Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Kunduz Debacle
It’s been a disastrous week in Afghanistan. First the Taliban overran Kunduz — a major northern Afghan city — raising memories of 1996, when they stormed key cities before an assault on Kabul. Kunduz was the first city to fall to the Taliban after the Soviets pulled out, and the last from which we evicted them.
And if the idea of Kunduz back in Taliban hands wasn’t nauseating enough, six US airmen and an unknown number of civilians were killed when a C-130J crashed on takeoff at Jalalabad Airfield, in the southeast. (They were Capt. Jonathan J. Golden, 33; Capt. Jordan B. Pierson, 28; Staff Sgt. Ryan D. Hammond, 26; Senior Airman Quinn L. Johnson-Harris, 21; Senior Airman Nathan C. Sartain, 29; and Airman 1st Class Kcey E. Ruiz, 21. May they rest in peace.)
The plane crash was an accident, but the fall of Kunduz — not so much. I’m wondering what happened to the 7,000 Afghan troops who were supposedly garrisoned there. Were they even there at all, or was that just the plan on paper? If they were there, why did they flee from a Taliban force reportedly numbering hundreds at best?
Overnight, small groups of Taliban fighters – 15 or so men per group – entered Kurduz from different points and started attacking different spots across the city. The soldiers fled, so they easily took over all the official buildings, including the hospital and the prison [my emphasis], from which they freed hundreds of prisoners.
Alex Thompson correctly described this as a military, strategic, and political disaster — a predictable one, I’d add — and noted as well that there really wasn’t much we could do:
Because western ground troops have basically left the country, options are rather limited for the US. … Airstrikes? Into a densely populated city now controlled by highly-mobile militias on motorbikes?
Well, even as he was typing that, I assume, NATO jets went for “bad option B” and began airstrikes into a densely populated city now controlled by highly-mobile militias on motorbikes. They promptly, repeatedly, and very precisely hit the main area of the Kunduz Trauma Center, operated by Médecins Sans Frontières — and continued to do so for an hour, even after the hospital staff called authorities in Kabul and Washington and said, “Please stop bombing us. We’re a hospital.” By the latest count, fifty people, many of them children, were killed.
The eyewitness accounts from the doctors at Médecins Sans Frontières are appalling:
From 2:08 AM until 3:15 AM local time today, MSF’s trauma hospital in Kunduz was hit by a series of aerial bombing raids at approximately 15 minute intervals.
The main central hospital building, housing the intensive care unit, emergency rooms, and physiotherapy ward, was repeatedly hit very precisely during each aerial raid, while surrounding buildings were left mostly untouched.
“The bombs hit and then we heard the plane circle round,” said Heman Nagarathnam, MSF Head of Programmes in northern Afghanistan.
“There was a pause, and then more bombs hit. This happened again and again. When I made it out from the office, the main hospital building was engulfed in flames.
“Those people that could had moved quickly to the building’s two bunkers to seek safety. But patients who were unable to escape burned to death as they lay in their beds.”
MSF stresses that they’d recently recirculated the GPS coordinates of the hospital to all parties to the conflict — which is highly believable; it would be the obvious thing to do. They seem to be one of the only hospitals in Kunduz, so I presume it was on our maps already and marked by a giant red NO or some other clear symbol that indicates, “Don’t hit this thing or you’ll wind up in Leavenworth.”
MSF denies there were any Taliban on the premises. I don’t really believe them — the original accounts of the Taliban easily overrunning major buildings, including hospitals, makes that implausible — but I still cannot fathom the stupidity, not to mention the lawlessness, of striking the central wing of a well-known hospital. I’m inclined to believe MSF when they say, “There were no Taliban in the ICU,” or at least, I believe any Taliban in the ICU was there because he was in a condition such that he’d be unlikely to pose an immediate threat.
So I’m wondering who called in that airstrike. And why. Does anyone here know enough about how decisions like this get made to help me form a reasonable theory? (Stress on “reasonable,” not “conspiracy.”)
Anyone here old enough to remember 1988? I sure am. Remember this?
Phyllis E. Oakley, deputy to the State Department spokesman, said that Soviet bombers hit guerrilla positions in Kunduz, near the Soviet border, in the last two weeks. State Department officials said the Soviets were trying to prevent the Afghan Government from suffering the embarrassment of losing a provincial capital to the guerrillas just a few days after Soviet troops had withdrawn from the town.
”It’s clear that aerial bombardment has been an element of the regime’s efforts to retake Kunduz, and we believe that Soviet aircraft have been involved in these bombing runs,” Mrs. Oakley said. ”The use of the Soviet aircraft coming from inside the Soviet Union is a violation of the Geneva accords.”
The United States has filed a complaint with the United Nations mission monitoring compliance with the Afghan accords. American officials said they hoped that the United Nations team would investigate the charges and would call on the Soviets to avoid any repetition of bombing raids.
The officials said they believed that the Soviets would often be tempted to attack the guerrillas as Soviet forces complete their withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving the Kabul Government exposed to guerrilla offensives.
The Soviets have also dispatched ground troops from Kabul to reoccupy the garrison they vacated in Kunduz early this month, State Department officials said. It was apparently the first time that the Soviets had lost and then retaken a garrison, the officials said.
Such redeployment of troops inside Afghanistan does not violate the Geneva accords, the officials said.
The battle for Kunduz illustrates the military and political problems that the Soviets will face if they keep their promise to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan by Feb. 15. State Department officials have predicted that the Afghan Government will collapse soon after the last Soviet troops pull out.
Russia’s propaganda organs can barely contain their mirth today.
The foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policy of the 1920s — remind me, why did our electorate have a problem with that? They’re sounding better and better to me every day.
Published in General, Military
That sounds like Clinton-speak for: “Taliban were firing from the roof of the ICU.”
Even if there were Taliban in the hospital and even in the ITU, does that justify bombing a hospital? I don’t think so. MSF have called for an independent inquiry.
Only if they were firing from it. If they were patients in the ITU, then no, it’s a major Geneva Convention breach. A hospital’s immunity from attack can only be lost if the people or objects there are used to commit acts that are harmful to one side in a conflict.
Absolutely no one who was there is claiming the Taliban was firing from the roof. Even if they were, you’d have to respect principles of precautions — like warning civilians to get out. Otherwise you’re in war crime territory. Unfortunately.
Thanks for writing about this.
The human suffering is difficult to fathom and I don’t mean to diminish that by bringing up a political point, but I do have a comment to make about the news media and political optics.
As I jump from network to network this morning trying to find information about this (it’s not a headliner for sure) one thing stands out when I do see coverage:
As usual, neither Obama’s nor Biden’s faces or names make it into the story.
I harken back to coverage of Bush/Cheney on such stories. While the reporter would deliver the words, the video would be random shots of Bush waiving and smiling or playing golf, the subliminal message being he doesn’t care or isn’t paying enough attention to know.
I can’t find Obama’s name or face associated with this story, save for some words late in the written news that “he expects a full accounting.”
“Expects” an accounting? See how carefully placed he is as an obviously not responsible outsider who will get to the bottom of this from the outside, bearing no ultimate responsibility as commander in chief? These are the subtle Obama protectionist measures of the media. He is still portrayed as the good plaintiff activist who will take down “the man” for us.
I’ve asked this question many times: When, exactly, does Barack Obama become President?
You should add a spoiler warning. Some people still haven’t seen this movie.
Apparently the Russian version they watched didn’t have the right subtitles, because they’re making the same movie all over again. Even in 2001 I had a bad feeling about this one, hearing Afghanistan called the ‘grave of empires’ and watching the part it played in bankrupting the USSR.
And Tommy De Seno is 100% right – Obama is not being made to own this at all. Just as he won’t be made to own all the disasters his current foreign policies will cause in the years to come.
Filed under: Bad things happen in war.
We’re still at war in Afghanistan? Who knew?
Being snarky of course, with a son in the 101st Airborne Div I know very well we’re in a war in Afghanistan. Regrettably between Trump, Kim Davis, Trump, gun control, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump… it’s pretty far from the popular consciousness.
I’m sorry. This astonishes and infuriates me, but it must be indescribably more astonishing and infuriating to you. Please give your son my best regards.
The comments and concern expressed above (even the humor) fit well with my concerns about too much bravado in the aftermath of some pretty horrific years for American leadership.
We tend to want to jump into Syria, react to the Russians, and stand up to the Iranians, ISIS, or even China in the South China Sea. Our political distaste for the President’s politics makes us condemn everything he does, and he gives us too many fine examples, Iraq withdrawal, Libyan lead from behind debacle, and the Syrian red line, etc. etc.
But here is the thing, bad stuff, really bad stuff happens when you commit forces, try to stand up poorly educated locals as soldiers, and work inside complex constraints that are now a part of war. And for most of us, we fit the humor captured by Nick’s comment, “We’re at war in Afghanistan?”
Our forces travel with the things required to survive- water, food, medicine, ammo. They also take along one thing for death, human remains pouches.
We have to remember foreign policy is serious business and not something to vent, rant or get too self-righteous about. Gotta get it right. Gotta make sure the nation will remain committed. Can’t over-extend. Need to allow the other guy to make mistakes once in a while. Have to find efficient ways to create a balance of power. If you don’t get it right it not only sets you back over there, it tears us apart over here. Foreign policy, like all policy, is about preserving dominion.
That is what happened in Afghanistan this week. We were tragically reminded of the stakes.
What is the US’ objective in Afghanistan?
Does it require supporting the Ghani Government in Kabul, no matter what, or is there a realistic Plan B?
Zafar,
I think we are hoping to gradually disengage. We want the nation to not become dysfunctional and a breeding ground for terrorism.
But the issue is what power will fill our vacuum? Russia was burned. Iran influences the western side of the country and might move further east – probably will. Pakistan is always behind the scenes. This is a remote place that is problematic even if the people were united as one nation – and they are not. My suspicion is if the army really does become a force or at least a few brigades become a kind of official, uniformed alliance of power, then the state will devolve into a quasi military dictatorship or oligarchy with some of the remote parts governed by warlord type leaders who work with the central power base to secure passage and trade. A quasi-military style junta might work better. It will find its loyalties contested by Iran and Pakistan with some Russian intriguing. Hard to say how that turns out. They could even hold to elections and create some sense of democracy, but a strong group on top might be the only way to govern the tribes and all the competing outside interests.
14 years after September 11, 2001 and we still don’t have an answer and I am not sure outside of this thread anyone is even asking the question.
In response – I have no idea and doubt any candidate for President does either.
Respectfully, when has Afghanistan been ‘functioning’ and not a breeding ground for terrorism?
Before the Soviet invasion they were pretty progressive (in a good way).
Not true. Storing weapons is sufficient to remove protections under the conventions. Do it enough times and the symbol they were hiding under (either the Red Crescent or Red Cross) becomes a legitimate target anywhere in that theatre of war.
“The foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policy of the 1920s — remind me, why did our electorate have a problem with that? They’re sounding better and better to me every day.”
Unfortunately this doesn’t poll well in India, China or Latin American. I would look for more of the same with more of a banana republic flavor.
Always is, isn’t it.
Media reports indicate that President Ghani is strongly opposed to what he perceives as the US and China’s appeasement of the Taliban by the United States and China. There may be some scattered support in Southern Afghanistan, near Pakistan but it would be wrong to give imagine the Taliban enjoy widespread support in Afghanistan. Kabul and Northern Afghanistan deeply oppose their re-imposition.
The biggest loser is going to be the United States: It will cede strategic space to China in Afghanistan affairs — and they are of course in in cahoots with the Pakistan Army. In doing so it will marginalize India, which had legitimate security interests in Afghanistan.
Can emergence of a Russia-India-Iran triangle in Afghanistan be ruled out?
Was this when they were one of the world’s largest exporters of opium?
I couldn’t find Afghanistan on a map before the 80’s. From my perspective it is a stone age tribal region that isn’t really fit for 21st century global integration and democratic style governance.
I don’t think it can be ruled out.
I am still not sure what the benefit is of ruling Afghanistan. If China wants to overextend itself into Afghanistan I guess I prefer that to building islands in the Pacific.
Take a look at the Afghanistan that gave women the right to vote (1965) before Switzerland (1971).
As Tommy was hinting at, this is such an obvious case of “what if Bush were President”. Can you imagine the calls for war crimes trials?? Can you imagine the fake outrage in the pages of the NYT? The massively covered code pink protests outside the white house? I can see it now…protesters dressed in hospital gowns splashed in fake blood chanting BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED.
Well there’s this.
It’s also one of the countries between Russia and the Arabian Sea, which makes it strategic as an route option or a spoiler.
Pakistan is inevitably enmeshed in Afghanistan because of the Pathans:
But Iran is similarly linked by language (though divided by sect):
India would probably like to be involved, but needs to go through Iran, realistically. China is in place in Pakistan.
A question for those who know: the Taliban used to be a basically Pathan outfit. Is that still the case?
Apparently they already controlled the countryside around Kunduz – which is a Pathan speaking pocket:
Agree and good points, but how did that work out for the USSR?
“The biggest loser is going to be the United States: It will cede strategic space to China in Afghanistan affairs – and they are of course in in cahoots with the Pakistan Army. In doing so it will marginalize India, which had legitimate security interests in Afghanistan.
Can emergence of a Russia-India-Iran triangle in Afghanistan be ruled out?”
What will we lose? The ability to stop terrorism? Face? Is this a serious, vital or existential loss? What new Afghan government will want to run the risk of future US reprisal, decapitation? If there is a great loss, how much in time, talent and treasure should the U.S. invest? If a future regime dabbles in terrorist safe havens and those terrorist attack us, we probably won’t invade. We will just missile and drone them from remote locations which cost us a bundle in good will, diplomacy and cash.
China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan have an interest. India and China are adversaries with few interdependencies (as well as Russia and China, but they are interdependent in energy). India probably is not in the mix, though might try. India is intereste as it opposes Chinese Kashir encroachment and desires influence to keep the Wakhan corridor in Afghan hands. A Shiite, Persian population occupies parts of western Afghanistan – which interests Iran. Iran also wants a buffer client state, province or region. Russia’s interest is more tenuous – except for meddling and a grand long strategy. It has to consolidate Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzistan, and Kazakhstan first. Possible. The Wakhan corridor and Islamic terrorist infiltration are of interest to China. Pakistan wants to keep the others out, but might accede to some form of influence partition. They want security on their northern border as their history with India remains unsecure. This is one reason Pakistan played nicely with the Taliban. India is their existential enemy.
Our president could end up being the first world figure to achieve both a Nobel Peace Prize and an International Criminal Court indictment for war crimes.
Now that’s versatility, baby!
Richard Fernandez of the Belmont Club has an excellent piece on PJMedia on our foolish announcement that we were pulling out of Afghanistan and our subsequent shutdown of our logistics train into the country. Reversing our pullout at this point is going to be painful, even if it is possible.
If a C-130 was involved in the airstrike on the Hospital, they have video. Also, C-130’s don’t drop bombs, they fire miniguns or cannon.
Story from the Air force Inquirer here.