Pentagon: Special ops killing of pregnant afghan women was “appropriate” use of force

[FONT=TIActuBetaMono-ExBold_web]A[FONT=TIActuBeta-ExBold_web]N INTERNAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT[/FONT]investigation into one of the most notorious night raids conducted by special operations forces in Afghanistan — in which seven civilians were killed, including two pregnant women — determined that all the U.S. soldiers involved had followed the rules of engagement. As a result, the soldiers faced no disciplinary measures, according to hundreds of pages of Defense Departmentdocuments obtained by The Intercept through the Freedom of Information Act. In the aftermath of the raid, Adm. William McRaven, at the time the commander of the elite Joint Special Operations Command, took responsibility for the operation. The documents made no unredacted mention of JSOC.[/FONT]
Although two children were shot during the raid and multiple witnesses and Afghan investigators alleged that U.S. soldiers dug bullets out of the body of at least one of the dead pregnant women, Defense Department investigators concluded that “the amount of force utilized was necessary, proportional and applied at appropriate time.” The investigation did acknowledge that “tactical mistakes” were made.
The Defense Department’s conclusions bear a resemblance to U.S. Central Command’s findings in the aftermath of the horrifying attack on a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, last October in which 42 patients and medical workers were killed in a sustained barrage of strikes by an AC-130. The Pentagon has announced that no criminal charges will be brought against any members of the military for the Kunduz strike. CENTCOM’s Kunduz investigation concluded that “the incident resulted from a combination of unintentional human errors, process errors, and equipment failures.” CENTCOM denied the attack constituted a war crime, a claim challenged by international law experts and MSF.

When I visited Starkey in Kabul, he told me that at first he saw no reason to discount the official story. “I thought it was worth investigating because if that press release was true — a mass honor killing, three women killed by Taliban who were then killed by Special Forces — that in itself would have made an extraordinary and intriguing story.” But when he traveled to Gardez and began assembling witnesses to meet him in the area, he immediately realized NATO’s story was likely false. Starkey’s reporting, which first uncovered the horrifying details of what happened that night, forced NATO and the U.S. military to abandon the honor killings cover story. A half-hearted official investigation ensued.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A photograph taken by military investigators in the room where members of an Afghan family were killed near Gardez in Afghanistan’s Paktia province, Feb. 12, 2010.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:

Read more @: PENTAGON: SPECIAL OPS KILLING OF PREGNANT AFGHAN WOMEN WAS “APPROPRIATE” USE OF FORCE

The Pentagon and NATO caught in their lies again. Lies used to try to cover up a war crime. Then do a half assed "self investigation" and find themselves scot-free. Again, justice has not been done. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:

I was reading the article, with an open mind, until this:



With the caption:



Fresh "blood" stains on a US military issue set of desert boots and on the floor? With a claim that the picture was taken by military investigators? I guess it's possible, if it was extremely fresh blood and had not had time to begin to dry, but it sure looks staged to me.

This is what blood looks like on those type of boots after just a few hours of drying - I know, from numerous experiences:


This is what it looks like when the blood is extremely fresh, and hasn't had time to dry - notice that it's still darker than the bright red in the article's photo:



I read the rest of the article as well, after putting the above together to help others understand. The rest of the article is an interpretation of a FOIA response that is written with one purpose... to find fault and condemn the US military fighters that were confronted in the dark with unknown threats while in a hostile environment, under fire.

For those of us that have been there in such a situation, we have a different view of incidents such as this than do those that have not been in similar situations.

I can tell you from experience, that the members of the team involved are suffering quietly for any collateral damage or loss of life to those that were not an enemy combatant. However, they are sustained by knowing that they followed the ROE's and followed their training, as was established by the investigation that the article discusses.

Are military "cover-ups" (misinformation) possible? Honestly? Yes, especially regarding covert operations that go wrong. However, in this instance, there was no covert mission (a mission that could not even be acknowledged to have existed) even though JSOC personnel were involved, the mission was a standard mission for that AO, and the media was informed shortly after the event, so a cover-up is not possible in this instance. The only real cover-ups are those that can be done by saying "What operation?" That's not the case here.

Click to expand...

dirtpoorchris said:

So did some soldier really dig some bullet out of a dead pregnant lady? Whats the explanation for that?

Click to expand...