Two things are missing from the new managements’ ‘new’ tactical directive: First, no tactical directive is useful without a serious disciplinary procedure to back it up, and there is no improvement as far as we can tell in an accountability procedure that is credible (notwithstanding the two sincere but overwhelmed civilians now ‘coordinating’ investigations at ISAF HQ), comprehensive (covers US OGAs, for instance) and consistent (standard between US and ISAF countries).

Second, ISAF/US still don’t get that their political problem isn’t systematic violations of IHL (the evidence doesn’t support that) but rather the perception among Afghans that the internationals don’t care about their well-being.

So in this instance, even if the attack on the clinic were IHL-compliant (and that’s unclear as frankly it looks as if ANA at least engaged in a legally dubious attack that the Apache had to bring to an end), the bottom line is that international forces destroyed a clinic.

The impact on civilians is immediate, and PR-wise, it takes attention away from the increasingly frequent and brutal systematic atrocities committed by anti-government groups.