|
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.” |
That wasnt an airstrike.
If that had been an airstrike, especially a US one, there would be nothing of that building left. |
If it wasn't an air strike it might make you wonder why USAF said it was and that they did it.
|
I thought the report said a AC-130 gunship was in the area - so what kind of ordinance would they be using? Doesn't have to have a large bomb..?
|
Latest news makes it seem very deliberate!
|
|
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. |
Lonewolf
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. 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 |
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". |
Originally Posted by Cazalet33
(Post 9138131)
I don't suppose the doctors, nurses and patients in that targeted hospital would recognise the distinction.
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. |
....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.
|
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 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 |
@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. |
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. |
According to the New York Times report cited by deptrai
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 |
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)
|
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" Sorry but the way the press feeds off each other dilutes any legitimacy of these "reports" -not saying that you are wrong though ;)
|
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 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. |
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? |
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". |
Originally Posted by Kinger
(Post 9139404)
....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.
@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. |
Originally Posted by Cazalet33
(Post 9139916)
What?! Do you believe that there should be no medical facilities in a war zone?
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. |
Thanks for that DoD link, deptrai - should have found it myself :(
airsound |
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.
|
Lonewolf
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 |
Originally Posted by airsound
(Post 9139955)
And, as I said, MSF is totally non-political.
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 |
Originally Posted by deptrai
(Post 9139910)
in this case the press feeds off
not that he couldn't be wrong, he has revised his statements several times already. |
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. |
Even wars have rules
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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=52&v=3167V8u-W-Y |
Glad rag
Sorry I wasn't clearer for you, but the reports included the ones from the general mentioned above. |
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by Cazalet33
(Post 9140106)
Has MSF called this "error" a war crime?
Sure, attacking a known hospital is, de facto, a war crime. No doubt about that. 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. |
"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. |
Originally Posted by deptrai
(Post 9140203)
Again, agreed. But just because errors weren't deliberate, just because it wasn't done in bad faith, doesn't necessarily absolve from responsibility.
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 |
Originally Posted by airsound
(Post 9140347)
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. 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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.