WASHINGOTN: A US drone strike in Kabul in August that killed 10 Afghan civilians was a tragic mistake but did not violate any laws, a Pentagon inspector general said Wednesday after an investigation.
Three adults, including a man who worked for a US aid group, and seven children were killed in the August 29 operation, with the target believed to have been a home and a vehicle occupied by Daesh militants.
“The investigation found no violation of law, including the Law of War. Execution errors combined with confirmation bias and communication breakdowns led to regrettable civilian casualties,” Lt. Gen. Sami Said, the inspector general for the US Air Force, said in a report.
“It was an honest mistake,” Said told reporters at the Pentagon.
“But it’s not criminal conduct, random conduct, negligence,” he said.
Said said the people directly involved in the strike, which took place during the US-led evacuation of tens of thousands of Afghans after the Taliban seized control of the country, genuinely believed “that they were targeting an imminent strike.”
“The intended target of the strike, the vehicle, its contents and occupant, were genuinely assessed at the time as an imminent threat to US forces and mission at Hamid Karzai International Airport,” the report said.
However, it said, the interpretation of intelligence and the observations of a targeted car and its occupants over eight hours was “regrettably inaccurate,” it said.
“What likely broke down was not the intelligence but the correlation of that intelligence to a specific house,” Said explained.
The US military believed it was targeting IS militants planning an attack on the evacuation operations, three days after a suicide bomb attack at the airport left 13 US service members and scores of Afghans dead.
The car was thought to have contained explosives like those used in the previous attack.
After a preliminary investigation, the Pentagon admitted on September 17 that it had been a “tragic mistake.”
The Pentagon said that the surviving family members would be compensated.
Said said that there was not one point of failure or a person to be blamed for the error. He also said it was not in his responsibilities to decide whether someone should be punished for the error.
US strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians did not violate law of war: Pentagon probe
https://arab.news/gyh3v
US strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians did not violate law of war: Pentagon probe
- "The investigation found no violation of law, including the Law of War," the inspector general for the US Air Force said in a report
- "It was an honest mistake," Lieutenant General Sami Said told reporters at the Pentagon
UK veterans are ‘ticking time bomb’ after Iraq war chemical exposure
- Fifteen former RAF personnel were deployed to the Qarmat Ali water plant in 2003, which was contaminated with sodium dichromate
- Veterans say they were not screened or protected, and are now living with serious health conditions
LONDON: Fifteen British servicemen who worked on a carcinogen-contaminated water treatment site during the Iraq war say they were not offered biological screening despite official guidance saying they should have been.
The former Royal Air Force members, who have suffered from ailments including cancer, tumors and nosebleeds, told Sky News they were offered no medical assistance or subsequent treatment after having been exposed to toxic sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in 2003.
The channel said it had seen a letter from the RAF’s medical authority stating that senior officers knew of the dangers posed by the substance.
Peter Lewis, 53, was one of 88 personnel deployed to guard the site, which was deemed vital for getting Iraq’s oil industry up and running. He told Sky: “I’ve had eight or nine operations to remove cancer.
“I’ve had so many lumps taken out of my neck, one on my face. This is something I’m literally fighting every year now. It’s constant.”
Qarmat Ali, the former troops say, was covered in ripped bags of bright orange sodium dichromate.
“We were never warned what the bags of chemicals were,” Jon Caunt, another former serviceman, said. “We were breathing this stuff in.”
His former comrade Tony Watters added: “I never thought about what it was. We were told the site is safe.”
Several months after deployment to the site, however, the servicemen were joined by two workers wearing protective gear who placed signs around it reading: “Warning. Chemical hazard. Full protective equipment and chemical respirator required. Sodium dichromate exposure.”
Watters said: “When you left the site, your uniform was contaminated, your webbing was contaminated.
“You went in your sleeping bag, and that was contaminated. And you were contaminating other people with it back at camp.”
Andy Tosh, who has led the group of veterans as they sought answers from the Ministry of Defence, said: “Even with the warning signs going up … they kept us there. They knowingly kept us exposed.”
The RAF gave some of the men a leaflet on their return to the UK, warning of the dangers of the substance, but not all were told.
The letter seen by Sky acknowledging the dangers posed to the veterans made a “strong” link to “increased risk of lung and nose cancer” as well as numerous other issues. It suggested personnel sent to Qarmat Ali should have their medical records altered to mention their exposure to sodium dichromate.
“Offer biological screening. This cannot be detailed until the numbers exposed are confirmed,” the letter also said.
An inquiry into US personnel deployed to Qarmat Ali found that 830 people were “unintentionally exposed” to sodium dichromate, giving them access to support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This came after the death of Lt. Col. James Gentry from cancer in 2009, which the US Army determined came “in line of duty for exposure to sodium dichromate.”
There has been no such inquiry by UK authorities despite British personnel being deployed at the site for longer than their American counterparts.
Thirteen of them have suffered from cancer and similar symptoms, including one who developed a brain tumor.
Jim Garth told Sky: “My skin cancer will never go away … It’s treatable, but when the treatment is finished, it comes back, so I’ve got that for life really.”
Lewis added: “I’m actually getting to the point now where I don’t care anymore … sooner or later, it’s going to do me.”
Caunt described his former colleagues’ conditions as a “ticking time bomb.”
He added: “We do not know what’s going to happen in the future."
The MoD insists medical screening was offered to personnel at the time, despite the men stating that it was not. In 2024, several met with Labour MPs about the issue. One, John Healey, who is now the UK defence secretary, said at the time the veterans should have “answers to their important questions.”
In a statement, the MoD said: “We take very seriously the concerns raised by veterans who were deployed to guard the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Plant in 2003.
“As soon as we were alerted to the possible exposure of Sodium Dichromate, an environmental survey was conducted to evaluate typical exposure at Qarmat Ali. Results showed that the levels at the time were significantly below UK government guidance levels.”
A 2004 letter seen by Sky News suggested, however, that the MoD knew the levels of sodium dichromate were higher.
“Anyone who requires medical treatment can receive it through the Defence Medical Services and other appropriate services,” the MoD said.
“Veterans who believe they have suffered ill health due to service can apply for no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme.”
Watters called on the government to hold an investigation into what happened at Qarmat Ali.
“We are the working class, we are ex-soldiers who have put our lives on the line and you’re turning a blind eye to us,” he said.
Garth added: “We felt let down at Qarmat Ali all those years ago, and we still feel let down now.”
