Baghuz strike: NGO war-crime assessment and contrary military review
Human Rights Watch authors described the March 2019 strike as an apparent war crime. A later Army review found no law-of-war violation and identified reporting failures.
Entities and roles
- Donald J. TrumpPresident whose authorized defensive rules governed the US strike
Claims and evidence
- allegationalleged
In their January 9, 2022 report published by Human Rights Watch, Letta Tayler and Elisa Epstein described the 2019 Baghuz strike as an apparent war crime, relying on a New York Times investigation of attacks on women, children and fleeing survivors.
- Human Rights Watch: Legacy of the Dark SideLethal Targeting and Air Wars, Baghuz paragraphs
- factdocumented
General Michael Garrett's May 11, 2022 review concluded that the March 18, 2019 Baghuz strikes complied with presidentially authorized defensive rules and the law of war. It found civilian-harm reporting deficiencies but no malicious concealment. The ground force commander authorized the strikes.
Measurements
Baghuz incident with a disputed NGO war-crime assessment1 incident - Basis
- Observed
- Population
- March 18, 2019 Baghuz coordinated strike incident
- Period
- 2019-03-18 to 2019-03-18
- As of
- 2022-05-17
- Method
- Count one incident with a published source assessment, not each munition, victim or publication. Human Rights Watch authors characterized the incident as an apparent war crime. This records the existence of that assessment, not proof of a crime.
- Uncertainty
- General Garrett's subsequent May 2022 review found no law-of-war violation and no malicious concealment. Retain that contrary conclusion with the incident. Presidential defensive rules establish policy scope, not personal target approval.