History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:34 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1483
Location: Helsinki, Finland
From The Guardian

Quote:
New report reveals MSF staff's fruitless calls for help as hospital came under fire

Internal report offers details of medical staff’s frantic efforts to alert Kabul and Washington, only to receive a text 30 minutes later: ‘I’m sorry to hear that’

As an American gunship unleashed burst after burst of cannon fire on Doctors Without Borders’ (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, medical staff inside the building frantically tried to alert military headquarters in Kabul and Washington DC.

When they finally received a reply, a massacre had already happened.

At 2.52am – at least 45 minutes into the attack and 30 minutes after MSF’s first call – a text message arrived from Nato’s Afghanistan mission: “I’m sorry to hear that, I still do not know what happened.”

When MSF personnel demanded an end to the attack, and warned that heavy casualties were feared, the Nato officer texted back, at 2.59am: “I’ll do my best, praying for you all.”

It took another 15 minutes before the airstrike stopped. By that time at least 22 people in the facility were dead or mortally wounded.

New details of the deadly 3 October airstrike emerged on Thursday as MSF published the results of an internal investigation.

The report gives a graphic description of the carnage, and concludes that although wounded Taliban fighters were being treated at the hospital, there were no armed men or nearby fighting before the US attack.

Amid “concentrated volleys” of explosions, staff members died on makeshift operating tables and people were burned alive running for safety, the report says.

One nurse was “covered from head to toe in debris and blood with his left arm hanging from a small piece of tissue after having suffered a traumatic amputation in the blast”. Another staff member was decapitated by a piece of shrapnel.

Using before-and-after satellite photos, the report reiterates MSF’s claim that the hospital was targeted deliberately and with precision. It also quotes staff saying the plane shot people trying to escape.

The report increases pressure on the ongoing US investigation to explain how a manned gunship could for over an hour strafe a marked hospital, whose GPS coordinates were known.

“We want them to tell us the truth and be as honest and detailed as possible,” MSF’s general director, Christopher Stokes, told the Guardian.

According to MSF, the day before the attack a US government official asked the charity if its staff were safe, and if Taliban fighters were “holed up”, in any of its facilities in Afghanistan. MSF replied that some of their patients were wounded Taliban combatants, but implored that the obligation to respect medical facilities be honored.

In the early morning hours after the attack, an ambulance from Kunduz public hospital arrived to transfer some of the wounded, together with an MSF ambulance. At the same time, MSF says, Afghan special forces arrived and began searching the ambulances for wounded Taliban.

Between 7.30 and 8am, some MSF staff evacuated to Kunduz airport. Shortly thereafter, fighting broke out again in front of the hospital, forcing the remaining personnel to stay in the hospital basement for another hour.

The report also seeks to debunk persistent claims from Afghan officials that Taliban were fighting inside the hospital at the time of the attack.

“This portrayal of the hospital as a base with 300 Taliban fighters inside is not true,” Stokes said. “President Ghani has said MSF should return to Kunduz. But we need some people in the Afghan government, who want to portray the hospital as a Taliban base, to stop, because it’s putting us and our Afghan colleagues in danger.”


It does not look good for the US.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17824
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
At 2.52am – at least 45 minutes into the attack and 30 minutes after MSF’s first call – a text message arrived from Nato’s Afghanistan mission: “I’m sorry to hear that, I still do not know what happened.”

When MSF personnel demanded an end to the attack, and warned that heavy casualties were feared, the Nato officer texted back, at 2.59am: “I’ll do my best, praying for you all.”

It took another 15 minutes before the airstrike stopped. By that time at least 22 people in the facility were dead or mortally wounded.



Phoning the Pentagon, I'm surprised the message didn't take a week to process. Byt that NATO officer was on the ball and knew who to contact. 15 minutes is good response time.

Quote:
“President Ghani has said MSF should return to Kunduz. But we need some people in the Afghan government, who want to portray the hospital as a Taliban base, to stop, because it’s putting us and our Afghan colleagues in danger.”


Therein lies the root of the disaster. Enemy action from Kabul.

I'm thinking the AC-130 crew saw something worth shooting at. They have very good optics and sensors.

I would suggest that MSF spend a hundred bucks for some red and white paint and mark their roofs.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7244
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
Quote:
At 2.52am – at least 45 minutes into the attack and 30 minutes after MSF’s first call – a text message arrived from Nato’s Afghanistan mission: “I’m sorry to hear that, I still do not know what happened.”

When MSF personnel demanded an end to the attack, and warned that heavy casualties were feared, the Nato officer texted back, at 2.59am: “I’ll do my best, praying for you all.”

It took another 15 minutes before the airstrike stopped. By that time at least 22 people in the facility were dead or mortally wounded.



Phoning the Pentagon, I'm surprised the message didn't take a week to process. Byt that NATO officer was on the ball and knew who to contact. 15 minutes is good response time.

Quote:
“President Ghani has said MSF should return to Kunduz. But we need some people in the Afghan government, who want to portray the hospital as a Taliban base, to stop, because it’s putting us and our Afghan colleagues in danger.”


Therein lies the root of the disaster. Enemy action from Kabul.

I'm thinking the AC-130 crew saw something worth shooting at. They have very good optics and sensors.

I would suggest that MSF spend a hundred bucks for some red and white paint and mark their roofs.

Why would you expect that to make a bit of difference? The Taliban will just go and paint a cross on the roof of the building they're using, too. The best solution seems to be to make sure that we know where MSF is, and not worry about what's painted on the building.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17824
Location: Chicagoland
ByronC wrote:
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
I would suggest that MSF spend a hundred bucks for some red and white paint and mark their roofs.

Why would you expect that to make a bit of difference? The Taliban will just go and paint a cross on the roof of the building they're using, too. The best solution seems to be to make sure that we know where MSF is, and not worry about what's painted on the building.


The symbol, they'd probably use a red crescent in moslem lands, is not a proof against bombs, but it will make the shooter pause and make double sure. A building with presence or activities by combatants is still a fair target.

I don't know whether or how MSF advised us of their location, or whether a ball was dropped. It appears that the designation of the site as a target came from Afghan sources.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7244
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
ByronC wrote:
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
I would suggest that MSF spend a hundred bucks for some red and white paint and mark their roofs.

Why would you expect that to make a bit of difference? The Taliban will just go and paint a cross on the roof of the building they're using, too. The best solution seems to be to make sure that we know where MSF is, and not worry about what's painted on the building.


The symbol, they'd probably use a red crescent in moslem lands, is not a proof against bombs, but it will make the shooter pause and make double sure. A building with presence or activities by combatants is still a fair target.

Our current ROE basically say we're supposed to make triple sure of any target, no matter what it looks like. If we add a line that says 'and if there's a red crescent on it, check again', then the Taliban will just put red crescents everywhere until it's completely meaningless.

Quote:
I don't know whether or how MSF advised us of their location, or whether a ball was dropped. It appears that the designation of the site as a target came from Afghan sources.

Neither do I. But it's irrelevant. An easily-duplicated visual symbol has no practical value against an opponent who won't honor its use. These are the same people who take great delight in firing rockets from schools and hospitals.
Actually, we have good reason not to encourage the use of medical symbology. MSF paints a crescent on their roof. The Taliban paints one on the roof of their armory three doors down. The US finds out and puts a bomb through the wall. The Taliban brings a journalist over the next morning, and shows them the big medical symbol on the roof of the shattered remains of the building. 'US bombs hospital' is all over the news an hour later. Better to figure out what went wrong here and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17824
Location: Chicagoland
Shocking: Did Hospital U.S. Bombed In Kunduz Break International Laws?

RICHARD POLLOCK
Reporter
12:09 AM 11/06/2015
520113

If MSF had cleared the hospital of civilian patients as the Taliban reportedly demanded, then they are in violation of the Geneva Convention, and had voided their protected status.

I also note that the Taliban has a reputation for setting up command posts in hospitals, thereby voiding their protected status.

It is believed that our forces had the hospital under at least some surveillance, and may have had grounds to believe it was a Taliban command facility.


Doctors without Borders confirm that their hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, did not display any internationally recognized markings showing it was a hospital when a U.S. gunship attacked the facility Oct. 3, killing 22 and injuring hundreds, according to the group’s interim report released Thursday.

The report may also open the group to accusations that it violated international law by forcibly removing civilian patients in favor of wounded Taliban soldiers.

Doctors without Borders, which is globally known as Medicins Sans Frontiers or MSF, is an international organization of medical personnel that provides health services in long-lost parts of the world, including in war zones. It has charged that the Oct. 3 U.S. air strike on their Kunduz trauma center constituted a war crime.

On Nov. 5 the group released its “initial MFS internal review” that divulged new details about their activities while operating in Taliban occupied territory and about circumstances surrounding the attack.

The group’s admission that they agreed to a Taliban demand that civilian patients be removed from their beds for wounded Taliban soldiers could mean MSF and the Taliban violated Article 16 of the Geneva Convention which states: “The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.”

The trauma center, which housed 140 beds, was located in Kunduz, a northern Afghanistan provincial capital that fell to Taliban forces on Sept. 28 after encircling the city in a siege that lasted for months.

Afghan government forces retreated to the outskirts of the city Sept. 28. The provincial capital’s loss was a national embarrassment and humiliation for the central government in Kabul.

The group also disclosed for the first time that an unnamed U.S. government official in Washington, D.C., contacted MSF Oct. 1 to inquire about the safety of the hospital staff and asked if any Taliban were “holed up” in the facility. MSF does not disclose its reply to the U.S. official. Unconfirmed reports subsequent to the bombing indicated that the hospital was under U.S. and Afghan surveillance as a suspected command and control center for Taliban operations.


MSF reported that the hospital waited five days after the Taliban took over to install two MSF flags on its roof. The group did not explain why it waited five days to install the flags, nor did it explain why the staff decided to erect their flag Oct. 2, the day before the U.S. attack.

A letter introducing the report by Dr. Joanne Liu, the MSF international president, concedes that the organization did not have any exterior photos to confirm any flags were on the roof during the attack.

Even if the MSF flags were erected, they are not recognized by the Geneva Accords as official hospital emblems. The Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the Red Lion have been universally recognized as visible markings that a building is a “protected” facility as a hospital.

However, as previously reported by the DCNF, Article 38 of the Geneva Convention requires hospitals to display “distinctive emblems indicating medical units” and that they must be “clearly visible to the enemy land, air or naval forces, in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.”

The convention stipulates that “the Red Cross, the Red Crescent or the Red Lion and Sun on a white ground … are recognized by the terms of the present convention.”

The organization was fully aware of the dangers in the area. Hospital personnel even drew up a “mass casualty plan” Sept. 28.

Diplomats in the the French and Australian embassies also warned MSF Oct. 2 there was a risk the doctors could be the victims of a mass kidnapping by the Taliban. Emergency numbers were exchanged between local MSF staff and the embassies if the kidnapping occurred.

The Kunduz hospital staff included local Afghans as well as French nationals and an Australian. The other nationalities of the international team were Cuban, Malaysian, Hungarian, South African, and a Filipino. No Americans worked in the hospital.

MSF steadfastly insists they emailed the hospital’s GPS coordinates Sept. 29 to unnamed officials at the U.S. Department of Defense, the Afghan Ministry of Interior and Defense and the U.S. Army in Kabul.

Dr. Liu and the report itself does not identify the rank or names of the U.S. or Afghan officials who were contacted by email.

MSF reports that after the fall of the city, “At 6pm, two Taliban combatants arrived at the hospital gates to inform MSF that they were in control of the area.”

It affirms that the Taliban told MSF to vacate civilians from hospital beds for its soldiers, saying that on Sept. 29, hospital officials “met with a Taliban representative to discuss the need to free beds for other critical patients due to the ongoing fighting, and therefore for some patients to be discharged.”

The group acknowledged that soon after the takeover, Taliban wounded began to flow into the hospital. “Prior to September 28 the vast majority of the wounded combatants were observed to be government forces and police. In the week starting 28 September, this shifted to primarily wounded Taliban combatants,” they report.

“Starting this same day a large number of patients (were) discharged from the hospital, including some against medical advice. It is unclear whether some of these patients discharged themselves due to the discussion to free some beds between MSF and the Taliban representative or whether there were general concerns about security as rumors were circulating of a government counter-offensive to reclaim Kunduz city,” according to the MSF report.
{Emphasis mine}

The air attack on the hospital came at 2 a.m. the morning of Oct. 3 as a U.S. Air Force AC-130 aircraft approached the building, allegedly at the request of Afghan forces. “The aircraft made a number of passes at the building and attacked it with heavy weapons,” MSF reported. “It caused fires and destroyed the main hospital building and damaged satellite buildings.

“A series of multiple, precise and sustained airstrikes targeted the main hospital building,” MSF reported.

The Pentagon is currently investigating the attack. U.S. officials have given at least four different versions of the assault. Since the launch of the investigation, reports have come out that allege the cockpit recordings show the crew questioned whether they should hit the target.

“MSF claims that there are rules even in war. That’s correct. But they’re obligated to follow them as much as the U.S. and other militaries are,” Col. James Williamson said in an interview with the DCNF. He said they should have had “clear and visible markings” on the hospital.

Williamson is a 30-year Special Forces veteran who is the cofounder of a group called Special Operations OPSEC, a non-profit organization of retired military and intelligence officers.

Williamson served in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of his tour of duty in Afghanistan was in Kandahar Province.

He told the DCNF in an interview that the Taliban were often brutal and took over hospitals because they knew of its “protected” status. “I was in Kandahar; the Taliban took over a hospital,” he said. “So they lose their protected status.”

Williamson also worked in a humanitarian capacity with Kurds in northern Iraq and was in touch with many relief organizations throughout the world. He said MSF was openly hostile to the United States.

“MSF was by far the most disagreeable, openly hostile organization to both the military and particularly with the United States,” he told the DCNF.

“Even when we were trying to give them medicines, which the military had, they refused to take it because it came from the military and specifically from the U.S. military. I question their true motives,” he said.




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/06/shock ... z3qlGW5GRK

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 2452
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
Shocking: Did Hospital U.S. Bombed In Kunduz Break International Laws?

It may not have had Geneva compliant markings, but there was no doubt from ground level that it was a hospital. It had prominent signage identifying it, had been there for some years, and MSF says they had sent the GPS coordinates of it to allied authorities several days before the attack in order to remind them of the hospital's presence. While it would seem that the hospital should have had Geneva markings, it was still protected, even if treating Taliban wounded and even if it were effectively a Taliban hospital. I do note that Afghan authorities have claimed that about a dozen Taliban were present which makes it unlikely to be so considered.

As for the alleged presence of enemy combatants, belligerent forces are expected to take proportionality into consideration. A section of Taliban or a quick O-Group arguably do not justify the use of heavy weapons like air-borne 105 mm guns.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17824
Location: Chicagoland
IF they provided accurate coordinates to the right people, you would have a point. It has never been established that that is the case. As for eyes on the ground, it appears they were Afghan eyes. This may have been a Taliban setup through the Afghan military. There is some evidence that is so. If MSF had ejected other active patients to accommodate Taliban, then they themselves are war criminals.

The only thing we are sure of, is that it was a tragedy. I'm not seeing a demonstration of US culpability, here. Negligence, perhaps, but no mens rea.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5149
Location: EGUD
DaveAAA wrote:
While it would seem that the hospital should have had Geneva markings, it was still protected, even if treating Taliban wounded and even if it were effectively a Taliban hospital. I do note that Afghan authorities have claimed that about a dozen Taliban were present which makes it unlikely to be so considered.

Quite - US field hospitals are just as protected by the Geneva Conventions as neutral/civilian ones, so whether or not they were treating Taliban is irrelevant.

edgeplay_cgo wrote:
IF they provided accurate coordinates to the right people, you would have a point. It has never been established that that is the case.

I think at this stage we can assume that they did - the US military are going to want to shift the blame onto someone else if they can, and if the wrong GPS co-ordinates were provided then it would be very simple to dig up the original MSF message and release it along with an overlay showing where the hospital is and where the GPS co-ordinates are. That shows it to be a tragic accident and gets the US military neatly off the hook in a way that the public at large would accept. The fact that they haven't done so very strongly suggests that they were in possession of the correct GPS co-ordinates, and that someone in the US Hierarchy knew that the particular location which was hit was indeed an MSF hospital.
Trying to claim that MSF gave the wrong GPS data at this point is desperately grasping at straws, and strongly suggests that you would blame MSF even if it were to turn out that the entire aircraft crew were psychotic baby-killers who were doing it for sh*ts and giggles. Doing so only serves to discredit any other points you might make.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7244
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
pdf27 wrote:
DaveAAA wrote:
While it would seem that the hospital should have had Geneva markings, it was still protected, even if treating Taliban wounded and even if it were effectively a Taliban hospital. I do note that Afghan authorities have claimed that about a dozen Taliban were present which makes it unlikely to be so considered.

Quite - US field hospitals are just as protected by the Geneva Conventions as neutral/civilian ones, so whether or not they were treating Taliban is irrelevant.

For that matter, the stuff about 'kicking others out in favor of the Taliban' seems like normal triage when you have a limited amount of beds and some people who you'd like to keep, but who will probably be OK if you let them go.

Quote:
Trying to claim that MSF gave the wrong GPS data at this point is desperately grasping at straws, and strongly suggests that you would blame MSF even if it were to turn out that the entire aircraft crew were psychotic baby-killers who were doing it for sh*ts and giggles. Doing so only serves to discredit any other points you might make.

Well said.

edgeplay_cgo wrote:
IF they provided accurate coordinates to the right people, you would have a point. It has never been established that that is the case.

It's also never been established that the hospital wasn't actually a front for an Illuminati human-sacrifice operation.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5149
Location: EGUD
ByronC wrote:
For that matter, the stuff about 'kicking others out in favor of the Taliban' seems like normal triage when you have a limited amount of beds and some people who you'd like to keep, but who will probably be OK if you let them go.

Also required by the Geneva Convention - you have to treat people according to medical need, not who came first or what side they are on.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17824
Location: Chicagoland
I guess the battle has been won by the witch burners. Damn the lack of knowledge of the evidence. Burn them. Burn them.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 5:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:42 pm
Posts: 1132
ByronC wrote:
For that matter, the stuff about 'kicking others out in favor of the Taliban' seems like normal triage when you have a limited amount of beds and some people who you'd like to keep, but who will probably be OK if you let them go.

That is the optimistic explaination.
The more cynical one is that the taliban were the ones making the "triage" decisions (and pointing an AK suggestively at anyone who disagreed) because they don't give a damn about the whole Geneva infidel thing.

It is Afghanistan we are talking about, which do you think is more likely, the optimistic or cynical version?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7244
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
CBG wrote:
ByronC wrote:
For that matter, the stuff about 'kicking others out in favor of the Taliban' seems like normal triage when you have a limited amount of beds and some people who you'd like to keep, but who will probably be OK if you let them go.

That is the optimistic explaination.
The more cynical one is that the taliban were the ones making the "triage" decisions (and pointing an AK suggestively at anyone who disagreed) because they don't give a damn about the whole Geneva infidel thing.

It is Afghanistan we are talking about, which do you think is more likely, the optimistic or cynical version?

Oh, that's certainly possible, but I'm also not desperate to have this be not our fault. The counterargument is that MSF (who is pretty determined to preserve neutrality) hasn't said that's what happened, and that the Taliban (who isn't stupid) isn't going to intentionally annoy MSF, who can always leave.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:48 pm
Posts: 4263
Location: UK
I'm cynical enough to suspect that one taliban faction (minus hospital) has dumped on other taliban faction, who had the kudos of a hospital on their patch...

Tick all the right boxes on an urgent intel report, and a gunship will show up and stomp your rivals.

_________________
'P for Pleistocene' A camp-out goes impossibly wrong...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5625
Location: Sweden
The official US investigation is out, "human error":
Quote:
MSF hospital strike was 'human error': US general

A deadly air strike on a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital was "caused primarily by human error", the US commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday, promising disciplinary action as he detailed a US investigation into the catastrophic attack.

The October 3 air raid on the French charity's hospital during a Taliban offensive in the northern city of Kunduz killed at least 30 people, sparked an avalanche of global condemnation and forced the facility to close.

The "tragic but avoidable accident (was) caused primarily by human error," General John Campbell told reporters at NATO headquarters in Kabul, adding those most closely associated with the incident had been suspended from their duties.

He blamed in part fatigue of US troops who had been battling a Taliban offensive in Kunduz for five days, adding that the mistake was "compounded by process and equipment failures".

The Special Operations AC-130 gunship aircraft hit the hospital instead of a nearby Afghan intelligence compound that was thought to have been commandeered by Taliban fighters during their brief capture of the northern provincial capital, he said.

"The medical facility was misidentified as a target by US personnel who believed they were striking a different building several hundred metres away where there were reports of combatants," Campbell said.

Those who requested and executed the strike "did not undertake appropriate measures to verify that the facility was a legitimate military target", he said.

Some of those involved in the attacks failed to follow the rules of engagement, Brigadier General Wilson Shoffner said at the same news conference.

MSF has called for an independent international investigation, saying the attack could be determined to be a "war crime".

Despite repeated questioning on the matter, Shoffner refused to say if there would be an additional international independent investigation.

"We believe the investigation completed was full and impartial, and we stand by the findings and recommendations, and we support the process by which it was conducted," he said.

- 29 minutes -

The strike began at 2:08 am local time, Campbell said, and at 2:20 am MSF phoned the US military to report they were under attack.

"It took the headquarters and the US special operations commander until 2:37 am to realise the fatal mistake. At that time, the AC-130 had already ceased firing. The strike lasted for approximately 29 minutes," he added.

Electronic systems on board the gunship had malfunctioned, he said, cutting off much of its communications, and the aircraft had diverted from its path believing it had been targeted by a missile, degrading the accuracy of "certain target systems".

This meant that when the crew entered the coordinates they were directed to an open field some 300 metres (feet) from the intended target.

"The investigating officer found that the air crew visually located the closest, largest building near the open field which we now know was the MSF trauma centre," Campbell said.

The hospital appeared similar to the description provided of the intended target, and at night the crew was "unable to identify any signs of the hospital's protected status".

"We have learned from this terrible incident," said Campbell.

"We will also take administrative and disciplinary action through a process that is fair and thorough (and) considers the available evidence."

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani welcomed the results of the investigation in a statement, saying the strike was a "painful demonstration of the cost of war".

- Contrasting accounts -

The timeline given by Campbell in parts differed from MSF's own account of the attack, which the charity has said lasted for around an hour.

In an internal review released earlier this month, MSF detailed frantic efforts by its staff to reach US and NATO officials to halt the strike.

According to that report, by 2.37 am when Campbell said US officials had realised the mistake, four phone calls had been made by MSF representatives in Kabul and New York to NATO, the Red Cross, a UN military liaison, and the US defence department.

The calls continued after Campbell said the gunship had stopped firing, with one message at 2.56 am "insisting that the airstrikes stop and informing that we suspected heavy casualties", according to the MSF account.

In the initial days after the attack the US military offered a series of shifting explanations before President Barack Obama admitted in a call to MSF chief Joanne Liu that it had been a mistake and apologised.

A NATO statement released hours after the attack did not confirm the hospital was targeted, characterising it instead as "collateral damage" as Afghan forces came under fire.

The next day the US confirmed the hospital was hit directly but did not offer further details.

Later General Campbell suggested that Afghan forces had called in the strike, before offering a fourth account in four days admitting US special forces had been in touch with the aircraft.

NATO and the Afghan army are conducting their own investigations.

On Tuesday MSF released short biographies of 14 staff members who died in the attack, including doctors, nurses, cleaners and guards. They were described as dedicated to their work and their country.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5742
In other news, stuff happens in a war zone.

Not that it is an excuse, but MSF insisting on 'war crime' is pushing a bit.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5149
Location: EGUD
KDahm wrote:
In other news, stuff happens in a war zone.

Not that it is an excuse, but MSF insisting on 'war crime' is pushing a bit.

I suspect that they'll probably ease up on that now they've got a convincing explanation of what happened. The previous US explanation that the hospital was deliberately targeted because there were Taliban in it would have been a war crime - hitting the wrong site is incompetence rather than malice and hence not a crime.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group