US bombed Tabqa Dam in 2017, endangering tens of thousands of lives

[SoldierOfTheKing]

A Dam in Syria Was on a ‘No-Strike’ List. The U.S. Bombed It Anyway.
A military report warned that striking the giant structure could cause tens of thousands of deaths.

It isn't often you'll see me posting NYT stories like this, and the big question here is why it took them five years to come forward with this, when the information is less useful.

What it does for us now is mainly to show us what kind of madmen we have running the Pentagon...

 

[RocksInMyHead]

and the big question here is why it took them five years to come forward with this, when the information is less useful

I suspect it's because the full details are only just now becoming available thanks to the whistleblowing by the two sources cited by the Time article.

 

[JustOneWay]

A Dam in Syria Was on a ‘No-Strike’ List. The U.S. Bombed It Anyway.
A military report warned that striking the giant structure could cause tens of thousands of deaths.

It isn't often you'll see me posting NYT stories like this, and the big question here is why it took them five years to come forward with this, when the information is less useful.

What it does for us now is mainly to show us what kind of madmen we have running the Pentagon...

And who was the man in charge of the Pentagon who should take FULL responsibility for endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people? He, whose name we shan't mention....

 

[Pommer]

Reporting from 2017

 

[cow451]

And who was the man in charge of the Pentagon who should take FULL responsibility for endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people? He, whose name we shan't mention....

Hint…. He is often referred to as the Defeated Former President.

 

[durangodawood]

For some reason targeting was run by Delta Force who have a rep for being more action than analysis.

 

[JustOneWay]

Hint…. He is often referred to as the Defeated Former President.

LOL You forgot twice impeached....

 

[Brihaha]

The trump administration was as transparent as a brick wall. They hid the increase in drone strikes from the public also. Because trump understands how easy it is to deceive voters. His voters do not pay attention to actions of politicians but are easily manipulated with words.

 

[wing2000]

For some reason targeting was run by Delta Force who have a rep for being more action than analysis.

...they are still subject to the chain of command...unless some rogue officer up the chain was directing....

"....members of a top secret U.S. Special Operations unit called Task Force 9 had struck the dam using some of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal, including at least one BLU-109 bunker-buster bomb designed to destroy thick concrete structures, according to two former senior officials. And they had done it despite a military report warning not to bomb the dam, because the damage could cause a flood that might kill tens of thousands of civilians."

...
The revelation of Task Force 9’s role in the dam attack follows a pattern described by The New York Times: The unit routinely circumvented the rigorous airstrike approval process and hit Islamic State targets in Syria in a way that repeatedly put civilians at risk.

 

[wing2000]

...fortunately, one of the 2000 lb bombs was a dud...and the dam withstood the attack.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

...they are still subject to the chain of command...unless some rogue officer up the chain was directing....

The impression that I got from the article, as well as another Times article linked in the OP article about another bombing that they directed, is that Task Force 9 personnel were requesting airstrikes outside of the standard chain of command by declaring "emergency" situations. My understanding is that it's not uncommon to give this sort of authority to special operations groups who may need immediate support due to their mission parameters. As "more highly-trained" soldiers, they're expected to use that authority responsibly and only when it's actually needed, but it seems that TF9 may have been abusing it. Hopefully this leads to a review of procedures as well as appropriate punishments for those responsible.

 

[St_Worm2]

...the big question here is why it took them five years to come forward with this, when the information is less useful.

Hello SoldierOfTheKing, that is indeed an interesting question, especially since it was reported on the day or the day after the bombing occurred, including what was done, why it was done, who did it, and what the results of the bombing were. For example (please take note of the date on this article): Russia criticizes US-led coalition over bombing of Syria dam | Fox News

If you figure out why the Times decided to report on it yesterday (since we've known for nearly 5 years now that nothing consequential happened that day in Syria, at least to the damn itself and/or to the people of that region as a result of the bombing), I would be interested to know

Surely if Fox News knew about it 5 years ago, the NYT did as well, yes? Perhaps yesterday was simply a slow news day

--David

 

[wing2000]

Hello SoldierOfTheKing, that is indeed an interesting question, especially since it was reported on the day or the day after the bombing occurred, including what was done, why it was done, who did it, and what the results of the bombing were. For example (please take note of the date on this article): Russia criticizes US-led coalition over bombing of Syria dam | Fox News

If you figure out why the Times decided to report on it yesterday (since we've known for nearly 5 years now that nothing consequential happened that day in Syria, at least to the damn itself and/or or to the people of that region as a result of the bombing), I would be interested to know

Surely if Fox News knew about it 5 years ago, the NYT did as well? Perhaps yesterday was simply a slow news day

--David

Hint:

"...according to two former senior officials."

 

[cow451]

LOL You forgot twice impeached....

Goes without saying, along with other labels we must avoid.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I suspect it's because the full details are only just now becoming available thanks to the whistleblowing by the two sources cited by the Time article.

They been available all this time. The Syrian and Russian governments condemned the bombing after it happen. The Pentagon denied it, and the Western press generally accepted those denials.

And who was the man in charge of the Pentagon who should take FULL responsibility for endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people? He, whose name we shan't mention....

General Mark Milley?

 

[wing2000]

They been available all this time.

...and you know these "former officials" have "been available all this time" how exactly?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hint: "...according to two former senior officials."

Hello wing2000, you're going to need to be a little less cryptic.

Did the "two former senior officials" add something new to the original (2017) story that failed to be reported back then (such that our knowledge about the event has now been substantially changed in some way)

If not, then I'm still wondering what the Times purpose was for running the article yesterday.

Thanks

--David

 

[wing2000]

Hello wing2000, you're going to need to be a little less cryptic.

Did the "two former senior officials" add something new to the original (2017) story that failed to be reported back then (such that our knowledge about the event has now been substantially changed in some way)

If not, then I'm still wondering what the Times purpose was for running the article yesterday scratch

Thanks

--David

The article implies this is new information (albeit it does not say when the interview occurred nor do we know how long the officials have been out of their former positions; also noting they are unnamed).

....and yes, this is significant new information:

"....members of a top secret U.S. Special Operations unit called Task Force 9 had struck the dam using some of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal, including at least one BLU-109 bunker-buster bomb designed to destroy thick concrete structures, according to two former senior officials. And they had done it despite a military report warning not to bomb the dam, because the damage could cause a flood that might kill tens of thousands of civilians."

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm not trying to be a pest @wing2000, but I believe that all (or almost all) of that was reported in the Times original article (and others) back in 2017 (I'll have to go look again to be sure). I believe that the details about the exact kind of weaponry is new, but that's about it.

It seems odd (at least to me) for the NYT to pivot to a story like this one (because we've known for years that this story has a very happy ending) right in the midst of so many new and extremely significant crises that we are still facing today!

--David

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They been available all this time. The Syrian and Russian governments condemned the bombing after it happen. The Pentagon denied it, and the Western press generally accepted those denials.

I wouldn't say that they denied it, per se. They said that it "wasn't a coalition target" and that if they had to strike areas at or near the dam, they used non-cratering munitions, with the implication that the bomb found inside the dam was one of those munitions gone astray. Saying that it wasn't a coalition target just means that they weren't trying to destroy the dam - the press conference linked in the article makes it clear that they were acknowledging striking targets at the dam:

I've seen a lot of crazy reporting in the media about Tabqa Dam in the last few days. We don't access that the dam is in any imminent danger and, to our knowledge, the dam has not been structurally damaged. The Tabqa Dam is not a coalition target and when strikes occur on military targets, at or near the dam, we use non-cratering munitions to avoid unnecessary damage to the facility.

source

The new information is that it was, in fact, a deliberate strike using cratering munitions that could have destroyed the dam, and that the personnel of TF9 apparently didn't receive any disciplinary actions for ordering it, despite being told that such a strike would potentially kill tens of thousands and lying about the circumstances under which it was being ordered.

Could they have done better in their initial reporting? Probably. But I don't see any reason to ascribe nefarious motivations.