Drone Strikes Hospitals, Media Focuses on Which Side
A drone strike on an army hospital in Sudan's Kordofan region killed seven people, including medical staff, because apparently, even war zones appreciate the sanctity of 'targets' (The New Arab). This horrific act, blamed on the Rapid Support Forces, correctly elicits condemnation. Yet, how quickly does the humanitarian outrage dissipate when the drones bear a conveniently familiar logo, or when
the targeting doctrine is familiar? Remember when a U.S.-supplied F-16 or Israeli F-35 bombs a hospital, school, or refugee camp? The focus shifts from the act to the actor's 'intent,' not allowing for the possibility that some actors just don't care about the difference. Funny how a hospital being struck by 'rebels' is a clear war crime, but a hospital struck repeatedly by 'allies' is a 'tragic
mistake' requiring 'investigation,' which rarely yields anything more than a shrug. The real story isn't just *who* fired, but the pervasive culture where such strikes are becoming depressingly normalized, often with equipment gladly sold by nations that then feign surprise.