US investigation says Afghan hospital strike was ‘a tragic mistake’

US investigation says Afghan hospital strike was ‘a tragic mistake’

"Shit Happens" isn't that what El-JEB! said?

The U.S. investigation into a deadly Oct. 3 strike on a hospital run by Medecins Sans Frontieres in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz concluded it was a tragic accident caused primarily by human error, a top U.S. military commander said on Wednesday.

“This was a tragic mistake. U.S. forces would never intentionally strike a hospital or other protected facilities,” U.S. Army General John Campbell, the commander of international and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said at a news conference to announce the results of the investigation.

Campbell said the individuals closest to the incident have been suspended from their duties.

Click to expand...

Brigadier General Wilson Shoffner, the deputy chief of staff for communication for international forces in Afghanistan, said that by the time the U.S. forces realized their mistake, the AC-130 gunship had stopped firing on the MSF facility.

“The investigation found that some of the U.S. individuals involved did not follow the rules of engagement,” Shoffner said.

Click to expand...

Of course it was a "mistake". More commonly called "FAIL!". The US does not intentionally target anyone's hospitals. That is barbaric and uncivilized. The US shoots first, then asks questions. That is their failure mode. Stupid and unthinking but not barbaric and uncivilized.

With all the great technology, the vaunted intelligence agencies, contacts with MSF and engagement procedures, a hospital was targeted and hit by a AC-130 gunship. Does the MSF refuse to tell US forces in what areas and to what degree they are operating? Could not the CIA or NSA supply a list of known NGO, relief groups and such known to be operating in the area. I would think an MSF doctor talking to the wife back home on cell, satellite or WWW would be easily traceable.

Don't CIA agents hit MSF doctors up in a bar and buy them a drink, just on off chance to pick up some intel. Budget constraints that bad? Every friend, co-worker and family member probably knew the doctors were there. 50 people per doctor, say?! But the CIA and NSA didn't.? Important NGO Western non-combatants. I think I would try keep eyes on them. Terrorist need stitching up too. MSF gets busy, something is going down.

Or just collateral damage. Not worth keeping track of. That's what the PR department is for.

MSF reported their location to the Allied Forces, the Afghans called for the air support, but the military didn't follow their own rules. so who made the mistake and who is going compensate for the doctors, kids and civilians killed because "Shit Happens?"

I would not trust an Afghan to give me credible intel They better be some special source. Way too much poverty, mixed allegiances and ulterior motives over there to put too much credence in local intel. You need local intel but have to look at the source. Their army wakes up, smokes a big hash fatty, has a hot cup of sweet tea and goes on patrol. Hardened fighters sometimes. But credible source of intel? No way. Your just asking to attack his worst enemy or his clan leaders worst enemy.

Apparently they were directed to an open field as the target and realized at that point the GPS systems on the gunship had failed. At that point they relied on verbal descriptions of the target, which obviously weren't clear or not unique enough.
Then there was a failure during the attack when people in the hospital reached the military command center by phone to let them know they were being targeted but the information wasn't relayed to gunship.

So the initial failure was equipment, then it was just a chain of failures after that.

JackLuis said:

US investigation says Afghan hospital strike was ‘a tragic mistake’

"Shit Happens" isn't that what El-JEB! said?

Click to expand...

unfortunately it does.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kunduz-afghan-hospital-bombing-report-1.3336024
U.S. soldiers who bombed Afghan hospital suspended and face disciplinary action

U.S. soldiers and airmen who killed and wounded dozens of civilians in a strike on an Afghanistan hospital violated the rules of engagement and have been suspended as they await disciplinary action, U.S. military officials said Wednesday.

The Kim investigation report said that on Oct. 2, hours before the attack, Afghan special forces members advised the U.S. Special Forces commander in Kunduz that an Afghan ground assault force would raid a National Directorate of Security compound in Kunduz that night. The directorate is Afghanistan's national intelligence agency.

Unable to identify objective

The Afghans identified the intelligence agency compound as a Taliban insurgent command and control site, the report said. The AC-130 aircrew, however, for a variety of reasons thought the Afghans were referring to the compound that turned out to be the hospital. The co-ordinates for the target were passed on to the aircrew by an American terminal attack controller, including a reference to the target as also being a prison.

"However, the aircrew was unable to identify the objective when the grid reference was programmed into the AC-130's fire control system," the report said. "This led the aircrew to rely heavily on the physical description subsequently provided" by the Afghans to the American air controller to identify the target compound.

"Other contributing factors to the misidentification of the MSF compound include that the maps used by the (U.S. Special Forces commander) did not label the MSF compound as containing a medical facility, and that the MSF medical facility was not marked so as to distinguish it as a protected medical establishment," the report said, describing Doctors Without Borders by its French initials, MSF, for Médecins Sans Frontières.

It said investigators found no evidence that the Americans involved knew they were attacking a hospital. It said they found no evidence that key commanders, including the Afghans and the AC-130 gunship crew, had access to a "no strike" list of targets that were off-limits to attack. Under U.S. rules of engagement, no hospital or similar facility is a valid target.

It is unclear whether the U.S. Special Forces commander on the ground, who authorized the air assault, had the map grid co-ordinates for the hospital available to him when he authorized the attack, the report said. The medical charity had provided GPS co-ordinates for its medical facilities in Kunduz to U.S. military authorities in Kabul and to Afghan government officials on Sept. 29.

"This mission critical information was not received by the AC-130 aircrew" or the Afghan commanders, the report said.

"The misidentification of the MSF compound and its subsequent engagement resulted from a series of human errors, compounded by failures of process and procedure, and malfunctions of technical equipment which restricted the situational awareness" of the U.S. forces involved, the report concluded.



**The aircrew made the decision to fire. In an urban environment like that Taliban safe houses, hospitals, market centers and schools (imagine if the did that to a school by "mistake") they should have made the decision to call it off. They observed no hostile activity and themselves were not under attack. They were gung-ho to hit something and they did. Them and the Afghan SF who misidentified the building and talked them in. What happened to him? Why did he not start yelling as soon as he saw it was wrong building or did he himself identify wrong building.

And if rules of engagement allowed an AC-130 gunship to be verbally directed to target by an Afghan SF. Then whoever wrote those rules is culpable.

Thank whatever or no Gods you want it wasn't an orphanage. JCS member might have had to resign.**

Hard_Rom said:

Of course it was a "mistake". More commonly called "FAIL!". The US does not intentionally target anyone's hospitals. That is barbaric and uncivilized. The US shoots first, then asks questions. That is their failure mode. Stupid and unthinking but not barbaric and uncivilized.

With all the great technology, the vaunted intelligence agencies, contacts with MSF and engagement procedures, a hospital was targeted and hit by a AC-130 gunship. Does the MSF refuse to tell US forces in what areas and to what degree they are operating? Could not the CIA or NSA supply a list of known NGO, relief groups and such known to be operating in the area. I would think an MSF doctor talking to the wife back home on cell, satellite or WWW would be easily traceable.

Don't CIA agents hit MSF doctors up in a bar and buy them a drink, just on off chance to pick up some intel. Budget constraints that bad? Every friend, co-worker and family member probably knew the doctors were there. 50 people per doctor, say?! But the CIA and NSA didn't.? Important NGO Western non-combatants. I think I would try keep eyes on them. Terrorist need stitching up too. MSF gets busy, something is going down.

Or just collateral damage. Not worth keeping track of. That's what the PR department is for.

Click to expand...

Question for you. Can you see the real world with your head up your ass that far?

The question here is how well did the AC-130 crew see! Not well enough to properly identify the correct target apparently.

Hard_Rom said:

The question here is how well did the AC-130 crew see! Not well enough to properly identify the correct target apparently.

Click to expand...

They hit it pretty well. It's that American electro-optic sighting system, the best money can buy!
The fault is in the command structure that allowed them to operate without 'proper' targeting. The Afghanis called for the strike and like dopes, everyone believed them. You said it yourself, don't trust, without verification, an alien who's motivations you don't understand in the third world shit hole in the sky.

This tragic mistake has to lay at the feet of the command structure. How low can they push it, so no general gets his ticket dirtied? I'll bet nobody above Lt. Col is chastised.

Welcome to the Ring Knocker War my friend.

If they run, they're VC. If they stand still, they're well disciplined VC.

JackLuis said:

The Afghanis called for the strike and like dopes, everyone believed them. You said it yourself, don't trust, without verification, an alien who's motivations you don't understand in the third world shit hole in the sky.

Click to expand...

They didn't target the building identified by the Afghani soldiers.

about_average said:

They didn't target the building identified by the Afghani soldiers.

Click to expand...

If the Afghan SF was identify the right building in the first place. They may have hit the building he was describing. We will need the whole 3k pages of the report to find that out.

The military invented S.O.P. In jobs and industry, violate an SOP and you get fired or reprimanded big time. Same is usual in the military. When bullets are coming at you, there may be excuses for "fuck SOP" but not if you are circling around in a big heavily armed plane with no signs of hostile activity.

Why did Afghans not immediately inform AC aircrew they were pulverising wrong building? Maybe they didn't know MSF was in building. Or Afghan was totally chuffed over being able to direct such firepower and wanted to see something burn, Even the wrong building. The aircrew had flown all that way and wanted to hit something. Even an empty building would have made them happy.

http://www.military-info.com/freebies/murphy.htm
Murphy’s Laws of Combat

Soldiers and Armies
1.You are not Superman.

2.Professionals' are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.

3.No combat ready unit has passed inspection.

4.No inspection ready unit has ever passed combat.

5.The side with the fanciest uniforms loses.

6.Murphy was a grunt.


Battle
1.If you are short everything except enemy, you're in combat.

2.When both sides are convinced they are about to lose, they're both right.


Planning
1.The important things are simple.

2.The simple things are very hard.

3.No plan survives the first contact intact.

4.Prefect plans aren't.


Tactics
1.Don't look conspicuous, it draws fire.

2.Never draw fire, it makes everyone around you nervous.

3.Try to look unimportant, they may be low on ammo.

4.If the enemy is within range, so are you.

5.Anything you can do can get you shot, including doing nothing.

6.If the enemy is in range, "SO ARE YOU!!!"

7.If you can't see the enemy, he still may be able to see you.


Techniques
1.If it's stupid but works, it's not stupid.

2.When in doubt, empty the magazine.

3.Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you.

4.If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.

5.The enemy diversion you are ignoring is the main attack.

6.The easy way is always mined.

7.When you have secured an area, don't forget to tell the enemy.

8.Teamwork is essential. It gives the enemy other' to shoot at.

9.Make it too tough for the enemy to get in, and you can't get out.

10.The only terrain that is truly controlled is the terrain upon which you're standing.

11.The easy way generally gets you killed.

12.If you take more than your fair share of objectives, you will have more than your fair share objectives to take.

13.You can win without fighting, but it's a lot tougher to do. And the enemy may not cooperate.


Casualties
1.Ammo is cheap; your life isn't.

2.It's easier to expend material in combat than to fill out the forms for Graves Registration.


Weapons
1.Always keep in mind that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

2.The law of the bayonet says the man with the bullet wins.

3.Tracers work both ways.

4.The best tank killer is another tank. Therefore tanks are always fighting each other... and have no time to help the infantry.

5.Armored vehicles are bullet magnets, a moving foxhole that attracts attention.

6.All five second grenades are three seconds.

7.The bursting radius of a grenade is always one foot greater than your jumping range.

8.If you can't remember, the claymore is pointed towards YOU.

9.Recoilless rifles, aren't.


Artillery and Bombing
1.Suppressive fire, won't.

2.Final protective fire doesn't.

3.Friendly fire, isn't.

4.Radios will fail as soon as you need fire support desperately.

5.Incoming fire has the right-of-way.

6.The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

7.If you are forward of your position, artillery will fall short.

8.All-weather close support doesn't work in bad weather.

9.Precision bombing is normally accurate within plus/minus one mile.

10.Cluster bombing from B-52s and C-130s is very, very accurate. The bombs always hit the ground.


Supply
1.Murphy was a logistician.

2.Things that must be together to work, usually can't be shipped together.

3.Radios will fail as soon as you need something desperately.

4.Beer math is "2 beers x 37 men = 49 cases."


Intelligence
1.Body count math is: two guerrillas plus one portable plus two pigs=37 enemy in action.

2.The enemy side always looks stronger, especially when they are firing at you, to both sides.

3.The othersides weapons always seem to look better than you own.

4.The noisiest weapons always appear to the most powerful.

You forgot the catch all....

Shit happens...

Murphy was an optimist...

Maybe you're right.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/911theday090811/a04_0RTRMNRG.jpg

Maybe not.