On a cold morning of March 1, 2010, a suicide bomber attacked an American Convoy on a bridge in Kandahar Province. Afghan Security were protecting the bridge and the blast was sufficient to throw a multi-ton Mine Resistant vehicle off the bridge, killing a Soldier and several Afghan Civilians. It was another day in Afghanistan and this time the enemy had gotten lucky.
Normally, such a story would get little press, but this one would be different. The bridge was important, but not as important as the aftermath. It was clearly a target, as another explosive was found on it, but that one was not exploded by the enemy. It was a tactical victory by the enemy, but not as big as it became at the hands of an American Journalist. It caused an international uproar, but the outrage was founded in emotion rather than logic.
You see, it was only a few miles away that a major international base had been going about their daily lives, many of whom had watched the Super Bowl, er, Olympics Hockey Game. They were not "on duty," but relaxing at the end of a long day of work or short night of sleep. The bridge was between them and Khandahar and as is normal, there was no General guarding it. Generals have more important things to do, and more than one General had joined the Troops to watch the game.
It was a coalition post and so it isn't certain if British General Carter cared enough to watch a game pitting two allies on the ice, or not. While it can be argued that it would have boosted morale to have an impartial leader cheering the actions of sports stars on ice, or not diplomatic of him to be in a position of choosing sides, there is little doubt that Americans and Canadians alike were, for one night, entertained by events far removed from the battles they fought daily.
The question, though, is not if those of Northern climes enjoy Hockey like Southern boys enjoy NASCAR, or Americans of all stripes enjoy the Super Bowl, but who was guarding the bridge while they did? The question is not should a General guard a bridge, but who was responsible for what on that night? The question is not if every car can be checked, but who was responsible for deciding which cars to check? The question is not whether some were enjoying a little down time, or if they had earned it, but were Troops watching a game instead of guarding a bridge?
Before one begins laying blame for a negative event, one should first ask: Was it preventable? What can be done to prevent it in the future? Should someone have thought of it before? Who should have thought of it? Let's face it: Neither President Obama nor President Bush had a responsibility to man that bridge, decide which cars to search, nor even consider that bridge a key avenue of approach. Did General McChrystal have that responsibility?
General McChrystal's job (at that time) was to decide where in Afghanistan to apply his limited forces. He had Regional Commanders: North, South, East, and West, all asking for more Troops and supplies. Some Captain somewhere wanted electrical supplies and another was complaining that they had bad tasting food. Another had probably enjoyed lobster that night and someone had been stuck on a mountain waiting for the enemy to show his face. No, General McChrystal's role wasn't to ask who was guarding the bridge that night, nor even to notice that bridge was on the map. He probably did know where the bridge was, and maybe even the name of the River, but he had told Regional Commanders to secure their areas with the forces they had.
Was it General Carter's job to man that bridge and check those cars? No. He had the entire South Region to watch, and had divided it up by Task Force to cover where his limited resources would be applied. General Carter had told Colonels and Generals who was responsible for what areas. He had told General Menard to be ready should something go wrong, that his forces were the re-inforcements for various potential events. These Generals and Colonels had turned to Lieutenant Colonels and broken it down further. Those LTC's had told Captains where they wanted companies to secure. The Captains assigned Platoons their areas of responsibilities.
Someone had decided that Afghan Security Forces should secure that bridge. Afghans decided which cars to check and which to risk not checking. It has been suggested that Soldiers from the 97th Military Police were also there, helping the Afghans learn how, and when, to check those cars. If those MPs were there that morning, they were looking at the bigger picture: Were cars getting checked? Were Afghans looking out, protecting the checkers from a potential attack out of the night? Was traffic flowing sufficiently? Were there resources to check more cars or does lack of proficiency mean they should check fewer?
That morning the Afghan Officer in charge of the force may have been sleeping well in his bed. Like it or not, even Soldiers need sleep. Perhaps he was having chai at another post he was responsible for. Perhaps, he was even inspecting these checkpoints at that very moment.
So, there were Afghans and possibly MP's guarding that bridge. Someone decided that car didn't need to be checked and that someone was probably an illiterate Afghan. There may or may not have been an American NCO or Lieutenant on scene. There may or may not have been an Afghan Captain there that morning. Few would not have realized the bridge was key to travel in and out of Khandahar. Should we blame the guy that decided not to check that particular car? Should we blame the NCO or LT that was supervising?
No, the fact is that while we could probably come up with improved procedures to decrease attacks on this bridge in the future, the enemy will occasionally succeed in an attack, even if only partially, as in this case. Should they have shut down the bridge when military traffic crossed? Possibly, but we don't know if that had been considered and dismissed as "too disruptive." You simply can't do that on every bridge.
The fact is we don't even know that it was a suicide bomber or if the springs had been re-inforced to create the impression that it wasn't loaded down. It could well have been detonated by a watcher. Many times, the suicide bomber isn't committing suicide, but thinks he's delivering his "package" elsewhere.
What we do know is: that while this bridge was not destroyed, it was damaged. And while the total destruction would have delayed operations, it would not have prevented them. While it slowed traffic to Kandahar from KAF and Pakistan, it did not slow traffic to Kabul and other forces at all. Without the incessant barking of a single journalist, this would have simply been one more non-battle in the War in Afghanistan. More on this saga as we examine the aftermath.
Stumble It!
