Cowardice and Exoneration in Kunduz
"The people are being reduced to blood and dust. They are in pieces."
The doctor who uttered these words still thought the hospital itself was a safe zone. He was with Doctors Without Borders, working in Kunduz, Afghanistan, where the Taliban and government forces were engaged in hellish fighting and civilians, as always, were caught in the middle. The wounded, including children, had been flowing in all week, and the staff were unrelieved in their duties, working an unending shift.
"The people are being reduced to blood and dust. They are in pieces."
The doctor who uttered these words still thought the hospital itself was a safe zone. He was with Doctors Without Borders, working in Kunduz, Afghanistan, where the Taliban and government forces were engaged in hellish fighting and civilians, as always, were caught in the middle. The wounded, including children, had been flowing in all week, and the staff were unrelieved in their duties, working an unending shift.
Their week ended at 2 a.m. last Oct. 3 when - as the world knows - a U.S. AC-130 gunship began strafing the hospital, the crew apparently acting on the mistaken belief that this was a Taliban compound. The strike lasted for an hour, continuing even though the humanitarian organization contacted the Pentagon and pleaded that it stop.
A total of 211 shells hit the hospital. The Intensive Care Unit was wiped out. Every patient in the unit except for a 3-year-old girl was killed, some burning to death in their beds. A total of 42 people - patients, staff and doctors - died because of this lethal mistake.
One of the dead was Dr. Osmani, the young doctor quoted above, who had just begun ophthalmology training in Kabul but still worked at the MSF facility in Kunduz on weekends, according to an eyewitness account by Kathleen Thomas, another doctor there, an Australian, who survived.
"Our colleagues didn't die peacefully like in the movies," she wrote last month in The Guardian. "They died painfully, slowly, some of them screaming out for help that never came, alone and terrified, knowing the extent of their own injuries and aware of their impending death. Countless other staff and patients were injured; limbs blown off, shrapnel rocketed through them, burns, pressure-wave injuries of the lungs, eyes and ears. Many of these injuries have left permanent disability. It was a scene of nightmarish horror that will be forever etched in my mind."
Some mistake.
This is all news again, of course, because the U.S. government, having investigated the incident, has just released a 3,000-page, mostly classified report, uh, exonerating itself. This comes as no surprise.
Well, it admitted the bombing was an unfortunate mistake and 16 military personnel involved in the incident have received "administrative actions" as punishment. Also, since the tragedy, the U.S. has made "condolence payments" to the victims: $6,000 to families of the dead, $3,000 to the injured.
It seems to me all this requires a moment or two of profound silence, as we try to absorb both the tragedy and the absurdity of these events, which unite in a sort of horrific shrug of indifference to the predictable consequences of war.
The New York Times, for instance, informs us: "Still, the release of the investigation's findings and the announcement of the disciplinary measures were unlikely to satisfy Doctors Without Borders and other human rights groups, which on Friday reiterated their calls for an independent criminal investigation."
Of course Doctors Without Borders will not be "satisfied" with these findings, as though, my God, any finding or any action whatsoever by the U.S. military - gosh, the payout of six grand per dead Afghan or the stern punishment of a few scapegoats - could bring balance and resolution to the horror Kathleen Thomas describes. Just the use of that word - "satisfied" - trivializes the infliction of suffering, whether intentional or merely recklessly accidental, beyond comprehension.
But this is the language of war, as spoken by those who wage it and those who uncritically report it: a language of implicit moral relativism.
The same Times story, describing the report's account of what happened, explained: "The aircrew appeared to be confused by the directions from the Americans on the ground in the minutes leading up to the attack. At one point, the crew was told it would need to hit a second target after the strike it was about to commence, and 'we will also be doing the same thing of softening the target for partner forces,' that is, Afghans."
This is the reality: An action that wound up killing 42 hospital workers and patients -men, women and children, some of whom were burned alive in their beds - was instigated in order to "soften the target" . . . which is nothing less than linguistic exoneration of murder. Or rather, pre-exoneration.
And this is war. This is what the United States allots 54 percent of its annual discretionary spending - some $600 billion - to perpetuate. I'm quite certain this money would be unspendable, and the game called war would be unplayable, if it weren't for the linguistic pre-exoneration that removes all humanity from those who will die (think: collateral damage) and all responsibility from those who will kill.
But with the exoneration solidly in place, anything goes. Every side in war plays with the instruments of hell. The Times also recently reported that war zone hospitals everywhere are more vulnerable than they've ever been and the "rules of war" seem to be in tatters.
Maybe this is because war can't be contained by "rules."
For instance, not only have there been six attacks on hospitals in Aleppo, Syria - perpetrated by both government and rebel forces - in the past week, but also: "In 11 of the world's war zones, between 2011 and 2014, the International Committee of the Red Cross tallied nearly 2,400 acts of violence against those who were trying to provide health care. That works out to two attacks a day."
What might "satisfy" Doctors Without Borders or the maimed and grieving victims of the Kunduz tragedy? In my view, nothing less than an American commitment to global demilitarization.
This is called atonement.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
"The people are being reduced to blood and dust. They are in pieces."
The doctor who uttered these words still thought the hospital itself was a safe zone. He was with Doctors Without Borders, working in Kunduz, Afghanistan, where the Taliban and government forces were engaged in hellish fighting and civilians, as always, were caught in the middle. The wounded, including children, had been flowing in all week, and the staff were unrelieved in their duties, working an unending shift.
Their week ended at 2 a.m. last Oct. 3 when - as the world knows - a U.S. AC-130 gunship began strafing the hospital, the crew apparently acting on the mistaken belief that this was a Taliban compound. The strike lasted for an hour, continuing even though the humanitarian organization contacted the Pentagon and pleaded that it stop.
A total of 211 shells hit the hospital. The Intensive Care Unit was wiped out. Every patient in the unit except for a 3-year-old girl was killed, some burning to death in their beds. A total of 42 people - patients, staff and doctors - died because of this lethal mistake.
One of the dead was Dr. Osmani, the young doctor quoted above, who had just begun ophthalmology training in Kabul but still worked at the MSF facility in Kunduz on weekends, according to an eyewitness account by Kathleen Thomas, another doctor there, an Australian, who survived.
"Our colleagues didn't die peacefully like in the movies," she wrote last month in The Guardian. "They died painfully, slowly, some of them screaming out for help that never came, alone and terrified, knowing the extent of their own injuries and aware of their impending death. Countless other staff and patients were injured; limbs blown off, shrapnel rocketed through them, burns, pressure-wave injuries of the lungs, eyes and ears. Many of these injuries have left permanent disability. It was a scene of nightmarish horror that will be forever etched in my mind."
Some mistake.
This is all news again, of course, because the U.S. government, having investigated the incident, has just released a 3,000-page, mostly classified report, uh, exonerating itself. This comes as no surprise.
Well, it admitted the bombing was an unfortunate mistake and 16 military personnel involved in the incident have received "administrative actions" as punishment. Also, since the tragedy, the U.S. has made "condolence payments" to the victims: $6,000 to families of the dead, $3,000 to the injured.
It seems to me all this requires a moment or two of profound silence, as we try to absorb both the tragedy and the absurdity of these events, which unite in a sort of horrific shrug of indifference to the predictable consequences of war.
The New York Times, for instance, informs us: "Still, the release of the investigation's findings and the announcement of the disciplinary measures were unlikely to satisfy Doctors Without Borders and other human rights groups, which on Friday reiterated their calls for an independent criminal investigation."
Of course Doctors Without Borders will not be "satisfied" with these findings, as though, my God, any finding or any action whatsoever by the U.S. military - gosh, the payout of six grand per dead Afghan or the stern punishment of a few scapegoats - could bring balance and resolution to the horror Kathleen Thomas describes. Just the use of that word - "satisfied" - trivializes the infliction of suffering, whether intentional or merely recklessly accidental, beyond comprehension.
But this is the language of war, as spoken by those who wage it and those who uncritically report it: a language of implicit moral relativism.
The same Times story, describing the report's account of what happened, explained: "The aircrew appeared to be confused by the directions from the Americans on the ground in the minutes leading up to the attack. At one point, the crew was told it would need to hit a second target after the strike it was about to commence, and 'we will also be doing the same thing of softening the target for partner forces,' that is, Afghans."
This is the reality: An action that wound up killing 42 hospital workers and patients -men, women and children, some of whom were burned alive in their beds - was instigated in order to "soften the target" . . . which is nothing less than linguistic exoneration of murder. Or rather, pre-exoneration.
And this is war. This is what the United States allots 54 percent of its annual discretionary spending - some $600 billion - to perpetuate. I'm quite certain this money would be unspendable, and the game called war would be unplayable, if it weren't for the linguistic pre-exoneration that removes all humanity from those who will die (think: collateral damage) and all responsibility from those who will kill.
But with the exoneration solidly in place, anything goes. Every side in war plays with the instruments of hell. The Times also recently reported that war zone hospitals everywhere are more vulnerable than they've ever been and the "rules of war" seem to be in tatters.
Maybe this is because war can't be contained by "rules."
For instance, not only have there been six attacks on hospitals in Aleppo, Syria - perpetrated by both government and rebel forces - in the past week, but also: "In 11 of the world's war zones, between 2011 and 2014, the International Committee of the Red Cross tallied nearly 2,400 acts of violence against those who were trying to provide health care. That works out to two attacks a day."
What might "satisfy" Doctors Without Borders or the maimed and grieving victims of the Kunduz tragedy? In my view, nothing less than an American commitment to global demilitarization.
This is called atonement.
"The people are being reduced to blood and dust. They are in pieces."
The doctor who uttered these words still thought the hospital itself was a safe zone. He was with Doctors Without Borders, working in Kunduz, Afghanistan, where the Taliban and government forces were engaged in hellish fighting and civilians, as always, were caught in the middle. The wounded, including children, had been flowing in all week, and the staff were unrelieved in their duties, working an unending shift.
Their week ended at 2 a.m. last Oct. 3 when - as the world knows - a U.S. AC-130 gunship began strafing the hospital, the crew apparently acting on the mistaken belief that this was a Taliban compound. The strike lasted for an hour, continuing even though the humanitarian organization contacted the Pentagon and pleaded that it stop.
A total of 211 shells hit the hospital. The Intensive Care Unit was wiped out. Every patient in the unit except for a 3-year-old girl was killed, some burning to death in their beds. A total of 42 people - patients, staff and doctors - died because of this lethal mistake.
One of the dead was Dr. Osmani, the young doctor quoted above, who had just begun ophthalmology training in Kabul but still worked at the MSF facility in Kunduz on weekends, according to an eyewitness account by Kathleen Thomas, another doctor there, an Australian, who survived.
"Our colleagues didn't die peacefully like in the movies," she wrote last month in The Guardian. "They died painfully, slowly, some of them screaming out for help that never came, alone and terrified, knowing the extent of their own injuries and aware of their impending death. Countless other staff and patients were injured; limbs blown off, shrapnel rocketed through them, burns, pressure-wave injuries of the lungs, eyes and ears. Many of these injuries have left permanent disability. It was a scene of nightmarish horror that will be forever etched in my mind."
Some mistake.
This is all news again, of course, because the U.S. government, having investigated the incident, has just released a 3,000-page, mostly classified report, uh, exonerating itself. This comes as no surprise.
Well, it admitted the bombing was an unfortunate mistake and 16 military personnel involved in the incident have received "administrative actions" as punishment. Also, since the tragedy, the U.S. has made "condolence payments" to the victims: $6,000 to families of the dead, $3,000 to the injured.
It seems to me all this requires a moment or two of profound silence, as we try to absorb both the tragedy and the absurdity of these events, which unite in a sort of horrific shrug of indifference to the predictable consequences of war.
The New York Times, for instance, informs us: "Still, the release of the investigation's findings and the announcement of the disciplinary measures were unlikely to satisfy Doctors Without Borders and other human rights groups, which on Friday reiterated their calls for an independent criminal investigation."
Of course Doctors Without Borders will not be "satisfied" with these findings, as though, my God, any finding or any action whatsoever by the U.S. military - gosh, the payout of six grand per dead Afghan or the stern punishment of a few scapegoats - could bring balance and resolution to the horror Kathleen Thomas describes. Just the use of that word - "satisfied" - trivializes the infliction of suffering, whether intentional or merely recklessly accidental, beyond comprehension.
But this is the language of war, as spoken by those who wage it and those who uncritically report it: a language of implicit moral relativism.
The same Times story, describing the report's account of what happened, explained: "The aircrew appeared to be confused by the directions from the Americans on the ground in the minutes leading up to the attack. At one point, the crew was told it would need to hit a second target after the strike it was about to commence, and 'we will also be doing the same thing of softening the target for partner forces,' that is, Afghans."
This is the reality: An action that wound up killing 42 hospital workers and patients -men, women and children, some of whom were burned alive in their beds - was instigated in order to "soften the target" . . . which is nothing less than linguistic exoneration of murder. Or rather, pre-exoneration.
And this is war. This is what the United States allots 54 percent of its annual discretionary spending - some $600 billion - to perpetuate. I'm quite certain this money would be unspendable, and the game called war would be unplayable, if it weren't for the linguistic pre-exoneration that removes all humanity from those who will die (think: collateral damage) and all responsibility from those who will kill.
But with the exoneration solidly in place, anything goes. Every side in war plays with the instruments of hell. The Times also recently reported that war zone hospitals everywhere are more vulnerable than they've ever been and the "rules of war" seem to be in tatters.
Maybe this is because war can't be contained by "rules."
For instance, not only have there been six attacks on hospitals in Aleppo, Syria - perpetrated by both government and rebel forces - in the past week, but also: "In 11 of the world's war zones, between 2011 and 2014, the International Committee of the Red Cross tallied nearly 2,400 acts of violence against those who were trying to provide health care. That works out to two attacks a day."
What might "satisfy" Doctors Without Borders or the maimed and grieving victims of the Kunduz tragedy? In my view, nothing less than an American commitment to global demilitarization.
This is called atonement.