By Michelle Mueller
Just last month a series of aerial bombing raids struck the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) Trauma Center in Kunduz, Afghanistan leaving 22 dead, and over 60 injured or missing. International media attention immediately followed as tensions rose over the perpetrator's intentions and MSF President Meinie Nicolai’s statement: “This attack is abhorrent and a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law… We cannot accept that this horrific loss of life will simply be dismissed as ‘collateral damage’.” The bombings occurred despite MSF efforts to ensure peaceful coexistence with both Coalition and Afghan military forces by providing the facility’s GPS coordinates. This event calls into question both American foreign defense policy in Afghanistan, in addition to the level of authenticity and accuracy of US media reports regarding the War on Terror. The Kunduz hospital airstrike provoked a call to action demanding greater transparency from our government and a call to awareness about how the media shapes public perception of war.
The Pentagon tried to explain that, “the strike was ordered to protect US forces on the ground,” however major military officials and media outlets contradicted this statement with a variety of stories. The only consistent element maintained that the US is at fault, as top US news headlines read, “US is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital” (NYT) and “Air attack kills at least 19 at Afghanistan hospital; US investigating” (CNN), among others. All of which were quick to infuse skepticism of US wrongdoing and involvement, as CNN’s opening tag reads: "(CNN) -- Aerial bombardments blew apart a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the battleground Afghan city of Kunduz about the time of a US airstrike early Saturday, killing at least 19 people, officials said."
Now imagine this: applying similar temporal vagueness to other historical events… The Native American population during the 15th century experienced a sharp decline about the time the Europeans docked in the New World…avoiding the truth without telling the lie.
The New York Times also employed ambiguous terminology throughout their initial coverage, perpetuating their pattern of indecisiveness and evasiveness.
Unfortunately, the facts were inconclusive: ultimately the Pentagon assumed responsibility, but shifted attention to a well-constructed distraction of a who-did-what-now. The conversation would have better served public interest by providing the foundation for a discussion of war, American military strategy, and foreign policy in the Middle East.
The Pentagon touted a number of stories in the days following the airstrike beginning with the original statement that the hospital victims may have been “collateral damage”, an unfortunate consequence at risk when engaging with potentially threatening insurgents. Without a doubt, this stance sparked international outcry and was further questioned when it was discovered that no Taliban fighters were recorded in the vicinity of the hospital grounds at the time of the attack. The Pentagon quickly adjusted their position with new claims that the Afghan National Security Force requested the airstrike. In addition, US General John Campbell stated that, “[The US] would never intentionally target a protected medical facility,” foreshadowing the current apologetic stance of the United States and promise of a thorough investigation.
What happened to the supposedly extreme precision of drone strikes? Where exactly is the military accuracy in almost 20,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2009? How do we justify loss of civilian lives as collateral damage? Why are we still in Afghanistan? These questions highlight the lack of transparency in our government, in our own country’s leadership. In a nation by the people, for the people, and of the people – our government seems to be increasingly without the people.
Michelle Mueller is an Assistant Online Editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations. She is senior at DePaul University majoring in International Studies.
