Kunduz hospital bombing... What media version do we believe???

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 01:53:38 -0500

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/28/sorry_we_killed_your_family_we_are_the_terrorists_in_the_middle_east_and_our_compliant_media_will_never_tell_the_truth/

“Sorry we killed your family”: We are the terrorists in the Middle East, and our compliant media...

The real Middle East terrorists? Look in the mirror. We'll never face it, because the media won't level with us

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 1:55 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 01:55:46 -0500

They tell us that most American Media is liberal bias. Then an obviously liberal leaning media website publishes a story saying that the media is actually compliant to the military? The media is reporting that the bombing was an accident because they are told to? Really?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 29 at 2015 2:03 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 02:03:10 -0500

We certainly won't get the truth from our leftist media such as Salon, or from Najim Rahim who clearly has an ideological/ethnic axe to grind.

Having been a weapons controller I can say that hitting a mistakenly identified target is completely understandable - especially considering the chain of failures that led up to it.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 4:25 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 04:25:28 -0500

Who is they? And anyway, even knowing that, that can change and apparently it has. Today, the liberal media wants to excoriate to it's own end. They when a prize and then want to take it back. O comes to mind, he is full of deceipt but our president is a liar. He extorts and like INSOC, they distort and outright lie.

So, this is just another hit piece and revenge I believe. As Vets and bloggers we replaced them, with admonitions, they we are culpable. That responsibility did not fall upon you, like in Nam.
We were never the Khmer Rouge and we had incidents, sad as they are, but you are kissing a fighting fire you never fought.... CW4 Private RallyPoint Member

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Nov 29 at 2015 4:26 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 04:26:33 -0500

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member, while I fully believe that accidents can, and do, happen, the idea that the US would intentionally bomb a hospital is nothing short of ludicrous. Having observed, and reported on, bombings during the first Gulf War, I can tell you that 99% of all US bombing attacks are done with surgical precision. The fact that we do not ever hear about Russian, French, or other countries bombing runs hitting the wrong target in the media belays the supposition that, "If such a “mistake” were made by another technologically superior military like Russia or China it would certainly have been reported as terror bombing." I think that "Salon" seems to be sharing some information as it would be reported from ISIS sources, and thus not a credible story.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 6:01 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:01:27 -0500

This gentleman loses the high ground when he says that it is "just like Dresden, Hanoi, or Tokyo".
No guy, it is not the same. Precision munitions have eliminated the need to destroy area targets.

Bad stuff happens in war. Lefties like to point to the Iraqi civilian deaths during OIF to castigate policies. Even the most biased sources will clearly show that the insurgency elements were responsible for far more deaths than coalition forces. And it ain't close.

So back to the Konduz DWOB hospital. It was a known protected target, with lots of restrictions on engagement, requiring the commanding general of Afghanistan to authorize the strike. It is indisputable that that was a known hospital, as it had been built by the US in 2003 and is one of the dominant buildings in the city. It is very probable that FA and Tactical Air Controllers used it as a target reference point, as well as a protected target.
So, what is legal?
The law of land warfare, established internationally in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, prohibits an attack on a hospital. However, it makes exceptions for a hospital being used by combatants for military purposes beyond aid. This was allegedly the case when the strike was ordered. Next you have the issue of proportional force, which basically requires the "minimum force necessary to neutralize a target" and "refraining from destroying critical infrastructure except when absolutely necessary". There is a question here, but I think the strike is legally defensible. They worked the hospital over with the 40mm canon from an AC-130. The structure is intact, albeit damaged.
Where I start asking questions was in some of the explanations. The buck stops with the CG of Afghanistan, who had to make that call. If a subordinate commander made the call, they are wrong. The story at the time was that the Afghans called in the strike. I don't know that the Afghans have tactical air controllers, but that sounds mighty unlikely.
So who authorized the strike, and why don't they own it if the Taliban were in fact using the hospital as a military position? That is the answer I want to know.