Quantcast
Connect with us

The Trump administration misled the country by saying there were ‘no casualties’ from Iran attack: report

Published

on

- Commentary

After Iran targeted missiles at U.S. military personnel in Iraq in retaliation for the kill of a top general, the Trump administration declared that there were no casualties from attack, and — at least for the time being — it allowed the conflict to de-escalate.

But on Thursday night, a new report from Defense One revealed the initial claim that there were “no casualties” from the attack was false. It reported that 11 U.S. troops were injured in the attack and taken to hospitals to be treated for “traumatic brain injury.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Col. Myles Caggins, a spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, confirmed the outlines of the report to Defense One, acknowledging that “several [military service members] were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed.”

He added: “Out of an abundance of caution, some service members were transported from Al Asad Air Base, Iraq to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, others were sent to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, for follow-on screening.”

He seemed to try to suggest that the new facts were consistent with the administration’s account, saying, “As previously stated, while no U.S. service members were killed in the Jan. 8 Iranian attack.”

But in fact, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the day after the attack: “Most importantly, no casualties, no friendly causalities, whether they are U.S., coalition, contractor, et cetera.”

Since “casualties” refers to people both killed and injured in a war, this statement was clearly false.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why does this matter? Arguably, it’s a good thing that the severity of the Iran strike was downplayed because it allowed both sides to stand down and prevented the situation from spiraling further out of control. (Tragically, a plane headed to Ukraine — which included many Iranian passengers — was shot down by the Iranian military on the same night as the attack in an apparent accident in the fog of war.)

And yet it’s vital that the American people can trust that the federal government is providing accurate information and not trying to spin the facts to fit the president’s preferred narrative. The claim that there were no casualties from the Iran strike helped construct a narrative that the regime was intentionally trying to avoid injuring or killing Americans; many believed that the show of force from Iran was an attempt at a face-saving measure that would nevertheless not prompt more retaliation from Trump.

Yet the fact of the American casualties, and other details revealed by Defense One, indicate that this common interpretation of the strike is false. It explained:

ADVERTISEMENT

Initial reports about the attack speculated that Iran had tried to avoid areas of the base that housed military personnel. But U.S. officials soon rejected that notion. In a Jan. 8 press conference, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said, “The points of impact were close enough to personnel and equipment, so on and so forth, I believe, based on what I saw and what I know, is that they were intended to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft, and to kill personnel.”

Still, several news organizations soon reported from Al-Asad that U.S. troops had been alerted to the attack hours in advance, and told to head for bunkers 15 minutes before the missiles began to strike. Many U.S. troops, however, manned exposed positions, including at least one group of drone operators who stayed in an above-ground building to get their drones aloft and avoid ground damage. The leader of an Army drone team told NPR that he was “knocked off his feet by the blast.” Others told the New York Times that missiles damaged the building they were in.

On Thursday, Pentagon chief spokesman Jonathan Hoffman declined to say what tipped off the Americans. He did deny reports that the warning came from somewhere besides the United States or Iraq.

In other words, we got lucky. Trump’s bumbling into the conflict brought us extremely close to the brink of war, and it seems we were only saved from the carnage so far because fortunately, the Iranian attack failed to do more serious damage.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s is appealing to an electorate that is ‘dissolving before his eyes’: columnist

Published

on

Writing in The Atlantic this Thursday, Ronald Brownstein says that Donald Trump is running for reelection for an America that "no longer exists."

"Trump in recent weeks has repeatedly reprised two of Richard Nixon’s most memorable rallying cries, promising to deliver 'law and order' for the 'silent majority,'" Brownstein writes. "But in almost every meaningful way, America today is a radically different country than it was when Nixon rode those arguments to win the presidency in 1968 amid widespread anti-war protests, massive civil unrest following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., white flight from major cities, and rising crime rates. Trump’s attempt to emulate that strategy may only prove how much the country has changed since it succeeded."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump is a friendless ‘psychopath’ who now sees Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as enemies: Art of the Deal ghostwriter

Published

on

Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, who were nominated by Donald Trump, voted with the majority on Thursday against the president. Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter behind “Trump: The Art of the Deal,” says that the president now views the two Supreme Court justices as his enemies.

“The psychopathy is why he does what he does,” Schwartz told CNN. “He has no conscience and so breaking the law for him is no big deal.”

The Supreme Court rejected claims by Trump's attorneys that the president enjoyed absolute immunity, but the rulings may still allow him to keep his financial records secret until after the November election.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘Trump may well face charges’ after Supreme Court gave prosecutors access to financial records: Legal experts

Published

on

President Donald Trump could potentially face charges after the Supreme Court dealt him a loss in Trump v. Vance .

The ruling gives Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. the go-ahead to subpoena Trump’s accounting firm as part of his investigation into possible tax crimes involving hush money payments to his mistresses, according to attorneys Norm Eisen and Bassetti in Just Security.

"Trump has significant state law criminal exposure in connection with his hush money payments (for which his fixer Michael Cohen has already gone to jail on federal charges) — and more," the pair wrote. "Trump cannot pardon himself for state law offenses on his way out the door. And the Justice Department’s position that a sitting president cannot be indicted does not bind New York state authorities."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image