Baghuz strike: NGO war-crime assessment and contrary military review
Reporting and findings
- alleged
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
- documented
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.
- documented
The Pentagon's May 17, 2022 briefing gave the Baghuz review's casualty breakdown as four civilians killed and 15 wounded, separately from 52 enemy fighters killed and two wounded. The review found no law-of-war violation and identified reporting deficiencies.
- US Department of Defense: Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press BriefingBaghuz review discussion and closing casualty breakdown
Summary and current status
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.
Attributed NGO assessment; military review disputed illegality
People and organizations
- Donald J. TrumpPresident whose authorized defensive rules governed the US strike
Figures
US-assessed Baghuz civilian deaths4 people Calculation details
- Basis
- Observed
- Population
- Civilians in the March 18, 2019 Baghuz strike, US review assessment
- Period
- 2019-03-18 to 2019-03-18
- Method
- US review's civilian classification and casualty breakdown, excluding enemy fighters. Existing inquiry and possible-war-crime observations are not repeated.
- Uncertainty
- Official assessment differs from earlier reporting. Preserve the separately attributed source assessment and the US review's contrary legal conclusion.
Baghuz civilian-harm incident1 incidents Calculation details
- Basis
- Observed
- Population
- Civilians in the March 18, 2019 Baghuz strike, US review assessment
- Period
- 2019-03-18 to 2019-03-18
- Method
- US review's civilian classification and casualty breakdown, excluding enemy fighters. Existing inquiry and possible-war-crime observations are not repeated.
- Uncertainty
- Official assessment differs from earlier reporting. Preserve the separately attributed source assessment and the US review's contrary legal conclusion.
US-assessed Baghuz civilian injuries15 people Calculation details
- Basis
- Observed
- Population
- Civilians in the March 18, 2019 Baghuz strike, US review assessment
- Period
- 2019-03-18 to 2019-03-18
- Method
- US review's civilian classification and casualty breakdown, excluding enemy fighters. Existing inquiry and possible-war-crime observations are not repeated.
- Uncertainty
- Official assessment differs from earlier reporting. Preserve the separately attributed source assessment and the US review's contrary legal conclusion.
Baghuz incident with a disputed NGO war-crime assessment1 incident Calculation details
- 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.