"Russia Is Using Old, Dumb Bombs, Making Syria..." Topic

Well there is that… but even so, there seems to be a 'hammer and nut' situation here.

In extremis, can you not simply isolate such a pcoket of resistance and move on?

In Afghanistan, where you need the support of the civilian population, it would seem the NATO doctrine has had a better hearts and minds effect than the Russian one.

No it just means that NATO plans to fight in such a way that they will end up losing.

Russia understands the only Rule of War…

Win at any Cost

In extremis, can you not simply isolate such a pcoket of resistance and move on?

Not with civilians around that you are responsible for protecting according to your ROEs.

Bangor, you're just way off base, and out in left field.

"And I've made no moral equivalence… would love you to quote the passage where you think I did".

Seems like it to me with the following statement by you, where you accuse the USA of being worse than the Taliban. "…..telling the truth, the Talibs in this case hadn't committed a war crime and the USA has….".

"But in this instance the Taliban left the hospital alone and the US, despite both prior notice and warnings during what was a sustained bombardment, didn't".

The investigation into that has just started, so we don't know that yet, despite some assertions to the contrary. In fact, some reports claim they were there, which is why the building was targeted.

"And this isn't WW2. The Americans are supposedly more accurate now".

Clearly, you know nothing about warfare. Mistakes are made daily in wars, and it is a dirty business. Not some clean, antiseptic game where you don't have to get your hands dirty, and everything you plan to do turns out perfect.

"In extremis, can you not simply isolate such a pcoket of resistance and move on?".

Again, another statement by you which demonstrates your lack of understanding of the rules of war. Generally, you don't want to leave pockets of resistance behind, since they can threaten your supply lines, and lines of communication, not to mention your rear area support troops, and/or allies, which are more vulnerable.

That tactic only works in island hopping, and other very rare cases, where the defenders cannot threaten your forces, e.g. vessels at sea, since they don't have missiles, aircraft, or naval vessels to attack your supply and troopships, and other forces.

Mithmee – if you notice,d the Russians los tin Afghanistan.

Mako – in the case where the US has bombed a hospital which the Taliban had left alone, then the US are the ones committing the crime.

That doesn't preclude the fact that the Taliban commit more crimes than the USA.

I know nothing about warfare? I know laser guided bombs are meant to be more accurate than a B-17….

Am I wrong?

Please enlighten me.

One can, in urban warfare, isolate a group of reisstance – i.e. keep it pinned down, and deal with it later.

My understanding of the rules of war include the idea that killing medical staff is wrong.

You obviously don't think the same. You're arguing that they should be protected only if it's not too much effort.

I doubt that's how the GC is taught to US personnel.

You, and we don't know that the Taliban left the hospital alone.

Preliminary news today is that the Afghan military called in the airstrike on the hospital.

Even the AP says the photos showed discarded automatic rifles and machine guns in the windows and yard.

Given the news reports are still saying today that there was firing from there, and that the Afghans called in airstrikes on the compound, it sounds to me as if the Taliban were holding at least some of the doctors, nurses, or other personnel there hostage, and forcing them to call to get the bombing on them to stop.

That makes the most sense to me, given Doug's posting above, and the other details.

The US military is aware it is/was a hospital, since they built it a while back.

The Taliban, and other radical jihadis are known to use civilians as human shields on a regular basis.

Even the AP says the photos showed discarded automatic rifles and machine guns in the windows and yard.

They've since retracted that statement since they don't have any hard proof that it happened.

link

It's not like the Afghans haven't touched that hospital in the past because it approves of doctors treating civilians…

oh,

But, I'm sure that those involved in that chain of command can rest easier since as a matter of policy, the US can accuse others of war crimes (especially Africans on the outs with Washington), but veto all investigations that could accuse Americans and it's clients of war crimes.

Someone screwed the proverbial pooch on this one. If the Taliban are holding hostages in a hospital, I wouldn't call in an airstrike on it. I would back off and wait.

If the Taliban comes out, they're dead. If they kill the hostages, they're dead.

How hard is it to just wait it out? What a mess.

link

I haven't been following this thread, but….

I have a friend in Afghanistan from Kunduz. Some of his childhood friends were doctors killed in the hospital. This is the guy I sent my photographer buddy to network with.

My two friends (so the local Afghani and the journalist) said on Facebook "EVERYONE knew it was a hospital. They were treating a mix of Afghan security forces, Taliban, and civilians."

Doesn't sound like a hostage situation or Taliban control of the facility (in which case any security forces undergoing treatment would probably be killed) to me….

I agree with all of what Mako said … Stu I can't take it anymore ! Calling yourself an amateur is being generous to say the least.

Please enlighten me.

We've tried repeatedly on many, many occasions ! You have Vets, former and current military professionals as well as many very well read gamers/civilians, trying to enlighten you … But you refuse to listen ! You make comments based on your bias and minimal at best little to no knowledge or experience, of military operations, combat missions, etc., etc., etc. … Foxweasle has called in CAS in A'stan. He knows what he is talking. HE WAS THERE ! I had a lot of training and experience as an Air Ops Officer in the 101. In my distant past.

And I could go on, but you just don't get it … you don't know what you're talking about 50% of the time at best and '90+% at the other end.

The US did not purposely target the hospital to kill NGO Doctors. The ANA on the ground called in the support. I was not there … and neither were you. But based on my experience as well as others. The ANA didn't believe the doctors were in there. And in turn the USAF CAS must have been told the same from those on the ground. And the "Fog of War", etc. set in as it does so very often. And things went to !

Why would the USAF knowingly target a hospital full of non-combatants unless they were told otherwise ?

Did the ANA know the doctors were there ? I hope not. But the USAF crew does not have x-ray vision. This is not Star Trek or the comic books, etc. …

The Taliban, and other radical jihadis are known to use civilians as human shields on a regular basis.

Let's not forget that … regardless, the USAF did not know the Doctors were there. Or they would have held their fire. That is generally doctrine for all of NATO …

I don't think anyone has thought or mentioned it. I think the Docs have to share some of the blame. The Taliban attacked the city from 3 directions. They know the Taliban's predilections. Why did they not wisely withdraw to a safer location ? Why did not their leader give the withdrawal order ? In the past "infidel" doctors, aid workers, etc., have been killed regardless of their status by the Taliban, jihadis, islamic terrorists, etc., just because they were infidels.

Any good leader knows that if the situation requires it … you withdraw "to live to fight another". Had the docs left, taking the wounded with them. The all would have lived to "fight" another day. Any place in the city for the docs was the wrong place at the wrong time. Once the Taliban entered the city in forces. The Doc should have shown more disgression … Very Sorry to say … And we all know, in a combat zone happens. And it did.

But, I'm sure that those involved in that chain of command can rest easier since as a matter of policy, the US can accuse others of war crimes (especially Africans on the outs with Washington), but veto all investigations that could accuse Americans and it's clients of war crimes.

Martin … read what I posted above … The US did not commit a War Crme … they did not purposefully target the doctors. Why would they ? And why did the ANA call in CAS if they knew there were non-combatants there ? If anyone is to blame, could it be the ANA ? Since the Doctors made a poor decision to stay in the middle of a "firestorm" ? And the Taliban, just don't care either way … If they or anyone else dies …

Hey Jacques,
I didn't. However, your posting can give the impression that MSF is only a French organization, just not a governmental one.

I actually am on the same page as you. My experience has been only positive with MSF members.

And yes, regardless the doctor bravely volunteered to go in harms way. And it is very sad they were killed while the battle raged. It is all very unfortunate …

Tim … you are an American too ! Canada is in North America ! And more importantly, IMO … just like Foxweasel from the UK … we are all Vets.

Generally speaking, it's quite rare to KNOW exactly what happened in a particular instance.

However… accidents happen. To everyone. Likewise, the US has been guilty of 'war crimes' in the past… so has the UK, so has every military that has an extensive operational history. Sometimes these are 'officially' sanctioned, sometimes not. Sometimes (usually?) you only hear about them years after the event, sometimes (usually?) they have their deniers.

What would I consider a war crime? How about dropping a couple of atom bombs on someone? Would I, if the decision had been mine, have done the same? Possibly/probably – on the grounds that it was necessary to protect my my own people.

Churchill knew about the German raid on Coventry in advance. He did nothing to protect British intelligence gathering. Do I consider that a war crime? Yes, but I also consider it was necessary.

Sometimes it is a choice between two crimes rather than a choice between right or wrong. Which of the two 'crimes' is most acceptable may depend on which side you are on.

It also depends to a certain extent on the reason – looting to feed your troops may be considered a crime, but it is the sort most people would (at least privately) condone, looting for profit would certainly be considered a crime. If some of your troops were killed by 'villagers', then wiping out the next village may/would constitute a war crime, but again some would condone that – 'better safe than sorry' On the other hand, wiping out a friendly village for no reason….

Bit of a ramble, main summary would be that bad things happen in war and both sides can do those bad things. One side may do more bad things than the other, but each individual instance needs to be considered on it's own merits, not on the basis 'they are worse than us'.

Generally speaking, it's quite rare to KNOW exactly what happened in a particular instance.

I agree. Regardless … why would the US target doctors on purpose ? I see no scenario where this would come about. It was a tragic, very sad case of collateral damage.

… main summary would be that bad things happen in war and both sides can do those bad things. One side may do more bad things than the other, but each individual instance needs to be considered on it's own merits, not on the basis 'they are worse than us'.

That pretty much is the case in all conflicts … War is a messy business … and can become very messy as we see in many situations …

Legion – and now you start blaming the victims. Nice.

. The ANA didn't believe the doctors were in there

Why not? They were told by MSF they were there. As were the Americans. Note the attack didn't stop ebven when reminded by the people under fire…

Why would the USAF knowingly target a hospital full of non-combatants unless they were told otherwise ?

I never said they did so knowingly. Just that someone made a dreadful error and should suffer the consequences.

I've never blameds the crew of the C-130, but the HQ who should have known better.

I think the Docs have to share some of the blame

And here we get into some dark territory.

Why did they not wisely withdraw to a safer location ?

Because they didn't have time? Because doctors tend not to abandon wounded people?

Because the patients couldn't be moved and doctors swear an oath to look after them?

Because they thought they were safe having told the USAF where they were? Repeatedly?

Why the blazes SHOULD the doctors not expect the USAF to respect the Geneva Convention?

As I said, in this isntance it would appear the Taliban managed to. Even if they didn't, no wanring was givien to the hospital, which is a GC requirement before opening fire if a medical facility is being used as a firing position.

The USAF broke the Geneva Convention. No getting round that. They probably did so through incompetance rather than malice, but the fact remains.

You bombed a hospital and kileld a lot of innocent people.

That is not the fault of the patients for being ill. That is not the fault of the doctors for being dedicated.

That is solely the fault of the USAF

Had the docs left, taking the wounded with them

Of course the fog of war means bad things happen.

That doesn't change one little bit that the USAF should have known where the one and only hospital in a city was.

And they didn't.

For a military man you are supremely ignorant of the concept of 'surprise attack' and 'logistics'

You must be joking or again saying somethings you know nothing about. Surprise ? My favorite tactic was the dismounted night raid or ambush.

I've run medevacs and log ops many times worldwide … You ?

and now you start blaming the victims

No I'm just saying they could have made a better tactical decision. In a combat zone, flying objects like bullets, shrapnel, etc. can't tell the difference between Doctors, the enemy, farm animals, etc. …

The ANA didn't believe the doctors were in there

Why not? They were told by MSF they were there. As were the Americans. Note the attack didn't stop ebven when reminded by the people under fire…

You'll have to ask the ANA. And you know my evaluation of the ANA, they are not very efficient or effective, generally …

Because they didn't have time? Because doctors tend not to abandon wounded people?

Because the patients couldn't be moved and doctors swear an oath to look after them?

And you know all that for a fact ? And the Taliban had been in town, for awhile before the hospital was involved in a firefight … The Taliban don't respect the GC or anything else unless it is in the Koran. And in light of that, the doctors were "infidels" … if they died, the islamist Taliban wouldn't care.

I never said they did so knowingly. Just that someone made a dreadful error and should suffer the consequences.

I've never blameds the crew of the C-130, but the HQ who should have known better.

They did not knowingly attack the doctors. And the HQ unit was not flying the mission. The crews must have been told by the ANA or someone that the hospital was occupied by the Taliban. And thought the Doctors "wisely" left the area.

The USAF broke the Geneva Convention. No getting round that. They probably did so through incompetance rather than malice, but the fact remains.

You bombed a hospital and kileld a lot of innocent people.

That is not the fault of the patients for being ill. That is not the fault of the doctors for being dedicated.

That is solely the fault of the USAF

No, the USAF did not violate the GC or ROE. Incompetence from the USAF is unlikely … much more the fog of war and/or bad intel from the ground, ie. the ANA.

Being dedicated is a very good trait. The USAF crew was a dedicated as the doctors. They both had mission to accomplish.

That doesn't change one little bit that the USAF should have known where the one and only hospital in a city was.

And they didn't.

Wrong again, just because the hospital was not always occupied by the Taliban. Does not mean that since they invaded the city, the hospital was not being used as cover by them at that time. The time that the ANA called in the support …

Jacques,
Since no one else around here has said it, I'm glad your sister got out before this happened.
BWW

@Jacques: I'm also glad your sister made it out.

=====
I'm sure I replied to this once already, but I need to re-address it.

In extremis, can you not simply isolate such a pcoket of resistance and move on?

That's actually the standard procedure in conventional maneuver warfare. Isolate and bypass, let follow-on forces deal with the problem.

Problem is, Afghanistan is counter-insurgency warfare, where the only way to make sure you're killing insurgents instead of civilians is to shoot them while they have guns in their hands.

=====
As I understand the situation, the ANA was taking fire from the hospital, which removes the protection against attacking non-combatants according to the Geneva Conventions.

Geneva I, Article 21:

The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not
cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Yes, we all are glad she made it out. And we are all very sorry for the losses to the Doctors, etc. … It was an accident that occurred in the fog of war, etc. … The POTUS, Sec Def, etc., had said how very sorry they are for the loss of life. And the US is making solation payments to the families. It does not bring back the dead, but is a sincere gesture, to the families, etc. …

That's actually the standard procedure in conventional maneuver warfare. Isolate and bypass, let follow-on forces deal with the problem.

Problem is, Afghanistan is counter-insurgency warfare, where the only way to make sure you're killing insurgents instead of civilians is to shoot them while they have guns in their hands.

Yes, but as you pointed out with COIN, that tactic could change and as we see it does …