Hospital bombed in the Afghan city of Kunduz.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hospital bombed in the Afghan city of Kunduz.
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/03/one-day-after-warning-russia-of-civilian-casualties-the-u-s-bombs-a-hospital-in-the-war-obama-ended/
Jason Cone, MSF’s Executive Director, said the medical charity “condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific bombing of its hospital in Kunduz full of staff and patients.” He added that “all parties [to the] conflict, including in Kabul & Washington, were clearly informed of precise GPS Coordinates of MSF facilities in Kunduz,” and that the “precise location of MSF Kunduz hospital [was] communicated to all parties on multiple occasions over past months, including on 9/29.”
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Lonewolf
This is what MSF says about that, Lonewolf
http://www.msf.org.uk/node/29536 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
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited by airsound; 5th Oct 2015 at 18:50. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that makes this technically "close air support" and not "an air strike" but unless one's been in the business one misses such distinctions.
Just like they probably don't think that these mass murders should ever be dismissed as "collateral damage".
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.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
They are in a war zone, and that carries with it risks, be it of accidental or deliberate cases of things blowing up nearby
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
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
"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.
I suspect this involves a whole chain of mistakes and failures. Yet, "anonymous sources" have already leaked that RoE were broken:
"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.
According to the New York Times report cited by deptrai
Did we know it was an AC-130? I certainly hadn't heard it mentioned.
airsound
American 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.
airsound
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in this case the press feeds off
not that he couldn't be wrong, he has revised his statements several times already.
Department of Defense Press Briefing by Gen. Campbell in the Pentagon Briefing Room > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Transcript View
GEN. CAMPBELL: I think it's been reported that it was an AC-130 gunship. That in fact was what it was.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't much care. They [doctors, nurses and patients in a targeted hospital] are 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?