US forces alledgedly bombed MSF Hospital.

[Patroklos]

An AC-130 does change things, because that means it would have had very good optics on the target area almost continuously. That makes me ask the question: did the hospital have the proper aerial identification markings displayed? If they did and the AC-130 fired into the site anyway that is a criminal fuckup unless they had some very good intel that the site had been compromised. If not, well, there is a reason those things are called for. Either way, the whole thing is probably recorded.

I have also seen several sources describe the site as "sprawling." If they had expanded beyond the limits that were previously known/publicized that may be a contributing factor.

[Edi]

MSF has provided the GPS coordinates and other identification information of all its facilities to all NATO and ISAF forces in Afghanistan already months ago (f not years ago), so there is no question about the US and other forces knowing where their facilities are. It was still targeted, so you can draw your own conclusions about that.

The options are that either somebody fucked up royally and needs to be string up for it, or it was deliberately targeted, which makes it an intentional war crime and a lot more people need to be strung up.

[Patroklos]

If they did provide it years ago, and the. Greatly expanded the sites footprint....

[Thanas]

If they did provide it years ago, and the. Greatly expanded the sites footprint....

They also say that they gave the USA monthly updates on their locations....

[Gandalf]

MSF bombing: US general says Afghan hospital 'mistakenly struck'

The deadly air strike that hit a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz was a mistake made within the US chain of command, the American commander of international forces in Afghanistan said.

The strike on Saturday on an Afghan hospital run by Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), killed 22 people and deeply angered the medical charity.

MSF officials have blamed the United States, demanding an independent investigation into the incident and calling it a war crime.

US Army General John Campbell said US forces had responded to requests from Afghan forces and provided close air support as they engaged in a fight with Taliban militants in the provincial capital of Kunduz.

"To be clear, the decision to provide aerial fires was a US decision made within the US chain of command," General Campbell said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility."

General Campbell's comments on Tuesday were the most direct acknowledgement yet by the US government that the strike on the hospital was carried out by US forces.

In a statement on Monday, General Campbell said only that US forces had responded to requests for support from Afghan forces.

General Campbell said on Tuesday he had directed forces under his command to undergo in-depth training to review operational authorities and rules of engagement to prevent further incidents like Kunduz.

The Pentagon expressed deep regret for the hospital deaths.

"Doctors Without Borders does important work all around the world, and the Department of Defence deeply regrets the loss of innocent lives that resulted from this tragic event," US defence secretary Ashton Carter said in a statement.

"When we make mistakes, we own up to them. That's exactly what we're doing right now."

Recommendations to reconsider withdrawal plan

The incident, along with the Taliban's capture of Kunduz late last month, has cast renewed attention on the 14-year-long US mission in Afghanistan, with General Campbell recommending president Barack Obama reconsider his plan to withdraw all troops by the end of 2016.

"Based on the conditions on the ground, based on the transitions I've talked about, I do believe that we have to provide our senior leadership options different to the current plan we are going with, absolutely," he said.

He declined to provide specifics about the recommendations he had made to the White House, but said they included an option for more troops than just a small embassy-based force.

General Campbell told the committee that options he had provided were "above and beyond a normal embassy presence based on changes that have happened within the last two years".

Since US forces handed over combat responsibility to local Afghan forces at the end of last year, the Taliban has engaged in a relentless campaign of attacks, fighting through the usual winter lull and inflicting massive casualties on local troops.

General Campbell said support in Afghanistan for Islamic State was also on the rise.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Mr Obama welcomed General Campbell's advice and would take into account a number of factors in determining whether or not to change his plans for the US in Afghanistan.

"The first is are conditions on the ground, what progress has been made toward securing that country?" he said.

"What threats remain? What sort of assistance can the United States provide?"

Many members of Congress are deeply concerned about Mr Obama's plans for a final withdrawal of US forces.

Reuters/ABC

So they've copped to it more than I would have thought. But what of those responsible?

[Thanas]

So what about compensation and investigating who fucked up and how?

[Edi]

Don't expect too much. The official US version of the events has already changed four times in as many days, which means that there is reason to be skeptical of any investigation results. Too many previous incidents involving US forces have been either completely transparent whitewashes.

From the BBC (not the full article)

Differing US statements on hospital strike

Saturday - Col Brian Tribus, spokesman for US Forces in Afghan

US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation.

Sunday - Pentagon press office

US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against insurgents who were directly firing upon US service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz. The strike was conducted in the vicinity of a Doctors Without Borders medical facility.

Monday - Gen John Campbell, US military chief in Afghanistan

We have now learned that on October 3, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from US forces. An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. This is different from the initial reports, which indicated that US forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf.

Tuesday - Gen John Campbell to the Senate committee

On Saturday morning our forces provided close air support to Afghan forces at their request. To be clear the decision to provide aerial fires was a US decision, made within the US chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility… I assure you that the investigation will be thorough, objective and transparent.

The general said that he was not in a position to provide more details about what happened, including who may have failed to follow military guidelines to avert attacks on hospitals.

He said that such details must await the outcome of numerous inquiries.

The White House on Tuesday announced that Department of Justice would investigate the air strike.

Similar probes are being conducted by the Pentagon, Nato and an American-Afghan team.

[Patroklos]

Demand information now when facts are unknown. Bitch that irrationally demanded initial information provided was not accurate. Then bitch when inaccurate information is changed to be match discovered facts.

Given that tract record no investigation would satisfy.

[Simon_Jester]

Don't expect too much. The official US version of the events has already changed four times in as many days, which means that there is reason to be skeptical of any investigation results. Too many previous incidents involving US forces have been either completely transparent whitewashes.

From the BBC (not the full article)

Differing US statements on hospital strike

Saturday - Col Brian Tribus, spokesman for US Forces in Afghan

US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation.

Sunday - Pentagon press office

US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am (local), Oct 3, against insurgents who were directly firing upon US service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz. The strike was conducted in the vicinity of a Doctors Without Borders medical facility.

Monday - Gen John Campbell, US military chief in Afghanistan

We have now learned that on October 3, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from US forces. An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. This is different from the initial reports, which indicated that US forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf.

Tuesday - Gen John Campbell to the Senate committee

On Saturday morning our forces provided close air support to Afghan forces at their request. To be clear the decision to provide aerial fires was a US decision, made within the US chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility… I assure you that the investigation will be thorough, objective and transparent.

The general said that he was not in a position to provide more details about what happened, including who may have failed to follow military guidelines to avert attacks on hospitals.

He said that such details must await the outcome of numerous inquiries.

The White House on Tuesday announced that Department of Justice would investigate the air strike.

Similar probes are being conducted by the Pentagon, Nato and an American-Afghan team.

I don't see any change in position from Monday to Tuesday, Edi. Is there any inconsistency in there?

Just to be clear, what are these four different positions you say the US government has gone through?

[K. A. Pital]

The change in position is that the US admitted it was their own special operations unit who called the strike on the hospital, not the Afghan forces as they tried to claim before. It is not clear from the snippet.

[Edi]

Yes, though according to them, on the word of Afghan allies. However, given how past incidents of various wrongdoings by US troops have been handled, it is not unreasonable to have doubts about the integrity of any US internal investigation.

[Simon_Jester]

The change in position is that the US admitted it was their own special operations unit who called the strike on the hospital, not the Afghan forces as they tried to claim before. It is not clear from the snippet.

Thank you. To be clear, earlier the US government's official story is that Afghans initiated the request for the airstrike, and now are saying/admitting that a US special forces unit initiated the request?

Yes, though according to them, on the word of Afghan allies. However, given how past incidents of various wrongdoings by US troops have been handled, it is not unreasonable to have doubts about the integrity of any US internal investigation.

I wouldn't expect any particular integrity from the investigation, yes. I'm simply trying to keep track of what's going on- if I hear that the story has changed three times, I look for three changes to the story.

[Flagg]

US tank enters ruined Afghan hospital putting 'war crime' evidence at risk
- The Guardian

Sorry, best I can do with my shitty left hand (I'm not one of those filthy, soulless, and Devil-Child southpaws! ) and bad case of whiplash due to my mom not being able to see a car that was perfectly viewable while making an illegal left out of Burger King.

If you're interested in why, it's all right here!

[Thanas]

Doctors without borders have released their report of the incident: PDF here.

It is very damning of the US and makes one wonder how the fuck this could have happened accidentally.

Patients burned in their beds, medical staff were decapitated and lost limbs, and others were shot by the circling AC-130 gunship while fleeing the burning building. At least 30 MSF staff and patients were killed.[...]


MSF can conclude the following points, based on the facts reviewed in this initial overview of events before, during and immediately after the US airstrikes on 3 October 2015:
• The agreement to respect the neutrality of our medical facility based on the applicable sections of International Humanitarian Law was fully in place and agreed with all parties to the conflict prior to the attack.
• The KTC was fully functioning as a hospital with 105 patients admitted and surgeries ongoing at the time of the airstrikes
• The MSF rules in the hospital were implemented and respected, including the ‘no weapon’ policy and MSF was in full control of the hospital at the time of the airstrikes
• There were no armed combatants within the hospital compound and there was no fighting from or in the direct vicinity of the KTC at the time of the airstrikes
• The GPS coordinates provided to all armed groups were accurate and MSF teams in Kabul and New York made the relevant contacts to alert the parties to the conflict of the airstrikes.

[K. A. Pital]

The latest bit of communications madness from the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... en-taliban

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.”

But the worst part?

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.

Now... if so, that's like, a hundred kinds of wrong.

[Simon_Jester]

I can't even figure out what incentive there would be to launch this type of attack, honestly.

Usually, with a war crime you can at least comprehend how it happened, but a deliberate, sustained bombardment of a known hospital that did not also bombard large areas outside the hospital's limits... just doesn't make that kind of 'sense.'

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe they thought their were insurgents inside who they wanted dead? Maybe someone high-ranking? Maybe among the patients? I'm just speculating- I haven't followed this story that closely of late.

Also, I wonder how many people had to be involved in this for it to happen. I could see a few very sick individuals deciding to destroy a hospital due to bigotry, bloodlust, desire for vengeance, or simply their perverse idea of fun. Massacres are nothing new in war, sadly. But its hard for me to see high-level commanders ordering something like that. Sweeping it under the rug afterward, sure, but ordering it to begin with? Not because I think they're as pure as the driven snow, but because no matter how good or bad a person you are, I'd like to think that most people at that rank are, well, sane. And that even if they do horrible things, they have a reason that at least appears to have some basis in reason.

[loomer]

I'd be interested to know if stimulants were in use by the AC-130's crew or in the chain of command for this mission.

[Thanas]

I can't even figure out what incentive there would be to launch this type of attack, honestly.

Usually, with a war crime you can at least comprehend how it happened, but a deliberate, sustained bombardment of a known hospital that did not also bombard large areas outside the hospital's limits... just doesn't make that kind of 'sense.'

Oh, it makes perfect sense if you are a war criminal - you deny the civilians (who you suspect of aiding the taliban) medical treatment for the future, you deny the taliban the same (even wounded taliban are enemies in your view) and you get one of the most credible NGOs out of the area, so western media will walk as well, so you can carry out whatever shady shit you want to. It is not really that far-fetched, considering you can play this as "massive fuckup" and people that matter will be inclined to believe you.

If you were a huge sociopath - and I suspect there is more than enough evidence to suggest the Afghan Goverment and the US military high command both have those guys (remember Petraeus and his creation of sectarian death squads?) - then that would be one way to ensure no NGO would ever get on your territory again.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be clear: Are you suggesting that this attacking was carried out based on a deliberate policy, sanctioned at high levels, to target a hospital and eliminate NGOs/media in Afghanistan?

[Thanas]

To be clear: Are you suggesting that this attacking was carried out based on a deliberate policy, sanctioned at high levels, to target a hospital and eliminate NGOs/media in Afghanistan?

What I do know is that somebody, at least on the local air command level, ordered an attack on a known hospital location. That is all I know.

The other part is speculation on what anybody could have hoped to gain from it as asked by Simon.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough.

I haven't reached any particular conclusion myself, beyond the fact that however and why it happened, its obviously horrible and someone (probably quite a few people) needs to go to prison over it.

Edit: And that on the local level at least, it probably wasn't in any way an accident, based on everything I've heard.

[K. A. Pital]

Yup. By now the speculative scenario Thanas put forth is not looking unrealistic at all. Someone in local command was pissed and pursuing own goals, but smart enough to know that something as horrible as that will be covered up at the top with the greatest effort to present it as mere fuckup. Knowing the US military culture, this is even too frighteningly realistic,

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't get why anyone high up would think its worth it to cover this up.

I mean, how does it help PR-wise? Anyone who's inclined towards anti-American attitudes isn't likely to believe them anyway if they deny it. And if its eventually revealed that it was a cover-up, they're going to look worse than if they'd just come clean and basically said "Somebody committed an atrocity without authorization so we threw them in prison."

Is it just an "us vs. them" mentality where you defend your own no matter what, like we see so much of with police forces? Is it some larger political thing? Does the reasons why this happened involve classified information? I don't know. I'm just trying to figure what the motive could be for such a thing, hypothetically.

[Tiriol]

I don't get why anyone high up would think its worth it to cover this up.

I mean, how does it help PR-wise? Anyone who's inclined towards anti-American attitudes isn't likely to believe them anyway if they deny it. And if its eventually revealed that it was a cover-up, they're going to look worse than if they'd just come clean and basically said "Somebody committed an atrocity without authorization so we threw them in prison."

Is it just an "us vs. them" mentality where you defend your own no matter what, like we see so much of with police forces? Is it some larger political thing? Does the reasons why this happened involve classified information? I don't know. I'm just trying to figure what the motive could be for such a thing, hypothetically.

As far as I can tell, the US does not REALLY care about PR in this War on Terror and campaigns in Middle East. They may say so, but the bottom line is that the US will rather cover everything up than admit that they have Bad People in their ranks and not only Glorious American Freedombringers of Liberty.