Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Probes Overlook McChrystal's Role in Costly Afghan Battles
WASHINGTON - Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, kept a remote U.S. base in the country manned last year at the local governor's request despite warnings from his field commanders that it should be closed because it was vulnerable and had no tactical or strategic value.
Head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, speaks during a press conference in front of Afghan president Hamid Karzai's portrait, at Governors' house in Lashkar Gah, Helmend province, southern Afghanistan, Monday, Feb.15, 2010 (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri) McChrystal's decision to maintain the outpost at Barg-e Matal prompted the top American commanders in eastern Afghanistan to delay plans to close a second remote U.S. outpost, Combat Outpost Keating, where insurgents killed eight U.S. troops in an assault Oct. 3, a McClatchy investigation has found.
Keeping Barg-e-Matal open also deprived a third isolated base of the officer who would have been its acting commander and left its command to lower-ranking officers whose "ineffective actions" led "directly" to the deaths of five American and eight Afghan soldiers in an ambush Sept. 8, according to a high-level military investigation.
In addition, an unidentified witness told the military investigators that the operations center that failed to provide effective artillery and air cover to the U.S. and Afghan force that was ambushed in the Ganjgal Valley was focused instead on Barg-e Matal.
However, the ambush inquiry and a similar high-level Army probe into the Oct. 3 deaths at COP Keating, the worst single American combat loss in 2009, don't mention that McChrystal's decision to keep Barg-e Matal open made the combat outpost and the Ganjgal operation more vulnerable.
Instead, the inquiries hit lower-ranking officers - including two field commanders who'd urged McChrystal for months to close Keating and Barg-e Matal - with administrative penalties.
The two officers, Col. Randy George and Lt. Col. Robert B. Brown, and other U.S. officials had warned repeatedly that the two outposts were worthless and too costly to defend, two American defense officials and a former NATO official told McClatchy.
Neither George nor Brown could be reached for comment.
A spokesman for McChrystal said the U.S. commander had ordered American troops to remain in Barg-e Matal to prevent it from falling to insurgents while a local militia was being trained there.
"The threat at that time was both significant and real," Rear Adm. Gregory Smith wrote in an e-mail.
Nuristan Gov. Jamalluddin Badr pressured the United States publicly and privately to keep troops in Barg-e Matal to prevent the village from falling to the Taliban before Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election. The two U.S. defense officials said McChrystal's decision to keep the outpost there open until the local militia was trained was intended to help Badr survive the political fallout had insurgents captured the village after an American withdrawal.
"Everyone knew why we were in Barg-e Matal," one U.S. defense official said. "McChrystal . . . was not in favor of pulling out because of the political ramifications."
The two American defense officials and the former NATO official said they wanted to discuss the matter because of what they considered flawed investigations that penalized the two field commanders but failed to hold McChrystal and other superior officers accountable. They requested anonymity to avoid retaliation.
They said that George, of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson, Colo., had begun making plans to close Keating in January 2009, six months before his 4th Brigade Combat Team deployed to Afghanistan last June.
He briefed plans to close Keating and Barg-e Matal to McChrystal, other senior commanders and top Afghan officials at a July 17 meeting in Kabul, they said, and he and Brown briefed McChrystal again in early August at Brown's headquarters at Forward Operating Base Bostick in Kunar province, they said.
"The Barg-e Matal operation made it impossible to close Keating," the former NATO official said. George "had a whole schedule for coming down out of those COPs accordion-style."
George, the American commander in four Afghan provinces that border Pakistan, has received a letter of admonishment; Brown, whose operational area included Keating and Barg-e Matal, has received an official reprimand.
The admonishment, which is a minor penalty, is unlikely to affect George's career, but the official reprimand could end Brown's career.
"They are screwing these two guys," the first U.S. defense official said of the field commanders.
"They were looking for heads," the second American defense official said. "It's a travesty."
Penalizing the pair is even more egregious, the U.S. defense officials and the former NATO official said, because their plans to close the outposts were consistent with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy of moving American troops from remote areas to economically important population centers.
The fact that officers in the field are being punished while no mention has been made of the role that their superiors played signals that those on the front lines always will take the blame when things go wrong, the first U.S. defense official said.
"This will make the Army even more casualty-averse," he said. "This is the worst message at the worst time for McChrystal to send."
Army Lt. Gen. Guy Swan, who conducted the Keating investigation, didn't return calls seeking comment on why his report, which found that manning Barg-e Matal delayed Keating's closure for several months, didn't hold McChrystal or any other general officer responsible for that decision.
Fewer than 70 American soldiers were deployed at Keating, which was in a deep valley and under frequent attack. It was closed after the Oct. 3 assault by an estimated 300 insurgents, some 150 of whom are thought to have been killed after U.S. airpower finally arrived.
"By mid-2009, there was no tactical or strategic value to holding the ground" and "the chain of command" decided to close Keating in "July-August 2009," the report says. The withdrawal was "delayed when the assets required to backhaul base supplies were diverted to support intense brigade-level operations in Barg-e Matal."
In addition, it says, drone aircraft and other intelligence-gathering "assets that could have given the soldiers at COP Keating better situational awareness for their operational environment were reprioritized to support Barg-e Matal as well as the search for a missing U.S. soldier in the south."
"The delayed closing of COP Keating is important as it contributed to a mindset of imminent closure that served to impede improvements in force protection on the COP," the report continues. "There were inadequate measures taken by the chain of command, resulting in an attractive target for enemy fighters."
A U.S. Army spokesman in Afghanistan said he couldn't discuss why Barg-e Matal's impact on the ambush in Ganjgal wasn't included in that investigation.
The report found that the commander of Forward Operating Base Joyce, which had operational control of the ambushed force of Afghan troops and border police and their American Marine and Army trainers, was away on leave, and his deputy was assigned to Barg-e Matal.
"The absence of senior leaders in the operations center with troops in contact . . . and their consequent lack of situational awareness and decisive action was a key failure," the report says.
An unidentified officer said in a sworn statement on the incident that "during this same period, we were managing leave, and providing battalion command and control to the fight in Barg-e Matal. The fight in Barg-e Matal had an even greater need for a competent battle captain because they were constantly in contact (with the enemy), and the (sic) lethal fight far more complex at that time than anywhere else in our battlespace."
The roughly 200 10th Mountain Division troops in Barg-e Matal were nearly a third of FOB Joyce's combat power, creating a major strain on the contingent, which was spread across parts of Kunar and Nuristan provinces.
The area was so "expansive" that a quick reaction force that would have been dispatched to relieve the ambushed force in the Ganjgal Valley had been disbanded, the unidentified officer said in his sworn statement.
Smith, McChrystal's spokesman, acknowledged that the top U.S. commander had ordered the makeshift base in Barg-e Matal held from July until mid-September to prevent insurgents from seizing the area while a local militia was being recruited and trained. Four American soldiers died during that operation.
"We responded to a request by the government of Afghanistan to support nascent security forces that had come under direct and sustained insurgent pressure and were jeopardizing governance and the people in the area," he said.
The area was a "historical rat line" - or infiltration route - for the Hezb-i-Islami insurgent group and al Qaida, Smith added.
There also was a "political component to the decision," Smith said, indicating that in one pillar of U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, McChrystal wanted to extend Afghan government authority to the district.
"The decision on the scale and tempo of support to Barg-e Matal was balanced against other competing operations," said Smith, who added that the local militia in Barg-e Matal is "doing a pretty effective job, so the investment has paid dividends."
Knowledgeable American officers and officials countered that the impoverished mountain backwater of 2,500 in Nuristan province has no strategic value, lacks any roads, is far from key population centers, traditionally has disdained the authority of the central government in Kabul and is historically hostile to outsiders, including other Afghans.
"It's lunacy to deploy forces to a location simply because the unseasoned, politically driven host government so requests," said a U.S. diplomat who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. "Bear in mind that this operation in what is undoubtedly one of the most remote and difficult locations in all of Afghanistan occurred at the time of discussion about revising our strategy to concentrate our forces in areas of dense population and strategic importance."
Barg-e Matal is deep in rugged mountains where insurgent snipers were so well dug in that American troops resorted to calling in jet fighters and attack helicopters to silence them, U.S. soldiers based there told a McClatchy reporter in September after he was denied permission to visit Barg-e Matal.
The troops, who originally were told that they'd be in Barg-e Matal for four days, said they were under constant attack.
The outpost of sandbags and concertina wire consisted of a girl's school and wooden homes on one side of a river that bisects the village, and the local administration compound where Afghan troops and Latvian trainers were based on the other.
It could be supplied only by dangerous nighttime helicopter missions, and the nearly constant fire made the reconstruction projects on which American counterinsurgency strategy hinges all but impossible. Local officials distributed some U.S. aid to the few locals who remained there, but they hoarded most of it, the American troops said.
Two Afghan soldiers shot and wounded themselves in September so they could be evacuated, U.S. troops said.



15 Comments so far
Show All>>Knowledgeable American officers and officials countered that the impoverished mountain backwater of 2,500 in Nuristan province has no strategic value, lacks any roads, is far from key population centers, traditionally has disdained the authority of the central government in Kabul and is historically hostile to outsiders, including other Afghans.
Which discredits the entire claimed mission in Afghanistan not so?
It seems the entire population of Afghanistan traditionally disdains Authority and is wary of outsiders. It seems a great portion of the country lacks roads.
So if one can ignore certain villages in that country for those reasons, why not the entire Country? Is the stated reason not as said, that to ensure terrorists have no place to gather and train? Can they not do it in these remote villages?
Or is it..."Oh we do not mind if they train in remote villages, just as long as they do not train in the cities"?
It should be patently obvious that this mission in Afghanistan has nothing to do with "Terrorism". That the US only deems it necessary to control certain large cities and routes with "Strategic value" directly contradicts that claim.
The areas of "Strategic value" are those that are rich in resources or that will be on the path of Pipelines they wish to see built to the Caspian.
GWNorth your last two paragraphs sum it up nicely. Of course we are lied to daily by newspapers, TV and govt. Schools don't teach much history and when they do it is mostly nationalistic hero worship. We don't teach much about political theory or world politics in this country either. So, an ignorant and propagandized public is not likely to notice or even understand what is going on.
Well...heellllooo....Afghanistan has a trillion dollars of oil, gas, and emeralds under those massive mountains. Here, I'll come to your house and steal everything of value so you can't have a life, health, children, rape the girls and slaughter the boys. Now, do you feel ok about that? Authority problem, my ass. Those people are pissed because we are raping that land, all of it. Osama was accurately correct in being as pissed off as he was. No one asked WHY. And what will you do when they come for you?
BTW, if you look at the USGS site and see where else in the world we are going after oil, gas, lithium and other minerals, even diamonds and emeralds for those bastards' whores to wear...you will find US military to back up the corpoRATS going in to rape the land and people. Disgusting.
HOW CAN WE CONTINUE TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO WHAT IS HAPPENING? How can we continue to allow the School of Americas aka..W$^*)_... to teach foreign soldiers to back up the corpoRATS? How can we allow those continually rotating 545 government officials, elected by US, to rape, pillage, and kill in our name? HOW?
One more thing...those people are not terrorists...they are no different than the multitude of militia developing in this country to protect our sorry asses when the shit hits the fan.
Prosecute McChrystal for war crimes. Prosecute Obama and Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Haul them before a war crimes commission, place them in the dock and someone with a whole bunch of courage and integrity should do the proper thing and that is to prosecute the whole lot of them for what they have done to the people of the Middle East!
Same Old Same when the Reich "probes" ITSELF! (But it'd be no different with the current no- account DEM-Obummer doublethink team).
If we weren't at 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan we would be at war somewhere else. War is good for 'bidness.' Manufacturing, stockpiling, selling weapons is what we are good at. Without war there is no market for what we have to offer. If the DOD budget for just one year was spent on promoting Peace around the world what could be accomplished? Just one Giganic Peace Corp? Boggles the imagination. It has been stated each troop in Afghanistan costs a million dollars a year. If each troop was given a million dollars to invest in the public welfare of a given community would he or she do more to advance peace than if he or she were involved in grand assults on villages and killing innocent civilians in the process? You are absolutely right, I do not understand the logistics of war. I do however, understand the logistics of Peace and understand that without Peace this planet as we know it will cease to exist.
Annabelle: " I do not understand the logistics of war". There is no hegemonic profit or power in peace for the greedy,selfish, and nihilistic wealthy,elite. And if someone a lot smarter than me could figure out how to make peace profitable, then maybe swords would be beat into pruning hooks and plowshares. All aggressive wars are based on industrial greed and selfishness. The only true patriot is the one that defends his country for righteous reasons against the tyranny of aggressive wars. Yes, we can either all learn to live in peace together or all die in wars together. There doesn't seem to be any other choice.
The USA base was in a girls school!
I thought this war was about teaching girls reading riting and rithematic?
Sorry to say it, but ... You're doin' a heckuva great job Stanley!
It is an old story. In Korea, whenever a general screwed up he was promoted and moved to another position. The guys on the ground suffered but the brass never did.
One fear is that these "chickenhawks" will only be prosecuted after they're dead.
Unutterable demons, all of them.