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.