'Friendly fire' from US helicopters kills 10 Afghan soldiers

That attack was on an Afghan checkpoint south of Kabul this morning , two US helicopters attacked the checkpoint wich caught fire killing 10 and injuring several others.

"At 6am today, two US helicopters attacked a checkpoint in Baraki Barak. The checkpoint caught fire... and 10 Afghan army soldiers were killed," district governor Mohammad Rahim Amin told the agency.

A US military official was quoted as saying that he was "aware of an incident involving US forces in Logar province this morning".
"This incident is under investigation," he added.

Amin said the checkpoint was flying an Afghan flag when the US helicopters opened fire and claimed that the targeted outpost was "not a suspicious area".
"The Afghan flag was waving at the checkpoint in Baraki Barak when the Americans launched their attack," he told AFP.
www.ibtimes.co.uk...

What heck is friendly fire. You shooting at someone , that ain't no friendly.

There have been other instances in the past where Afghan checkpoints were being used by or they were in collaboration with local Taliban units. *Not saying this is the case in this instance but the men in country may have witnessed something we are not yet aware of.

Too soon to tell.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Shouldnt such things be easy to check?


Surely they have radios? I mean its not exactly new or expensive tec these days right?

US or the Afgan army just needs to radio through and check the checkpoints are real.

a reply to: crazyewok

US Chopper.

"Attention Afghan Checkpoint this is the US Army, Do you have any bad guys there?"


Possibly compromised Afghan Checkpoint

"Ummmm, No"

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: crazyewok

US Chopper.

"Attention Afghan Checkpoint this is the US Army, Do you have any bad guys there?"


Possibly compromised Afghan Checkpoint

"Ummmm, No"

Er no.

Officers back at base check if there is a meant to be a check point in the area.

If not send chopper in.

If so

Radio through with pass codes an check with officer in the field in the area.

If anyone fails to respond send it chopper.

All should take a few minutes and if there chopper is a few seconds away should not make a jot of difference right?


Surely the ones in charge back at headquarters should know were there units are in the field?
And surely those in command should be able to verify who is who?

a reply to: crazyewok

A legitimate established checkpoint could have been compromised, if so, they'll give the correct response. Traders would seem legitimate to any Officers inquiry at any given time but be up to nefarious activities while not under observations


Fog of War

a reply to: SLAYER69

Fog of War

Seems more like a blunder to me.

Amin said the checkpoint was flying an Afghan flag when the US helicopters opened fire and claimed that the targeted outpost was "not a suspicious area".

Why do people always try and invent excuses? It just makes things worse.

This sounds like a balls-up. And a bad one at that.

The US armed forces aren't deities. Everyone makes mistakes.

a reply to: gortex

Could very well be a blunder.


However I can't tell you how many times over the years here at ATS that I've seen stories fall apart after all the facts come out. It seems prudent though to be objective until we know all the details and not just run with it.

imho of course,

I like how they say "caught fire" like the fire is what killed them and they weren't either blown up straight away or picked off one by one with a machine gun / long range grenade.

There are many things, in my experience, that could go wrong to cause something like this.

A Nearby TIC(Troops in Contact) could easily mislead pilots to believe that the checkpoint was actually the source of the TIC. Unknown check point. Meaning this check point was not part of any intel reports, map updates(it could have been recently erected) or it was simply overlooked.


Visual confirmation isn't really going to be possible from the gun cam. The Gunship still has to have authority to shoot which means that someone up the chain dropped the ball on that one.

PID is the most important part of combat operations in Afghanistan. They did not have PID and they were authorized to shoot. I feel bad for everyone involved.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Possibly compromised Afghan Checkpoint

At night, from the air. How could they tell, since they were 'in disguise'?

These kind of night attacks on targets (especially designated 'friendly') are usually called in as support missions by ground personnel, marked with laser designators and guided by radio.

Permission to fire is not arbitrary or decided upon by gunship crews alone. Especially in designated friendly zones…

Heres an example how thats undertaken from Iraq…

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SLAYER69

Shouldnt such things be easy to check?


Surely they have radios? I mean its not exactly new or expensive tec these days right?

US or the Afgan army just needs to radio through and check the checkpoints are real.

Often Afghan soldiers dress casual to blend in with Taliban undercover...

Alternatively the Taliban often kill soldiers and then steal their uniforms to blend in with the army...


It's why these Middle East wars will never be won from the sky...
All it does it litter the kill count with innocents...

Hard to place blame.


As to the radio, if it's an undercover op, they won't always relay it.

a reply to: Cloudbuster

What heck is friendly fire.

Seriously ? I may be stating the obvious here...when you get shot by one of your own..usually by accident. It also refers to the one getting shot...by friendly fire, not doing the shooting.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: gortex

Could very well be a blunder.


However I can't tell you how many times over the years here at ATS that I've seen stories fall apart after all the facts come out. It seems prudent though to be objective until we know all the details and not just run with it.

imho of course,

Well like you I'm not going to put blame on anyone yet.

It seems someone made a blunder but who fault we cant really say until more information comes out.

But as someone said its tragic for all involved.

Always like how everyone who hasn't been in combat is an expert in combat...there are dozens of reasons why this could have happened....and it is always sad when ff does happen....ok the arm chair warriors can continue with their expert analysis.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
Always like how everyone who hasn't been in combat is an expert in combat...there are dozens of reasons why this could have happened....and it is always sad when ff does happen....ok the arm chair warriors can continue with their expert analysis.

I was just asking questions.

I live in a free bloody country.

Target recognition is extremely difficult in the best of conditions. I was lucky to never have been in that situation in Vietnam. Most of my contact with the enemy, he was shooting at me and the gunships had no problems IDing the targets.

Fratricide has been an issue since the Wright Brothers first flew. If you look back at history, you can find evidence of this in all wars. With improved communications this reduces the frequency but doesn't eliminate it completely.

Seriously? I was just stating whether you are friends or not, that is a stupid name to call it friendly fire. I know what it means it's just a stupid name given to an act violence. Peace .
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly