ADDED: At the link, which goes to my son John's Facebook page, I said: "Imagine if Bush had done this." And John said: "We don't have to imagine..." and linked to a NYT article from 2008: "Evidence Points to Civilian Toll in Afghan Raid."
From Amy Davidson at The New Yorker: "Five Questions About the Bombing of a Hospital in Kunduz":
What did the Afghan forces want us to bomb? This is the fundamental issue: Was the hospital the target, or was the target something or someone “in the vicinity”?...
Why didn’t the bombing stop? It went on for an hour, in multiple waves, although [Doctors Without Borders, which runs the hospital] has said that it immediately called contacts in Afghanistan, Washington, D.C., and wherever else it could think of—it is used to operating in war zones, and has the phone numbers for calls like that—to try to get the attack stopped. Who was on the other end of the line? Did those interlocutors make further calls, to Afghans or Americans? General Campbell, asked by reporters if the Pentagon knew about the calls, said that it was a question for investigators. But, in this instance, the matter of communications gets to questions larger than logistics, such as... Do we understand our allies’ motives and priorities in Afghanistan?ALSO: My phrase "Where is the outrage?" sounds like a stock phrase with a particular reference point, but what? Meade says it's from the 1996 presidential campaign. Bob Dole said it:
Sounding like a crusader, Bob Dole implored his audiences today to ''rise up'' against the nation's news organizations, which he said were protecting the Clinton Administration, and be outraged that President Clinton had, in Mr. Dole's words, violated the public trust....
Listing a string of questionable practices by the Administration, including accepting what he called laundered cash from foreigners and obtaining confidential F.B.I. files, Mr. Dole demanded repeatedly in Houston earlier in the day, ''Where is the outrage?''
Appearing at downtown performing arts center, where he stood before a giant mural depicting the glory days of the Lone Star State, Mr. Dole continued: ''Can you imagine former President Bush doing one of those things? No! And you never imagine Bob Dole doing one of those things either. So where's the outrage? Where's the outrage? When will the voters start to focus?''
Posts
57 comments:
Where are the calls for him to be tried in The Hague on war crimes?
There is outrage all over the world. Just not here, least of all in the mainstream media.
Yet another in a long string of things that are OK when a Democrat does them.
"Where is the outrage?" is the question that Bob Dole kept asking. Outrage is reserved solely for actions and attitudes for which Republicans arguably are responsible.
It now appears the strike was called by Afghan army personnel. It is not clear if this was sabotage, incompetence, a simple human mistake, or whatever yet.
In any case the Doctors without Frontiers' accusations are uncalled for as yet. They do operate in a war zone, and "shit happens."
Only a racist would ask.
he's throwing the air crew under the bus,
Obama won't admit bombing a hospital; the hospital got in the way of Obama's bomb. The fault is never with Obama.
The rest of the world is freaking out. the US MFM is asking a few polite questions, and accepting the answers without follow-up.
My questions is whether this is a result of having too few US troops on the ground and/or deliberately holding them back from the forward edge of the battle area. The US has to take responsibility for its own mistakes, but here we will have to take responsibility for the Afghan commander's actions - whether mistaken or malicious.
PB said...
Where are the calls for him to be tried in The Hague on war crimes?
Well, here's one:
Doctors without Borders (acronym MSF) head, says: "Under the clear presumption that a war crime has been committed, MSF demands that a full and transparent investigation into the event be conducted by an independent international body." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-05/doctors-without-borders-accuses-us-government-war-crime-horrible-attack-killed-22
if it were bush that bombed the hospital you can guarantee there would be outrage.
which makes you think, its not so much that a hospital was bombed but who did it.
I think it's time for a sane sensible look at air strike control
Good thing that the Nobel Prize Committee stayed its hand and never gave him that Peace Prize.
"It now appears the strike was called by Afghan army personnel. It is not clear if this was sabotage, incompetence, a simple human mistake, or whatever yet."
Do we know this to be true, or is this just something claimed by our military and/or government spokespeople? After all, it was our people claiming Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire in battle, when he was actually killed by "friendly fire," which wasn't disclosed until weeks later. Always assume our government or military is lying until they present indisputable proof confirming their claims.
Whatever the truth may be, of course Obama should be tried for war crimes, along with many others in office now and formerly. He is simply the latest face of the military/financial complex--its loyal servant--and whichever DemRep candidate is next in office will simply be the next face and loyal servant of the military/financial complex.
Outrage, what is that? Although there was irony as his administration accused Putin of hitting the 'good' rebels.
"Where is the outrage?"
Back to faux surprise, I see. Dem war crime: mistakes were made. GOP mishap: hang 'm.
"He is simply the latest face of the military/financial complex--its loyal servant"
And, as we all know, the military/financial complex loves bombing hospitals in Kunduz.
"The hospital was treating enemy soldiers, who because they are stateless are legal targets under the Geneva conventions."
How do you know they were enemy soldiers? Who are the enemy soldiers? How do you know they were stateless? Where does it state in the Geneva Conventions does it say it is legal to kill stateless soldiers who are being treated for wounds in a hospital?
"The doctors were colluding with the enemy, therefore were also legitimate targets."
The doctors were doing what doctors in a hospital must do...they were treating the wounded being brought in. How would the if any of the wounded were "stateless" or "enemy" soldiers, and how would they distinguish them the "good" wounded? How do you know the doctors were "colluding" with the enemy? Where does it say in the Geneva conventions that it is legal to kill doctors treating combat wounded, whoever the wounded may be?
"And, as we all know, the military/financial complex loves bombing hospitals in Kunduz."
It does what it does. Once certain decisions have been made and actions set in motion, much will happen that is unintended and unexpected, but the complex will not stop what it is about, but will simply justify whatever calamities and crimes that occur--intentional and not--and will continue on.
It was a Spectre gunship attack. It could have been called off immediately through the proper channels. Incompetent command and control.
Fairly certain Obama thought it was an aspirin factory, which would have guaranteed immunity.
ken in tx: Jesus. Now I'm even more confused.
It went on for an hour?! Fucking bastards. Fish rots from the head.
Think of the babies! No. Wait. Don't. Less Planning!
This is why, if you believe there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, you should always vote for Republicans.
Why? Because with Republicans, you'll get outrage. With Republicans, the media will do it's job. With Republicans, we will demand accountability, both Republicans and Democrats will demand it.
With Democrats, not so much. Republicans will demand accountability and Democrats will say it's a partisan witch hunt. That it's the most transparent administration ever with no scandals.
I was not troubled when mistakes happened under Bush and I am not troubled by this event under Obama. The U.S. military has done exceedingly well in avoiding uninvolved persons' deaths.
If you want to see how a third world country kills people, watch the video of Russian bombers. They are indiscriminate and nobody says anything about it. Because Putin is a honeybadger and everybody knows that, nobody wastes breath to complain.
DWB (or MSF) complains about the U.S. because they know we will give way. And I am not sure I know whether they are truthful in their protestations anyway.
Blogger narciso said...
he's throwing the air crew under the bus,
You can be sure if Osama Bin Laden was in there (Yeah yeah, I know, he's already dead) then Obama would be taking all the credit.
One of the reasons I can't stand the guy. I know too many just like him. They take all the credit and deflect all the blame.
Because with Republicans, you'll get outrage.
not seeing any outrage from the repubs here. If anything, they are providing Obama some talking points to save his ass.
Somebody screwed up. I don't think its a war crime, but it's a career ending fubar for someone......This will generate plenty of outrage simply because it's the United States military that screwed up. Obama will be insulated from the blame, but the left will demand prison terms for the military involved in this.......Assad has killed over two hundred thousand civilians and caused several million refugees. There's not much outrage on the left towards his crimes.
Cook,
"The doctors were doing what doctors in a hospital must do...they were treating the wounded being brought in. How would the if any of the wounded were "stateless" or "enemy" soldiers, and how would they distinguish them the "good" wounded? How do you know the doctors were "colluding" with the enemy? Where does it say in the Geneva conventions that it is legal to kill doctors treating combat wounded, whoever the wounded may be?"
You are correct that neither the hospital nor the doctors and medical personnel (whom I understand were all Afghan nationals in this instance, not that it matters under international law) become legitimate targets simply because they are treating illegal combatants -- that's just Coupe not knowing what he's talking about, as usual.
However, if enemy combatants were actively shooting at the Afghan security force from the hospital, then generally-speaking, according to the Geneva Convention, the hospital would lose its protected status and the Afghan security forces would have the right to return fire, to include calling airstrikes and any non-combatants in the facility become collateral damage no different than, say, human shields in Yemen or any number of German or Japanese civilians killed in World War 2. Note that Afghan law (which the Afghan security forces are obliged to follow) and ISAF rules of engagement are both actually more restrictive than the bare minimum required by international law to reduce the number of these kinds of incidents. (McChrystal and Petraeus both published ROE that wouldn't have permitted this incident, but we're relying on ANSF proxies now so the rules necessarily have to be different).
If this is in fact what happened (and we don't yet know that it did), none of this should be taken to mean the medical personnel were willingly supporting the Taliban-- as we all might imagine, there's really nothing a bunch of unarmed doctors and nurses can do when a bunch of armed thugs rush into their medical facility, take it over and use it as a base. That actually happens much more often than we realize.
The laws of war, in theory at least, cover both combatants. If the Taliban had fortified the hospital or there were Taliban troops in the hospital building firing on Afghan Army troops, then the hospital becomes a legitimate target.
No soldier is bound to protect non-combatants used as human shields by the other side at the cost of his own force's lives. If the Taliban was using the hospital as human shields, then it's the Taliban who are the war criminals. Of course, if MSF comes out & says that, every MSF worker in Afghanistan becomes an instant target for the Taliban. However, if an MSF doctor claims the Americans did it, and a later "objective" investigation shows that it was the Taliban who invested the hospital, well, that's not on MSF, is it?
@bobby,
We crossed in the mail!
I don't know if great minds think alike, but we sure as hell did!
Obviously we need some kind of gun control in Afghanistan. Maybe send in the ATF...
Where's Mrs Clinton when you need her...
I thank Bobby for an informative post. There might be substantial reasons for calling in an air strike, but whatever the merits of the tactics, the strategy is wrong. It looks bad, and it strengthens the hand of all who wish us to leave A-Stan. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that might have been the ultimate goal of whoever set us up to make this strike.
Answer to Amy Davidson's five questions:
‘What Difference At This Point Does It Make?!’
What do we want? Outrage!
When do we want it? Now!
C'mon Code Pinkers and assorted leftists. Get busy now.
Where was the outrage at Bill Clinton after the Branch Davidians at Waco were burned alive by a government attack? That was in the United States, for crying out loud! If the media treated Democrats the same way they treat Republicans, Bob Dole would have become president. Instead, the Democrats (and the media, but I'm being redundant) are working to put another Clinton in the White House.
Toy
I'm outraged. I'm outraged that our media has become nothing more than Tass, or Pravda, a wing of the Democratic Party. Perhaps "has become" is naive. Maybe it's always been so. But I feel this presidency has removed the last shred of credibility from NCC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and the NYT as well as many other outlets.
I wish Trump, when he went off a bit on the media in the Scott Pelley/60 Minutes interview had taken it directly to Pelley and said, "Just look at the questions you're asking me ... Did you ever ask such questions of Obama? And look at the way you're sneering at me ... Have you ever sneered at your lord and savior Barack Obama?"
I'd vote for him if he ever has such a moment.
"Where is the outrage?"
Lol. Drink.
God, tha's my stock phrase now, in'it?
And why not?
Why do you do this to me?
"Where was the outrage at Bill Clinton after the Branch Davidians at Waco were burned alive by a government attack? That was in the United States..."
It was just a blow job, dude. C'mon.
"With Democrats, not so much."
Okay, I take it back. Fuck off, Laslo. This is it.
"Where is the outrage" might be the defining question of this century.
The outrage is amongst conserviatives, who have previously voted for the pricks in the GOP.
Yet idiot dork losers like McCain and Dole and Romney think people, especially in the media, should focus on what outrages the political destiny of the GOP losers.
Have you heard anyone point out the fallacy of the GOP talking point "we were down in the polls after the 'government shutdown'" by pointing to the election results? Indeed you have we have all seen it here.
But the backers of Boehner and Co. still claim the "government shutdown" hurt the GOP.
These people say their base doesn't grapple with the nuances of triparte government because of low capability of potential thinking, yet claim everyone should be worried of their poll numbers dip a year before an election which will prove to be very fortuitous.
In other words, it is illogical to consider actual election results yeilding titles with power yet logical to be VERY CONCERNED about poll numbers a year out from said winning election.
The stupid party never referred to the rich and powerful GOP, only the dumbass voters naive enough to think the GOP and McConnels support of Planned Parenthood were or are different from Nancy or Hillary et al.
Because Clarence Thomas and Ted Cruz are the two greatest Americans alive, I do have a bias toward the GOP, in full disclosure.
We all know the answer--the larger part of the antiwar movement is on the Left, and the Left has decided that Obama is a kind, intelligent man trying to do the right thing while Bush was a cowboy moron who was serving his corporate masters. Intentions are everything, regardless of how many innocent people have to die. It also reveals (for anyone who was naive enough to doubt it) that the larger part of the antiwar movement was more about partisan hackery than a genuine aversion to war and needless killing.
Frankly, you'd expect good faith antiwar types to be far more critical when an ostensibly antiwar Democrat like Obama is responsible for these things, as their expectations should be higher and they should believe their own ability to influence would be greater with him (as they were a part of his coalition, and not Bush's). But the lack of visible outrage shows that there is no good faith among this part of the antiwar left.
The outrage is hibernating with all of the antiwar protesters. They'll wake up when Trump is elected and be back in the streets and on the editorial pages.
Just speculation, but I suspect that the coordinates for the hospital and the desired attack were switched, whether deliberately (sabotage) or by accident (human error).
I guess Obama's guilt is pretty much the same as Bush's in Fallujah. Except -- wait a minute -- it was Bush who got us involved in Afghanistan in the first place. Oh, don't tell me "it was to get Bin Laden." Look at who finally took Bin Laden out...
YoungHegelian,
Yup! And the information that the MSF personnel onsite were entirely Afghan (if it turns out to be true) would further support that dynamic. Generally-speaking, local national staff of NGOs tend to be less "professionally experienced" and more susceptible to local political or cultural concerns than the international expats (for obvious reasons, including they gotta live with these guys at the end of the day).
William,
Yeah, so there's what's "legal," there's what's "right," and then there's what's the "best" tactic to use, and these can be inherently different. Senior commanders have routinely instituted more restrictive ROE that went beyond what was merely minimally legal simply because- as you cite- the tactics would undermine the strategic objectives. Collateral damage comes with a diplomatic, informational, political and economic cost -- in this case, it's highly unlikely that the deaths of maybe a half-dozen Taliban fighters (which could have been achieved in other ways besides calling in an airstrike) is ever going to outweigh the negative costs that it incurred. But, again, it was Afghan security forces who requested the airstrike and, in my experience, they care far less about these things than do the Americans and Coalition partners.
Hagar,
Yeah, this is where it's problematic. Without getting into too much detail, Regional Commands maintain a networked database that records the locations of known protected sites in their area of operations so that- if the site may be damaged by CF activity- the decision to do so is being made by the appropriate military commander and not some random kid who may not understand the broader implications. This is why you hear MSF talking about how they registered the location with the Coalition, which I'm sure they did (the Coalition being a rather large, amorphous organization). Now, again, the hospital would have lost its protected status if it was being used as a defensive position by the Taliban, so there's that possibility. And Konduz was historically a part of RC-North, which was German controlled battlespace, so perhaps they didn't register the location into the database that the USAF uses and/or it got compromised by the turnover. And- as I understand it- the Afghan security forces relayed their request through a US SOF team with which they were affiliated, and there are different ROE procedures for SOF versus conventional troops calling in airstrikes. I don't know. I'm not on the ground anymore, so I don't have any answers (not that I did even when I was there), just a lot of hypothetical possibilities, but an ROE breach does not constitute a war crime, and even if a war crime was committed, the offense may have been on the part of the Afghan police, with the Coalition being duped by our local partners (as happens again and again). We just don't know right now.
Ah, so it looks like the close air support was provided by an AC-130, commonly referred to as a Spectre gunship (though, technically, Spectre is only one such variant). The AC-130 acquires and prosecutes its targets visually, with ground forces initially guiding them onto the target -- i.e., not through the grid coordinate that the more advanced jets use. So even if MSF had registered the location as a protected site with ISAF, this could explain how the incident nonetheless unfolded. Again, assuming the Afghan security forces reported that they were actively being shot at by the Taliban fighters in the hospital at the time the AC-130 arrived on station.
"It went on for an hour ... although [Doctors Without Borders] has said that it immediately called contacts in Afghanistan, Washington, D.C., and wherever else it could think of ... to try to get the attack stopped. Who was on the other end of the line?"
Apparently the same folks who were on the other end of the line while our facility in Benghazi was under attack for hour after hour.
Here is some information and appropriate outrage from Glen Greenwald.
Cook,
I read it. Honestly, Greenwald is asserting a lot of facts that are not in evidence at this time, making some huge assumptions (without acknowledging that he's done so- given his lack of military experience, he probably isn't doing that intentionally) and consequently jumping to conclusions that are by no means certain or perhaps even likely.
Don't get me wrong, it is entirely possible that some Afghan commanders took advantage of this opportunity to teach MSF a lesson for daring to be neutral in a combat zone -- I personally can provide plenty of anecdotes speaking to that dynamic, but even casual observers will remember our experience in Oct 2001, when as our ODA teams embedded with the Northern Alliance militias and attacked the Taliban in Mazar-i-Sharif, Dostum's Junbish tried calling down air strikes on Atta Mohammad Noor's Jamiat. These guys will take every advantage of what they have at whatever moment they have it to improve their position, and because they see life as a zero-sum game, that can often take the form of simply driving down everyone else around them. More nefarious possibilities are still in play, as well.
But we don't know any of that right now. And in the absence of definitive evidence, while I would advise caution about forming conclusions, I'm not at all surprised that those who are ideologically predisposed to one conclusion or another have already reached rendered their decisions.
You have to cut Obozo some slack because he's a flaming incompetent. So his military screwed up and bombed a hospitably by mistake. At his orders they bombed an American citizen and killed him without a trial.
These things happen in the land of the fumble fingered.
Only a racist or a rightwingnutjob who gets his talking points from Hate Radio & FAUX News like you would ask these questions.
Seriously, see below from various blogs.
Nobel Peace Prize Update:
U.S. military struggles to explain how it wound up bombing Doctors Without Borders hospital.
Note that it’s a “military” error, not one attributed to President Obama. I don’t remember President Bush being treated quite the same way.
And:
An Army Of McClellans:
The Syria Mess and the Pentagon’s Serial Failures.
The U.S. is running a vast, multi-country war effort that has become unhinged from any serious strategic vision, and we have a military system in which the commanders who see the futility and try to do something about it (and there are plenty) are sidelined. Go along to get along is the way things work in Obama’s Pentagon, and both the White House and the Congress are more interested in making the military look pretty on the parade ground than making it perform effectively in the combat zone.
The President and the political overseers in Congress have made their priorities clear: You can persist with strategies that don’t work for years and still get steadily promoted up the ladder as long as you jump through hoops about integrating women and gays into more military roles. There’s nothing wrong with those goals. Integrating the armed services racially was once attacked by traditionalists as a step that would destroy military cohesion, but it’s made both the U.S. and our armed services much stronger over time. But the essence of military leadership (and effective civilian oversight) is to get the combat missions done with the lowest possible cost and loss of life.
Perhaps choosing between successful military operations and reshaping the makeup of the military doesn’t have to be either/or, but under President Obama we have opted for the latter and tanked the former.
It’s almost as if a strong America isn’t a priority for him.
And add this
:
And:
AP Reporter Exposes Obama Admin Hypocrisy Regarding Israel in Wake of Afghan Bombing
Debra Heine October 6, 2015 -
Obama administration never lets a crisis go to waste.
With the recent U.S. bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in mind, AP reporter Matt Lee confronted and confounded State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner over the Obama administration’s reaction to Israel’s accidental bombing of a school in the city of Rafah in the south of Gaza in August of 2014.
After the Israeli missile strike hit a school, killing ten people, the State Department put out a scathing statement condemning Israel for its “disgraceful shelling,” and demanded an investigation:
The United States is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons, in which at least ten more Palestinian civilians were tragically killed. The coordinates of the school, like all UN facilities in Gaza, have been repeatedly communicated to the Israeli Defense Forces. We once again stress that Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties. UN facilities, especially those sheltering civilians, must be protected, and must not be used as bases from which to launch attacks.
The Lid’s Jeff Dunetz added some context to what happened that day.
In August 2014 the IDF was faced with a barrage of mortar fire from the Gaza city of Rafah sent from an area surrounding a UNRWA school. A precision-guided missile, launched from the air by the IDF, struck the road outside the school, five to six meters from the school gate. Ten people who were on the school grounds near the gate were killed. The US State Department rushed to condemn Israel (they didn’t condemn Hamas for using the school as a human shield or UNRWA for allowing their school to be used).
The State Department said at the time that “the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.”
This past weekend, in what the military is calling an accident, American planes in Kunduz, Afghanistan hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital, killing 22 people, apparently days after the facility had provided the U.S. military with the hospital’s precise coordinates.
Lee specifically wanted to know if U.S. policy has changed, given this disastrous bombing strike in Afghanistan.
As Dunetz notes, the State Department spokesman was at a loss for words.
He obviously couldn’t say that the condemnation of Israel wasn’t official policy — it was simply the Obama administration taking advantage of an opportunity to criticize Israel. (Never let a crisis go to waste.)
Lee brilliantly exposed the hypocrisy:
“What I’m most curious about,” he said after listening to Toner waffle for about three minutes, “is that this statement said the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes, which — and the military has said that it was called in because the Afghans asked for it. But MSF says that they had been given the coordinates much in the same way the IDF had been given the coordinates of the school in Rafah. So the question is – and I realize this is under investigation. But the question is if – the question is: If the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes on a humanitarian facility for which the coordinates had been given, that it seems to have changed.”
Toner stammered, “It’s just — look, Matt. I think it’s safe to say that this attack, this bombing, was not intentional. I can’t get into what may or may not have happened on the ground, whether the coordinates were known, whether they were acknowledged. It’s just too much speculation at this point.”
Post a Comment