US Bombing Of Kunduz Hospital Looks More Like a War Crime Each Day by Willy B

Note: This is my first post on this blog. Col. Lang recently very kindly invited me to be a guest author and while I don't know that I'm up to the standards of this august group, I hope to learn much from your comments and encouragement.

            

Information is starting to appear that suggests that elements of the US military knew that the Doctors Without Borders (also known as MSF, its French initials) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan was, indeed, a hospital, and therefore not a legitimate target and despite that, the US bombed it anyway. The Pentagon is sitting on some of the most crucial information, however, citing the allegedly ongoing investigation, so many questions remain to be answered, but enough information on what happened has leaked out into the public domain that suggests that a criminal act may have been committed, an act that killed 22 people, including 12 hospital staffers, when the hospital was bombed by a US aircraft on Oct. 3.

 

 - The Attack Was Anything But Random -

 

          On October 13, Vice News, relying on knowledgeable sources and a US Air Force doctrine document on targeting, reported  that the attack was anything but random. "The airstrike on the hospital was not just a spur-of-the-moment decision; rather, it was the end product of detailed planning and coordination," Vice News reports, which then provides a description of the targeting process based on the doctrine document to include the provision of a "no strike" list, which lists all of those objects which are exempt from attack, including hospitals. The targeting process always includes a determination of the legality of the target and requires commanders to take steps to "avoid excessive incidental civilian casualties and damage to civilian property." It is fairly likely, Vice concludes, that a US military lawyer signed off on the Kunduz attack. Gen. Campbell, the US commander in Afghanistan, has testified that there was a ground controller in the vicinity and that he was talking to the AC-130 crew, which, itself, would have been fully briefed on the situation, before even leaving the ground, including the presence of any such prohibited targets.

 

- US Intelligence Knew It Was a Hospital -

 

          An Associated Press story  that first appeared on Oct. 15 reported that special operations intelligence analysts, in the days before the hospital was bombed, were investigating an alleged Pakistani intelligence services operative who may have been working for the Taliban from inside the hospital. The special operations analysts, AP reports, had assembled a dossier that included maps with the hospital circled, along with indications that intelligence agencies were tracking the location of the Pakistani operative and activity reports based on overhead surveillance, according to a former intelligence official who is familiar with some of the documents describing the site. The intelligence suggested the hospital was being used as a Taliban command and control center and may have housed heavy weapons. No evidence has surfaced indicating that there was, indeed, a Pakistani agent inside the hospital--MSF denies that there were any Pakistanis on its staff–-but whether it is true or not, US military intelligence clearly knew that the facility was a hospital. It is not clear, however, whether or not the AC-130 gunship crew that carried out the attack that night was informed of the intelligence on the hospital.        

 

- Repeated Attacks -

 

          MSF officials have said that hospital was hit five times over the period of an hour, and that they could hear the attacking aircraft circling overhead. Aircrews, AP goes on to report, would typically fly with maps showing the protected sites, and if that protection is violated by the adversary, there are procedures in place to minimize civilian casualties, procedures that were apparently not applied.  What the new details suggest "is that the hospital was intentionally targeted, killing at least 22 patients and MSF staff," said  Meinie Nicolai, president of MSF's operational directorate. "This would amount to a premeditated massacre. …" MSF also insists that there was no firefight in the area and that it was a calm night, contrary to what Gen. John Campbell, the US commander in Afghanistan, testifed to the US Congress a week-and-a-half ago. MSF admits treating Taliban fighters at the hospital but they say that no weapons were allowed in and there were no weapons in the hospital that night.

          Even if it was an accident, Obama's apology is not nearly enough for MSF. "We are still in the dark about why a well-known hospital full of patients and medical staff was repeatedly bombarded for more than an hour," said Dr. Joanne Liu, president of MSF told the New York Times. "We need to understand what happened and why." Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier, an MSF legal director, added that "Even behind a mistake, there is still a potential violation of humanitarian law that may amount to a war crime."

 

- US Acting To Destroy Evidence? -

 

          On Oct. 15, an armored vehicle carrying members of the US-Afghan-NATO investigation team forced its way into the hospital compound. The hospital is no longer being used by MSF but an MSF team was visiting the facility at the time. "The unannounced and forced entry damaged the gate to the property, potentially destroyed evidence, and caused stress and fear for the MSF team that had arrived earlier in the day to visit the hospital," MSF said in an Oct. 16 statement . "This occurred despite an agreement made between MSF and the joint investigation team that MSF would be provided advance notice before each step of the process involving the MSF's personnel and assets." The Huffington Post reported  that the incursion suggests that the government probes may be heavy-handed and ineffective, trampling on the aid organization's rights and, perhaps, on clues that remain at the site of the bombing. "The organization's push for an independent inquiry may gain traction now that it appears that the government investigations involve sending over armored vehicles unannounced."

         

- It Looks Like a War Crime -

 

          MSF continues to maintain its original charge that the US military bombed its hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan deliberately. At the same time, anonymous Pentagon sources, told CNN that MSF did, indeed, doing everything right to alert the US that it was operating in Kunduz, which had been taken over by the Taliban some days before the Cotober 3 bombing incident.

          Christopher Stokes, general director of MSF, told the Associated Press in an interview in the ruined remains of the facility that the precise nature of the attack casts doubts on the US assertions that it was a mistake. "The hospital was repeatedly hit both at the front and the rear and extensively destroyed and damaged, even though we have provided all the coordinates and all the right information to all the parties in the conflict," he said. "The extensive, quite precise destruction of this hospital ... doesn't indicate a mistake. The hospital was repeatedly hit." The attack went on for an hour despite repeated calls to the US military telling them they were hitting a hospital. Stokes told the AP that that MSF wanted a "clear explanation because all indications point to a grave breach of international humanitarian law, and therefore a war crime."

          Anonymous  sources within the Pentagon, meanwhile, confirmed to CNN, that MSF did, indeed, do everything right. The US government was well aware that the facility was a hospital but, according to CNN's sources, that information did not get to the correct military personnel. One of the sources said that MSF "did everything right in informing us." The location of the hospital "was in the military database" of restricted sites such as hospitals, mosques and schools that U.S. pilots are not allowed to strike even if insurgents are present. There had been reports of Taliban at the hospital, but that does not override the rules of engagement or the fact that as a hospital, it was a protected target, CNN's sources said.

 

- Survivors Contradict Official Accounts of Kunduz Hospital Attack -

 

          Afghanistan's acting defense minister, Masoom Stanekzai, went so far as to defend the attack. In comments to the Associated Press, yesterday, he claimed that there were Taliban and Pakistani operatives in the hospital and that a Taliban flag had been painted onto the walls of the compound. "That was a place they wanted to use as a safe place because everybody knows that our security forces and international security forces were very careful not to do anything with a hospital," he said. Stanekzai further claimed that the Afghan government had evidence that Taliban and Pakistani ISIS operatives were communicating from the hospital to command centers in Pakistan, as if this justifies the attack.

          Eyewitnesses and survivors interviewed, last week, by Andrew Quilty of {Foreign Policy} magazine completely contradicted Stanekzai's claims, however. A mullah who was the brother of a patient who was killed in the attack and two others, all of whom asked not to be named, all said that the MSF staff did not allow any weapons into the facility, a ban that the Taliban actually respected, and that the fighting in the city that night never got closer to the hospital than about 200 yards.

          Whether or not Taliban forces were in the hospital, attacking such a facility is totally contrary to internationally accepted war practices, and in fact constitutes a war crime, as MSF and others have rightly stated.

 

 

Comments

[turcopolier]

Willy B

Clausewitz knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately he is little read and less comprehended. pl

[Fred]

Col.,

On an unrelated but entirely inflammatory note here's Bibi revising history:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world/middleeast/netanyahu-saying-palestinian-mufti-inspired-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html

[shepherd]

Col. Lang,

I was prepping a longer version of what you've just said. When you have a catastrophic but preventable event, you often find a chain of unlikely circumstances added up simultaneously to create the situation. In fact, an unusual string of unlikely events is the usual reason for tragedies like this. That's what you should always look for first, before jumping to a more "rational" conclusion.

I wouldn't be surprised if we learn additional unlikely circumstances that explain away other aspects of this.

[Allen Thomson]

> Is it me or is anyone else surprised by the relative lack of lethality given the weapons used and the duration of the attack?

A question of technical interest, but nonetheless interesting, and there's another:

If the facility had actually been "bombed" with JDAMs or Paveways, the place, large that it was, would have obliterated in a few minutes at most. As it was, it seems not to have been bombed but rather "shot up" by the tube weapons on a single C-130 over the space of an hour and a quarter or so. Not a good experience, but not equal to having JDAMs/Paveways delivered left, right, north, south and center.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition

How or even if that factors into the analysis I could only speculate, but won't.

[turcopolier]

Allen Thomson

The various size cannon on the AC-130 are point attack weapons. pl

[Cee]

Welcome Willy B!

I look forward to the input that I gain from you and others on SST.

[Cee]

Let me add that I thought of the following when I heard of the hospital bombing.

A massive truck bomb yesterday tore through the Canal Hotel that houses the UN offices in Baghdad killing at least 20 people, including the top UN official in Iraq—Sergio Vieira de Mello,

The attack was well organised. A concrete truck packed with an estimated 250 kilograms of C4 military explosives was detonated outside a newly-built, concrete retaining wall around the UN compound.g

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/international/worldspecial/20IRAQ.html

[Procopius]

Misled how? Told that it wasn't a hospital? So who was misled/misinformed? The fact that it was a hospital was clearly well established in the intelligence community. Who was the officer that approved the mission? Start with him. Article 32 investigation, now. Who was the air controller on the ground, talking the AC-130 to its target. He's next. Article 32 investigation, now. Who is the commander of the officer who approved the mission? Article 32 investigation now for failure to supervise his subordinates (I forget the military terminology for this and they almost never apply it anyway, but it should be applied). I don't see any way they can argue they were misled. Even if they believed that the Afghans were taking fire from the building it was clearly identified as a hospital. I'm a little incoherent here because I'm so angry. I was on active duty when My Lai was uncovered.

[turcopolier]

Procopius

Once again, the IC was not involved in this. This was a matter localized in the forces in the field and an operational coordination matter , not an intelligence matter unless some representative of CIA, DIA or NSA incorrectly identified this building. If you want to blame someone look at people in
Afghanistan or in the chain of command in SOCOM. The IC does not run the war locally in Afghanistan. Your arm waving incoherence sounds a bit over the top. there is an ongoing investigation. what more do you want? Just what exactly were you occupied with when the My Lai killings were "revealed" by Sy Hersh? pl

[Bryn P]

I apologise if my comment gave an impression of sarcasm. It was not intended to do so. As you yourself have observed the inadvertent attack on yourself was quickly corrected and limited to a single pass whereas that on the hospital continued for "more than an hour". Is it wrong to question whether this time-scale offered plenty of opportunity for the aircrew to be informed that an error had been made and to cut short the attack?

[turcopolier]

Bryn P

The F-4s were not attacking me. They were attacking enemy troops in front of me and the friendly infantry I was with. It was an accident. what I object to as expressed in your outrage in the English Midlands is that without any real knowledge of what happened you have leapt to the conclusion that the god damned out of control Americans maliciously and recklessly committed a war crime rather than that yet another mishap occurred in the maelstrom of war. As for the time period involved, neither you nor I know as yet what the actual chain of events was that caused this disaster. Do you really think the USAF deliberately targeted this hospital? Do you really think that? If you do you are just another anti-American Brit. pl

[Bryn P]

And just in case of any further misapprehension I genuinely value the information and expertise which is provided here by yourself and by your other correspondents. This site is a beacon of commonsense in a world from which, as I approach my 9th decade, I find myself increasingly alienated. My thanks to you all.

[Bryn P]

"what I object to as expressed in your outrage in the English Midlands is that without any real knowledge of what happened you have leapt to the conclusion that the god damned out of control Americans maliciously and recklessly committed a war crime rather than that yet another mishap occurred in the maelstrom of war."

I never said this, Colonel, nor do I have any special knowledge or expertise about this particular event. Nonetheless this whole thread is a speculation about what happened plus observations on the consequent fallout. However for the record I do not believe that the USAF deliberately targetted this hospital. Such an occurrence would be totally unproductive in every respect. However something which should not have happened, did happen, and as such it warrants a thorough and preferably independent investigationt to find out why the standard rules of engagement procedures failed to identify the hospital in the first place, and also (and this was in fact the subject of my initially stated unease) could the directing staff have had the opportunity to call off at an earlier stage the sgeries of attacks which apparently took place over a period of 1 1/4 hrs? Even the the most unlikely possibilities also need to be considered, such as did anyone, Afghan or American, wish to send a message to MSF?

You have speculated, Colonel, that I might be one of those anti-American Brits. The answer frankly is both yes and no. On the one hand I have had and still have many excellent friendships with many Americans. I have around a dozen relatives over there with all of whom I am on good terms. There is much both to admire and to envy about America. Unfortunately there are also many things about the way you conduct yourselves in your relationships with other nations which is to be deplored. In particular I consider your government with its neocon tendencies to be a threat to humanity, and regrettably I see little likelihood of any change in the near future.

In fairness to those of you over there who are striving for real change I should also admit that I similarly deplore the activities of our own poodles and vassals here in the UK, Europe and elswhere who also continue to lead us downwards into your neocon dead end. I find the general stupidity and fecklessness shown by those in charge of us to be so dangerous and of such magnitude that I am constantly compelled to ask myself if it is actually me who is too stupid to see just what it is that they are actually trying to achieve?

[turcopolier]

Bryn P

As I said you choose to condemn us on the basis of your prejudice against us and in the absence of any knowledge of events. pl

[Jim S]

Agree.
Even absent local ISAF (or whatever it's called these days) presence, SOP requires that a restricted-fire zone have been placed over the hospital and a 10-digit grid given for the building itself. These graphic control measures should have appeared on every overlay on every map and C3I system in theater. Approval to place fires into this zone requires a signature from the very top. Every squad leader and team leader on the ground knows this, to say nothing of aircrew.

If these GCM were not on the C3I system onboard the AC130, either: 1. they were never registered in the first place, or 2. they were registered but deleted prior to the mission. Lack of connectivity is not a possibility as the data would have to be removed from the equipment's hard drive either manually or as part of a scheduled update.

If the GCM were in place, either: 1. procedure was followed and the fires were cleared by the CJTF commander, or 2. someone in the chain went rogue.

If ISAF agrees that MSF properly notified of the hospital, "misled by allies" is not a possibility.

I'm generally a can't-chew-gum-and-walk-at-the-same-time type but all the same anyone who has dealt with fires in the last ten years would be inclined to believe this mission was specifically approved by the CJTF commander.

[turcopolier]

Jim S

"... anyone who has dealt with fires in the last ten years would be inclined to believe this mission was specifically approved by the CJTF commander." I would regard this as a definitive statement from someone with real knowledge. If it is the CJTF commander who did this there will be IMO an attempt to whitewash this incident to protect a general officer. pl

[leaNder]

I wish, I could read the comment you respond to, not least since he may well have been one of the people I after a while put into the category not worth reading here:

http://tinyurl.com/Mondoweiss-5-dancing-Slomos

Of course these categories sometimes don't work, they may in fact make matters worse among us the largely "unfocussed" or "without theses to prove".

But thanks, that your response tells me all I need to know about his comment. Not that I do not concede the necessary grain of truth, by they way.;)

[Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg]

That's a question I myself have regarding this peculiar incident. I've read a lot of stuff about how these gunships can turn a building into sawdust and everyone inside it to pink mist inside of two minutes, yet after a sustained attack on one single flimsy looking building, there are any number of survivors and people making phone calls from inside. I can't escape the feeling that this is one of those incidents we won't know the truth about until long after it ceases to be germane to current political discourse. Like the Gulf of Tonkin episode.

[Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg]

He doesn't translate well into English, does he?

[turcopolier]

Hindenburg

I don't read German and have always relied on the Paret translation. Nevertheless the book is written in ponderous, 19th Century Kraut with philosophical overtones, but is still a work of genius. The time I spent studying it with Michael Handel was very good for me. pl

[Fred]

Procopius,

"... failure to supervise his subordinates..."

Sounds like the next Speaker of the House should bring the impeachment vote onto the floor so the Senate can have a real investigation.

[Johnny Reims]

I don’t think the Borg is overly interested in determining the cause of the Kunduz attack, particularly if, as it turns out and to borrow from Jim S., the mission was approved by a CJTF commander.

So how does one, in this day and age, shed light on this kind of incident, particularly if Jim S’s intuitions, based on experience, are validated?

Seems to me that only some kind of artistic expression could do so, along the dictates set out by Jacques Maritain in his work Art and Scholasticism, in which the acquired and infused virtue of art would reveal the truth. LOL. LOL. Good luck…

In the meantime, I hope that Willy B will persevere and continue to investigate, while finding the info of Jim S of worthy of consideration. Willy B is absolutely right, imo, to shine a light on this incident, and Jim S was right to stand tall and provide some key information.

[Johnny Reims]

opps...I meant to add that you still gotta' think about mens rea or something close to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea