Testimony from US Marines casts doubt on Pentagon's account of Kabul airport attack aftermath
Newly released testimony from US military survivors of the August 26 attack at Kabul airport has cast doubt on the findings of the Pentagon's investigation into the incident, which concluded that nobody was hit by gunfire in its aftermath.
The testimony also adds to some of the questions raised in this week's CNN investigation,
in which Afghan survivors recalled seeing people shot in front of them.
Afghan medical staff in five hospitals also reported seeing gunshot
wounds in the dead and wounded, and one doctor recalled removing bullets
from four patients. The Pentagon had dismissed the Afghan accounts as
the result of memories jumbled by the impact of the blast, or, in the
case of the medical diagnoses, the result of inadequate examinations.
The investigators have nonetheless accepted they did not speak to any
Afghan civilians.
The
testimony comes in nearly 2,000 pages from the US military
investigation that were released by US Central Command under a Freedom
of Information Act Request from the Washington Post on Friday night.
Most of the names of interviewees are redacted, making it hard to
discern who each witness is. Yet from the details that remain it is
clear numerous Marines reported shooting in excess of the three bursts
of warning shots the US military investigation has stated were fired by
US and UK troops, and did not harm anyone.
Some
of the accounts are detailed. One Marine, from the Female Search Team
deployed to check Afghan evacuation applicants, is explicit about when
and how she opened fire. She said she decided to enter the blast area to
assist colleagues after the bomb detonated, and opened fire in thick
smoke without knowing what she was targeting.
"I
went in and saw a lot of Marines shooting by the jersey barrier. There
was a lot of smoke," she told investigators in an interview dated 13
October. "I couldn't see where they were firing. They grabbed me and I
started firing my weapon as well. I don't know what I was firing at."
The
testimony provides an important perspective on what the US military
knew as it drew conclusions that no Afghans or US personnel were shot.
Their conclusions have stated that Marines did not come under fire in
the aftermath, and only shot controlled bursts of fire at two suspicious
military-aged males, which hurt no one.
However,
in the documents, several Marines recall gunfire impacting around them
in the aftermath of the blast, one seeing a round hit a window in front
of him. They raise questions as to whether all the rounds fired have
been accounted for by investigators, or whether they were all harmless
warning shots.
One
Marine from 1st Regiment recalled in an interview on October 1 what he
saw when he ran into the tower next to the Abbey Gate entrance to the
airport where an ISIS bomber detonated his device. "I saw Marines return
fire. I heard three distinct shots hit the back windows of the tower.
The third round impacted right in front of my face as I was closing the
ballistic glass window."
Another
said: "I could hear sporadic rounds snapping overhead for about 5
minutes. I didn't see any tracers but saw sparks when bullets would
impact things."
A
group interview by investigators with junior Marines who were at the
blast site, from G company 2/1 Marines, had many accounts of bullets
impacting around the troops. One Marine said: "While I was applying
tournequets (sic.) I saw ricochets. Never saw a shooter."
Another quote reads: "I saw the shots hitting around us". Another reads: "I saw ricochets but didn't hear gunfire."
In
other excerpts, Marines suggested colleagues fired many shots back. It
is unclear how many Marines were interviewed, as names of speakers are
redacted.
"If
there were only 2-3 shooters and the amount of our guys shooting back,
they would've been done," said one. Another said: "I heard that a recon
guy dumped about three magazines of ammo that way."
In
some interviews, other troops say they did not fire at all in the
aftermath, despite the chaos and possibility they were under further
attack. Much of the testimony is consistent with the conclusions of
investigators.
But
the testimony also raises questions as to how thoroughly the US
military assessed whether patients their medics treated after the blast
were shot. US investigators have stated that medics treating the injured
initially mistook injuries caused by ball bearings as gunshot wounds,
as they looked so similar.
One
medic said: "I think there may have been GSWs [gunshot wounds]
sprinkled in, but that's inconclusive and wasn't medically worth trying
to figure out. They would be treated the same." The US military
investigation has insisted there were no gunshot wounds detected among
any patients US medics treated on the airport, and no bullets were
recovered.
One
US medic, identified as a "68Z," the military designation for a senior
officer often with medical experience, said: "Originally, a lot of the
wound (sic.) were classified as gunshot wounds, but they were actually
because of shrapnel. But there were some gunshot wounds. There was a
non-US patient that had a bullet inside the back of his head after small
arms fire." The medic, whose name is redacted, said in the interview
they saw 70 patients and: "I was the person writing the patients on the
board and assisting everywhere."
Captain
Bill Urban, a spokesman for US Central Command, said in an email
earlier this week to CNN that the medic was contradicted by surgeons in
the operating theater who said they did not remove bullets as they
worked. He said the 68Z officer was "was not a Medical Doctor or
Officer, and was not administering medical care in the Operating Room".
The "68Z" does however, in the interview, say they were formerly a
"combat medic" and an "LPN," a licensed practical nurse.
Urban
said some of the testimony highlighted to him by CNN were "examples of
statements deemed less credible ... For each of these instances you
describe, we had contradictory information from several credible
sources."
Urban
added: "While there are conflicting statements, as well as inconsistent
evidence, the investigation team drew its conclusions based on a
preponderance of all the evidence collected, after careful analysis and
synthesis."
Urban
also pointed to the likely impact of the blast on troops'
recollections, and noted how investigators "assessed credibility of
Service Members based on their maturity and experience in operational
environments." The documents appear to record mostly the junior Marines
at the scene of the blast seeing rounds impacting around them.
Urban
added that medics at the airport providing care did not assess how
patients were injured. "Medical providers did not make forensic findings
at HKIA and were solely focused on treatment," he wrote in the email.
"Many individuals and Leaders unaffected by the blast indicated that claims of incoming rounds were not accurate", Urban said.
Investigators
during Friday's briefing at the Pentagon said the "confined space" in
which the warning shots were fired "caused an echo which created the
illusion of a firefight". Urban added: "We have multiple sources
unaffected by the blast that indicate those affected by the blast who
claimed to fire their weapons did not."
No comments