Military

SLUG: 2-291674 Afghan/Pentagon (L(O)-update)
DATE:
NOTE NUMBER:

DATE=07/02/02

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE=AFGHAN/PENTAGON UPDATE(L ONLY)

NUMBER=2-291674

BYLINE=ALEX BELIDA

DATELINE=PENTAGON

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

///EDS: new material in intro and first three paras of text. Otherwise same as earlier item.///

INTRO: A group of U-S soldiers has come under small arms fire in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar after visiting a hospital holding civilians allegedly injured in a U-S airstrike. More from V-O-A correspondent Alex Belida at the Pentagon.

TEXT: Pentagon officials are not characterizing the Kandahar incident as a reprisal attack for the alleged errant U-S airstrike.

But they acknowledge one American soldier was slightly wounded when a three-vehicle U-S convoy was hit with about 20 rounds of small arms fire after leaving a local hospital.

A spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Catherine Abbott, says six U-S soldiers had visited the hospital to check on 19 wounded Afghan villagers. The villagers were allegedly injured during a U-S air attack on a remote area north of Kandahar.

Much about that incident remains unclear. Despite local reports claiming 40 to 100 people may have been killed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is cautioning reporters against leaping to any conclusions until investigators gather the facts.

///RUMSFELD ACTUALITY///

These incidents, when they occur, take some time to sort out.

///END ACTUALITY///

Pentagon officials say the only known casualties in the area are four injured people who were evacuated by U-S forces for medical treatment.

They dispute suggestions any casualties were the result of an errant U-S bomb from a strike on a nearby suspected Taleban or al-Qaida cave and bunker complex.

The military says six bombs, dropped by a B-52, hit the target but a seventh went astray. However, officials say that bomb exploded harmlessly on a hillside where there were no people.

The only other U-S aircraft confirmed in the area was an A-C-130 gunship, equipped with a cannon and heavy machine guns.

General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that plane did fire at six separate ground locations but only in response to anti-aircraft fire.

///OPT PACE ACT///

The only thing I am sure of is that at the time the weapons from the A-C-130 were being fired at the ground, that the controller on the ground and the aircrew in the airplane believed they were returning fire against anti-aircraft weapons, which has happened repeatedly in that particular area and that was reported to be taken place at the time the A-C 130 fired.

///END OPT ACT///

Some reports have suggested the A-C 130 may have mistaken celebratory rifle fire from a wedding.

But Pentagon officials say civilian casualties could also have been caused by anti-aircraft fire falling to the ground. They also suggest the ground fire was more sustained and heavier than mere gunshots fired into the air at random.

///REST OPTIONAL///

In addition to the U-S aircraft, the Pentagon says three-to-four hundred mainly Afghan coalition forces were in the area conducting an operation.

Little is known about their mission, but the area in Oruzgan Province has long been considered a Taleban and al-Qaida stronghold. (Signed)

NEB/BEL/SAB



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list