As the Pentagon investigates the airstrike that killed 22 civilians at an Afghan hospital a few days ago, it's crucial that authorities be as transparent as possible--not only about what the pilots and spotters on the ground did, but also about the rules they're required to follow.
The aerial attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz came from an AC-130 gunship. With its 25- and 40-millimeter cannons and low, slow flight pattern--and the fact that it works in conjunction with spotters on the ground--the AC-130 is considered far less likely to cause civilian deaths than a high-speed jet dropping bombs. The fallacy of this belief is all too evident in the wreckage at Kunduz.
Were the pilots and ground troops in Kunduz operating under loose rules of engagement? More broadly, are there good arguments for allowing the AC-130 and other direct-fire craft more freedom to engage? The answers to both of these questions will be hard to get--because the military keeps its rules of engagement classified.
This in turn raises the question of why these methods are classified to begin with. It would tough to make a persuasive case that releasing them would reveal vital information to the enemy. A public explanation of what happened in Kunduz will be a challenge for the Pentagon, but it's the minimum requirement after a mistake of this magnitude. Even more important, in terms of future prevention, is an assessment of the military's rules for protecting civilians. And for that debate, people outside the Pentagon need to know exactly what those rules are and how they can be improved.
Editorial on 10/09/2015