Facing growing condemnation from the international community for their actions in the weeks following their attack on the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz, an attack which killed 22 civilians, the Pentagon has admitted to a Friday incident in which they used an armored vehicle to smash into the bombed hospital, destroying potential evidence.
Ironically, the vehicle was there to deliver “investigators” to the site, and while a Pentagon spokesman conceded they shouldn’t have done so, he claimed it was done “in the interest of safety.” MSF workers were within the hospital at the time, even though it was closed after the US attack.
The Pentagon promised to repair the damage caused in the break-in, which is the closest they’re likely to ever get to admitting any culpability in anything involving the facility. Exactly how much new damage was done to the already bombed hospital is unclear.
But the timing is suspicious, as the smash-in came not long after the White House declared its opposition to an independent investigation into the attack. MSF has suggested significant evidence was destroyed during the break-in, which subsequently won’t be available if any credible investigation ever does happen.
The Pentagon has admitted to knowing that the site was a hospital long before it was ordered attacked, and confirmed that MSF contacted them when the first strikes happened. Despite this, the US continued attacks for a solid hour, and the Pentagon says it is unclear what happened after the MSF call was made.
4 thoughts on “Pentagon: Troops ‘Shouldn’t Have’ Smashed Into MSF Hospital in Afghanistan”
I was in the military for 4 1/3 years. Overall, the professional military people that I had to deal with were cruel, ignorant and extremely authoritarian. I had no real choice – a judge told me – the military or prison. My crime – vagrancy, in 1962, California still had "anti-Okie" laws
My cousin, who was in the Army, told me that in boot camp drills, they were marching in formation when a stray dog wandered in – they stomped the dog to death. All of this "hero" business is bs. Never serve, unless some army is actually invading.
For there to be a proper investigation, neither the US military nor MSF should have entered the site unaccompanied. However, I don't think a tank breaking down a gate would do any great damage. It certainly wouldn't destroy any relevant forensic evidence, although I don't see what evidence there could possibly be that would prove anything not already admitted. In any event, if MSF people were on the site before the Americans arrived, they would have had ample time to secure any evedence they thought relevant. However, they have also exposed themselves to the suspicion that they went in to plant evidence and they will inevitably arouse suspicion if they now claim that they found relevant evidence which was then supposedly(nad conveniently!) "crushed" by the tank.. Indeed, it is once again what MSF is not saying that is noteworthy. What evidence did its people find on the site after the attack? What has been done with that evidence? MSF would be more credible if it would just stop wriggling and squirming and tell the whole truth.
"MSF would be more credible if it would just stop wriggling and squirming and tell the whole truth."
As I said in reply to one of Kenny's rants yesterday, it's very useful to have him show up and make a public spectacle of embracing his beloved government's war crimes.
Comments are closed.