Originally published on the CGS blog on October 16, 2015.
On October 3, a US ground-attack aircraft blasted a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan for over an hour, leaving 22 dead and 39 injured. The attack was authorized by nearby US special operation troops after Afghan forces, who were taking fire from Taliban fighters, asked for air support.
Today, there are two opposing views as to what this tragic event constitutes. General John Campbell, the top US commander in Afghanistan, has claimed that the hospital was “mistakenly struck,” and that the troops “would never intentionally target a protected medical facility.” How close the targeted Taliban forces may have been to the hospital is not clear. Even if militants had been firing from the hospital, however, US Rules of Engagement (ROE)–the rules commanders must follow while using force–would not have allowed an airstrike as it is a protected civilian facility.
At the other end of the argument is the international aid group that runs the hospital: Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). The organization has demanded that an independent international body conduct an investigation into the events “under the clear presumption that a war crime has been committed.”
The fourth Geneva Convention is an international treaty that defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone. This treaty is now accepted as binding international law, and actions violating it are considered war crimes. Article 18 states, “Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick may in no circumstances be the object of attack.” In order to determine whether or not the US committed a war crime, it must be determined whether or not it was made clear the building was a hospital.
MSF General Director Christopher Stokes has stated that no fighting had been reported inside the hospital prior to the attack and that the main hospital building was “repeatedly and very precisely hit” during each airstrike. MSF claims to have contacted US officials during the attack, begging them to stop; however, the gunship continued to batter the hospital. In addition, a nine-foot flag on the roof of the building identified it as a hospital.
When asked about the request for an independent investigation, General Campbell expressed that the United States would undergo three investigations into the airstrike: an internal investigation, and joint operations with the Afghan government and with NATO. He also assured that everything will be done to make the details “open and transparent.”
Besides this, President Barack Obama has issued an apology to the head of Doctors Without Borders. The Pentagon has authorized condolence payments to the families of those killed or injured, claiming that “the Department of Defense believes it is important to address the consequences” of the incident.
The tragedy that occurred at Kunduz raises questions about the US’s current policies surrounding use of military force. There has been an ongoing lack of clarity and transparency on policies concerning targeted killings, especially through use of drones. The human cost of targeted killing programs especially has been kept ambiguous.
In January 2015, a US drone strike killed three hostages when it hit a border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. From July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that American drone strikes in Yemen may have killed as many as 40 civilians. These are just two of countless examples of civilian deaths caused by US military attacks–casualties that are counterproductive to America’s strategic interests.
Analyses of public data on drone strikes, such as the one done by human rights group Reprieve, have shown that targeted killing operations lead to far more deaths than intended. As of November 24, 2015, attempts to kill 41 men led to an estimated 1,147 deaths. As Reprieve’s Jennifer Gibson explains,
Drone strikes have been sold to the American public on the claim that they’re ‘precise’. But they are only as precise as the intelligence that feeds them.
All of this shows that appropriate action hasn’t been taken to prevent devastating events like the Kunduz airstrike. Obama should agree to an independent, impartial investigation of the bombing by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC). If this investigation shows that war crimes occurred, the US Armed Forces must be prosecuted.
Do you believe the Kunduz airstrike was an accident, or should it be treated as a war crime? Feel free to comment with your opinion below.
