How tech fails led to Air Force strike on MSF’s Kunduz hospital

Sensor and network failures put crosshairs on the wrong target.

Read the whole story

 

[Drizzt321]

qasimq[/url]":tgbo5exc]Ouch. As a technologist reading this hurts. Failure of technology resulting in loss of innocent life

What I get out of this is not entirely due to a failure in technology. It compounded the problems which led to this, but fundamentally there was a great deal of human error. Unfortunately Hollywood has accustomed us to thinking military hardware and sensors are magic and there's a "zoom and sharpen" button that makes it clear what you are looking at. The vast majority of equipment out there is decades old, and sometimes based on stuff that is even older than that. Compound that with night time, uncertainty over exact coordinates, the pressure to support the troops on the ground and some plain old missteps and you will end up with something like this.

I suppose the real thing people don't get is, as bad as this is, it IS war, and war IS horrible. And the fact that even up until WWII, Korea, Vietnam, war inevitably involved troops doing horrible things to civilians. The fact is, we're fighting a force that still believes in inflicting that horror on civilians, while we (and hopefully including Afghan forces) try and avoid it and sometimes take extreme measures. And then get called out when it happens by accident.

 

[daarong]

mcmnky[/url]":1fzamyxy]

Chuckstar[/url]":1fzamyxy]Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

No, we're not taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose. We're taking the position the U.S. forces didn't care.

There were multiple checks that should have prevented this attack. It seems not just that procedure wasn't followed, but that those checks were actively avoided.

So they didn't purposely target the hospital. Is the mad man who goes out randomly shooting people better than the mad man who targets a specific group?

To be fair, the victims were not "random people"... they were Afghanis. That has everything to do with this. Nothing like this would ever happen domestically.

 

[Beebopboop123]

Chuckstar[/url]":1vt2z67b]Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

Forgive me for attempting to speak for those people, but I believe there is or was speculation, and unconfirmed reports, that the hospital was knowingly or otherwise being used as a base for Iranian intelligence or associated people.

While it's not believable any higher-up gave permission to pummel a hospital and everyone in it for a half-hour, I do think it's reasonable that someone on the ground, or the region, could have taken liberties with their command and irresponsibly or intentionally gone after the facility. In which case we'd never hear who's truly at fault or the punishment they received. Instead we get this plausible-enough report that cites actual, true happenings, but not the root/proximate cause.

At least that's what I think those people might be thinking. I judge it a long shot, but not completely bonkers.

 

[loquacio]

mcmnky[/url]":1y3thf2j]

Beebopboop123[/url]":1y3thf2j]

Gawain Lavers[/url]":1y3thf2j]

A US special operations team on the ground, given coordinates of the Afghani NDS building by the Afghan forces they were working with, passed them to the AC-130. But when the AC-130 crew punched the grid coordinates into their targeting system, it aimed at an open field 300 meters away from the actual target. Working from a rough description of the building provided from the ground, the sensor operators found a building close to the field that they believed was the target. Tragically, it was actually the hospital.

People in the hospital described the plane circling the hospital and gunning down anyone who tried to leave. That doesn't sound like what they are describing here. Since they have lied repeatedly in the past, I would not ever relay military statements as fact.

That sounds pretty much as is described here, to me. When the article says "for the next half hour, the aircraft...shell[ed] the hospital," I take that to include what you cite witnesses reporting, plus a lot more.

"Shelled the hospital" sounds nothing like "gunning down anyone who tried to leave" to me.

But that's just me.

As for 'why'...why does the US military do anything these days?

I'm guessing whatever sales weasel handles the contract for whatever bullets, shells, or missiles this thing fires had a boat payment coming up.

Again, I'm not entirely buying what they're selling but how are those contradictory? If they think they're attacking an enemy held building shooting the people coming out of it is a logical thing to do isn't it?

 

[jdale]

Alyeska[/url]":3rwpxtxf]

mcmnky[/url]":3rwpxtxf]

Chuckstar[/url]":3rwpxtxf]Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

No, we're not taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose. We're taking the position the U.S. forces didn't care.

There were multiple checks that should have prevented this attack. It seems not just that procedure wasn't followed, but that those checks were actively avoided.

So they didn't purposely target the hospital. Is the mad man who goes out randomly shooting people better than the mad man who targets a specific group?

Very bad example. An aircraft bombing a known target is neither a madman nor a random shooter. An aircraft bombing the wrong target is not a random shooter. It is someone attacking a misidentified target.

Friendly fire happens. There are protocols in place to try and minimize it. But you cannot stop it. Accidents will happen. Compounded accidents will happen. It is human nature.

In some cases, the mistakes are honest and unpreventable. You could make a scapegoat but really you have to accept that's how war is.

In other cases, the mistakes are sufficiently grievous that someone can and should be held accountable. The phrase "flagrant violations of rules of engagement" suggests this may be the case here. It's important to punish such violations, otherwise you increase the chance of further violations.

 

[mcmnky]

daarong[/url]":33gffqwp]

mcmnky[/url]":33gffqwp]

Chuckstar[/url]":33gffqwp]Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

No, we're not taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose. We're taking the position the U.S. forces didn't care.

There were multiple checks that should have prevented this attack. It seems not just that procedure wasn't followed, but that those checks were actively avoided.

So they didn't purposely target the hospital. Is the mad man who goes out randomly shooting people better than the mad man who targets a specific group?

To be fair, the victims were not "random people"... they were Afghanis. That has everything to do with this. Nothing like this would ever happen domestically.

The only difference is scale.

All the folks saying mistakes happen and friendly fire incidents are unavoidable...When these weapons, or ones like them, are patrolling domestically, things of this scale will continue to happen.

 

[Alyeska]

The article barely mentions this. The AC-130 had zero authorization to attack because there was a hold on combat airstrikes. That right there is the single biggest fuckup of the entire incident. The broken technology is a side show. Multiple people ignored standing orders of engagement. They violated direct orders. In the military, that is a Big Fucking Deal.

What is sad is that if a single component of this chain of mistakes had worked as intended, nothing would have happened. Had peopled followed orders, there would have been no strike. If the airplane had been grounded, either no strike or a strike from a working plane. If the combat controllers had read their fucking maps they could have corrected the positioning on the target.

Hence why this is a comedy of errors. Normally we laugh at our misfortune in real life to try and make light of a bad situation. But here the errors piled up with deadly consequences.

There was no malice. But there was criminal incompetence.

 

[Ladnil]

Alyeska[/url]":263rs7t8]The article barely mentions this. The AC-130 had zero authorization to attack because there was a hold on combat airstrikes. That right there is the single biggest fuckup of the entire incident. The broken technology is a side show. Multiple people ignored standing orders of engagement. They violated direct orders. In the military, that is a Big Fucking Deal..

Given that this site is Ars Technica, I personally appreciate the emphasis on the tech side of things, even if it was just one contributing element of a greater clusterfuck.

 

[Metaluna]

Mark086[/url]":22mo7acd]Bullshit.

This scenario requires a significant amount of incompetence.

Pretty much the whole article was dedicated to pointing that out. Did you not read the last two paragraphs?

 

[wangstramedeous]

Will we get a review of reports from other sources covered as well? I believe that one of the main issues was resistance to launching an arms length investigation. I personally don't care to get a rehash on ars that mistakes were made and tech fails as the extent of your reporting.

 

[TheMerricat]

As someone who grew up under the roof of an officer in the Air Force I can safely say the primary problem with the Air Force is that the top wants them to essentially be flying the NCC-1701 when it comes to technology. But their actual personnel are dude-bros who grew up idolizing Tom Cruise or similar stand-ins prior to him, who would have problems getting a Excel formula to work, much less the tech they are in charge of.

There are plenty of hard working, responsible people in the Air Force, but they are drowned out by a large contingent of man-children who still think in terms of John Wayne's earliest, least subtle films, and would rather pull the trigger and fuck up than stand down and "Look like a pussy" in front of everyone else.

It's rather interesting, to me at least, that in addition to all that, the Air Force is the least integrated, in terms of gender, race, and creed than the rest of the US Armed Forces.

 

[Gawain Lavers]

Chuckstar[/url]":1nkf547f]
It's not clear where you think the disparity is. The report does not deny that the plane circled the hospital gunning people down.

Gawain Lavers[/url]":1nkf547f] But when the AC-130 crew punched the grid coordinates into their targeting system, it aimed at an open field 300 meters away from the actual target.

I guess I took that to mean a targeting system for their weaponry, which seems to me to have been clearly manually operated, but perhaps means a targeting system for the aircraft itself? I.e. a "piloting" or "navigating" system?

 

[East Wind Rain]

Reminds me of when the Air Force blasted the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, during the Serbian war (1999).
But at least the B-2 pilots could blame the C.I.A. and the maps produced from satellites.

The AC-130 crew have no one to blame but themselves. They knew something was wrong with both the targeting data, AND their own systems. But they fired anyway.

 

[loquacio]

Gawain Lavers[/url]":3ng7rvmm]

Chuckstar[/url]":3ng7rvmm]
It's not clear where you think the disparity is. The report does not deny that the plane circled the hospital gunning people down.

Gawain Lavers[/url]":3ng7rvmm] But when the AC-130 crew punched the grid coordinates into their targeting system, it aimed at an open field 300 meters away from the actual target.

I guess I took that to mean a targeting system for their weaponry, which seems to me to have been clearly manually operated, but perhaps means a targeting system for the aircraft itself? I.e. a "piloting" or "navigating" system?

I'm not certain of the specifics of how AC-130s operate, but I'd guess there's someone whose job it is to punch coordinates into a computer, find the target, then direct the pilots to orbit the target and the gunners to shoot it. The guns themselves are all manually operated.

Also, I think there's a mistake in the caption on the photo of the AC-130 from below. The gatling gun and 25mm cannon are the same thing. The one just ahead of the howitzer should be a 40mm.

 

[LtWiggledworth]

arcite[/url]":f4c2ubq0]MSF had no business operating in an active war zone. They had the knowledge coalition forces were mounting a counter attack, they should have evacuated.

You might just win the prize for the most callous comment of the day.

 

[potato44819]

arcite[/url]":34tcerpz]MSF had no business operating in an active war zone.

MSF's business IS operating in active war zones. Heroes, the lot of them.

 

[ubentobox]

caldepen[/url]":rfui7o0m]

However, no one in the operations center was alerted to the overlap of the targeting information with the list.

Was there any reason given for why this did not happen? I find a lot of these kind of reports only state what occurred and rarely seek to understand why it occurred, thus preventing anyone from learning from it.

I am curious myself but I would not be surprised if the operations center where this was running had more than a single operation in effect. The fact the plane was diverted from its original (I assume completed) engagement, would suggest that the command center may also be active enough when said C130 was not operating.

Still, the phrase "hell is paved with good intentions" fits here.

 

[SwedishSax]

Ars Technica, its parent company Condé Nast and the reporter Sean Gallagher should be utterly ashamed of this article, which is nothing but a completely uncritical acceptance of the United States' attempt at whitewashing a major war crime.

Every piece of "information" reported here is in fact quoted from the story the United States is putting out -- but only paragraphs 6 and 7 contain attributions. Paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are equally only the US' version of events -- but these are presented as objective facts, nowhere qualified by phrases like "Campbell said" or "the US claims." Furthermore, no comment from Medecins Sans Frontières is printed or even sought. (MSF posted a response on their own web site, I have copied it here below for your convenience. It took all of fifteen seconds to look up.)

This is the standard of journalism one expects from Fox News. If you guys at Ars want to get into serious news reporting outside of your little techie area, you need to set the bar higher. Yards higher. For instance, you might consider at least including a link to the initial MSF internal review, released on November 5th.

Among other things, it states that the attack lasted for "approximately one hour, with some accounts saying the strikes continued for one hour and fifteen minutes," while you (Ars) claim it "lasted nearly a half-hour." How do you (Ars) account for this discrepancy?

How do you (Ars) respond to the MSF's list of 18 calls and SMSes exchanged with various US, Afghan and UN contacts, which establishes that the attack lasted at the very least 40 minutes and does not rule out a duration of more than an hour?

I'm asking you (Ars) because you report the US position as unchallenged fact, and if you choose to make yourself the uncritical mouthpiece for a suspected war criminal, you had damn well better be able to back your claims up.

The despicable reporting aside, it should be noted that blaming technology does not exonerate the perpetrators of this atrocity.

The position of the MSF, with which I am not affiliated although I do donate money to them, is that this event should be investigated by an independent, international body.

My own position, and it is the position of one who has also served in his country's armed forces, is that every man and woman on board that plane and up the chain of command to the point where the order was given is responsible and should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

The MSF's initial reaction to the US military investigation follows.

"The US version of events presented today leaves MSF with more questions than answers. It is shocking that an attack can be carried out when US forces have neither eyes on a target nor access to a no-strike list, and have malfunctioning communications systems. It appears that 30 people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people are denied life-saving care in Kunduz simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and “roughly matched” a description of an intended target.

The frightening catalogue of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of US forces and violations of the rules of war. The destruction of a protected facility without verifying the target – in this case a functioning hospital full of medical staff and patients – cannot only be dismissed as individual human error or breaches of the US rules of engagement.

MSF reiterates its call for an independent and impartial investigation into the attack on our hospital in Kunduz. Investigations of this incident cannot be left solely to parties to the conflict in Afghanistan."

 

[Eldorito]

Working from a rough description of the building provided from the ground, the sensor operators found a building close to the field that they believed was the target. Tragically, it was actually the hospital.

This, the authorisation to shoot it, and the blatant idiotic lies afterwards were the issue.

Yes, tech failed. They couldn't identify the building, that means you go home. You don't break the rules and fire on the building without ground confirmation of the target (required). You don't roll a tank in there afterwards. You don't fire when your radio isn't even working so someone can tell you to stop. You don't, like the Afghan government, lie and say there were Taliban there. You don't, like the US, claim you were protecting someone you weren't. This being painted as multiple failures is crap, it was human error.

 

[Alyeska]

SwedishSax[/url]":1b7nfgye]Ars Technica, its parent company Condé Nast and the reporter Sean Gallagher should be utterly ashamed of this article, which is nothing but a completely uncritical acceptance of the United States' attempt at whitewashing a major war crime.

Every piece of "information" reported here is in fact quoted from the story the United States is putting out -- but only paragraphs 6 and 7 contain attributions. Paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are equally only the US' version of events -- but these are presented as objective facts, nowhere qualified by phrases like "Campbell said" or "the US claims." Furthermore, no comment from Medecins Sans Frontières is printed or even sought. (MSF posted a response on their own web site, I have copied it here below for your convenience. It took all of fifteen seconds to look up.)

This is the standard of journalism one expects from Fox News. If you guys at Ars want to get into serious news reporting outside of your little techie area, you need to set the bar higher. Yards higher. For instance, you might consider at least including a link to the initial MSF internal review, released on November 5th.

Among other things, it states that the attack lasted for "approximately one hour, with some accounts saying the strikes continued for one hour and fifteen minutes," while you (Ars) claim it "lasted nearly a half-hour." How do you (Ars) account for this discrepancy?

How do you (Ars) respond to the MSF's list of 18 calls and SMSes exchanged with various US, Afghan and UN contacts, which establishes that the attack lasted at the very least 40 minutes and does not rule out a duration of more than an hour?

I'm asking you (Ars) because you report the US position as unchallenged fact, and if you choose to make yourself the uncritical mouthpiece for a suspected war criminal, you had damn well better be able to back your claims up.

The despicable reporting aside, it should be noted that blaming technology does not exonerate the perpetrators of this atrocity.

The position of the MSF, with which I am not affiliated although I do donate money to them, is that this event should be investigated by an independent, international body.

My own position, and it is the position of one who has also served in his country's armed forces, is that every man and woman on board that plane and up the chain of command to the point where the order was given is responsible and should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

The MSF's initial reaction to the US military investigation follows.

"The US version of events presented today leaves MSF with more questions than answers. It is shocking that an attack can be carried out when US forces have neither eyes on a target nor access to a no-strike list, and have malfunctioning communications systems. It appears that 30 people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people are denied life-saving care in Kunduz simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and “roughly matched” a description of an intended target.

The frightening catalogue of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of US forces and violations of the rules of war. The destruction of a protected facility without verifying the target – in this case a functioning hospital full of medical staff and patients – cannot only be dismissed as individual human error or breaches of the US rules of engagement.

MSF reiterates its call for an independent and impartial investigation into the attack on our hospital in Kunduz. Investigations of this incident cannot be left solely to parties to the conflict in Afghanistan."

If it wasn't an accident, that means it was intentional. Where is the motive? And if it was itentional, why lie about it? The US has already done hugely unpopular things while not giving a damn what people thought. Why attack MSF deliberately, but then immediately lie and cover it up?

Where Is The Motive?

 

[amp88]

DanNeely[/url]":17oybwzq]

amp88[/url]":17oybwzq]

Campbell said that "the electronic systems on board the aircraft malfunctioned, preventing the operation of an essential command and control capability and eliminating the ability of aircraft to transmit video, send and receive e-mail or send and receive electronic messages." The failure of the communications link prevented the sharing of data to and from the command center that would have made it possible to make up for the lack of a mission briefing—and for commanders back at Bagram Air Base to see the target before the AC-130 fired upon it.

Why did the mission even continue at this point? They were operating in an area which clearly had civilian/non-military personnel nearby (you don't need a highly advanced targeting system to tell you that, even if you're flying at night and working with infrared cameras). When there's even a chance of targeting the wrong building, why take the risk?

Because the likelihood of taking additional friendly casualties due to lack of air support is significantly higher than the odds of something going wrong due to some of the support systems being down.

You can't seriously be suggesting it was overall safer that the crew of an aircraft with severely limited communications and no access to the "no-strike list" made targeting decisions based on the approximate size and shape of a building than they returned to base and a functional aircraft was brought on station. Let's be clear: we're not talking about "some of the support systems being down". The direct quote from Campbell: "the electronic systems on board the aircraft malfunctioned, preventing the operation of an essential command and control capability and eliminating the ability of aircraft to transmit video, send and receive e-mail or send and receive electronic messages". I don't think "essential" is used lightly there.

 

[Martin Blank]

Mark086[/url]":wb9nvzrl]Bullshit.

This scenario requires a significant amount of incompetence.

You should read NTSB reports, especially for commercial flight accidents, and really especially for commercial airline flight accidents. With the exception of the very, very unusual, single-cause crashes, the number of places where almost any fatal accident could have been stopped is frequently so long as to defy the odds of an accident ever happening. Some of them are insanely long and involve the manufacturer, airline management, mechanics, inspectors, and flight crew overlooking things or making bad decisions, all of which lead to loss of life.

Changes are usually put in place to reduce the chances of them happening ever again. Sometimes people go to prison, and usually someone pays out on civil liabilities and fines.

These also happen when there are far fewer unknowns than on a battlefield and additional pressures and training that involves making decisions despite those unknowns is the norm. I'd like to see a separate investigation on this (though the US isn't about to allow access to classified data, so that's not really going to happen), but even with what was presented, there are a lot of links in this chain that need to be reforged.

 

[Statistical]

Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

Some are but then again some people think everything is conspiracy from JFK shooting to moon landing to 9/11 and every event in between.

Most people in thread however seem to just be expressing that operating a flying howitzer without coms would be grossly negligent. This isn't an "oops we shot the wrong building but it was totally unavoidable" scenario. It wasn't just tragic it was avoidable. You can't just disregard your own checks and protocols and then when innocent people die say "mistakes happen". People should be facing criminal charges but they won't.

Here is the thing. In the military you can't piss in a pot without a risk assessment. Doing PT in hot weather require a risk assessment, training overnight in freezing temps requires a risk assessment. You identify risks and indicate steps to mitigate them. You can sure as believe firing a flying artillery platform at night in an urban environment requires a fucking risk assessment.

So someone signed off on this and it was someone a lot higher up than the guy pulling the trigger. One such risk would be "we could accidentally target a hospital, risk is increased due to night operation and hospital markings unavailable". Countermeasure would be "targeting crew confirms targets against restricted target list". So someone is grossly incompetent at assessing risks or he knew the risk (and that the planned countermeasures were not available) and authorized the op anyways. Worse for this to happen people up and down the chain went along with it. They either accepted an insufficient risk assessment or they ignored what the assessment said and operated in violation of it. We are in criminal negligence territory here. A little press conference and oops see we shot the wrong building, these things happen is not sufficient.

 

[potato44819]

Martin Blank[/url]":2sg4con9]

Mark086[/url]":2sg4con9]Bullshit.

This scenario requires a significant amount of incompetence.

You should read NTSB reports, especially for commercial flight accidents, and really especially for commercial airline flight accidents. With the exception of the very, very unusual, single-cause crashes, the number of places where almost any fatal accident could have been stopped is frequently so long as to defy the odds of an accident ever happening. Some of them are insanely long and involve the manufacturer, airline management, mechanics, inspectors, and flight crew overlooking things or making bad decisions, all of which lead to loss of life.

Changes are usually put in place to reduce the chances of them happening ever again. Sometimes people go to prison, and usually someone pays out on civil liabilities and fines.

These also happen when there are far fewer unknowns than on a battlefield and additional pressures and training that involves making decisions despite those unknowns is the norm. I'd like to see a separate investigation on this (though the US isn't about to allow access to classified data, so that's not really going to happen), but even with what was presented, there are a lot of links in this chain that need to be reforged.

Indeed, reading those reports can be quite illuminating.

 

[Chuckstar]

Gawain Lavers[/url]":19i6d7qv]

Chuckstar[/url]":19i6d7qv]
It's not clear where you think the disparity is. The report does not deny that the plane circled the hospital gunning people down.

Gawain Lavers[/url]":19i6d7qv] But when the AC-130 crew punched the grid coordinates into their targeting system, it aimed at an open field 300 meters away from the actual target.

I guess I took that to mean a targeting system for their weaponry, which seems to me to have been clearly manually operated, but perhaps means a targeting system for the aircraft itself? I.e. a "piloting" or "navigating" system?

Did you actually read the article? They punched the coordinates into the computer, the cameras pointed at the spot the computer said, but it was just an empty field. So they looked nearby, saw something that looked about right, and figured the coordinates were off, which probably happens sometimes. But I would expect when it happens that way they aren't supposed to just say "hey, I guess this looks sort-of right" and go ahead and start firing. But that's what they did in this case. No one denies they ended up firing at the hospital for 30 minutes. And no one claims they thought they were firing at an empty field.

 

[Davisen]

So what are the other "flagrant" violations of the RoE? Or are you just going to make generic statements without support?

 

[Chuckstar]

Statistical[/url]":1rip79ao]

Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

Some are but then again some people think everything is conspiracy from JFK shooting to moon landing to 9/11 and every event in between.

Most people in thread however seem to just be expressing that operating without coms would grossly negligent. This isn't an "oop we shot the wrong building our bad kinda thing". You can't just disregard your own checks and protocols and then when innocent people die say "mistakes happen". People should be facing criminal charges.

Here is the thing. In the military you can't piss in a pot without a risk assessment. Doing PT in hot weather require a risk assessment, training overnight in freezing temps requires a risk assessment. You identify risks and indicate steps to mitigate them. You can sure as believe operating a flying artillery platform in an urban environment requires a fucking risk assessment.

So someone signed off on this and it was someone a lot higher up than the guy pulling the trigger. One such risk would be "we could accidentally target a hospital, risk is increased due to night operation and hospital markings unavailable". Countermeasure would be "targeting crew confirms targets against restricted target list". So someone is grossly incompetent at assessing risks or he knew the risk (and that the planned countermeasures were not available) and authorized the op anyways. We are in criminal negligence territory here. A little press conference and oops see we shot the wrong building, these things happen is not sufficient.

So to sum up your point: "some people think everything is a conspiracy, including me."

They had orders not to fire and they fired. That happens sometimes, and someone should be charged with negligent homicide. Just because they haven't been, doesn't mean they won't be. And just because it happened, doesn't mean someone higher up signed off on it.

 

[Drizzt321]

Alyeska[/url]"k1ab5kb]The article barely mentions this. The AC-130 had zero authorization to attack because there was a hold on combat airstrikes. That right there is the single biggest fuckup of the entire incident. The broken technology is a side show. Multiple people ignored standing orders of engagement. They violated direct orders. In the military, that is a Big Fucking Deal.

What is sad is that if a single component of this chain of mistakes had worked as intended, nothing would have happened. Had peopled followed orders, there would have been no strike. If the airplane had been grounded, either no strike or a strike from a working plane. If the combat controllers had read their fucking maps they could have corrected the positioning on the target.

Hence why this is a comedy of errors. Normally we laugh at our misfortune in real life to try and make light of a bad situation. But here the errors piled up with deadly consequences.

There was no malice. But there was criminal incompetence.

I somehow missed this. If you have no authorization, unless they were given a direct order from a legitimate authority, whoever on the crew that gave the command to fire (and then the rest of the crew for not refusing) violated orders. Inexcusable in the situation as applied (from what I understand) on the ground. Nope. Should not have happened with that blanket hold on airstrikes.

 

[Statistical]

Statistical[/url]":38hi4mmf]

Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

Some are but then again some people think everything is conspiracy from JFK shooting to moon landing to 9/11 and every event in between.

Most people in thread however seem to just be expressing that operating without coms would grossly negligent. This isn't an "oop we shot the wrong building our bad kinda thing". You can't just disregard your own checks and protocols and then when innocent people die say "mistakes happen". People should be facing criminal charges.

Here is the thing. In the military you can't piss in a pot without a risk assessment. Doing PT in hot weather require a risk assessment, training overnight in freezing temps requires a risk assessment. You identify risks and indicate steps to mitigate them. You can sure as believe operating a flying artillery platform in an urban environment requires a fucking risk assessment.

So someone signed off on this and it was someone a lot higher up than the guy pulling the trigger. One such risk would be "we could accidentally target a hospital, risk is increased due to night operation and hospital markings unavailable". Countermeasure would be "targeting crew confirms targets against restricted target list". So someone is grossly incompetent at assessing risks or he knew the risk (and that the planned countermeasures were not available) and authorized the op anyways. We are in criminal negligence territory here. A little press conference and oops see we shot the wrong building, these things happen is not sufficient.

So to sum up your point: "some people think everything is a conspiracy, including me."

I am not sure if you are ignorant or trolling

"Most people in thread however seem to just be expressing that operating without coms would be grossly negligent."

 

[ChiralMichael]

mcmnky[/url]":3dz3xmh9]

McDeath[/url]":3dz3xmh9]For those calling bullshit, remember the golden rule: never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity or ignorance.

"The aircraft responsible for the errant attack on the hospital was an AC-130U "Spooky" gunship, a 20-year-old aircraft that carries a five-barreled 25 millimeter Gatling gun, a 40mm Bofors cannon, and a 105mm howitzer. The airplane is a veritable flying artillery battery that "orbits" its targets while firing upon them with high-explosive rounds."

Operating such a weapon _is_ malice.

FTFY.

 

[Chuckstar]

Statistical[/url]":epxvzmgc]

Statistical[/url]":epxvzmgc]

Are people really taking the position that the MSF hospital was targeted on purpose? I know people love themselves some conspiracy theory, but why would U.S. forces actually do that? These are people on the ground who would end up in more danger if they were to be found doing something like targeting a hospital.

Or is it that such commenters think there must have been even more incompetence somewhere in the chain than what was claimed in this report? I guess I wouldn't have a reason to dispute that, except maybe just that the report seems to present plenty of incompetence as it stands.

Some are but then again some people think everything is conspiracy from JFK shooting to moon landing to 9/11 and every event in between.

Most people in thread however seem to just be expressing that operating without coms would grossly negligent. This isn't an "oop we shot the wrong building our bad kinda thing". You can't just disregard your own checks and protocols and then when innocent people die say "mistakes happen". People should be facing criminal charges.

Here is the thing. In the military you can't piss in a pot without a risk assessment. Doing PT in hot weather require a risk assessment, training overnight in freezing temps requires a risk assessment. You identify risks and indicate steps to mitigate them. You can sure as believe operating a flying artillery platform in an urban environment requires a fucking risk assessment.

So someone signed off on this and it was someone a lot higher up than the guy pulling the trigger. One such risk would be "we could accidentally target a hospital, risk is increased due to night operation and hospital markings unavailable". Countermeasure would be "targeting crew confirms targets against restricted target list". So someone is grossly incompetent at assessing risks or he knew the risk (and that the planned countermeasures were not available) and authorized the op anyways. We are in criminal negligence territory here. A little press conference and oops see we shot the wrong building, these things happen is not sufficient.

So to sum up your point: "some people think everything is a conspiracy, including me."

I am not sure if you are ignorant or trolling

"Most people in thread however seem to just be expressing that operating without coms would be grossly negligent."

It's the part where you're sure there was authorization from higher up that is being covered up.

 

[Rommel102]

This may not be popular but this is what happens in war. A generation ago we would have just dropped a few hundred bombs and saturated the entire area, taking out the target, the hospital, and a few city blocks.

Today's "precision" capabilities and the political climate in general through the last few conflicts means that we try to artificially restrict warfare in ways that honestly just don't really work. The fact that the Taliban were hiding in a building that looked similar and was located near a hospital certainly doesn't happen either, and was no accident.

We should of course do what we can to mitigate collateral damage but we cannot be surprised when things like this happen in war.

 

[spindizzy]

Doing it by accident doesn't stop it from being a war crime.

Incompetence, like ignorance is not a defence at law.

And this should have been investigated independently by the UN at least, the US has too long a history of whitewashing it's own atrocities to make this a credible report.

 

[Statistical]

The article barely mentions this. The AC-130 had zero authorization to attack because there was a hold on combat airstrikes.

I read the entire interview and missed support for this claim. The aircraft was launched specifically to support a troops in contact scenario (aka close air support). In fact the need for CAS is what lead to the poor decision to launch without proper briefing or no-strike list (compounded by the loss of tech to get that in realtime).

 

[Dayvid]

Alyeska[/url]":1obh91dv]

SwedishSax[/url]":1obh91dv]Ars Technica, its parent company Condé Nast and the reporter Sean Gallagher should be utterly ashamed of this article, which is nothing but a completely uncritical acceptance of the United States' attempt at whitewashing a major war crime.

Every piece of "information" reported here is in fact quoted from the story the United States is putting out -- but only paragraphs 6 and 7 contain attributions. Paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are equally only the US' version of events -- but these are presented as objective facts, nowhere qualified by phrases like "Campbell said" or "the US claims." Furthermore, no comment from Medecins Sans Frontières is printed or even sought. (MSF posted a response on their own web site, I have copied it here below for your convenience. It took all of fifteen seconds to look up.)

This is the standard of journalism one expects from Fox News. If you guys at Ars want to get into serious news reporting outside of your little techie area, you need to set the bar higher. Yards higher. For instance, you might consider at least including a link to the initial MSF internal review, released on November 5th.

Among other things, it states that the attack lasted for "approximately one hour, with some accounts saying the strikes continued for one hour and fifteen minutes," while you (Ars) claim it "lasted nearly a half-hour." How do you (Ars) account for this discrepancy?

How do you (Ars) respond to the MSF's list of 18 calls and SMSes exchanged with various US, Afghan and UN contacts, which establishes that the attack lasted at the very least 40 minutes and does not rule out a duration of more than an hour?

I'm asking you (Ars) because you report the US position as unchallenged fact, and if you choose to make yourself the uncritical mouthpiece for a suspected war criminal, you had damn well better be able to back your claims up.

The despicable reporting aside, it should be noted that blaming technology does not exonerate the perpetrators of this atrocity.

The position of the MSF, with which I am not affiliated although I do donate money to them, is that this event should be investigated by an independent, international body.

My own position, and it is the position of one who has also served in his country's armed forces, is that every man and woman on board that plane and up the chain of command to the point where the order was given is responsible and should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

The MSF's initial reaction to the US military investigation follows.

"The US version of events presented today leaves MSF with more questions than answers. It is shocking that an attack can be carried out when US forces have neither eyes on a target nor access to a no-strike list, and have malfunctioning communications systems. It appears that 30 people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people are denied life-saving care in Kunduz simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and “roughly matched” a description of an intended target.

The frightening catalogue of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of US forces and violations of the rules of war. The destruction of a protected facility without verifying the target – in this case a functioning hospital full of medical staff and patients – cannot only be dismissed as individual human error or breaches of the US rules of engagement.

MSF reiterates its call for an independent and impartial investigation into the attack on our hospital in Kunduz. Investigations of this incident cannot be left solely to parties to the conflict in Afghanistan."

If it wasn't an accident, that means it was intentional. Where is the motive? And if it was itentional, why lie about it? The US has already done hugely unpopular things while not giving a damn what people thought. Why attack MSF deliberately, but then immediately lie and cover it up?

Where Is The Motive?

It isn't hard to come up with a motive - they wanted to kill someone inside (there's multiple reports about the US inquiring before the attack as to who was inside for example). Is that what happened? I don't know, but motive isn't exactly the dilemma you're making it out to be.

As for why lie... it's hard to understand the state of mind that leads to that question. How many of the major US stories of the last decade have involved blatant government lies? Deny everything is practically step 1 at this point - regardless of how implausible the lie (everyone killed by a drone is a militant, honest!) you'll convince someone and stonewall any attempt to investigate. The better question would be what reason would there to be to admit to something like this no matter how blatant or obvious the evidence?

It's not like the explanation here is unbelievable, but you shouldn't automatically assume it's correct "because surely the US wouldn't bomb a hospital or lie".

We'll see where it goes from here - particularly with what happens to the plane's crew (which this explanation essentially blames for everything) - and if that ends up being something a lot more serious than temporary suspension.

 

[Statistical]

This may not be popular but this is what happens in war. A generation ago we would have just dropped a few hundred bombs and saturated the entire area, taking out the target, the hospital, and a few city blocks.

Today's "precision" capabilities and the political climate in general through the last few conflicts means that we try to artificially restrict warfare in ways that honestly just don't really work. The fact that the Taliban were hiding in a building that looked similar and was located near a hospital certainly doesn't happen either, and was no accident.

We should of course do what we can to mitigate collateral damage but we cannot be surprised when things like this happen in war.

Well we should be. It isn't like the military isn't aware of the risk, and doesn't have procedures to minimize that risk however in this case those procedures were ignored. It wasn't a single failure a sequence of failures which lead to it.

1) The aircraft was launched early without proper briefing.
2) The aircraft lacked a local no-strike list
3) The aircraft's only com link capable of remotely validating targets failed.
4) The aircraft was not recalled by anyone for more than an hour despite having no ability to verify targets against a no-strike list.
5) The targeting data lead to an empty field. This increased the risk of a misidentification combined with no ability to verify a no-strike list should have halted but it didn't.
6) After first shot obviously the JTAG wouldn't see any strike (looking at a different building). Combined with #2,#3, and #5 this should have lead to a more critical assessment.
7) The aircraft fired for 30 minutes upon a target that was at least questionable without any confirmation from the ground they were hitting anywhere near the target (in essence firing totally blind with a howitzer).
8) Roughly 12 minutes into the attack the Hospital contacted the military but no "cease fire" was issued to the aircraft for another 17 minutes. In fact no cease fire was EVER issued. The aircraft stopped firing because it had completed its mission.

Yes civilian casualties happen even with procedures are put in place to prevent them but they are more likely to happen when those procedures are ignored. Now to be clear most of the time procedures are followed and the military does work hard to minimize casualties but when those procedures are violated/ignored at multiple levels a hard look should be taken.

 

[Alyeska]

Dayvid[/url]":3ktlcr9u]

Alyeska[/url]":3ktlcr9u]

SwedishSax[/url]":3ktlcr9u]Ars Technica, its parent company Condé Nast and the reporter Sean Gallagher should be utterly ashamed of this article, which is nothing but a completely uncritical acceptance of the United States' attempt at whitewashing a major war crime.

Every piece of "information" reported here is in fact quoted from the story the United States is putting out -- but only paragraphs 6 and 7 contain attributions. Paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are equally only the US' version of events -- but these are presented as objective facts, nowhere qualified by phrases like "Campbell said" or "the US claims." Furthermore, no comment from Medecins Sans Frontières is printed or even sought. (MSF posted a response on their own web site, I have copied it here below for your convenience. It took all of fifteen seconds to look up.)

This is the standard of journalism one expects from Fox News. If you guys at Ars want to get into serious news reporting outside of your little techie area, you need to set the bar higher. Yards higher. For instance, you might consider at least including a link to the initial MSF internal review, released on November 5th.

Among other things, it states that the attack lasted for "approximately one hour, with some accounts saying the strikes continued for one hour and fifteen minutes," while you (Ars) claim it "lasted nearly a half-hour." How do you (Ars) account for this discrepancy?

How do you (Ars) respond to the MSF's list of 18 calls and SMSes exchanged with various US, Afghan and UN contacts, which establishes that the attack lasted at the very least 40 minutes and does not rule out a duration of more than an hour?

I'm asking you (Ars) because you report the US position as unchallenged fact, and if you choose to make yourself the uncritical mouthpiece for a suspected war criminal, you had damn well better be able to back your claims up.

The despicable reporting aside, it should be noted that blaming technology does not exonerate the perpetrators of this atrocity.

The position of the MSF, with which I am not affiliated although I do donate money to them, is that this event should be investigated by an independent, international body.

My own position, and it is the position of one who has also served in his country's armed forces, is that every man and woman on board that plane and up the chain of command to the point where the order was given is responsible and should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

The MSF's initial reaction to the US military investigation follows.

"The US version of events presented today leaves MSF with more questions than answers. It is shocking that an attack can be carried out when US forces have neither eyes on a target nor access to a no-strike list, and have malfunctioning communications systems. It appears that 30 people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people are denied life-saving care in Kunduz simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and “roughly matched” a description of an intended target.

The frightening catalogue of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of US forces and violations of the rules of war. The destruction of a protected facility without verifying the target – in this case a functioning hospital full of medical staff and patients – cannot only be dismissed as individual human error or breaches of the US rules of engagement.

MSF reiterates its call for an independent and impartial investigation into the attack on our hospital in Kunduz. Investigations of this incident cannot be left solely to parties to the conflict in Afghanistan."

If it wasn't an accident, that means it was intentional. Where is the motive? And if it was itentional, why lie about it? The US has already done hugely unpopular things while not giving a damn what people thought. Why attack MSF deliberately, but then immediately lie and cover it up?

Where Is The Motive?

It isn't hard to come up with a motive - they wanted to kill someone inside (there's multiple reports about the US inquiring before the attack as to who was inside for example). Is that what happened? I don't know, but motive isn't exactly the dilemma you're making it out to be.

As for why lie... it's hard to understand the state of mind that leads to that question. How many of the major US stories of the last decade have involved blatant government lies? Deny everything is practically step 1 at this point - regardless of how implausible the lie (everyone killed by a drone is a militant, honest!) you'll convince someone and stonewall any attempt to investigate. The better question would be what reason would there to be to admit to something like this no matter how blatant or obvious the evidence?

It's not like the explanation here is unbelievable, but you shouldn't automatically assume it's correct "because surely the US wouldn't bomb a hospital or lie".

We'll see where it goes from here - particularly with what happens to the plane's crew (which this explanation essentially blames for everything) - and if that ends up being something a lot more serious than temporary suspension.

The US military is OK with dropping bombs on suspected terrorists with children around. Collateral Damage. So why deliberately attack MSF and then immediately lie and cover up?

Don't assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation.

 

[Alyeska]

Statistical[/url]":1rb7hwup]

The article barely mentions this. The AC-130 had zero authorization to attack because there was a hold on combat airstrikes.

I read the entire interview and missed support for this claim. The aircraft was launched specifically to support a troops in contact scenario (aka close air support). In fact the need for CAS is what lead to the poor decision to launch without proper briefing or no-strike list (compounded by the loss of tech to get that in realtime).

I caught the tidbit about the hold on airstrikes on CBS news last week. Because of the draw down of US forces in Afganistan, certain things are on hold right now. There are not supposed to be any airstrikes.

 

[alterSchwede]

Alyeska[/url]":10syhj7g]
The US military is OK with dropping bombs on suspected terrorists with children around. Collateral Damage. So why deliberately attack MSF and then immediately lie and cover up?

Because deliberately bombing a hospital is a bit too brazen, and also a war crime, to admit publicly?