US Military's Investigation Reveals Troops Were Unaware of Bomber Before Kabul Airport Attack

The US military conducted an additional review of the deadly Abbey Gate bombing during the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021. The purpose of this review was to address remaining questions about the attack. The review has determined that service members did not actually see the suspected bomber prior to the attack. Instead, they believed they had seen the bomber due to mixed-up intelligence reports.

During a briefing with reporters on Friday, an official from the supplemental review team revealed that in the past two years, some service members claimed they had the bomber in their sights and could have prevented the attack. However, it has now been clarified that this was not the case.

Abdul Rahman al-Logari, a member of ISIS-K, was identified as the bomber. The terror group named al-Logari as the bomber shortly after the attack, although US officials had not yet publicly confirmed his role. It was also revealed that al-Logari had been released by the Taliban from a prison near Kabul just days before the attack, as previously reported by CNN.

The military is conducting a new review in hopes of addressing lingering questions about the attack. This is especially important for the family members of the 13 US service members who lost their lives. Some family members have raised concerns about the findings of the military's initial review, which was presented in 2022.

Last year in September, US Central Command officially announced the supplemental review following a demand for answers by families of the fallen troops at a congressional roundtable. The review focused on addressing the public testimony of Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews, a Marine Corps sniper who had told Congress about seeing a man resembling the suicide bomber near Abbey Gate before the attack.

The officials from the review team, who spoke to reporters, did not mention Vargas-Andrews or anyone else who has talked about the bombing and withdrawal. They disagreed with some parts of his public story, such as the identity of the man he saw before the attack.

Army and Marine officials, who conducted an additional review, informed reporters on Friday that al-Logari had arrived just a few hours before the tragic explosion on August 26, 2021. The blast resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians and 13 US service members, including 11 Marines, one soldier, and a Navy corpsman.

Service members initially thought another man was the bomber. However, a supplemental review compared a photo of that man with photos of al-Logari after US intelligence confirmed he was the bomber. The review found the strongest negative rating that the two people were the same.

Officials mentioned that the US had photos of al-Logari from his time in detention before he was released by the Taliban.

The supplemental review, conducted by US Army Central in June of last year, included 52 more interviews in addition to the over 100 already done in the original US Central Command investigation released in February 2022.

The findings from CENTCOM's initial investigation remained unchanged after the new review. It concluded that the bombing was not preventable at a tactical level.

The review team officials conducted interviews with current and former service members at 24 different locations, including Okinawa, where some had retired or left military service.

According to one member of the review team, each of the 190 individuals interviewed had a unique perspective. It was important for the team to gather all these different viewpoints and piece together the information gathered during the investigation.

‘Exhaustive’ review

A review team member told reporters the review was “exhaustive,” and answered the remaining questions about the bombing.

Officials explained that the confusion surrounding the events of August 26 was mainly due to mixing up actual intelligence reports with spot reporting. Spot reporting occurs when a service member reports something suspicious they have witnessed to their command.

On August 25, two types of reports were received: an intelligence report and a spot report from Marines belonging to the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The intelligence report provided a general description of the individual to be wary of - someone wearing loose clothing, with neat hair, and carrying a black bag believed to contain explosives.

On the same day, Marines reported seeing a military-aged male in a "beige man dress" with a black bag, walking with a child toward the North Gate of the airport.

By the morning of August 26, officials said that these reports had been combined into one. This led the sniper team to ask for permission to engage a bald man in black clothing with a backpack, who was seen sitting with a teenager.

The sniper team and others were not allowed to act and couldn't find the man in the crowd. Eventually, the bomb exploded at Abbey Gate.

Officials dismissed the belief that the sniper team and others wasted time on the wrong suspect, stating that gate service members were always watchful.

The bald man in black was spotted around 7 a.m. and lost sight of around 10 a.m. The attack occurred seven and a half hours later, with a time difference between the sighting and the bombing. The team did what they were supposed to do by identifying a potential threat, evaluating it, and acting based on the information available.

The review team also addressed claims that the sniper team's battalion commander was unaware of the rules of engagement. They clarified that the commander had personally visited the sniper tower on the morning of August 26. During the visit, the team pointed out the suspicious bald man in black to him.

The officials said the man seemed suspicious because he didn't seem interested in leaving during the evacuation and was just watching.

The sniper team leader shared their concerns with their battalion commander, mentioning that the man matched the description of the bomber, according to a review team member.

The review team member told reporters that the conversation between the snipers and the battalion commander in the tower is unclear, but there is no evidence to support the portrayal that the battalion commander did not understand the rules of engagement.

In addition to this, the additional review found that it is unlikely there was an IED test-run before the August 26 attack, although officials could not completely rule it out. The review also highlighted that leaders were consistently present and actively involved at all levels. Furthermore, officials confirmed that civilian deaths were a result of the Taliban's use of excessive force.

Ultimately, officials confirmed that during the withdrawal, US troops on the ground believed in the importance of their actions.

During the supplemental review, it was evident that service members felt that their work was meaningful and impactful. Despite the heightened threat reporting, they continued their duties with determination. The new information did not alter the initial findings at Abbey Gate, but it did reinforce the conclusions drawn two years ago and offered further insight.

Editor's P/S:

The US military's supplemental review of the deadly Abbey Gate bombing during the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 sheds light on the complexities of the event and the challenges faced by service members. While the initial review concluded that the bombing was not preventable at a tactical level, the additional investigation addressed concerns raised by family members of the victims.

The clarification that service members did not see the actual bomber before the attack is crucial in understanding the confusion and misinformation that contributed to the tragedy. The mix-up of intelligence reports with spot reporting led to a mistaken identification of a potential threat. The review team's thorough investigation, including interviews with over 190 individuals, provides a more comprehensive understanding of the events leading up to the bombing. It highlights the critical need for accurate and timely intelligence, as well as clear communication and decision-making under stressful conditions. The findings serve as a reminder of the sacrifices made by service members during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the importance of ongoing efforts to learn from past mistakes.