Afghanistan: US forces carry out cold-blooded murder at Kandahar hospital
By Peter Symonds
1 February 2002


In a one-sided battle in Kandahar on Monday, a US-led military force shot and killed 
six foreign Taliban supporters who had been barricaded into a ward of the Mirwais 
hospital since early December. The US military put the incident down to the 
intransigence of the six and their desire to be Islamic martyrs. But if one strips 
away the obfuscations, half-truths and bald-faced lies, what took place was another 
case of cold-blooded murder.

According to the official account, the whole operation was carried out by 100 Afghan 
militia belonging to Kandahar governor Gul Agha Shirzai-"advised" by squad of US 
special forces and snipers. An initial attack on the "Arabs" began in the early hours 
of the morning and was driven back.

Another assault began around 1.45pm. Snipers crawled into position, soldiers broke in 
through the hospital windows and the sound of stun grenades, pistol fire and automatic 
weapons was heard by journalists gathered outside. Three quarters of an hour later, it 
was all over. The result: all six "Al Qaeda" were dead; several Afghan militiamen were 
wounded, one seriously.

Major Chris Miller, the US officer-in-charge, told journalists: "Up to the last 
minute, we told every man to surrender. But none of them listened. These Arabs fought 
to the death." Khalid Pashtun, senior adviser to Gul Agha, parroted the same line: "It 
is all over. They fought until the last drop of their blood. We gave them an ultimatum 
and we said their lives would be spared, but they would not listen. We had no other 
choice."

As far as Miller and the US military were concerned, the case was closed-the "Arabs" 
got what they wanted... and deserved. Some of his troops were sporting "I love New 
York" badges and New York Yankee baseball caps-an indication that they were out for 
revenge... and got it.

What really took place?

It is not possible to answer every question from the available press reports. All of 
the articles, in one way or another, echo the official position-hardened Islamic 
terrorists... intent on becoming martyrs... died as a result. Nothing is rigorously 
questioned or probed. Any more critical observations appear as afterthoughts or 
nagging doubts. Even by sifting these accounts, however, a different story emerges.

Who were these six and were they Al Qaeda members?

According to one of the hospital staff, Dr Musa, they were all young men-between 17 
and 25. They were what remained of a group of 19 wounded foreign Taliban fighters 
trapped in the hospital in early December, following the collapse of the previous 
regime. The rest had fled, had been killed or arrested. Those who remained were the 
most seriously injured.

The labels "Al Qaeda," "international terrorist," and "Arab" are applied so 
interchangeably in the media to all foreign Taliban supporters that it is impossible 
to say what their affiliations were with any certainty. Reportedly the six came from 
Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Yemen. Their age indicates that the majority, if not all, 
were not hardened Al Qaeda members, but impressionable young men who came to 
Afghanistan seeking to defend the Taliban regime. The very fact that they were left 
behind indicates their insignificance to Osama bin Laden.

Why did they hold out?

A number of reasons may have influenced their unwillingness to surrender, not least 
the reputation of newly installed governor and US ally Gul Agha. An article in the New 
York Times on January 6 describes the warlord as a backward thug who rules his own 
militia with bullying and beatings, and metes out far worse to his enemies. Before 
marching on Kandahar, he had exhorted his troops to show no mercy to "Arabs and 
Pakistanis" and had been good to his word when he slaughtered foreign Taliban 
supporters at Kandahar airport.

The six Taliban supporters were boxed into a corner. Two of their fellow "Arabs"-in 
fact Uighurs from China-had been tricked by hospital staff and captured. Two weeks 
ago, at the instigation of the US military, the hospital had cut off their food 
supplies-a move that the Red Cross condemned as inhumane. According to the hospital's 
catering manager, Mohammad Rasul, they had "only one Russian-made pistol and a number 
of grenades... some were badly wounded. One had lost a leg and others had been hit in 
the stomach."

It is not even clear that the six understood the calls for their surrender on Monday. 
Gul Agha's spokesman explained that they had been hailed through loudspeakers but 
failed to say in what language. As if by way of an afterthought, he added that they 
had been sent a videotape in Arabic calling on them to give up.

Did they "fight to the death"?

To what extent any genuine fight took place is highly questionable. Having botched the 
first attack, the US and Afghan troops called up fire engines to pump water into the 
rooms where the Arabs were holed up. A debate took place about the efficacy of 
electrocuting the six by placing live wires in the water. That was ruled out-perhaps 
it would have appeared too much like murder. So a second assault was prepared and 
successfully carried out.

Several press reports raise doubts that the US-led force ever intended to capture the 
six alive. According to a Reuters article, the first police statement announced that 
only two were dead. An update followed minutes later, after fresh firing, that all 
were dead. An Independent journalist in Kandahar commented: "The truth is not clear. 
Four Afghan soldiers were wounded by grenade fragments or bullets and the rest may not 
have been in a mood to take prisoners."

The scene after the shoot-out points to a further discrepancy. A local Afghan 
journalist managed to enter the rooms and produced a videotape of the scene which 
showed six bodies riddled with bullets on the floor. Three of those who were "fighting 
to the death" were found huddled under two beds.

What part did the US play?

Major Miller told the press: "Strictly advise and assist was our role." Even on the 
available evidence the comment is a direct lie. The US special forces had been 
training the Afghan militia for just a week. American snipers were on the spot. The 
New York Times reported: "Figures in the jackets and khakis worn by special forces 
were visible in the thick of the action. An Associated Press reporter saw at least one 
throwing explosives." According to Reuters, an American could clearly be heard 
shouting orders.

More significant, however, is the shadowy presence of Americans out of uniform. A New 
York Times article revealed that an American in plainclothes was directing operations 
in the hospital ward after the assault. "At 6.15 pm, a convoy of pickup trucks left 
the hospital compound, at least one of them adorned with an 'I love New York' bumper 
sticker. Plainclothes Americans carrying M-16 assault rifles rode in the backs of 
several of the trucks... It is not clear where the bodies were taken."

It is an open secret that the CIA has been active in southern Afghanistan since 
September 11, working alongside warlords such as Gul Agha. But why should they and the 
US military be so keen to make off with six bodies? This bizarre twist to events 
perhaps points to the reason for the operation and its timing. The standoff at 
Kandahar hospital did not pose any significant military danger but it had become an 
acute political embarrassment to governor Gul Agha and his US advisers.

A Washington Post article explained: "Many local Afghans had previously expressed 
sympathy for the barricaded Arabs, and there was widespread public opposition to the 
decision to stop providing them with food... After the food supplies were cut off, 
there were frequent reports that civilians, doctors and some Afghan soldiers guarding 
the hospital were bringing in food surreptitiously."

Moreover, there is rising hostility in the area to the arbitrary attacks of the US 
military, which are continuing to take a heavy toll in civilian lives. Only last week, 
US special forces attacked two compounds at Hazar Qadam, some 100km north of Kandahar, 
killing about 15 people and taking another 27 prisoners. Locals, however, insist that 
the Taliban had already departed and that the dead belonged to a local militia. 
Moreover, they accused the US soldiers of executing several prisoners-two bodies were 
found in the rubble with their hands bound behind their backs.

The Pentagon continues to maintain that the target was an Al Qaeda "leadership 
facility" and that the special forces had not been misled by rivals to the local 
tribe. Speaking from US Central Command in Florida, Major Bill Harrison sought to 
reassure the media that the US military had other sources of information-U-2 planes, 
satellite reconnaissance, Predator drones and electronic surveillance aircraft. He 
declined to explain, however, how any of these sophisticated techniques had determined 
who was present at two compounds in remote rural Afghanistan.

At any rate, "explanations" that are simply bald denials carry very little weight with 
the family, friends and clan members of the victims. A number of such outrages have 
led to a rapid escalation of public resentment against the US military presence. In 
that context, the six fighters barricaded in the Kandahar hospital threatened to 
become a focus for the growing anger and a decision was taken to liquidate them.

The wounded Taliban supporters had been left to their own devices for weeks-largely 
because this particular military problem could not be solved with a cruise missile or 
a load of bombs from a B-52. Any attack had to take place in the middle of a busy 
city-in the public glare.

So the military operation had to be carefully prepared, along with the necessary cover 
story. Thus the week of training, the pat story delivered to assembled journalists... 
and the cleanup operation by the CIA and its helpers. In such a situation, no evidence 
could be left behind that would in any way contradict the official version of events.

See Also:
Afghan POWs at Guantanamo base: bound and gagged, drugged, caged like animals
[14 January 2002]
Open-ended US bombing campaign results in further Afghan casualties
[4 January 2001]
The Geneva Convention and the US massacre of POWs in Afghanistan
[7 December 2001]



Top of page


Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.


Copyright 1998-2002
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved 

Reply via email to