by Don Brown
In October (2011), we went down for General Colt’s assessment of the investigation. We get there. They have a projector screen. The families are there. He’s going over what happened. He said it went through a chain-of-command for this landing site.
I raised my hand, and I said “sir? Can I have the names of that chain-of-command?”
His neck snaps, and he said “It’s in the book, sir.”
I said “How about the black box?”
He said, “The black box got blown away by the flood.”
In Afghanistan? Come on. You can’t find the black box? I looked it up in Google. T[hose] black boxes don’t go away. They lose black boxes in the swamp in Florida, and they find them. And you’re telling me you can’t find the black box? Not acceptable.
Therefore, according to Mr. Strange, the “flood theory” was introduced by Colt himself in October of 2011 at the Little Creek, Virginia, briefing with families.
Other families do not have specific recollection of General Colt mentioning the flood, at least not in public, when asked about the black box in October of 2011. But all the families interviewed for this book recall him (Colt) pointing them to the report, in response to their questioning.
According to witnesses, at no time during that meeting did Colt ever say that the Chinook did not have a black box from the beginning.
Even if Mr. Strange’s recollection is faulty and General Colt did not specifically mention the flood to explain the disappearance of the black box, he certainly pointed families in that direction by directing families to the report. In the period between October 2011 and February 2014, various articles were written concerning the disappearing black box. Diana West, writing in the online magazine townhall.com, reported on May 17, 2013, in an article entitled “Afghanistan’s Benghazi: The Shoot-Down of Extortion 17” that “The black box was never recovered, the military insists.”
On July 23, 2013, in an article in The Hill written by Bob Cusack and entitled “Congress to Probe Lethal Crash that Killed SEAL Team 6 Members,” the paper reported that, “Their bodies were later recovered, but the helicopter’s black box was not. Pentagon officials have said that it could not be recovered, citing a flash flood that happened soon after the assault.”
The Hill’s account seems consistent—this the flood got the black box narrative—with the sworn testimony of the Pathfinders, who talked about searching extensively for the black box, then returned after the flood, and found themselves unable to find the black box “for the first time.”
Chapter 43
February 27, 2014: The Congressional Hearing
For two-and-a-half years the Department of Defense stuck to their position that the black box was lost, or “washed away.” There was no apparent shift in that claim until February 27, 2014, when under tremendous pressure from families, congressmen granted a very short, one hour and forty-five minute hearing. This hearing took place before a sparsely attended National Security Subcommittee, part of the House Oversight and Government Committee.
The subcommittee, chaired by Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, called a panel of five witnesses (three military officers and two DoD civilians), none of whom were in Afghanistan on the night in question, and none of whom had any firsthand knowledge of what happened in the early morning hours of August 6, 2011.
Chaffetz opened by assuring the families that the committee had questioned Department of Defense officials on the full spectrum of the mission, including extremely sensitive and highly classified information, in an effort to fully understand the events of the tragedy that unfolded that fateful day. “It is extremely sensitive. There are things that we cannot and will not be discussing given the classified nature,” Congressman Chaffetz expounded. It is clear from the congressman’s opening statement alone that information was and is still being withheld from the public.
This begs the question: Is the true identity of the seven Afghan infiltrators “extremely sensitive and highly classified”? Is information concerning the fate of the bodies of the men of Extortion 17 “extremely sensitive and highly classified”? Is information concerning how the Taliban infiltrated the flight “extremely sensitive and highly classified”? Is information about the tip-off of the Taliban possibly coming from inside the American camp because of our policy of bringing the Afghans on each and every mission “extremely sensitive and highly classified”?
The congressman’s brief and pointed comments were yet another piece of evidence that the truth of Extortion 17s fate is being withheld from the public.
Congressman Chaffetz has by all accounts been a friend to Extortion 17 families, making himself accessible to the press in answering questions, and helping to keep this case in the forefront, at least to a degree, as long as unanswered questions remain.
All that said, and while acknowledging Congressman Chaffetz for his sensitivity to Extortion 17 families who lost loved ones, the congressional hearing itself was nothing but a dog-and-pony show aimed at appeasement, mostly because of who the Pentagon offered up to testify, and who was not allowed to testify.
Not one US military officer who was on the ground in Afghanistan was allowed to testify. Not one officer who served as a member of the Colt investigation was allowed to testify. There was no one who was a part of either planning for or executing this mission. No one was present who could provide any substantive expertise—not one US Navy SEAL, not one US Army Ranger, not one National Guard aviator.
Instead, the panel served up by the Pentagon included two civilian bureaucrats and three mortuary affairs officers, none of whom had any direct involvement with the planning or execution of Extortion 17.
Most of the testimony at the hearing came from an Obama Administration Department of Defense appointee, Gary Reid, bearing the title of “Principal Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.” Mr. Reid was appointed to his post in June of 2012. Reid was joined by another Pentagon official, Ms. Deborah Skillman, the Defense Department casualty and mortuary affairs director. In addition to Reid and Skillman, three military officers, an Air Force colonel, Army colonel, and Navy commander, appeared and testified. The Air Force representative was Colonel John Devillier, US Air Force mortuary affairs operation commander. The Navy was represented by Commander Aaron Brodsky, the US Navy casualty services director, and the Army by Colonel Kirk Brown, the director of Army mortuary and casualty affairs.
All of these officials who appeared at the hearing have important roles and functions within the Defense Department. But if we look more closely at the makeup of the five-member panel scheduled to testify, not only were all five witnesses either military officers or DoD officials stationed in Washington who had nothing to do with the operation itself, but four of the five, excluding Mr. Reid, were mortuary affairs representatives from each of the services involved in the shoot-down. In other words, the panel was stacked with military body-handling and funeral experts.
These experts each played a vital role in the US military, and their service was important to the family members whose loved ones were killed in action. But at the same time, the notable absence of any officer, any military member, any SEAL, or anyone who was involved in the operation in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, made it clear from the beginning that the subcommittee hearing was designed to constitute a one hour forty-five minute whitewash to avoid dealing with anything of real substance.
Most of the panel would have no reason to know, for example, the identities of the seven Afghans who penetrated the chopper, or the whereabouts of the black box, or why there was a delay in landing.
Although the hearing revealed very little, as is the case with many congressional subcommittees, the testimony wound up further calling the government’s explanation into question.
Chapter 44
The Military’s Changed Tune: “There Was No Black Box”
The only stab at substantive testimony at the February 2014 hearing was presented, very briefly, by the deputy assistant defense secretary, Gary Reid, an Obama Administration appointee, whose testimony left more questions than answers.
Reid’s testimony raised even more questions and left gaping holes concerning (a) the location of the Taliban insurgents who fired the RPGs, and (b) the mysterious explanation about the missing “black box.”
Reid said “Taliban fighters, hidden in a building, fired two or three rocket-propelled grenades at close range, leaving the pilot no chance to perform evasive maneuvers.” However, this reference to “Taliban fighters, hidden in a building,” directly contradicts the Combat Assessment Team at Bagram Air Base. It also contradicts indisputable mathematical principles. At an altitude above ground of 100–150 feet, the distance between the chopper and the shooter would range from 155 to 227 feet, as previously established.
There were no buildings within 155 to 227 feet of Extortion 17 at the moment of shoot-down.
Recall Exhibit 60, page 42. There were contradictory reports from multiple witnesses about the true point of origin of the attack. The Combat Assessment Team at Bagram Air Base concluded that the “Point-of-origin was never positively identified or actioned.” In fact, Exhibit 60, page 42 goes even further, by revealing that, “participating aircrews were not aware EX17 was being fired upon until it was hit.” Again, these are the final “Tactical Observations” from the Combat Assessment Team at Bagram Air Base. Not only could the point of origin not be positively identified, but when pressed, no one could even say they saw the shots until the helicopter was struck.
Mr. Reid perpetuated the false narrative, started in the Executive Summary, that the RPG was fired from a building 722 feet away (outside the RPG range of 150 meters).
Why would Mr. Reid and Brigadier General Colt try to change this narrative about the point of origin, when the CAT (Combat Assessment Team) in Afghanistan, investigating this claim, concluded that the point of origin of the RPGs was “never positively identified” and that none of the pilots in accompanying aircraft were aware that Extortion 17 was even under fire until it was hit?
No one can read their minds.
However, the narrative appears to be a butt-saving maneuver to make people believe that “it wouldn’t have done any good to fire into the landing zone, because the shooter was somewhere off yonder, outside the zone.”
If the shots came from a building, as opposed to the field, or the creek bed, or the landing zone, then the argument that pre-assault fire into the landing zone could have saved the lives of the SEAL team becomes less meritorious, in effect, shifting criticism away from the rules of engagement that did not allow pre-assault fire to protect the chopper.
Reid and Colt should have shot it straight on this matter, that the point of origin for the RPGs could not be positively identified, rather than spinning the narrative in a way that did not fit with the findings of their own Combat Assessment Team. Their attempt to bend and spin calls their conclusions into question.
After contradicting the Combat Assessment Team’s conclusion that the point of origin for the RPGs “could not be positively identified,” Reid went into a seemingly new narrative, after two-and-a-half years, on the whereabouts of the black box.
Reid opened the subject by saying, “Contrary to some unofficial statements, there was no flight data recorder, no so-called ‘black box.’ This equipment is not standard on this aircraft.
“An investigation was launched immediately, and completed within 30 days. And I’d just like to highlight some of the results and conclusions of that investigation,” Reid continued.
Q: From Congressman Chaffetz: “The idea that the black box washed away. Was there a black box?”
Note the form of the question from Congressman Chaffetz here. He starts his question by stating, “The idea that the black box washed away.” The congressman prefaces his question with this observation, because this was precisely the narrative that the military had been pushing for two-and-a-half years, that the “black box washed away.”
There had been no change in the military’s position on this, until Reid’s answer to this question on February 27, 2014—yet another about-face.
A: (from Reid) “No sir. As I indicated, there is a device attached to the engines that records engine performance. The engines are new. In fact the same engines that were on the other Chinooks. The modern engines.
“But the airframe itself is an analog aircraft. There is no source of digital data. There is no traditional black box.”
It seems that not a single member of the subcommittee was sufficiently familiar with Exhibit 65 (Pathfinders’ testimony) to ask Mr. Reid any questions about the extensive search for the black box detailed in the report.
No one asked Mr. Reid, “If there were no black box, sir, then why did the Pathfinders devote so much time and resources on the ground looking for it?”
No one asked Mr. Reid, “If these helicopters don’t have black boxes, then why did the Pathfinders’ testimony indicate this was the first time they had failed to recover a black box from a downed helicopter?”
And of course, nobody dared ask, “What did the Lima/Bravo Unit, or whoever they are, do on the ground from 3:04 a.m. until the Pathfinders arrived at 4:15 a.m.?”
No one asked, “Who were these Coalition elements who entered the field and surveyed the aircraft, and what road did they disappear on?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, why did they survey the aircraft?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, why didn’t Brigadier General Colt’s Executive Summary reflect any of the events that occurred on the ground before the arrival of the Pathfinder elements at 4:15 a.m.?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, why did the Pathfinders get the benefit of pre-assault fire at 4:14 a.m., when the SEALs on Extortion 17 were not provided pre-assault fire in the moments leading up to 2:39 a.m.?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, what happened to the bodies? Were they cremated or not?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, what are the names of the seven Afghans who infiltrated this aircraft prior to its takeoff?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, isn’t it true that having unauthorized persons entering the aircraft, who are not pre-approved and whose names are not on the flight manifest, was a major security breach and a major breach of protocol?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, what follow-up did the government take on the reports in the UK Daily Mail and the UK Telegraph, citing sources in the Afghan government that the Taliban was tipped off on the mission and flight path of Extortion 17?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, how is it mathematically possible that an aircraft, flying only 100 to 150 feet off the ground, could be struck at an angle of 50 degrees from a building 722 feet away?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, why are you and Brigadier General Colt sticking to this ‘the shot was fired from a building 220 meters away’ story, when the Joint Combat Assessment Team concluded, ‘point of origin was never positively identified or actioned.’ ”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, do we know whether the seven Afghans who entered Extortion 17 were Taliban sympathizers?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, why did General Colt not interview a single Afghan in his investigation?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, what are we doing to vet the Afghans who fly with US Navy SEALs to ensure that the Afghans are not Taliban sympathizers?”
No one asked, “Mister Reid, when the AC-130 flying above Extortion 17 requested permission to fire on enemy insurgents on the ground, why was that request denied?”
Not a single, hardball question was asked of Mister Reid by a single member of that subcommittee on February 27, 2014. Why not? Because the committee hearing amounted to fluff, from the beginning, to whitewash the specifics. Inst
ead, all the contradictory underlying evidence from the investigation, subverting his claim that “there was no black box,” was ignored by the congressional subcommittee, making the hearing largely a meaningless exercise for public relations purposes.
Chapter 45
Black Box Black Magic: The “Analog” Ruse
Reid tried to convince the committee members, who did not know any better, that an aircraft with analog instruments either can’t have a black box or doesn’t have a black box.
That notion was a red herring to get the committee off track and get their heads nodding out of ignorance. The assertion that an aircraft with analog instruments can’t have a black box is absolutely incorrect.
Here are those comments from Mr. Reid again: “But the airframe itself is an analog aircraft. There is no source of digital data. There is no traditional black box.”
Soon after this statement was made, the author spoke with a veteran US Navy helicopter pilot, who pointed out that Mr. Reid’s statement was misleading.
Why? Because whether the cockpit has analog or digital instruments has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a flight data recorder.
Mr. Reid implied that analog-heavy aircraft or analog instruments do not work in conjunction with a black box. But this is not the case at all. As the Navy pilot explained, both analog instruments and digital instruments feed data into the cockpit data recorder (black box).
In fact, the Boeing aircraft website contains basic information corroborating the Navy pilot’s observation [author’s emphasis]:
1 Purpose of Flight Data Recorders
The purpose of an airplane flight data recorder system is to collect and record data from a variety of airplane sensors onto a medium designed to survive an accident. Depending on the age of an airplane, the FDR system may consist of (1) an analog or digital flight data acquisition unit (FDAU) and a digital FDR (DFDR) that may have a tape or solid-state memory, or (2) simply an FDR.