30 May Negligent Attack in Afghanistan Kills 20+
Winning Afghani hearts and minds, one dead civilian at a time:
In the civilian deaths case, attack helicopters fired missiles and rockets into the convoy on a main road near Khod village, where U.S. Special Forces and Afghan troops were battling militants at the time, a summary of the investigation said. Commanders judged that the convoy contained fighters heading toward the village to reinforce the militants.
But the order to attack was based on inaccurate information from the crew at an Air Force base in Nevada that was remotely controlling a Predator drone monitoring the convoy and on flawed analysis of the situation by NATO commanders, Army Maj. Gen. Timothy McHale, who led the investigation, wrote in the report.
Poorly functioning command posts “failed to provide the ground force commander with the evidence and analysis that the vehicles were not a hostile threat and the inaccurate and unprofessional reporting of the Predator crew … deprived the ground force commander of vital information,” McHale wrote.
“Information that the convoy was anything other than an attacking force was ignored or downplayed by the Predator crew,” it said.
In a memo released Saturday accompanying the report, McChrystal said he had issued letters reprimanding four senior and two junior officers in Afghanistan over the attack. He also called on the Air Force to investigate the actions of the Predator crew.
The report said the convoy drew early suspicion because men in it appeared to be providing security as it was tracked for more than three hours. Its movements matched radio intercepts of militants calling on others to join the battle near Khod, about seven miles (12 kilometers) from the site of the attack.
No women were seen in the vehicles, but two children were spotted near them at one point. This was inaccurately reported by the drone crew, the report said.
We usually think about drones killing innocent civilians directly. But let’s give them their due — they can kill innocent civilians in recon mode, as well.
While certainly lacking much of the context and other information that factors into command decisions, its interesting to consider the decision to proceed administratively and not criminally. Specifically, I wonder whether negligent homicide under the UCMJ was considered. Note the elements below, that only simple negligence is required and one need not have intent to injure or kill and still commit the offense. Art 134 (homicide, negligent) (1) That a certain person is dead;(2) That this death resulted from the act or failure to act of the accused; (3) That the killing by the accused was unlawful; (4) That the act or failure to act of the accused which caused the death amounted to simple negligence; and (5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Explanation. (1) Nature of offense. Negligent homicide is any unlawful homicide which is the result of simple negligence. An intent to kill or injure is not required. (2) Simple negligence. Simple negligence is the absence of due care, that is, an act or omission of a person who… Read more »
While I must caveat that I have no information about this incident other than the limited details that have appeared in the open press, from what I have read it appears that most egregious errors — i.e., those that might justify a criminal negligence prosecution, were committed by Air Force personnel in Nevada outside the chain of command and legal authority of theater commanders. It is my understanding that those reprimanded were in Afghanistan and dependent upon the information relayed verbally from the stateside drone operators. I hope, but recognize that it probably won’t happen, that this incident would lead to placing drone operators under the operational control of commanders in the theater so that in the event of similar future incidencts those commanders can have their actions investigated, and if necessary, subject to prosecution without being at the mercy of Air Force commanders with no direct responsibility for the results to do so. The incident does highlight the most important reason one must be part of a military organization to lawfully engage in hostilities – it is not the uniforms/distinction that Ken Anderson and others have mentioned in recent posts, but rather the legal accountability, including command responsibility, inherent in being under military… Read more »
Here are the unclass/redacted investigations findings:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/April2010-Dari/May2010Revised/Uruzgan%20investigation%20findings.pdf
Dave
Like you I am relying only on open source reports. And those do tend to place the majority of the blame on the USAF personnel, which were controlling the Predator in Afghanistan from Creech AFB Nevada.
Your point on the operational chain of command issue is well taken, but those reprimanded in Afghanistan must have done (or not done) something as they received reprimands. Per the redacted report, the culpability in Afghanistan seemed to occur in two ways: (1)poorly functioning command posts which “failed to provide the ground force commander with the evidence and analysis that the vehicles were not a hostile threat” and (2)inappropriate delays in reporting civilian casualties. I grant that (2) is post hoc but (1), in theory, could still lend itself to the neg hom discussion.
Leaving the issue aside whether criminal investigations are in place, unfortunately this is just one in a string of ‘incidents’ of ‘collateral damage’. One may wonder whether the term incident is even appropriate in that sense.
I’m currently residing in the region of South East Asia, and the local papers report similar incidents almost on a weekly basis, something that never struck me when I was back in Europe. Each time I read about infuriated and frustrated locals, I’m amazed that it never comes to escalation and repercussions. It begs the question, quite urgently, whether these airstrikes are worth it.