Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Errant Bomb Ruled Out in Afghanistan
AP via NYTimes.com ^ | 7/2/02

Posted on 07/02/2002 6:30:01 AM PDT by GeneD

Filed at 9:02 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It appears an errant bomb dropped by the United States was not responsible for scores of deaths reported in a central Afghan village, defense officials said Tuesday.

That bomb, from an Air Force B-52, is believed to have fallen in a remote or uninhabited area, officials said on condition of anonymity. They stressed, however, that the investigation is still under way.

Residents and officials said dozens of civilians, including women and children, were killed in an attack early Monday in the village of Kakarak, about 175 miles southwest of the capital of Kabul. Afghan estimates of those killed ranged from about 40 to more than 100.

U.S. military officials had said Monday that any of three things could have caused the civilian casualties: the bomb from the B-52, a raid by a U.S. AC-130 plane on anti-aircraft sites or anti-aircraft fire falling back to the ground.

U.S. investigators Tuesday were taking reporters and Afghan government representatives to the site of the accident.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis said Monday that the B-52 bomber attacked a cave complex in the same general area of the village in Uruzgan province. It dropped seven precision-guided, 2,000-pound bombs and one went astray.

But two Pentagon officials Tuesday said they did not believe that was the cause.

At about the same time as that mission a separate reconnaissance operation involving an undisclosed number of regular and special U.S. forces was under way in the same vicinity.

An American forward air controller on the ground reported fire from anti-aircraft artillery sites and called in the AC-130 gunship to counterattack, Davis said.

Some of the anti-aircraft artillery could have fallen back to the ground and caused casualties, Davis said.

Survivors say the planes attacked a wedding, perhaps mistakenly thinking celebratory fire from the party was mistaken for anti-aircraft fire.

It was not clear how close the anti-aircraft sites were to the caves and bunkers being bombed.

Whatever the explanation, the matter is a reminder that the mission in Afghanistan is dangerous, not only for American and allied forces searching for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters but also for Afghan civilians. If the attack turns out to have been a deadly error by U.S. forces, it would not be the first time that human or mechanical error led to unintended deaths and injuries there.

Just last week, U.S. Central Command said it had determined that two Air National Guard F-16 pilots were primarily to blame for the mistaken bombing in April of Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan. One pilot dropped a 500-pound bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers and injured others.

On May 31, U.S. troops mistakenly killed three of their Afghan allies in a firefight that broke out when both sides moved separately into a compound mistakenly thought to be a hide-out of Taliban and al-Qaida leaders.

About 7,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan. They have conducted little aerial bombing in recent months and have engaged in little direct ground combat since March.

Much of their work is going out on patrols looking for the enemy, watching sites al-Qaida and Taliban may use to hide, finding weapons caches and so on.

^------

On the Net:

Central Command: http://www.centcom.mil


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; southasialist; warlist

1 posted on 07/02/2002 6:30:01 AM PDT by GeneD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GeneD
So much for 250 dead, 150 injured. I wonder if this news will be trumpeted by the media to the extent of the original [false] story?
2 posted on 07/02/2002 6:41:35 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Survivors say the planes attacked a wedding, perhaps mistakenly thinking celebratory fire from the party was mistaken for anti-aircraft fire.

MEMORANDUM

July 2, 2002

To:Afghan hill people

From:Get-A-Clue, Inc.

Re:Things not to do

Dear Hill People,

Do not fire weapons into the air to celebrate a wedding if you are in a WAR ZONE.

cc: Iraqi desert people

3 posted on 07/02/2002 6:41:36 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Of course it should be ruled out, and immediately. In fact, I don't understand why the Press even reported this -- a matter for future investigation -- because, as we all know, our military never makes these sort of mistakes. Our military always does the right thing (except when it comes to Chinese embassies) and I, a former military man myself, am *affronted* that *any* insinuation of wrongdoing should *ever* be attributed to our military.

This shouldn't even be a discussion here. Moderator, end this thread NOW!

Tuor

[/Sarcasm]

Give me liberty or give me death.

4 posted on 07/02/2002 6:47:08 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Does anyone have any figures on how many civilians were killed by allied and axis operations during WWII? In Vietnam?
5 posted on 07/02/2002 7:25:01 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Doolittle's raid on Tokyo alone probably killed more civilians than Operation Enduring Freedom.
6 posted on 07/02/2002 7:39:22 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jae471
I did some research to answer my own question. From a U.S. Army publication come the following stats on the effects of Allied bombing and other military operations on the civilian population in Germany during WWII:

305,000 civilians killed
750,000 civilians wounded
485,000 residential buildings destroyed
415,000 residential building severely damaged
7,500,000 civilians homeless

These figures included military personnel stationed or on leave in cities and not part of regular combat units.

If this was the "good war," I wonder what a bad one would be like. Shows how our perspective has changed over the years.
7 posted on 07/02/2002 8:06:49 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
The military uses a formula that assures a 95% probabilty the target will be destroyed. In WWII, it required about 40 planes to reach the 95%. By Vietnam, it was about 10. The Gulf War was about 2 to 1. Now, the question is no longer "How many planes do we have to send", the question is "How many targets can we hit with one plane".

Imagine 40 B-17s trying to take out a factory with free-fall munitions. Now that same factory is taken out with one F-16 carrying two 2000 lb JDAMs. Considering it only takes 2 direct hits to destory the hypothetical factory, alot of that B-17 munition missed its target.
8 posted on 07/02/2002 8:38:46 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: *southasia_list; *war_list
Bump
9 posted on 07/02/2002 9:05:56 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson