Comments on: ‘Protecting the People’ Probably Doesn’t Mean ‘Attacking Hospitals’

By: Transitionland

Transitionland — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:00:09 +0000

Wow.

1) “Their [MSF's] concerns for their workers’ safety should go both ways.”

Meaning…what?

2) “I’m sure the UN’s Sergio Vieira de Mello believed in staying away from the military and their offers of help and security… right up to the end.”

That’s just crude, and crosses the line. If this was my blog, you’d be banned for that.

3) “Until the doctors claim that a Talib was pulled off the OR table, or IV’s pulled out of an arm, I still see little problem with a search.”

Except, you know, endangering civilian medical aidworkers and patients and sowing even more ill will between the military and civilian aidworkers, and between Afghan and expat aidworkers.

4) “You always treat enemy soldiers, but they don’t get a free pass to go home afterwards.”

Only this *wasn’t* a military hospital. It was a civilian hospital, run by a Swedish NGO and staffed by Afghans. Frankly, if Afghan doctors want to treat insurgents and release them with balloons and lollipops and without telling the authorities, that is neither a violation of their professional ethics, nor, as far as I am aware, Afghan or international law.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:17:49 +0000

I’m not sure who I’d default to in a he said/she said situation. The military’s been caught misleading reporters about its behavior on raids before.

By: David M

David M — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:24:54 +0000

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 09/05/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

By: John

John — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:29:40 +0000

What do you think the MSF is for? They don’t set up hospitals in Bermuda or Fiji. They bailed, then took their cheap shot.

Saying their neutrality and safety might be compromised might be a valid reason for leaving the country or staying away from the military, but their concerns for their worker’s safety should go both ways.

I’m sure the UN’s Sergio Vieira de Mello believed in staying away from the military and their offers of help and security… right up to the end.
————————-
Until the doctors claim that a Talib was pulled off the OR table, or IV’s pulled out of an arm, I still see little problem with a search.
You always treat enemy soldiers, but they don’t get a free pass to go home afterwards.

By: M Shannon

M Shannon — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:07:11 +0000

The platoon commander’s written response to the accusations from SCA have been printed on the FOX website. He says no one was tied up. My experience with such matters (a number of previous army raids on NGO clinics in another province) is that when the zap straps are cut off they are usually discarded at the site. The NGO should have some to refute the army version. If they can’t produce some I’d give more credence to the army’s story. At least there are no accusations of beating staff or theft of money and cell phones by ANSF, all of which usually accompany a raid on a NGO.

By: Transitionland

Transitionland — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:01:23 +0000

Joshua didn’t “throw the BS flag” on MSF’s decision to leave. He pointed out that the decision was probably at least partly political, though it could easily have been justified purely on safety grounds.

The IRC also left Afghanistan after four of its employees were killed. At the time, many within the aid community and some speaking on behalf of the IRC made the point that aid neutrality had been compromised irreversibly far in Afghanistan, resulting in more aid worker deaths than there likely would have otherwise been, and a rapidly shrinking humanitarian space for aid agencies to operate in.

Unlike MSF, the IRC has since returned to Afghanistan, but civil-military relations remain fraught.

By: sayke

sayke — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:34:38 +0000

John – I hate to say it but they raided it pretty good. Giving hospital employees the ole’ ziptie treatment is intolerable. If we don’t walk like the good guys or quack like the good guys, we’ve got issues. Let’s err on the side of the moral highground here.

By: John

John — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:18:27 +0000

You, and the Swedish Committee use a very broad definition of the word “attack”.
And the phrase “jackbooted stormtroopers” seems to be missing?

But thank you for throwing the BS flag on MSF’s decision to leave Afghanistan.