14 Americans Killed In 2 Afghan Helicopter Crashes

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - 14 Americans Killed In 2 Afghan Helicopter Crashes stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

ROBERT H. REID and HEIDI VOGT | 10/26/09 09:33 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Helicopter

KABUL — A U.S. military helicopter crashed Monday while returning from the scene of a firefight with suspected Taliban drug traffickers in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including three DEA agents in a not-so-noticed war within a war.

Four more troops were killed when two helicopters collided over southern Afghanistan, making it the deadliest day for U.S. forces in this country in more than four years.

U.S. military officials insisted neither crash was believed a result of hostile fire, although the Taliban claimed they shot down a U.S. helicopter in the western province of Badghis. The U.S. did not say where in western Afghanistan its helicopter went down, and no other aircraft were reported missing.

The second crash took place when two U.S. Marine helicopters – a UH-1 and an AH-1 Cobra – collided in flight before sunrise over the southern province of Helmand, killing four American troops and wounding two more, Marine spokesman Maj. Bill Pelletier said.

The casualties marked the Drug Enforcement Administration's first deaths since it began operations here in 2005. Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium – the raw ingredient in heroin – and the illicit drug trade is a major source of funding for insurgent groups.

The U.S. has decided to target production and distribution networks after programs to destroy poppy fields did little except turn farmers against the American-led NATO mission.

In the past year, the DEA has launched an ambitious plan to increase its personnel in Afghanistan from about a dozen to nearly 80, greatly expanding its role.

NATO said the helicopter containing the DEA agents was returning from a joint operation that targeted a compound used by insurgents involved in "narcotics trafficking in western Afghanistan."

Story continues below
advertisement

"During the operation, insurgent forces engaged the joint force and more than a dozen enemy fighters were killed in the ensuing firefight," a NATO statement said.

Eleven Americans, including another DEA agent, and 14 Afghan security troops were wounded in the crash, NATO said.

Military spokeswoman Elizabeth Mathias said hostile fire was unlikely because the troops were not receiving fire when the helicopter took off. She said troops had been rushed to the crash site to determine the cause.

The crash came less than a week after a U.N. report found that the drug trade is enabling the Taliban to make more money now than when they ruled Afghanistan before the U.S. invasion in 2001. The DEA sent more agents to Afghanistan this year to take part in military operations against insurgents who use drug smuggling to raise funds for their war against NATO and its Afghan allies.

It was the heaviest single-day loss of life since June 28, 2005, when 19 U.S. troops died, 16 of them aboard a Special Forces MH-47 Chinook helicopter that was shot down by insurgents.

U.S. forces also reported the deaths of two other American service members Sunday: one in a bomb attack in the east, and another who died of wounds sustained in an insurgent attack in the same region. The deaths bring to at least 47 the number of U.S. service members who have been killed in October.

This has been the deadliest year for international and U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban. Fighting spiked around the presidential vote in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died that month – the deadliest for American forces in the eight-year war.

President Barack Obama mourned 14 Americans killed Monday and told a military audience he will not be hurried as he evaluates whether to alter U.S. strategy in the war.

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," Obama said during a visit to Naval Air Station Jacksonville in Florida.

Obama is debating whether to send tens of thousands more troops to the country to curb the burgeoning Taliban-led insurgency. Doubts about bolstering the U.S. force grew after widespread fraud marred the Aug. 20 presidential election, raising doubt whether the U.S. and its NATO allies had a reliable partner in the fight against the militants.

Afghan officials scheduled a runoff election Nov. 7 between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah after U.N.-backed auditors threw out nearly a third of the incumbent's votes, dropping him below the 50 percent threshold required for a first-round win in the 36-candidate field.

Abdullah complained Monday that there were no assurances that the November vote would be fairer than the first balloting. He called for the head of the government's Karzai-appointed election commission chairman, Azizullah Lodin, to be replaced within five days, saying he has "no credibility."

Lodin has denied allegations of bias in favor of Karzai, and the election commission's spokesman has already said Lodin cannot be replaced by either side.

Another flawed election would cast doubt on the wisdom of sending in more U.S. troops.

With less than two weeks to go until the vote, disagreements have emerged between the U.N. and the Afghans on how to conduct the balloting.

Lodin said the commission hopes to open all 23,960 polling stations from the first round. The U.N. wants to open only 16,000 stations to cut down on the number of "ghost polling stations" that never opened but were used to stuff ballot boxes.

Meanwhile, security forces in Kabul fired automatic rifles into the air for a second day Monday to contain hundreds of stone-throwing university students angered over the alleged desecration of Islam's holy book, the Quran, by U.S. troops during an operation two weeks ago in Wardak province. Fire trucks were also brought in to push back protesters with water cannons. Police said several officers were injured in the mayhem.

U.S. and Afghan authorities have denied any such desecration and insist that the Taliban are spreading the rumor to stir up public anger. The rumor has sparked similar protests in Wardak and Khost provinces.

___

Associated Press Writers Rahim Faiez and Todd Pitman contributed to this report from Kabul; Noor Khan reported from Kandahar and Devlin Barrett from Washington.

KABUL — A U.S. military helicopter crashed Monday while returning from the scene of a firefight with suspected Taliban drug traffickers in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including thr...
KABUL — A U.S. military helicopter crashed Monday while returning from the scene of a firefight with suspected Taliban drug traffickers in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including thr...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
2965
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (37 pages total)
- Nunnya I'm a Fan of Nunnya 28 fans permalink
photo

Spent many hours in CH-47s most good, some bad.If it crashed on it's own i'm not surprised.God speed guys.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 10/27/2009
- demfriend I'm a Fan of demfriend 24 fans permalink
photo

Such a sad day and yet we are faced with the potential of sending even more troops if Obama decides to. Where are these troops to come from when the military is already so thin spread out and redeployments costing us those lives to suicide too? PTSD is real and there may not be actual numbers of how many are suffering but the militaries "Be tough/Be a man/Don't be a ____" keeps the numbers artificially lower than they should be. I am praying for the families of those lost Monday and every day since this war and the Iraq war begain.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 AM on 10/27/2009
- cavegal I'm a Fan of cavegal 296 fans permalink
photo

Much of what we are suffering now is due to the reckless policies that were pursued under the Bush administration. Furthering the Bush policy of pre-emption is not in our best interests. Yes we attacked Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda, then we were unfortunately distracted from that goal for an insane adventure into Iraq. This gave Al Qaeda and the Taliban the opportunity and time to strengthen their forces and entrench themselves within an increasingly angry population. The Taliban have more support with the population than we do, they have won the hearts and minds of the people.

Our country and the rest of the planet watched in horror as we invaded another sovereign nation under the pretext of Al Qaeda presence and WMDs. Then AbuGhraib broke. Middle class Americans were horrified to see that their own brothers and sisters were capable of such grotesque behavior. The rage was felt around the world not just in the Middle East. An avalanche of torture stories appeared in newspapers and on news sites around the world. There was no getting around the fact that we had achieved the label of war criminals.

There is no saving face over the monumental blunders we have made in the Middle East. After the new elections, an international peace keeping force of UN and NATO deployments should assist the US in an orderly withdrawal and the Afghani's in re-building their country.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 10/27/2009
- jqcitizen I'm a Fan of jqcitizen 8 fans permalink

Fixed wing aircraft are not perfect,

Thousands of 'Helos' did not save the 'World', during the '60s-'70s.

'Stinger' missiles brought down more than a few Soviet Choppers, in Afghanistan.

Do your homework, Congress.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 10/26/2009
- cavegal I'm a Fan of cavegal 296 fans permalink
photo

Agreed. 600,000 Soviet troops were unable to occupy Afghanistan.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 10/26/2009

Just wait until the Chinese decide it is time for America to be forced out of Afghanistan and Iraq the same way the Helo dependent Russians were forced out.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 PM on 10/26/2009
- Dragash I'm a Fan of Dragash 9 fans permalink
photo

Strange how all these "crashes" have one thing in common: NONE of them, not a SINGLE ONE - at least according to various Army spokesmen - were caused in combat or by enemy's action. Our copters and planes regularly collide with birds, strike the power lines, hit the turbulence, miss the landing strips, disappear over Bermuda triangle or are kidnapped by space aliens. God forbid that they can ever be - gasp! - hit by Taliban's Made-in-China ground-to-air missiles. Hell, no! Lockheed-Martin would never allow this to happen!

Look, enough with this retarded Bolshevik-style agit-prop that would embarrass even Pravda circa 1953. Admit that all these casualties were caused by enemy action and stop insulting the intelligence of American people. This is not even ridiculous anymore. This is just plain silly. Our Army command is turning into a bunch of habitual cover-upers.

My condolences to the families of our fallen heroes.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 10/26/2009
- Iccarus I'm a Fan of Iccarus 31 fans permalink
photo

I think when the students are throwing stones at you maybe it's time to go. If we haven't won many hearts and minds by now I don't see it happening in the future unless we commit allot more aid for the people there and even then... can we sustain it? I wish we could make this work but I'm not sure if it's even possible. Firing machine guns in the air to disperse crowds is exactly what they had to do in the days leading up to the hostage crises in Iran. Our troops are not diplomats or aid workers and shouldn't be used as such.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 10/26/2009
- KarateKid I'm a Fan of KarateKid 400 fans permalink
photo

In the Vietnam _war era, it was the students HERE that were throwing the stones, but in either case it's not worth it. It wasn't in Southeast Asia, and it won't be now. Instead, we should spend the money on shoring up our own ports, where we are still vulnerable. Just because there hasn't been any _attacks doesn't mean it's because we are over there. One thing about _terrorists, they are very patient and wait until just the right time. They waited eight years in between the WTC _attacks. And, as evidenced by the recent arrests, who's to say they're not already here, blending into our society?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:48 PM on 10/26/2009
- bweiss I'm a Fan of bweiss 8 fans permalink
photo

"Already here?" You mean like McVey and Nichols? It was hard to tell with them wearing John Deere hats and going to Sunday School every week.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:52 PM on 10/26/2009
- verycold I'm a Fan of verycold 15 fans permalink

it is hard to know what civilians think about our troops. I mean think about it. If troops landed in your town it might be really hard to discern who is helping and who is not. The language barrier sure doesn't help matters. Using drones and unfortunately killing innocent civilians doesn't help either. So is it better to have real faces or bombs dropping out of airplanes?

But most of all it is good that Obama is taking his time at the expense of the those serving in that region.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 AM on 10/27/2009
- Iccarus I'm a Fan of Iccarus 31 fans permalink
photo

The previous Pres fired Generals who disagreed with him. General McChrystal was irresponsible with his public comments about troop levels. The commanders in the field are responsible for deploying the troops they have in a safe manner. They are looking at the wisdom of having these remote outposts like the one that was attacked recently in northwestern Afghanistan costing the lives of 8 soldiers. Last year the same outpost was attacked, killing 9. If you put 40,000 more troops in there it has to be done right or it will just cost more lives. Maybe Bush should have taken his time getting us into Iraq and we wouldn't have this problem at all. Right?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 10/27/2009
- pfc1369 I'm a Fan of pfc1369 112 fans permalink
photo

Sometime in the early 60's I vividly remember reading about an American chopper going down in a place called Vietnam, and how shocked I was that Americans were being killed in war-type conditions.

The Korean Armistice I thought ended all that, years before.

Imagine that .--shocked -- seems like a hundred years ago.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 10/26/2009
- NCAV2 I'm a Fan of NCAV2 18 fans permalink

Yayy let's send more troops to die for a corrupt government!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 10/26/2009
- BradSmith I'm a Fan of BradSmith 211 fans permalink
photo

The Taliba-n is anti-Opium they are anti-drugs period. Under their regime they had all but wiped out opiu-m production.

The Taliba-n is no worse than many of our other allies in the area. Should we wage war against them as well?

We can leave now with no agreement. Or we can get kicked out after more loss of life and treasure.

Or we can make peace gain some of what we want and leave with one less enemy.

The Taliba-n has said they are willing to kick out AQ and assure us that no attacks will come from any area they hold. What is wrong with that??

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 10/26/2009
- BradSmith I'm a Fan of BradSmith 211 fans permalink
photo

The Taliban is anti-Opium they are anti-drugs period. Under their regime they had all but wiped out opium production.

The Taliban is no worse than many of our other allies in the area. Should we wage war against them as well?

We can leave now with no agreement. Or we can get kicked out after more loss of life and treasure.

Or we can make peace and gain some of what we want and leave with one less enemy.

The Taliban has said they are willing to kick out AQ and assure us that no attacks will come from any area they hold. What is wrong with that??

I guess those that appose the Taliban believe we should just wipe them off the face of the Earth. They are not going away in any other way.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 10/26/2009
- Pot I'm a Fan of Pot permalink
photo

But who says after we leave they do not follow through on that? And they work on another 9/11. I don't trust any extremist to keep their promise.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 AM on 10/27/2009
- austin4 I'm a Fan of austin4 322 fans permalink
photo

There is a logical way out of this conflict, but the military would have to go along with it. To proceed in a orderly withdrawal, without any public statement.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 10/26/2009
- mravka I'm a Fan of mravka 47 fans permalink
photo

Logical yes, but when was the last time the U.S. made a logical foreign policy decision?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 10/26/2009
- pfc1369 I'm a Fan of pfc1369 112 fans permalink
photo

American foreign policy ALWAYS begins with a delusion as the first premise.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 10/26/2009
- Chernynkaya I'm a Fan of Chernynkaya 649 fans permalink
photo

(This is a repost, but I wanted to explain why I've begun to change my mind to where I now think we need to keave.)

Karzai’s election validity is important to Obama for several reasons. One, we must seem to have a credible partner in the effort to stabilize Afghanistan. I think one of the reasons for holding off the decision to send more troops is the outcome of the election.

The Tal!ban are Pashtun, which make up a plurality in Afghanistan. So is Karzai, yet the Tal!ban are calling for his defeat. Partly because he is corrupt, but mostly because his administration is Pashtun in name only. All of the political and economic power is in the hands of the Pashtun (and therefore the Tal!ban’s) ethnic rivals, the Tajiks.

We want to back Karzai, for some unknown reason. So the administration is de facto backing the minority ethnic group, the Tajiks. The Tajiks make up the Tal!ban’s enemies, the Northern Alliance. The Tajiks hold all power and privilege in the Karzai government. Because we are anti- Tal!ban, we are actually backing the only other group the majority of Afghans dislike more—the Tajiks.

Why does the US always back the guys the majority in these countries h8s? My head hurts. What a mess! Time to leave.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 10/26/2009
- pfc1369 I'm a Fan of pfc1369 112 fans permalink
photo

Once you unleash the dogs of war, they take on a life of their own, with their own Alice in Wonderland logic, and it becomes increasingly difficult to rein them in again.

This is a lesson that is never, ever learned.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 PM on 10/26/2009
- Tidyus I'm a Fan of Tidyus 3 fans permalink

Yes. We opened ther whole pandora's box of war in Iraq and now the whole mideast and everyone, it seems, thinks violence is the answer to all problems and the OK thing to do.. Somewhere last week some group was making children watch torture. Any country can start a war between any two other countries just by planting some violence. No one stops to check. This helicopter drug thing., wouldn't be surprised if it was not a phony tip set up..but oiff we raced..so anxious get the killing going again. Afghanistan had been a little quieter.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 PM on 10/26/2009
- mravka I'm a Fan of mravka 47 fans permalink
photo

"Why does the US always back the guys the majority in these countries h8s? My head hurts. What a mess!"

This exactly proves my questioning of the term "expert" Hume posted below.

He said:

"Just one thing: I am not for or against troop escalation in Afghanistan. That I leave to the experts. What I do have an opinion on is the goal."

The whole Middle-East is a disaster and the same people keep making the same mistakes. The "experts" involved are either ignorant or completely incompetent. Either way, citizens should be demanding their resignation and an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. If we had intelligent decision makers and "experts" we never would have gone there in the first place.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 10/26/2009
- postman66 I'm a Fan of postman66 377 fans permalink
photo

F *ck Olympia Snowe.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

Not in this lifetime.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 10/26/2009
- learntofly I'm a Fan of learntofly 283 fans permalink
photo

LOL

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 10/26/2009
- austin4 I'm a Fan of austin4 322 fans permalink
photo

If I dru nk, that much,,just to get pumped up, I would past out first

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 10/26/2009
- postman66 I'm a Fan of postman66 377 fans permalink
photo

Sorry. I'm sick of hearing about her. Reid just came on and says their going with P.O with opt out. He says they've got 60, but still want Snowe.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 10/26/2009

Olympia Snowe = natural birth control

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 AM on 10/27/2009
- BradSmith I'm a Fan of BradSmith 211 fans permalink
photo

Hume seems to forget that some of us remember his posts and so it's fairly easy to catch him when he says one thing today and something else the next.

1. He is pro-Obama no matter what. I have yet to read one post that wasn't 100% Obama. If Obama changes his mind so will Hume.

2. He is pro-war but doesn't have more than a very limited understanding of why.

3. Repeat 1 and 2 over and over.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 10/26/2009
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1645 fans permalink
photo

Your obsession with "Hume" is cute, but quite irrelevant to the topic.

Ad hominem comments indicate only one thing : you have no valid arguments to support your position. :-)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 10/26/2009
- BradSmith I'm a Fan of BradSmith 211 fans permalink
photo

HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic I'm a fan of this user 1492 fans permalink
LOL. Yeah, I don't go by w00w00 and teabagger "facts".

________________________________________________________________-

This was your reply to facts that you couldn't deal with.

YOU called me a teabagger and a w00w00

This is what I mean and it shows that your a hypocrit.
I supported my position with fact and you choose to be insulting rather than pose an argument, then you claim I should treat you well, and argue fairly because the only thing you have are insults.

Your a joke and you may have some people fooled but I am not one of them.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

You want to make peace with the talib@n.

That's your plan. Let them have the opium trade. Let them butcher people who voted in elections we encouraged them to vote in. They are not moderates and you cannot treat them as moderates unless you're willing to call terrorism the act of moderates.

There goes the bathwater and with it goes the baby.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 10/26/2009
- austin4 I'm a Fan of austin4 322 fans permalink
photo

The talib@n,,are against the opium trade.. In fact when they were in control of Afghan. they outlawed it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 10/26/2009
- BradSmith I'm a Fan of BradSmith 211 fans permalink
photo

The Taliban is anti-Opium they are anti-drugs period. Under their regime they had all but wiped out opium production.

The Taliban is no worse than many of our other allies in the area. Should we wage war against them as well?

We can leave now with no agreement. Or we can get kicked out after more loss of life and treasure.

Or we can make peace gain some of what we want and leave with one less enemy.

The Taliban has said they are willing to kick out AQ and assure us that no attacks will come from any area they hold. What is wrong with that??

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 10/26/2009
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1645 fans permalink
photo

JackRusselTerrier I'm a Fan of JackRusselTerrier I'm a fan of this user 444 fans permalink
Trying to defeat terr0rism_ (the way we are now) is like trying to slay_ a hydra. You cannot defeat_ a violent strategy with more violence_.

K!ll_ one terr0rist_ and another will take their place. Unfortunately revenge_ is as old as human_ emotions.

I don't see anyone attacking Sweden.
----------------------------------------

This brings up what I think is a relevant question: are you against any violence against criminals, regardless of how violent they are?

If violence always results in more violence, should we disarm the police? If not, why not?

Now, keep in mind that I am not claiming that violence is all you need to curb crime.

You din't see Sweden attacked, but you did see Indonesia and Malaysia and Australia, and Spain and UK and and Saudi Arabia, and India, .... attacked.

Are you saying the no force should be used unless there is an attack in Sweden?
.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

Hume I want to give your question the answer it deserves. I'm not feeling well right now so please be patient and I will post my answer in a few minutes. I hope you will still be here because I think it is a good question.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 10/26/2009
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1645 fans permalink
photo

Fair enough. And I hope you feel better.
Just one thing: I am not for or against troop escalation in Afghanistan. That I leave to the experts. What I do have an opinion on is the goal.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

The invisible hand protects Sweden. Both the US and UK would go after anyone that takes on Sweden. US is not in the position to rely on any other country for our protection. It's not going to happen.

If the invisible hand did not exist, Sweden would likely not exist as it's own country today.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 10/26/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (37 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect