Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Kunduz MSF hospital bombing

  1. #1

    Default Kunduz MSF hospital bombing

    So... what happened? What really happened? What will happen now?

    http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454575/kunduz-us-bombing

    This is simply how these sorts of wars work. Whether American intentions are noble or cynical, whether the president is Barack Obama or George W. Bush, the Kunduz hospital bombing, or something like it, is going to happen.

    That is not a case for shrugging it off, for obviating the United States of responsibility or guilt. Quite the opposite: It is a reminder that Kunduz is the war we've chosen, not just in Afghanistan, and that we go into this and other bombing campaigns knowing full well the consequences.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #2
    Shit happens? Do we know how long it takes to call off pilots who have already started their missions?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Wow do you know what one of the "You may also like articles" was?

    http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8365997/...ld-photographs

    Just moments ago I was looking at a thread in general chat and someone had commented about why no one smiled in the old photos.


    /boggle

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Shit happens? Do we know how long it takes to call off pilots who have already started their missions?
    I suspect calling in an abort is actually quite easy and rapid for the immediate command loop, but it's quite likely that whoever MSF talked to was very far removed from said command loop - and my guess is that whatever US JTAC personnel called in the strike didn't realize what they were hitting until long afterwards. The US military is big, and getting from some brass to a strike package in the middle of an engagement is time consuming. I also question whether aborting the strike, say, halfway through would have done much of anything.

    There are some remedies for this - for example, Israel has pioneered the use of extremely close coordinating between military lawyers, top brass, operational commanders, ground troops, and air power. Many individual strikes get rapid and thorough review and approval, after which an asset loitering nearby is given the strike order. The command center gets real-time video relayed from the air asset, and they can (and do) order aborts just seconds before ordnance hits the target if something seems off. The US uses some variant of this for approving pre-planned drone strikes, but there are two differences: first, the level of coordination throughout the chain of command is limited given the size of the organization (you're not going to get the Chief of Staff being involved in individual strike decisions, not even regional or theater commanders). Second, they don't use this level of coordination during active firefights when US troops are calling in air support.

    I understand why - it certainly adds another layer of delay and bureaucracy to an emergent situation when US troops are in danger. And Israel also relaxes both their oversight and their rules of engagement when troops are at risk. But I suspect that having a single 'point of contact' for a given theater that is closely integrated with fire support and CAS operations would help mitigate such errors.

    I don't think we know what really happened yet, but my guess is some combination of human error, stupidity, and technical flaws. These things happen in urban combat, and I think it's naive to suggest otherwise. I also think it's naive to believe that air strikes are uniquely likely to cause this sort of casualties. Artillery or other fire support (e.g. tanks) are far worse, and high numbers of ground troops are also going to dramatically increase 'friction' - e.g. the First Battle of Mogadishu. This isn't just a matter of the US being unwilling to commit adequate resources or ground troops, or inadequately trained ANA troops, or unacceptable lax rules of engagement (though all of these may contribute). This is a fundamental reality of urban warfare, and anyone who believes that this can be 'clean' is deluding themselves. In war, civilians die. In wars fought against irregular foes embedded in civilian populations, lots of civilians die.

    In other news, I thoroughly enjoyed Matt Lee's skewering of the State Department spokesman last week. I don't always agree with Lee's politics, but I love that irrespective of the line of bull that State feeds the media, he likes to 'make the podium squirm', as one person put it.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  5. #5
    I'd hate to be a spokesman for any country's foreign affairs department.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'd hate to be a spokesman for any country's foreign affairs department.
    What's interesting is that my understanding is that the White House Press Corps is far more accommodating. I've seen a bunch of State Department press conferences, and those reporters are an unruly lot. They don't take much crap and ask the really awkward questions.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  7. #7
    I'm guessing the reporters care less about offending State Dept. people. It's not the end of your career if you lose your State sources, but it very well might be if the White House is fed up with you.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #8
    As Wiggin says, there pretty much isn't a form of engagement that won't result in these sorts of casualties (or more). They might not happen in the same patterns but shit WILL happen. It may be that the reasonable thing at this point is to just stop. I think the Israelis doing that is one of the prerequisites for any peace there and I have to consider the possibility that Afghanistan has reached that point as well. And maybe it hasn't. (shrugs)
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As Wiggin says, there pretty much isn't a form of engagement that won't result in these sorts of casualties (or more). They might not happen in the same patterns but shit WILL happen. It may be that the reasonable thing at this point is to just stop. I think the Israelis doing that is one of the prerequisites for any peace there and I have to consider the possibility that Afghanistan has reached that point as well. And maybe it hasn't. (shrugs)
    The Americans have more political leeway on this than the Israelis for obvious reasons, but I think in either case there are arguments to be made that benign neglect is a very dangerous route to take. Keeping some form of pressure on nasty types around the world, whether AQ or ISIS or various insurgent and terrorist groups elsewhere, keeps them busy trying to stay alive and worrying less about attacking the Great Satan. There is something to be said for 'managing' conflicts rather than trying to definitively end them. Obviously this isn't a long term solution, but it's a stopgap measure while the long term solutions have time to come to fruition (e.g. improve development and governance in these parts of the world and push for political solutions to ongoing conflicts).

    I think the question policymakers have to ask is whether they are actually pursuing a long term solution, or if they think that managing the conflict with military force is its own end. It's quite difficult to 'win' these types of conflicts, even with overwhelming superiority in resources and technology. Solutions based on military action alone are certain to fail. American politicians talk about a 'responsible drawdown' of troops without leaving behind a believable political framework to sort out the conflict, let alone leaving behind an adequately competent security apparatus (this applies to Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, but also to many other interventions). It's just an excuse to declare victory and go home, irrespective of reality. Israeli politicians like to talk about deterrence established through military operations and emphasize their substantial tactical achievements, but meaningful movement on political solutions is essentially nonexistent.

    So in a sense, you're right - if politicians are unable or unwilling to spend the resources and political capital to pursue a long term solution to a conflict, ongoing military adventurism is likely counterproductive. But that doesn't mean military operations should cease, but that they should continue in concert with political efforts. War, after all, should be waged with policy goals in mind.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  10. #10
    We've been in Afghanistan for 14 years. I don't think things there are actually any more secure and less likely to fall apart now than they were after just one year. Unless we're willing to spend decades on the project (which we're not and which would probably end up looking a lot like the Israeli approach rather than something constructive even if we did) then we've already gotten as much progress out of it as we're going to. So at this point it is just managing things with military force as its own end. As such the question regarding our own involvement is whether that involvement is still accomplishing anything to ensure American safety.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #11
    You could argue that much of our time in Afghanistan has been spent looking for poorly resourced military solutions to political problems, LF. Just because we spend most of that time dicking around instead of carrying out intelligent policy doesn't mean that leaving is the best alternative currently available.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  12. #12
    There's always better policy available, that's practically a given. Doesn't mean there's a snowball's chance in hell of it being implemented though. It's not just the news cycle that loses interest after the big initial pushes for reform, new policies, reconstruction, etc. After a decade, we'd be seeing some noteworthy progress if we'd laid and maintained the foundation right, during the initial phases when there was a lot more interest and attention paid to the matter, by the government as well as the public and press. We aren't really seeing any of that. And unless something forces interest to really spike, we're not going to get an opportunity to re-lay or fix that foundation. Inertia is a serious factor in what alternatives are actually available, Wiggin, and all the inertia is going the wrong way. We are past the point of being able to improve things enough for a safe and stable Afghanistan to establish itself through our intervention.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •