UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime

Please find the article here: UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime

Whether or not the USA is more inclined towards bombing their allies I don't know, but incidences like the attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan requires me to ask if military action causes a 'desensitisation' towards people in general.
The horrible irony about this incident is that I was watching House of Cards the other day where President Underwood orders an airstrike he knows will kill military personnel and probably civilians. That was fiction, but the incident in Afghanistan was real. To me, an apology by the President isn't enough.

Why is this happening still? Is it carelessness? Lack of information? I appreciate that friendly fire comes in various different 'guises'...

(By the way, this is about friendly fire in general, not specifically by the US).

Harming non-combatants or non-military structures isn't classed as friendly-fire.

Ok, I got it wrong. My question is still valid.

Hospitals aren't lawful targets except for very specific set of criteria. But according to other news articles I've read it doesn't state that the hospital was the target of the mission. They're not even sure what aircraft was involved. They state there was a C130 gunship in the area but they don't carry bombs just very big guns. There could be a simple misunderstanding of terms there though.

I can't tell you what the general attitude on the value of life is at the higher levels. But we do get yearly training on the Law of Armed Conflict.

All I can say is I hope this gets a true and honest investigation and the right people are held accountable.

One article I read suggested that the location in question was being used by the Taliban as a sort of staging ground / home base / etc for the region, with it being Afghani officials being the ones to say that. [ source ]

So let's say that the airstrikes were based on that information. It wouldn't be the first time the Taliban has used an otherwise normally "don't strike" building as a base of operations. They've used mosques and other religious buildings, schools, hospitals, etc in the past. They'll very likely use such "no strike list" buildings in the future.

What I want to know is if this is a war crime, then why isn't someone investigating the Russian military for their sudden escalation and airstrikes against Syrian land targets? Is it because they're reportedly just against terrorist training camps? Because if that's the case, then people should be aware that there are just as many civilian and non-combatant individuals in those locations as there were in that Afghani hospital, in the form of hostages, sex slaves, women, children, infants, and the elderly.... What if ISIS were using a hospital as a base, and then Russia conducted an airstrike against that hospital? Would there be the same outrage?

Collateral damage, which is the term you're looking for here, happens in every conflict. Innocents are killed; buildings are struck that shouldn't have been struck. And it sucks! The problem is, whatever justification the US military used to decide that an airstrike was the best way to deal with the reported threat, will very likely remain classified past any investigation the Pentagon or UN or NATO or whatever organization you want to name happens to conduct.

What information did US officials use? Afghani intelligence? Our own boots on the ground? Local reports? Satellite imagery? What if the information regarding the Taliban being there was wrong? What if it was right? When does the military have the obligation to stand back and allow known militant groups to use what is supposed to a safe haven as a base of operations for spreading their terror and discord? When should they step in? How should they step in? Should they have sent a special forces team in instead of dropping a bomb? Should they have tried to draw these supposed militants out onto the streets? Or should they have ignored it and just let things go as they were supposedly going?

When do you decide the pros outweigh the cons? Because quite frankly, I'm not certain anyone is ever going to be able to fully, ethically/morally decide "yes it's ok to strike this location" or "no it's not ok to strike this location", in any form... be it on the ground or from the air. Because there's always going to be some kind of civilian casualty...

And to clarify, I am neither condoning nor condemning the actions that were taken... Because honestly, I don't have the intel to understand the reasoning behind it. I'm just presenting a bare basic example of the many levels of consideration that had to be made in order for a strike to even be ordered in the first place.

Edan wrote: Please find the article here: UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime

Whether or not the USA is more inclined towards bombing their allies I don't know, but incidences like the attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan requires me to ask if military action causes a 'desensitisation' towards people in general.
The horrible irony about this incident is that I was watching House of Cards the other day where President Underwood orders an airstrike he knows will kill military personnel and probably civilians. That was fiction, but the incident in Afghanistan was real. To me, an apology by the President isn't enough.

Why is this happening still? Is it carelessness? Lack of information? I appreciate that friendly fire comes in various different 'guises'...

(By the way, this is about friendly fire in general, not specifically by the US).

Its a difficult question as to whether its a war crime. If it was intentional then it clearly was a war crime, however nobody really has anything to gain from such an action therefore its incredibly doubtful that it was intentional. Generally a criminal violation (as opposed to civil, as in money for damages due to correct what is broken but no need for punishment) requires intent. If I fire a pistol to defend my life and miss striking an innocent woman I may not be found guilty of any criminal behavior but certainly will be found guilty of negligence and owe money to compensate for damage I have caused.

"War Crime" is a very serious accusation and I really feel we, and the U.N. shouldn't just bandy it about for fun or petty (and rather short term) political gain. This situation was most assuredly an accident. I seem to remember a great military leader saying "The winner of a war is the one who screws up the least" thereby subtly stating "war is a situation where everyone is slipping and falling over their own human error and limitations and the victor is the one who manages to stay the most on their feet and the least in the muck of error."

If it turns out that the bombing was both American and gross negligence there is no question: It's a war crime. Who committed the crime however... It doesn't seem like the fault is on Washington (or at least not the President), so either intelligence or the ground troops. If it was us, I personally want to see the people that committed the act (knowingly) brought to justice. The person flying the plane more than likely didn't know, but someone that directed him might have.

Edan wrote: Please find the article here: UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime

Whether or not the USA is more inclined towards bombing their allies I don't know, but incidences like the attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan requires me to ask if military action causes a 'desensitisation' towards people in general.
The horrible irony about this incident is that I was watching House of Cards the other day where President Underwood orders an airstrike he knows will kill military personnel and probably civilians. That was fiction, but the incident in Afghanistan was real. To me, an apology by the President isn't enough.

Why is this happening still? Is it carelessness? Lack of information? I appreciate that friendly fire comes in various different 'guises'...

(By the way, this is about friendly fire in general, not specifically by the US).

To give some insight about what may have happened, I can only say this. U.S. forces Rules of Engagement (ROEs) during the height of the war in 2011 were pretty strict. Like, you had to have positive I.D., and be able to tell that the individual had hostile intent prior to engaging him. That means that you could be taking potshots from across a field, and if you didn't see the guy, you couldn't shoot him. Essentially, we were restricted from fighting until we got hit first. Further, PID (positive I.D.) is hard enough to get in a rural environment, much less urban terrain. So it could have been a boots on the ground mistake, or a targeting malfunction, depending on what kind of munition was used. The fact that an aircraft was allowed to fire tells me that the boots on the ground knew that bad guys were in the vicinity. The question really comes down to what kind of munitions were dropped. If the aircraft employed a missile, the margin for error is minimal. If the aircraft employed unguided munitions, the margin for error has more fluctuation. The event is tragic, and it's likely some sort of operator error on the part of the pilot. Grunts know when they're being shot at, and only employ air support if it's a necessity. All I can say is 'thanks for making more Taliban guys.' Not like there aren't enough already.

it's possibly a combination of bad intel,and the use of "dumb" bombs (unguided munitions)...if intel was received indicating that the hospital was being used as a base and an unguided munition dropped then it was simply a very tragic accident....

Edan,

You ask some questions based on fair concerns. I will address them as thoroughly as I can, given my experience and limitations inherent to this forum.

Edan wrote: Whether or not the USA is more inclined towards bombing their allies I don't know, but incidences like the attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan requires me to ask if military action causes a 'desensitisation' towards people in general.

The answer to the first clause is flatly 'no'. The US is not more inclined towards bombing its allies, at least in sentiment. The US military has dropped more airpower on its conflicts by several orders of magnitude than any force in history...so from a sheer volume perspective, I guess it IS more inclined to bomb its allies when it is dropping the most munitions. To the point that DWOB isn't an 'ally' in the traditional sense of the word...that demands a closer look because it has bearing on the second part of your question here. When you really take a look at armed conflict throughout history, one thing you'll notice is that symmetrical warfare is by far a minority. Symmetrical warfare, in this case, is 'like' forces battling 'like' forces - uniformed soldiers with rifles shooting at uniformed soldiers with rifles, tank-on-tank battles, etc. Militaries often find themselves mired in conflicts against a more population-based enemy...one who works constantly to make that military's strengths irrelevant to the conflict. Hence using schools, hospitals, women and children, and religious temples as places from which to attack. The stronger adversary calls the weaker one a coward for not fighting by its rules (and moralities), and the cycle continues. One thing we have re-learned after nearly a decade and a half of conflict is that wars of this kind are often won or lost not on a traditional battlefield...but in popular opinion. We have dominated the air, sea, and land domains so well for so long that our adversaries naturally gravitated to another with the onset of technology - the human domain. With social media maturing, public opinion often moves faster now than news networks' ability to report it. Considering all that as contextual overlay...bombing one of the most altruistic non-governmental organizations in existence is a really, REALLY bad move if done deliberately. I cannot imagine a scenario short of ending the war in Syria where a commander with release authority would assume that level of risk. On that...risk. Prior to every operation...whether it's a soldier driving home on vacation all the way up to the Bin Laden raid, there is a risk assessment done. A risk assessment does two things: 1. Demonstrates that the executing element has considered the risks associated with their mission, and 2. Provides higher commands with a recommendation as to who can approve the mission and at what level. A low level of risk (To men, mission, population, etc.) may stay within a specific task force commander's purview. The higher the risk, the more likely it will land on a politician's desk. Another consideration as to who can approve is the operating space in which the mission occurs. If it is NOT a declared battle space...The US Department of State often has primacy, which complicates things (appropriately so) for the action element. I write this only to show that there is a process for establishing the authority to release munitions for a mission like this. Part of the reason you see the president apologizing is that, while one can delegate authority...one can never delegate responsibility. Is it enough? No...but it's a start. We will see how the investigation pans out.

Edan wrote: Why is this happening still? Is it carelessness? Lack of information? I appreciate that friendly fire comes in various different 'guises'...

I can't say, in this particular instance. I do know that there is a process of establishing a trigger for releasing munitions...and there are always multiple ones that feed, independent of one another, into a drop order. In most cases, you are assuming unacceptable and ILLEGAL risk if you're dropping a bomb solely because one observer saw the target enter a hut...or on one UAV feed. A lot more goes into it than that. That said, the US does have a habit of relying on technology too heavily to provide certain capabilities. It bit us hard with ODA 574 and again on Roberts Ridge. Unfortunately, the more denied the environment is to us, the more we have to depend on technology as a bridging solution to do the things we want to do. At first glance, it seems we reached too far again. Thing is...someone decided it was worth the risks as they saw them, and operator error is a part of that risk assessment process.

All conjecture, on my part. I hold with Avalonslight in that we don't know what happened...and may not ever get the full story. However it shakes out...this is just terrible.

I am from the US, but hold no bias in such situation.

Regardless of whether or not the US intentionally hit the hospital, it was a case of bad Intel, miss shot, whatever, I think the US needs to receive some means "punishment" for the incident.

An example needs to be made so that we can show that no country can comity a world crime. The punishment doesn't necessarily need to be the extremely harsh, but enough to open the governments eyes and to show other countries that the need to be more weary.

Competent wrote: I am from the US, but hold no bias in such situation.

Regardless of whether or not the US intentionally hit the hospital, it was a case of bad Intel, miss shot, whatever, I think the US needs to receive some means "punishment" for the incident.

An example needs to be made so that we can show that no country can comity a world crime. The punishment doesn't necessarily need to be the extremely harsh, but enough to open the governments eyes and to show other countries that the need to be more weary.

A war crime would require knowledge and intent. This I guarantee had neither. Im sorry but I do not agree that this is a war crime in any respect of the word. To call it such waters down the meaning. Now should the US make amends to the Doctors without borders group, their families, and the families of any one being treated? Sure they should. But that doesn't change that this is not and should not be called a war crime. Criminal acts require intent. Civil misconduct such as negligence does not. This is the latter of the two.

I'm not sure I agree all criminal acts require intent... Manslaughter is a crime but covers killing another by accident.

Edan wrote: I'm not sure I agree all criminal acts require intent... Manslaughter is a crime but covers killing another by accident.

You are indeed correct. I should have said most or the bulk of. However in this case its still not a war crime. War crimes are willful violations of human rights and various convetionary rules. This case sounds like bad targeting data or bad intel.

Told my father today that his business was liable for a $500 error on a client's account today. I'm 100% correct. Didn't stop him and his staff getting all defensive and angry at me and providing pretty lame excuses. Basically, I, the messenger, was shot. The management decision moving forward was to basically tell the client 'tough shit, an error was made'.


Why am I saying this?

This is pretty much what it's like talking to Americans about their country's war crimes.

The evidence is there. Australia shares those crimes with the US in many ways.

On to the next drama.

Demnos wrote: Told my father today that his business was liable for a $500 error on a client's account today. I'm 100% correct. Didn't stop him and his staff getting all defensive and angry at me and providing pretty lame excuses. Basically, I, the messenger, was shot. The management decision moving forward was to basically tell the client 'tough shit, an error was made'.


Why am I saying this?

This is pretty much what it's like talking to Americans about their country's war crimes.

The evidence is there. Australia shares those crimes with the US in many ways.

On to the next drama.

Careful, friend. There is dissonance in your post. The operative word you used was 'error'. The client in your example may have a case in tort law - civil claims court for liability - but unless you or the client plan to charge your father and/or his business criminally with the intent of willfully stealing that 500$...not the same thing at all.

I take that back...it perhaps IS the same thing - an error for which the wrongdoer is liable for, albeit not criminally. Time and investigation will tell.

We do need to remember that a lot of times we are not qualified to make certain conclusions. We may think we know what the evidence and proof is for our view, but if we aren't an expert in that particular field it is quite possible we are simply wrong.

It should also be noted that not everyone in this conflict, or this conversation for that matter, may agree on the rules and definitions being thrown about. "War Crime", "intent", "willful violation" etc are all subjective. Just because the U.N. holds a piece of paper with words on it, that does not mean every country or organization in the world agrees or abides by what is written on it. ISIS does not show up to meetings to discuss how we should be allowed to kill each other. I'd be curious to hear North Korea's take on "war crimes" as well.

As Reacher pointed out earlier, warfare is not what it has been historically. We do not stand across a field from one another in straight lines and take turns shooting at each other. We also no longer drop atomic weapons onto civilian populations on purpose. Warfare changes as technology changes and the rules must constantly change with it. We may have missiles guided by satellites, but if you can't point them where your enemy is, it doesn't matter. The U.S. learned a very hard lesson about this in Vietnam. You will not defeat an enemy that is not bound by the same rules that you are.

And on a side note, isn't the idea of applying "rules" to warfare a bit contradictory anyway? We're not playing chess here. We are willfully seeking to kill people we perceive as an enemy. They are trying, in turn, to kill us. Civilians are being killed by both sides whether on purpose or not. War is ugly and people are going to die. Until the "rules" prohibit war altogether and all agree to abide by these "rules", incidents like this will continue to happen. All any military can do is try to minimize the risk.

Nah, war isn't about killing people, its about objectives... and usually one side wants to take something and the other side wants to stop them. Most often its about claiming territory for occupation, claiming territory to abuse resources, or intimidation, control or even oppression of populations to force capitulation and adherence to authoritarianism.

I just woke up and have not had my watery decaf yet, but they tend to be the political imperatives at work which define the strategies employed by military agencies who's units inact operational plans to achieve tactical outcomes.

The basis of laws of war is about what is in the charter of human rights, and seemingly written to try to afford protections for people to live peacefully, but failing that to protect the vulnerable as much as can be expected in war, and to try and minimize the capacity for warfighting to get out of control.

Yes its' subjective, but there are other issues at work when considering if those political imperatives are 'justified' or not, such as the populations extent of access to local and foreign information ie truth, as we've seen examples of how easily populations can be brainwashed (trained with emotions to hate and fight) like with the Nazi's and ISIL because they either did not have access to the truth and had misled beliefs or rejected truths to manufacture false belief, as ways to in effect be delusional.

The rules apply also in the execution of the political imperatives obviously, but rules are only as useful as they can be held to account later on... so there is always going to be a grey areas and darkspots where proof will never materialize and war crimes can be thought to occur without retribution, but generally speaking rules in war work because nations think they will continue to exist after the war and know that being caught breaking them will likely have some type of consequences for them even if they win. So when you see groups who think they will conquer the world, like the Nazi's and ISIL, they simply do not care for any rules of war because they want to keep fighting until they have no-one left to fight - and no-one left to punish them for their war crimes.

This opportunity probably extends down the individual warfighter, as they might believe they will survive and do not want to face penalties so follow the rules as much as possible... or if they think they are going to die anyway they might not care about following the rules, which is where suicide cults get some power and as seen recently with ISIL recruits saying they are happy to die fighting because they truely believe it will give them a better afterlife. They are following their own laws and rules, so to assess them you'd have to compare them and make your own decision.

So yea subjectivity is real, but it does not dilute IMO what is right and wrong for individuals and societies to live peacefully - and in very reals terms defines each political imperative, military strategy, operational plans and tactical execution as being justified, right, or correct versus an injustice, wrong, or failed.

In the past more could be gotten away with, but technology and media can help enforce the rules of war these days hopefully. Let the truth set us free
:pinch:

War is war and I thing there are few countries who actually go by the Geneva convention.... hence forth we are always in battle with solo groups or individual beliefs...not the collected. in other word usually during war the "other guy" doesn't play by the rules. always happens. That's part and mostly why we get involved... cuz its against humane ideas.