U.S. military, Nigerien accounts differ on ambush
Pentagon tries to determine if troops were engaged in unapproved mission
The Pentagon is trying to determine whether U.S. forces involved in a deadly ambush in Niger this month diverted from their routine patrol to embark on an unapproved mission, military officials said Friday.
The questions have come up because the U.S. and Nigerien soldiers on the patrol have given conflicting accounts about whether they were ambushed or were attacked after trying to chase Islamic insurgents, according to military officials from both countries.
The episode has engulfed the White House in crisis and prompted demands from members of Congress for answers about what the soldiers were doing before the attack Oct. 4.
In interviews with both the Defense Department and the New York Times, Nigerien military officials said that a lightly armed convoy of about 50 Nigerien and U.S. soldiers gave chase to Islamic insurgents on motorcycles until the men crossed the border into Mali, then returned later to ambush the troops.
U.S. service members, by contrast, insisted they did not chase the insurgents but simply “noticed” them in the vicinity of the village of Tongo Tongo, Defense Department officials said. It was not until the troops interviewed village leaders and were on their way to their base, by the American account, that the insurgents ambushed the convoy, overwhelming the soldiers.
The inconsistencies are at the heart of why the Pentagon has not been forthcoming with details about what happened in Niger, according to U.S. military officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a continuing investigation. Four Americans were killed in the attack, including three Green Berets, as well as four Nigerien soldiers. Two Americans and six Nigeriens were wounded.
The contradictions added to the major questions emerging about the attack: Had the soldiers acted beyond their planned mission without first gaining approval? And if they were given permission, who granted it?
Military officials have said the troops were on a reconnaissance patrol, which means they almost certainly were out to collect information on al-Qaida and Islamic State groups operating in the area; the U.S. military has a list of Islamic State leaders it is targeting. For that mission, the commander of the U.S. team would have needed approval from at least one or two higher levels.
The team would not have had “carte blanche to do whatever” it wanted, said Brig. Gen. Donald C. Bolduc, who until June commanded Special Operations forces on the continent.
Military officials said the team members might have believed they were facing only a low risk of threats, which could have created a false sense of security that led them to go out with inadequate support.
Beyond the question of what, exactly, the soldiers were doing in that remote border region of Niger to begin with was that of whether Defense Department officials have been forthcoming about the mission.
Under the existing authorities, U.S. ground forces are not allowed to conduct unilateral directaction operations in Niger or most other countries in Africa, and the Pentagon continued to insist that it was not involved in combat operations there.
“Our missions are advise and assist,” Lt. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. told reporters Thursday. “We’re not directly involved in combat operations.
“We’re not involved in direct-action missions with partner forces.”
But if the U.S. troops were giving chase to suspected Islamic insurgents to the Malian border, that would most likely qualify as a direct-action mission, military experts said.
The village chief is in custody, a Nigerien official said. A few others are also in custody being questioned by intelligence officials. The FBI is investigating the attack, a U.S. law enforcement official said.