Michael Carley looks at the free pass US media gave the US in its coverage of the Kunduz hospital bombing.
___
In the early morning hours of October 3rd, the US military bombed an Afghan hospital run by the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders, otherwise known by its French name Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF). Twenty-two people were killed—twelve MSF staff members and ten patients, including three children. More than 30 more were injured in the event.
There are many things that could be said about this event, mostly that we wish ones like it were less common. Perhaps the first is a lesson in how the media works overtime to protect the US when these things happen. It’s not a partisan issue; it happens in most foreign policy issues, but especially those surrounding war regardless of which party is in power.
Much of the media turned to the passive voice. It seems a hospital was bombed, though it wasn’t always clear by whom from the headlines.
|
Much of the media turned to the passive voice. It seems a hospital was bombed, though it wasn’t always clear by whom from the headlines. The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting took note.
An early CNN headline read “Air attacks kill at least 19 at Afghanistan hospital; US investigating.” Fox News went with a similar theme “US officials investigate airstrike in Afghanistan that killed at least 19 at Doctors Without Borders hospital”.
Notice how the media portrays the US in the most positive light. Someone bombed a hospital. From the headline, it’s not clear who, but the US—read, the good guys—is investigating. You have to read further to find out it was actually the US that did the bombing.
The New York Times was worse, changing its article on the issue at least twenty times and using at least three different internet links. That might not be unusual in an ongoing event where details are trickling in, but the same article had at least seven titles, none of which made responsibility clear. One of the latter versions read, “US is blamed after bombs hit Afghan hospital.” Note again, the US has been “blamed,” but the headline does not make it clear what was crystal clear to everyone by that point. The US was to blame.
Pentagon officials have changed their stories several times since word came out. Again, some of this is to be expected in a complex event with unfolding details, but clearly they are in damage control mode. Eventually, they came to the conclusion that the attack was a “mistake.” They blame Taliban rebels who they say put civilians at risk by being in the area.
This is a common tactic in such situations, to blame the other side, saying they created the danger by hiding near a protected target.
|
This is a common tactic in such situations, to blame the other side, saying they created the danger by hiding near a protected target. But international law on the issue is clear. Not only are hospitals protected, but all sides in a conflict are duty bound to do all possible to protect civilians serving in them. No matter what one side does, the other does not have the right to ignore the danger and conduct reckless aerial assaults. If the Taliban targets were in the area of a hospital, then ground forces should have been used. Civilian non-combatants must be protected, even if that puts members of the military at some risk.
MSF is having none of it. Though President Obama took the rare step of making a personal call to apologize, they believe it is a war crime and they are demanding an independent investigation.
♦◊♦
Doctors Without Borders works very hard to maintain their neutrality, which is essential to the work they do. They point out that they provided precise coordinates of the hospital to all sides in the conflict and had verified those coordinates within a few days of the event. The hospital, now partially destroyed, had been clearly marked, identifiable to anyone in the area. MSF also notes that the bombing continued for at least thirty minutes after they had contacted both US and Afghan officials, notifying them that they’d been hit.
“Even War Has Rules” has become the mantra of the organization. They call the strikes “not just an attack on our hospital—it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions.” Their workers assume some risk when working in areas affected by war, violence, famine, disease, and poverty but their mission is undermined if that risk is exacerbated by the largest military the world has ever seen.
The US and NATO are investigating the incident, but MSF is calling for an independent investigation. They have asked for one conducted by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. This group was established by the UN more than two decades ago, but has never been used because it requires one of the seventy-six signatory states to sponsor an inquiry. Given the way US power is wielded in the UN, that seems unlikely.
Americans like to talk about US exceptionalism, the idea that somehow we’re better than other countries, guided by stronger moral principles and the rule of law. You are likely to face criticism if you challenge this principle, as I did when I wrote about it a few years ago. But events like this demonstrate to the entire world what the real exceptionalism is. The United States is simply above the law.
But we shouldn’t be.
A version of this article also appeared in the Porterville Recorder.
Photo—Charity Organisation/Flickr
Ok. So in the end fact, what you’re really saying is the strike targeted the hospital on purpose. Was crimes were what you stayed. You can only have a war crime of a deliberate strike against innocents. So you better get the facts straight before a definitive statement. Not innuendo nor an article. The U.S. military does not normally deliberately strike hospitals nor innocents. So therefore it was a gross mistake or something is amiss in the overall reporting.
Doctors Without Borders believes it was deliberate. It doesn’t have to be deliberate for it to be a war crime if they showed disregard for civilian life. I however, did not claim it was deliberate. I’d like to see an independent investigation. Independent means not conducted by the US government or NATO. For more from MSF, see http://www.msf.org/article/factsheet-kunduz-hospital-attack
As to what the US knew and when they knew it…. Cites, please.
It is difficult to know who to believe any more. To cover up war crimes, every body lies. Anyway, it is difficult to imagine that US military intelligence and surveillance is so primitive that it did not know there was a hospital in that location. It is beyond belief because the hospital was on the surface and not a hidden or buried bunker. The issues are discussed in an Associated Press report APNewsBreak: US analysts knew Afghan site was hospital By KEN DILANIAN – Oct. 15, 2015 5:37 PM EDT, hardly a media outlet partial towards Islam or the Taliban.
Firstly, the US military knew precisely this was a hospital. Then secondly, why did the US military not contact the hospital and ask them to evacuate before the bombing ? No, this was a bloody minded punishment probably because the hospital was treating all wounded human beings including Taliban. This would be too much for the US commanders who see things totally in terms of black and white. It leaves one with that depressing sense that we are going backwards again and that the Renaissance has not really led to enlightenment but only more more efficient ways of performing barbarity.
It’s understood the US did the bombing. Nobody else is running air strikes thereabouts. So to keep repeating nobody said who did it as if not saying who did it is a datum is a waste of pixels. According to the laws of war, hospitals are to be marked with large red crosses, red crescents, or whatever the locals won’t find offensive. Marked on top. There are conflicting reports as to whether this had been done. If it hadn’t been done, the writer’s story fails. The writer suggests that, if the Taliban were using the hospital, ground troops should have… Read more »
The hospital was well marked and had been in place for several years. The GPS coordinates had been provided to all parties to the conflict. I’ve heard of no ‘conflicting reports’ on that issue.
I never stated that there would be fewer casualties had they used ground troops. I make no such claim. But all parties to a conflict are obligated to protect civilians and hospitals. MSF has stated there were no Taliban in the hospital. Even if there had been, the US is obligated to protect the facility even if that puts their troops at risk.