Hospital bombed in the Afghan city of Kunduz.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC-130 don't target coordinates, but instead use direction and distance to the enemy from friendly forces to visually acquire a target
Else, just call the hospital "friendly".
@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.
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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 7th Oct 2015 at 13:25.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Lonewolf
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 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
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.
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 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
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 
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.
Tip my cap.
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
airsound
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by deptrai; 7th Oct 2015 at 15:39.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even wars have rules
Here's what MSF actually said:
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
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=52&v=3167V8u-W-Y
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnzRjck4Jcw
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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.
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 ...
Friendly fire is an issue, next time it could be US troops.
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
On the other hand, MSF people would have no expectation of it
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.
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
But, expected or not, is this not a gross failure of everything the Geneva Convention is supposed to stand for?
airsound