Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Kunduz hospital was bombed and flattened. The U.S. knew the Taliban were using it for a C2 headquarters yet bombed it. Justified yet there were civilians in the hospital. Within a WEEK, Obama apologized and agreed to send condolence money to pay the families. https://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/...us-446017.html
If was known the Taliban were using the hospital, that removed the legal obligation to avoid bombing it, according to the Law of Armed Conflict (based on the Geneva Conventions). By international law, it was the Taliban who were at fault.
However, the US usually goes beyond the requirements of the LOAC (and Geneva Conventions) and will not normally deliberately attack a target known to be occupied by a significant number of civilians, even if permitted by the LOAC.
Quote:
Obama didn’t trounce his chief of staff or some general. He went out there. Quickly, didn’t blame intelligence. And then immediately apologized and began paying out to the victims. Apparently Biden was asleep at the wheel and didn’t notice how to respond to “war errors”. Come on, Biden is a lame duck on his first term.
In the case of the Kunduz hospital, I'm sure you are aware (and for your own reasons didn't mention) that this was a case of a call for air support from the Afghanistan military. The Afghanistan air liaison directed the strike on the wrong building.
The point where US forces dropped the ball is that they had already learned--the hard way--that the Afghanistan liaisons could not be trusted, so the basic protocol was always to have a US liaison who had eyes on the target confirm the Afghanistan request. In this case, the situation seemed so time-sensitive that the air crew accepted the air support request without US confirmation. They mistook the wrong building, not having proper ground liaison to lead them to the proper target.
At some point they seemed to have some question as to whether they were in the wrong location, but again, the request appeared to be direly time sensitive...which was the same situation with the Kabul drone strike.
Also of note, the hospital did not carry the Red Cross warning symbol, which would have been the failsafe warning to the aircrew that they were about to attack a hospital. Doctors Without Borders had chosen not to mark the hospital because they believed it made them a target for the Taliban. But then the Taliban probably wouldn't have seen the sign on the roof anyway, and they certainly would have known it was a hospital.
Obama took ownership because there had been a failure to follow the established protocol by US forces, even though the protocol was not required by the Law of Armed Conflict.
If was known the Taliban were using the hospital, that removed the legal obligation to avoid bombing it, according to the Law of Armed Conflict (based on the Geneva Conventions). By international law, it was the Taliban who were at fault.
However, the US usually goes beyond the requirements of the LOAC (and Geneva Conventions) and will not normally deliberately attack a target known to be occupied by a significant number of civilians, even if permitted by the LOAC.
In the case of the Kunduz hospital, I'm sure you are aware (and for your own reasons didn't mention) that this was a case of a call for air support from the Afghanistan military. The Afghanistan air liaison directed the strike on the wrong building.
The point where US forces dropped the ball is that they had already learned--the hard way--that the Afghanistan liaisons could not be trusted, so the basic protocol was always to have a US liaison who had eyes on the target confirm the Afghanistan request. In this case, the situation seemed so time-sensitive that the air crew accepted the air support request without US confirmation. They mistook the wrong building, not having proper ground liaison to lead them to the proper target.
At some point they seemed to have some question as to whether they were in the wrong location, but again, the request appeared to be direly time sensitive...which was the same situation with the Kabul drone strike.
Also of note, the hospital did not carry the Red Cross warning symbol, which would have been the failsafe warning to the aircrew that they were about to attack a hospital. Doctors Without Borders had chosen not to mark the hospital because they believed it made them a target for the Taliban. But then the Taliban probably wouldn't have seen the sign on the roof anyway, and they certainly would have known it was a hospital.
Obama took ownership because there had been a failure to follow the established protocol by US forces, even though the protocol was not required by the Law of Armed Conflict.
The Kunduz hospital bombing was brought up because the circumstances were similar in mistakes by the U.S. but the follow-up has been drastically different, Biden has not taken ownership or even apologized for the errant bombing. Without even admitting the airport civilian missile attack, nor directing an investigation, it’s bound to happen again soon. This missile attack was tragic but everything DOD and Biden are not doing afterwards is the second tragedy.
As to who called in the air strikes, and who the approving agencies were, or if you’ve read the investigation reports, we’ll agree to disagree on the fine details.
As to who called in the air strikes, and who the approving agencies were, or if you’ve read the investigation reports, we’ll agree to disagree on the fine details.
What investigation reports--and we're talking about actual investigation reports, not third-party interpretations of investigation reports--are you looking at that are different?
What investigation reports--and we're talking about actual investigation reports, not third-party interpretations of investigation reports--are you looking at that are different?
Ralph, there were DOD reports that weren’t released to the public.
Ralph, not everything is open source. Resume trolling.
So you're making judgments and pronouncements based on hearsay and supposition.
It's okay to do that if that's all you have...but acknowledge the fact that you're not speaking from the best information.
When I was teaching young intelligence analysts, I would have them write every assertion that had no hard evidence in red font. When they got one reliable source, they could change that sentence to blue font. When they had two reliable sources, they could change it to green font. They could not change it to black font without three reliable sources or a caveat that the assertion was merely an estimate or presumption.
One of my best commanders had trained me: "Tell me what you know. Then tell me what you think. But always tell me the difference."
Drone strike in Afghanistan now called mistake...and in other news, Election in America also now called mistake!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
