Wednesday, October 21, 2015
American Airstrike Hits Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan
Just a couple weeks ago, the United States military launched an airstrike on a Doctor's Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan and killing 19 patients and staff. Our government has defended the attack, arguing that the primary targets were Taliban insurgents inside of the hospital while hospital staff maintain that there were none. Unfortunately, the incident comes at a time when the United States is being increasingly heavily scrutinized for its use of airstrikes and drone strikes. Many say that our Military is being too indiscriminate with its use of force. In what cases is such force justified? Under which circumstances, if any, are civilian lives worth being put at risk? Is the force being used in the Middle East worth alienating the citizens there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my personal opinion, I think that sacrificing civilian lives is unacceptable in every situation. They did not ask to be in the middle of a war or a country that is filled with terrorism. Why should they be punished? If we must use force (which I am also against), then at least don't use it on civilians: innocent men, women and children who are just trying to live their lives as safely as possible. I also think that it is just horrifying that the US military attacked so close to a hospital. Hospitals should never be targeted and they should never be "collateral damage". That is just unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI also think that using force in the Middle East is not worth alienating the citizens there at all. By alienating them, not only are we making our reputation worse, but we are hindering their situation, not helping. If we truly want to help, offer them food, water, hospitals, clothing, a safe place to live. By alienating more people, we also only help the terrorists increase their ranks (indirectly). The terrorists can say that the US never helped them, that we just sat by and watched and bombed, etc. Violence does not solve anything.
This is unacceptable action on our part. If the bombing was a mistake, so be it, but sacrificing innocent injured people for a few Taliban insurgents who may or not be hiding? This is far below anything that we as a country should hold ourselves to. We struck them while they were down and that is unacceptable. Doctors Without Borders is an amazing institution; they try to save lives without bias, without racial or ethnic prejudice. The fact that we would strike at such a group is horrifying to me. I hope that we are not sinking to that level. I also believe that we should get ourselves out of there. Our level of involvement in other countries is incredibly high and in most cases, we are making the situations worse. By alienating the people in Afghanistan, we are making them more likely to join anti-American forces in the future.
ReplyDeleteForce is only justified in my opinion when the lives of our citizens or the lives of the citizens of our allies are in clear danger. To that end, we cannot put civilian lives in danger unless doing so will save a greater number of civilians. The violence in the Middle East isn't worth alienating its citizens; we need to find ways to help those countries combat terrorism without putting boots on the ground or missiles in hospitals.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn’t any justification for sacrificing innocent people, and the fact that it was a Doctors Without Borders hospital makes the situation even worse. The only time when sacrificing innocent civilians would be understandable is if it was going to save more people. The US thinks that it’s helping, but it seems like we’re just making things worse. I understand that they weren’t intentionally targeting a hospital, but it shouldn’t have been hit just because they thought there were Taliban hiding nearby. There are better ways for us to use our resources to help these people instead of adding to the chaos and violence. The US should send supplies and more medical help to these countries rather than the military.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe use of force should be justified when it will not harm American lives or lives of our allies. Civilian lives should never be put at risk, except for when doing so can save more lives, because killing innocent civilians is essentially murder. The force being used in the Middle East is not worth alienating the civilians there. It will further increase opposition against the US's intervening in foreign affairs and increase the popularity of anti-US groups.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, sacrificing innocent lives like that is not right and the fact that those lives were sacrificed without any primary targets in sight is just unacceptable. The only time I think sacrificing civilian lives would be acceptable is if it were to save more people in the end and for a good cause. The force didn't know for sure if there were Taliban insurgents in the Doctors Without Borders hospital, and that caused for 19 innocent lives to be taken away for their mistake. That's unacceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. The only way that lives should be put on the line is if there's certainty that the people needed to be killed are targeted.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the force in the Middle East is not worth alienating citizens there. We need to help those countries deal with terrorism and going in killing innocent lives isn't the right choice. There will always be uncertainty of if a terrorist is present or not, and if it comes down to it, lives will be at stake killing off more lives than need be.
Force should never be used unless we are in clear and immediate danger; killing innocent civilians when there is no true harm presented is disgusting. By doing this, the US is creating more tension with the Middle East, which is not helping anyone. We need to stop involvement in the Middle East unless there is an immediate danger because, otherwise, things will continue to get much worse. The US should never be thought of as a country who has greatly disrupted myriad other countries and also has killed civilians while doing so, yet, unfortunately, we are thought of as this, and people are afraid of us. If another country bombed one of our hospitals because they assumed there were terrorists inside and there actually weren’t, our entire country would be up in arms, and we would not tolerate it one bit. But somehow, it is okay when we do this to other countries. The US military needs to get out of the Middle East. If we are in the Middle East, it should be, like other have said, to give aid and supplies to those in need.
ReplyDeleteOverall I don't understand why we are the main proponents in the fight in Syria. Why are we always sticking our heads in places where we don't belong? That's probably a main reason why so many foreigners (especially in the Middle East) hate us. Look at what we did in Iran and Afghanistan. Did we really leave them better off? I think not. History has shown us that when we use force or back a certain group, it's usually the wrong group or we leave the country worse than before. I'm all for sending aid and medicine and other supplies, but who are we to judge which group would better serve Syrians? I don't think it's ever right to use force unless there is imminent danger. Killing random civilians is not okay, not even if other hostile people are in the area. There is always fighting in the Middle East and if we keep intervening we are going to agitate the people more and more. War is sadly inevitable, and I wish we'd step back because we have no business there.
ReplyDeleteI believe that risking civilian lives is should almost never take place.What happened at that Afghani hospital was totally inexcusable. I see no logical explanation where bombing a hospital filled with innocent patients and doctors would be necessary, even if there were targets in the hospital. Only when there are more lives on the line when not taking action should there be consideration of risking civilian lives. And I say that very hesitantly as it should be a last resort. And the our presence in the Middle East is arguable so we shouldn't be putting more people in danger.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there is no moral justification for killing innocent civilans at the sake of the possibility of enemy presence. This story was absolutely heartbreaking the fact that lives were taken away from innocent people at a place that is supposed to save lives. I beleve that the only time that it is merely acceptable to put innocent lives at risk is there was truly a threat against the majority of people in the surroundings. However, those actions should only take place in worst case scenarios. Our prolonged issues with the Middle East were already bad enough, this incedent did not help the sitaution at all.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, this action was simply unacceptable, and it would be so for any country at any time. The loss of innocent lives is never okay, and I want to make that clear before I attempt to answer any questions about when it is okay to use force. This attack was sloppy, poorly planned, and poorly coordinated, or so it seems. All of those things are things that cannot and hopefully will not be accepted in the future, as, again, the loss of lives such as this is just unacceptable, plain and simple. When is it okay to use force? I may not be the best person to ask this question, as personally I could never justify any action of force that strong and with intentions so cruel. Yet, I know and do understand that those in charge have to make decisions based on what they think will best help those they are trying to protect. For those people, in my opinion, it must come down to taking action only so as to protect yourself. Action to go on the offensive is only going to cause unnecessary loss of life. Now, the defensive doesn't necessarily have to be something direct, like an attack, but there is never a right situation to pick a war unprovoked. Furthermore, forces like this should be used as a last resort, only when necessary to protect the safety of innocent lives. We must be careful so as not to act simply on impulses, and we must also remember why we are there, which is in order to help' the citizens. The second we start hurting the citizens more than helping them, we have no right to be anywhere near them. We can't start invading for our own selfish reasons, because that will only cause more unnecessary loss of life. These are all things that are difficult to do, yet must be done, and it is a situation that staggers me through its horridness. I sincerely hope that this event causes nothing like it to happen again for a long, long time.
ReplyDeleteWe don't put soldiers through months and years of basic training for them to go and indiscriminately shoot at random buildings. Doctors Without Borders is a well-known organization and I find it hard to believe the soldiers inside the AC-130 didn't have some sort of layout or map telling them there was a civilian hospital on the ground. Their action is despicable and is just another demerit on our foreign policy. Where are the reports of the good things we are doing in the Middle East? We have been over there for so long. Shouldn’t there be information about how the progress we are making over there is preserving the national security of future Americans? Nope. All we ever hear about is how we are doing more harm than good. In a way, this is mostly our fault to begin with. The Taliban got footing in Afghanistan because the CIA helped train insurgent groups to combat the Soviet Union. So, we are fighting something we may have helped create.
ReplyDeleteI think we should only use force as a last resort. If the soldiers on the plane were acting in calculated self-defense and there was no other option, engaging the enemy seems like the best choice. But, there isn’t much proof that engaging the enemy was the best choice. Why couldn’t they fly away? Why couldn’t they confirm the location of the hostiles? That being said, none of us are over there in a giant airplane. None of us are living with the knowledge that at any moment we could get hit with an IED or an RPG. I have no doubt in my mind that I’d be scared. I would want to live and I would want to do whatever I could to ensure I live. In a way, we can’t be critical of a soldier who is probably just trying to get back home. It’s who’s in charge that need the scrutiny.
One thing I found in the article that I thought was interesting was when they talked about how small of a percentage the US has when it comes to civilian death. It really put into perspective how terrible the conflict is.
Ugh, yet again a disgusting example of US imperialist dreams in Central Asia/Middle East. When someone becomes a doctor, they are required to say an oath that they will help any patient, regardless of who they are. Doctors Without Borders is a wonderful organization.. The USA has no right to keep bombing and creating chaos in these countries- it is because of American terrorism that Islamic extremist groups spring up in the first place. The lives of innocent civilians should never be at stake; people should not be blamed for the actions of their government. Afghanistan is a beautiful country and Afghans are great people. The Taliban does not represent them. Such force can only be justified if it is CERTAIN that the place in question has people who threaten to destroy our country- and when I say "such force" I mean they should be arrested and possibly executed.. but the country itself should not be bombed.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't belive the U.S. military's claim of "accidental collateral damage." Our military has a history of events like this as mentioned in the article. If this was the first time our military had done something like this I would be more likley to believe their story. Our military has done this sort of thing many times before. Something must be done to show them that they are using too much force agianst foriegn threats that they should not be in conflict with. Why bomb ISIS or the taliban when they are nowwhere near the U.S.? There would not be terrorist attacks on the U.S. if they did not become so agressive in foriegn issues.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is an absolute tragedy, innocent lives were lost due to what could have been a lack of prudence, and I find that that is not at all acceptable. With the ability to cause such terrible things as this, we ought to be so very careful in our usages of such force. I do not see the level of care I would like to see by the people involved in this situation. Additionally, the alienation of citizens out there is a high cost, and all we have to do is remember our previous involvements in these areas to realize that parading our pell mell in such a fashion galavanting across the Middle East doesn't end well.
ReplyDeleteSometimes whether we like it or not there will be civilian death. There is times where we can not avoid this or we have to do it as a matter of national security. This is not one of those circumstances. These people did not ask to be in this situation. They did nothing to deserve death. These strikes were uncalled for. Did we really need to execute these attacks? Was it a pressing issue? These are the questions the US government should be asking themselves.
ReplyDelete