Kinda important and meaningful discussion to had here. I have a vested interest because I have a close family member who has taken career path in a similar organisation and who has the cojones to go into sh1tholes to help the vulnerable in the most extreme circumstances.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the military outfits involved need to learn and if they can do better, they must do better. Nothwithstanding that, I'm ex military so I get "fog of war" OK

And stop debating with just one poster. It's pointless. If you think he/she is a troll let it go FFS.

Lonewolf_50

20th Oct 2015, 19:38

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the military outfits involved need to learn and if they can do better, they must do better.

Nothwithstanding that, I'm ex military so I get "fog of war" OK

Then I suspect, fellow old timer, that you know how hard they (the military still at it) work at getting it right.

Remember: all the things you and I learned in our years in uniform, before we were put out to pasture, did not just flow into the young minds in a Vulcan mind meld. As turnover happens, some lessons are retained better than others. It's kind of like why aircraft still crash now and again.

Kinger

21st Oct 2015, 01:49

As ex-military (contrary to lonewolf's assumptions) from the time the SPAMs were "friendly firing" on British soldiers, it really does seem as though you believe personal rhetoric should be implemented rather than amending procedures from previous errors.
The operator(s) of the weapon(s) probably hasn't learnt that the "I was only following orders" defence kind of got dismissed in a very well known set of court hearings many moons ago.

I also have a close friend in war zone aid work, and I'm sure his family would appreciate knowing he is hopefully safe from this kind of event.

Lonewolf_50

21st Oct 2015, 12:10

As ex-military (contrary to lonewolf's assumptions) from the time the SPAMs were "friendly firing" on British soldiers, it really does seem as though you believe personal rhetoric should be implemented rather than amending procedures from previous errors. You are wrong, my friend, the effort to get it right never ceases -- your flaw in logic is that there is somewhere a perfect and fool proof procedure. Haven't seen one yet, but I've seen some pretty good ones that when followed prevent a lot of bad things from happening.

Are you sure you actually served? If you believe that any human endeavor is going to be conducted under zero defects, then you will be disappointed every time you wake up.

Army Mover

21st Oct 2015, 13:34

Lonewolf_50

21st Oct 2015, 14:00

First rule of combat; "the plan only lasts till first contact with the enemy."Agree completely.

Cazalet33

21st Oct 2015, 14:31

Or first contact with the hospital, in this case.

Highly doubtful that MSF could reasonably be described as "the enemy".

Courtney Mil

21st Oct 2015, 14:45

You are wrong, my friend, the effort to get it right never ceases -- your flaw in logic is that there is somewhere a perfect and fool proof procedure. Haven't seen one yet, but I've seen some pretty good ones that when followed prevent a lot of bad things from happening.

And you, my Friend, are right. No matter how many times you revise the procedures, whatever type they may be, they never become perfect. Hell, they were still amending the F4 checklists when she went out of service and they had decades to get those right. As each battle plan is devised to meet the threat of the day, they don't have the same luxury of time to be as right as they can be.

As for battle plans surviving to first contact, I never knew one that lasted that long without some degree of failure.

deptrai

24th Oct 2015, 22:08

the US pretty much immediately paid compensation to the families of deceased civilians. Along with President Obama calling MSF to apologize, I think that says a lot. Long before the ongoing investigation will reach an official conclusion. A conclusion we (in our lifetime) will most likely never know in, because no one would be insane enough to disclose details about RoE.

A few more details emerged, the US Special Forces and the JTAC on the ground who called in the strike were apparently new to the area. So was the AC-130 crew. I'm a conspiracy theorist (that's what Pprune is for), and I still suspect Afghan forces had some grief against that hospital (like, they were giving medical treatment to taliban combatants), and someone in the US chain of command, in a HQ far away failed to notice this was a hospital. I'd also assume because Afghan forces had called for the strike, it would need to be approved slightly higher up the chain of command than if US forces were under attack (even if RoE are different for AC-130 with their highly capable sensors and direct fire capability). I do wish - at the very least - that the career of that individual has ended. I'm sorry, looking at the satellite imagery, and publicly available maps, this doesn't look excusable to me. Fog of war, battle plans that fail, sure, but you need to draw a line somewhere, and I think it was crossed here. Accountability and responsibility shouldn't be empty words.

Courtney Mil

24th Oct 2015, 23:07

the US pretty much immediately paid compensation to the families of deceased civilians. Along with President Obama calling MSF to apologize, I think that says a lot.

Indeed it does. It would be a fair and just response to a terrible event. There is no argument about who did what here. Event: U.S. Aircraft did terrible damage to a hospital. Response: make what little amends one could in those circumstances.

You think it says a lot. It says no more than what I have written in the previous paragraph. It says nothing about the hows and whys. You are fully entitled to speculate about all sorts sorts of things - and, to be honest, that's quite understandable. But we may need to hear a lot more facts before we can judge this. Those are things that will say a lot.

Biggus

27th Oct 2015, 18:54

And again for MSF?

Yemen conflict: MSF hospital destroyed by air strikes - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34645469)

Lonewolf_50

27th Oct 2015, 20:05

And again for MSF?
Yemen conflict: MSF hospital destroyed by air strikes - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34645469)
Notice the deliberate lie and spin already in the media, provided by an MSF spokesman.
"It could be a mistake, but the fact of the matter is it's a war crime," MSF country director Hassan Boucenine told the Reuters news agency. It isn't a war crime if it's a mistake. That is the fact of the matter.

If it was intentional and the whomever struck with that foreknowledge, there is a case to be made in support of his claim. The Saudi's are at this point saying "need an investigation" ... but the story does have a curious one-two punch to it:
Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) says one of its hospitals in northern Yemen has been destroyed by several air strikes. The first, which occurred around 22:30 (19:30 GMT) on Monday, hit part of the facility in Saada province that was not being used, according to the charity. All staff and patients had been evacuated by the time the second strike hit about 10 minutes later. However, the Saudi-led coalition battling Yemen's Houthi rebel movement denied that it had bombed the hospital. Based on that one two punch, I will be more charitable in assessing this gent's belief that it was deliberate. What nobody knows, or reported, is if that position has been used as a fighting position recently or in and around the time of the attack. MSF will protest that it hasn't, but as they aren't the ones with guns, someone else may have done so regardless of what the medics desired.
"There's no reason to target a hospital. We provided [the coalition] with all of our GPS co-ordinates about two weeks ago," he added.
Technically true in general, except when someone establishes a fighting position at a hospital. At that point, it's no longer safe ... but whether or not that is part of the matter here is unknown.

To sum up: it doesn't mean you were deliberately targeted simply because a bomb hit. What it does mean is that your preventative measure, offered in good faith, still wasn't enough thanks to whatever the C2 and decision making among people with weapons did on a given day.

Why ... remains to be seen.

Conclusion: might have been deliberate, based on the one two punch. Might have been an accident. In this case, I will put my ten bucks with the MSF report thanks to the follow up attack.

What is unknown: did whomever targeted that building know it was a hospital? Don't know yet, and given that it's the Saudis, whose reputation for transparency isn't stellar, that may remain unknown.

Cazalet33

27th Oct 2015, 20:54

The Saudi bombing of a hospital is just part of a pattern of behaviour which presumes that the mass murderers involved are immune from prosecution by a war crimes tribunal.

The fact that the recent Saudi barbarity wasn't quite on the American scale of such atrocities doesn't excuse them at all. It's still a war crime to bomb or shell a known hospital.

Until some of these murderers are brought to Justice, the war crimes will continue with impunity.

Lonewolf_50

27th Oct 2015, 22:02

It's still a war crime to bomb or shell a known hospital. Willfully and deliberately? Yes, in a war. By the way, if it is known to you and me as a hospital it is utterly irrelevant. As for the fellow with the artillery tube or the plane, then he doesn't know it's a hospital, you have to work your way up the chain of command to find out who did, and how that information got into (or failed to get into) a call for fire. That's where the transparency becomes a concern for finding out how this went down. Your knee jerk assumption isn't any better than the fast mouth from MSF.

Think about this, Caz: if a hospital gets bombed in sometime that is not a war, it's something like arson.

That it was willful is not established, though in this case (as I noted above) the follow up attack points in that direction. That's where my betting money is.

One can also argue that a sufficient state of belligerency has been established to classify what is going on in Yemen as war.

deptrai

13th Feb 2016, 11:29

I hadn't heard anything about an inquiry into this yet...edit: I just did a quick search, there was a statement, "avoidable human error", compounded by "process failures" and "equipment malfunctioning". Unsurprisingly, lots of holes in the cheese.http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/25/politics/afghanistan-kunduz-doctors-without-borders-hospital/ Yet I was just thinking, maybe it doesn't matter what the public gets to know. The U.S. has likely compensated families of the deceased, and the most important is that they get closure. Hopefully, some lessons were learned, which is equally important. Some career hopes may have been dented, that is the least important (sadly, I have a feeling that will be true for "those who didn't follow RoE", RoE which may have been carefully worded to avert blame from those who created them..).

My reason for suddenly posting in this old thread was that I stumbled across this article, a journalist doing his job, researching a story about a man who died on an operating table, his bicycle, and his mourning daughter. Somewhat disturbing, when it gets personal. The Man on the Operating Table | Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/03/the-man-on-the-operating-table-msf-hospital-kunduz-afghanistan-us-airstrike/)

This may be a faint hope, but I do hope decision-makers think twice about what they're doing in Syria. I'm still struggling to see the rationale for NATO involvement in Afghanistan, and struggling see what it actually achieved, and if the costs were justified (tax money as well as human cost). Then again, maybe I'm too impatient, expecting to see instant results.