Quote:In what’s been described as a photo that “may become an enduring memory of the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan,” Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue walks toward a C-17 transport plane at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, the last US military member who had boots on Afghan soil.

In a number of articles penned in the following days, Donahue is characterized as “uniquely qualified” for that moment in time and generally depicted as a humble, understated leader of his division.

Unfortunately, everything isn’t quite as it may seem. During the last hours of the evacuation, according to troops under his command and as documented by photographs and witness statements, Donahue ordered all of the passengers aboard a C-17 transport plane to disembark so he could have a souvenir loaded onto the plane. That souvenir, or “war trophy,” was an inoperable Taliban-owned Toyota Hilux with a fully operational Russian ZU-23 anti-aircraft autocannon mounted in the bed. Once the Hilux was loaded passengers were allowed back on the plane, but, of course, there wasn’t room for all of them. According to troops on the scene, at least 50 people and perhaps as many as 100 people were left at Kabul to make room for the Hilux.



It is believed that many of those left behind have been or will be killed by the Taliban, in part because of information allegedly provided to Taliban commanders by Donahue himself. We already know that he was in direct contact with Taliban commanders that day; Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the US Central Command, said in a press briefing that:

“[O]ne of the last things [Donahue] did before leaving was talk to the Taliban commander that he had been coordinating with about the time that we were going to leave just to let them know that we were leaving.”

Multiple sources within the military and the intelligence community have revealed to RedState that Donahue’s coordination with the Taliban that day included more than simply letting them know that we were checking out early. These sources say that Donahue provided the Taliban with a full manifest of passengers aboard the flights including passport information, photos, and biometric information for those passengers. The flights included US troops, Afghans who were employed by the Department of Defense, key human intelligence (HUMINT) assets, and other SIV applicants and their families.

One military intelligence source, who requested anonymity, told RedState:

“Some of those on the last planes out were key HUMINT assets. At least 50, likely as many as 100 were left behind after being removed from the flight. But the 50 were bonafide personnel that should have been evacuated. They will likely never be heard from again. The Taliban was given literally everything that would prevent any of those people from hiding or escape and evasion, and we know that there are a lot of ‘disappearings’ going on.”

As far as policies regulating bringing something such as the Hilux or the ZU-23 to the US, an Army informational paper about war trophies states:

War trophies or souvenirs taken from enemy military property are legal under the LOW [Law of War]. War trophy personal retention by an individual soldier is restricted under U.S. domestic law. Confiscated enemy military property is property of the United States. The property becomes a war trophy, and capable of legal retention by an individual Soldier as a souvenir, only as authorized by higher authority.

And a 2014 article by the 10th Mountain Brigade’s Public Affairs office, advising soldiers who were in Afghanistan, at Bagram, at that time states:

Individuals often inquire about bringing back war trophies such as AK-47’s, used light anti-tank weapon rocket tubes and some foreign military equipment. These items cannot be transported back for individual collection. Units can bring these items back as museum pieces but the necessary paperwork is more intensive and requires an extended period of time for an approval that is anything but guaranteed.

If a unit wishes to bring a war trophy home for their unit museum, they may contact a customs agent for example forms. Just be sure to submit the paperwork as soon as possible.

Given the circumstances, it’s reasonable to assume that there wouldn’t have been a customs agent available for Donahue to deliver paperwork on the Hilux to or to obtain approval. Even if the paperwork had been completed, for Donahue to leave more than 50 evacuees behind to bring the Hilux to Fort Bragg doesn’t make sense. It makes even less sense to use the vehicle as a “museum piece” to commemorate a major failure.

Some of the soldiers that were tasked with loading the Hilux onto the C-17 did not want to assist Donahue in this endeavor and took photos and videos to document what was happening. One photo and transcripts of two videos have been provided to RedState.

In the photo Donahue, who’s easily identifiable because he’s maskless (and as indicated by the red arrow) is instructing troops how to move the truck and load it onto the C-17. A separate military source has confirmed that the man in the photo is Donahue.

In one transcript a soldier loading the Hilux remarked:

“Nothing says American success and prosperity like a ZU-23 in the back of a Hilux.”

Another pointed out that under “standing orders” war trophies aren’t allowed:

“I thought we aren’t allowed war trophies per the standing orders. They court martialed [name redacted] for trying to smuggle a pocket knife he took from the Taliban.”

Another soldier responded:

“You are not a Major General. Shut up and push.”

And, a soldier who refused to participate said:

“I want nothing to do with this because war trophies = war crimes.”

Another soldier asked about the proper documentation for the war souvenir:

“Why wasn’t a DD603 war souvenir registration/authorization completed?”

The reply?

“The general doesn’t need such a form.”

One soldier said that Donahue’s second-in-command gave this reasoning for bringing the Hilux home:

“[I]t will serve as a symbol in the 82nd Airborne Division Museum on Fort Bragg of how the Division came into a chaotic situation and by confiscating the Hilux from the Taliban we quickly regained the tactical advantage in order to complete the mission.”

It’s stunning that Donahue believes we had the tactical advantage at the Kabul airport at any time during the evacuation.

In addition to the people left behind, two Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) systems were left at the Kabul airport. The C-RAM system intercepted a rocket aimed at the airport the very morning Donahue and the US military left.



According to one defense official who wasn’t named in an article by Defense One, the C-RAMs were “disabled” just before the last five C-17s took off:

“They were left operational until the last minute,” the defense official said. “Then forces went around to these assets and took a thermite bomb to them.”

The planes would take off without that protection.

However, Gen. McKenzie would only say that they were “demilitarized” without elaborating on what that meant:

McKenzie didn’t elaborate on what had been done to any of these systems to render them unusable. The head of CENTCOM also did not name the type of C-RAM systems….He also did not say specifically how many in total were there at the very end, though at least two were previously said to have been in place.

The Centurion, each of which costs around $15 million…is the only operational U.S. military C-RAM system at present. Individuals on the ground had reported hearing the characteristic sound of the Centurium’s [sic] 20mm Vulcan cannon during the recent rocket attack.

Military analyst and RedState contributor Dennis Santiago said that the Centurion system is very similar to the Phalanx system used by the Navy and explained the import of leaving the system in Afghanistan:

The Phalanx is the last-ditch defense of our fleet against incoming anti-ship missiles. Leaving a C-RAM in Afghanistan gives access to our adversaries to the hardware and software that could help them find the electronic warfare solutions to defeat the Phalanx rendering all the western navies that have adopted this system vulnerable. Every ship.

Despite what the unnamed defense official told Defense One and what Gen. McKenzie said in a press conference, sources say that troops were ordered to remote detonate the C-RAMs once the last flights were in the air but that the detonators failed, leaving the C-RAMs fully operable. One intelligence community source said that aerial photographs of the C-RAM location taken since the withdrawal do not show any evidence of destruction.

A military intelligence source with knowledge of the systems who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely said that with the C-RAMs and the drones the US left behind:

“With access to the command and control software from the C-RAM, they know how it works and how it interfaces with fire control systems. With the drones, they know how the satellite and local control interact AND how that information propagates vertically and horizontally across the enterprise. Now I can blind IR spoof parts of the network and make it look like system errors or read the data in real-time.

“Essentially, the loss of the drones isn’t so much the aircraft themselves but the command and control capabilities and the frequencies/ countermeasures we use.”

Some members of Congress have been informed about portions of the incident, but haven’t been given the complete story. An intelligence community source said:

“A few members of the Armed Services Committee were briefed by a very upset Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), who managed the airspace initially, about it, but none of the senior commanders have come clean.”

A Pentagon source speaking on condition of anonymity told RedState that some in the chain of command have been interviewed about the incident, including Lt. Col. Joe Buccino. According to that source, Buccino confirmed that the Hilux was brought to the US but claims the Russian ZU-23 was not. Witnesses say the Hilux is currently in a container truck on Fort Bragg, awaiting its unveiling at the 82nd Airborne Museum.

Buccino also allegedly said that “the detonation set for remote destruction of C-RAM didn’t work.” It’s not clear whether anyone at the Pentagon or elsewhere is investigating why that detonation didn’t work.

When he took command of the 82nd Airborne Division in 2020, Donahue explained the “operational framework” he’d developed for the division to the Fayetteville Observer, saying that it was focused on four areas, including “always do[ing] the right thing”:

The fourth area calls for the division to “live the legacy” by strengthening the bond with paratroopers of the past, present and future.

Paratroopers take care of each other and their families and always do the right thing, Donahue said.

“That’s the culture we’re trying to continue to build upon,” he said. “It’s not new. We’re just building upon it.”

If these allegations are true, Donahue very clearly didn’t do the right thing.

Link

Just as you thought our generals could get no worse... you learn something new.

The fact that blood is on his hands and he is more concerned with a crappy Toyota speaks volumes.

I would be at least somewhat understanding if this were a piece of hardware that could reveal valuable military intelligence but no, it's simply a bragging right for him, which I do not get. We "confiscated" a beat up truck from the same Taliban that ended up with nicer US military hardware and dictated our own terms of exit.

Let me know when there's more than just "redstate.com" reporting on this. They claim it as an exclusive and I could not find a single other corroborating source.

Quote:Over the weekend our Managing Editor, Jennifer Van Laar, broke the story of a huge scandal by reporting on the 2-ton war trophy Major General Christopher Donahue placed in the last C-17 out of Kabul. Even a C-17 has weight and cargo limits, so the war trophy reportedly displaced up to 50 people – human beings who were told/ordered to exit the aircraft so the Hilux and its accessory, a Russian anti-aircraft gun, could be loaded.

Now that the story has broken all hell has broken loose to find Jennifer’s source or sources. The Pentagon is embarrassed not because one of its Major Generals displaced human beings for a war trophy, but rather because the Army got caught doing it.

Link

UPDATE: Army Gives Conflicting Statements on Taliban War Trophy Story

Quote:RedState’s exclusive report about Afghan evacuees being abandoned in Afghanistan so Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue could have a Taliban Toyota Hilux w/rear-mounted Russian ZU-23 anti-aircraft weapon (war trophy) loaded on one of the last C-17s out of Kabul has rattled some nerves at Fort Bragg, in the Pentagon, and beyond. In addition to the curious statement provided to RedState hours after its publication by Army Col. Joe Buccino, spokesman for the 101st Airborne, its publication spurred a piece in Task & Purpose purporting to be the “true story” of what happened – and which conflicts with the statement Buccino provided and with other evidence/facts. Before the Task & Purpose piece was published, though, I’d received another statement from Col. Buccino that conflicts with some of the information in Task & Purpose and which will be published in this piece. In addition, Breitbart published a story about the chaotic last two weeks in Afghanistan that contained some interesting tidbits from people on the ground.

Basically, the narrative put forth in the Task & Purpose story is that it was a Toyota Land Cruiser and not a Hilux; that it was an Afghan National Army truck (ANA) and not Taliban; that no evacuees or American citizens were denied passage to the United States due to the truck taking up space in a C-17; that all appropriate paperwork was filled out for the truck to become a museum piece; and that an ambitious Iraqi-born Private traded some ANA soldiers two cans of chew for the truck.

The narrative set forth by both Task & Purpose and Col. Buccino is simply not credible. I’ll go through the elements of the narrative then point out the conflicting statements or evidence.

1. When Fort Bragg soldiers arrived in Kabul they were “light on equipment” and didn’t have machine guns.

Lt. Col Andy Harris and Private First Class Alsajjad Al Lami spoke with Task & Purpose, saying that when the 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment arrived at Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA) just after 7 am local time on August 16 they were “light on equipment.”

“The focus was getting troops into Kabul, he said, which meant there wasn’t much room for ‘our heavy equipment or vehicles with our heavy machine guns.'”

“We just had our basic weapons, we didn’t have any heavy machine guns, any gun trucks or anything,” said Pfc. Al Lami.

However, according to a Breitbart article published within hours of the Task & Purpose piece, a US service member who did not want to be identified said they found machine guns, RPGs, and rocket launchers there that had been abandoned by Afghan security forces:

Afghan security forces also abandoned thousands of guns and munitions at the airport. “There’s just guns laying everywhere and RPGs, AT4 [rocket launchers], grenades, machine guns, rifles, pistols, explosives, et cetera,” he said.

And, the situation at HKIA, the Breitbart article mentions the U.S. military using Apaches as part of the effort to gain control of the airport and the assistance of Turkish forces:

The U.S. military tried to use Apaches to disperse some of the people flooding onto the runways.

Around the same time, U.S. and Turkish forces — who were previously in charge of airport security — fired warning shots to try to clear the runways. At least one Afghan man was accidentally injured by a U.S. service member firing a warning shot. The man later died of his injuries.

2. US paratroopers, led by an Iraqi-born PFC who served as translator, traded ANA troops who were changing locations two cans of chew for the keys to the Land Cruiser.

According to Harris and Al Lami, the US Army acquired the “truck” from ANA troops who were changing locations.

[T]he Afghan forces had their own gear, including an olive green Afghan National Army truck mounted with a Russian-made 14.5mm ZPU-2 anti-aircraft gun. On Aug. 17, when the Afghan troops informed Bravo Company that they were moving to another area of the airport, the paratroopers asked if they wouldn’t mind handing over the keys.

“There were two guys standing by the truck, and we asked them if they had the keys,” Al Lami said. “They were like, ‘Yeah we do have the keys.’ And they gave us the keys for two cans of dip.”

[H]ad it not been for Pfc. Alsajjad Al Lami, the Iraqi-born U.S. Army soldier, the Toyota Land Cruiser might have remained where it was, abandoned by Afghan forces, instead of being used by American troops to guard the airport and keep the surrounding Taliban fighters at bay.

Since translators were also scarce, Al Lami served as translator, according to the article. In addition, he reportedly had some experience that would be helpful in using the Russian anti-aircraft gun (as if our Paratroopers couldn’t figure it out):

“Al Lami, 25, was born and raised in Iraq. He said his father worked as a translator for the U.S. military there, which instilled in him a deep desire to serve in the U.S. Army. After he graduated high school, Al Lami said he had to complete a mandatory service obligation in Iraq’s military, but he only ended up serving for six months before he left for college in the U.S….

“Al Lami knew how to work the ZPU-2 thanks to his short stint in the Iraqi military. “

One problem with that story. Iraq hasn’t had a mandatory service obligation since 2003, when Al Lami would have been six years old, so he couldn’t have completed a mandatory service obligation when he was 18. That brings up another question – how did he have so much knowledge about how to operate a ZPU-2? And, was it a ZPU-2 or a ZU-23?

There is a Land Cruiser pictured in the Task & Purpose article, but is that the same truck that Donahue allegedly prioritized on that last day over evacuees? Further down in the same piece a statement from Col. Brett Lea, a spokesman for the 82nd Airborne Division, contradicts both the make of the truck and from whom it was acquired (emphasis added):

“No personnel were removed from any aircraft departing HKIA to make room for the Taliban Hilux.”

In his first on-the-record statement to RedState Col. Buccino, incredibly, used the exact same words. And, according to Buccino, he’s not even in the same unit as Lea. Buccino’s statement has an additional sentence, though, clarifying that it was seized from the Taliban.

“No personnel were removed from any aircraft departing HKIA to make room for the Taliban Hilux….

“The Hilux truck, taken from the Taliban at the airfield on August 17th, was loaded onto a C-17 for movement to the US on August 30th….

Lea could have used those words as well, but it’s unclear whether Task & Purpose published Lea’s entire statement. In any event, was it taken from the Taliban, or was it acquired through barter with friendly ANA troops? Those are quite different scenarios. Or, is it possible that, given the differences in description, that there are two trucks that were loaded onto C-17’s during the withdrawal?

3 The “truck” played a vital role in securing the airport and deterring Taliban fighters, and that’s why it’s coming to the US.

From Task & Purpose:

For days, the ZPU-2 was used by American troops as a show of force to the Taliban on the other side of the airport’s gate….

The truck served as a primary deterrent to Taliban fighters as U.S. troops landed in Kabul to assist with the massive evacuation effort there.

Maj. Gen. Donahue also gave a statement:

In a statement to Task & Purpose, Donahue said the story of the truck is “emblematic of the grit, discipline, and extreme competence” his paratroopers displayed at HKIA.

“This truck will sit at the 82nd Airborne Museum so that our Paratroopers, their families and future generations to come will know that when faced with a mission of unprecedented scope and complexity, the Paratroopers rose to meet this challenge,” Donahue said.

Buccino’s statement in my initial piece was a bit different, referencing “confiscating” the Hilux from “the Taliban,” and that confiscation led to the US regaining the tactical advantage at HKIA:

The truck, once all the way through customs and the military legal process, will serve as a symbol in the 82nd Airborne Division Museum on Fort Bragg of how the Division came into a chaotic situation and by confiscating the Hilux from the Taliban we quickly regained the tactical advantage in order to complete the mission.

Hmm. None of them mentioned the armed drones we had there, one of which was used as late as August 29 (in the horrific bombing, authorized by Donahue, that killed seven children), as more of a deterrent to the Taliban than an anti-aircraft gun (how many aircraft did the Taliban control in Kabul in mid-August?), or the Apache helicopters that were.

4. Nobody was removed from a C-17 to make way for the Hilux, and there was plenty of room on the planes.

In addition to stating that no “personnel” were removed from any aircraft to make room for the Hilux, Lea told Task & Purpose:

“In fact, aircraft space was not an issue at all in terms of getting American citizens, Afghan SIVs, or at-risk Afghans out of HKIA in the final days of the evacuation mission.”

Buccino, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, used the exact same wording. Unless there is a different definition, “personnel” doesn’t mean HVAFG, or “high-value Afghans,” or Afghan SIVs, or even American citizens. While one Army officer who spoke to RedState on condition of anonymity said that as long as American citizens, SIV holders, and the like got to the airport and past the Taliban there was space for them on the planes, we know from separate sources that soldiers in Donahue’s command were turning away people with the proper documentation from the gates and that the State Department was telling them to do so.

Michael Yon, a retired special forces soldier turned war correspondent, shared this screenshot with Just The News showing that the US military was knowingly leaving American citizens and high-value Afghans behind, some of whom were screaming at the airport gates. A US Army Colonel assigned to the 82nd Airborne said in one text message to Yon, “Yes, we are f***ing abandoning American citizens. I’m so pissed.”



Yon emailed a US Army Major the next day, expressing his displeasure.

“You guys left American citizens at the gate of the Kabul airport. Three empty jets paid for by volunteers were waiting for them. You and I talked on the phone. I told you where they were. Gave you their passport images. And my email and phone number. And you left them behind.

“Great job saving yourselves. Probably get a lot of medals.”

And we’re supposed to believe that it was all on the State Department? It’s definitely not on the soldiers at the gate, who were following orders from higher-ups. The Colonel told Yon that for high-value Afghans to get on the flights it would take “an act of God.” No, it would take an act of Donahue. If a two-star general wanted those people on the planes, they would have been there.

Buccino emailed an additional statement in the days after the original article was posted and asked that it be published in its entirety. I am publishing it as received, in its entirety, here, with my comments interspersed.

“This article is riddled with inaccuracies. Among them:

1. The Hilux is not “in a container truck on Fort Bragg.” The truck remains in Kuwait. If the truck is, in fact, on Fort Bragg, the reporter’s sources should be able to take a photograph and send it to RedState to prove me wrong here.

Again Buccino refers to the truck as a Hilux, but this time mentioned that it “remains in Kuwait.” In his first statement, he didn’t mention a particular country. Buccino then challenges RedState to have its sources take a photograph of the truck on Fort Bragg. This seems to be a very poorly veiled attempt to flush out RedState’s sources and is disturbing.

2. I never made any comment about the detonation set for remote destruction of the C-RAM. Destruction of a C-RAM system is not an area in which I have any training or knowledge. I also was never on HKIA, nor am I assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, therefore, it would make no sense for me to comment on a matter I know nothing about. I am unfamiliar with the process of C-RAM destruction. Therefore, I would not comment on the matter.

There’s no evidence of Buccino being in Kabul during the withdrawal, and no assertion that he was. He isn’t assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division but is quoted as a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, of which the 82nd Airborne is a part, in numerous news stories throughout the summer and during the withdrawal. In a Washington Examiner piece claiming that Donahue told a British special forces commander to have his troops stop operating outside the airport’s perimeter because “the British operations were embarrassing the United States military in the absence of similar U.S. military operations,” Buccino issued a denial on Donahue’s behalf.

Col. Joe Buccino, a spokesman for the XVIII Airborne Corps, denied that Donahue made such a request.

“The XVIII Airborne Corps denies the central thrust of this story,” the spokesman said. “Specifically, Gen. Chris Donahue, whose sole focus is security at HKIA, never made such a request to any British Army officials and would have no motive for doing so.”

How could he have known that if he wasn’t at HKIA and isn’t assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division?

Next, Buccino takes issue with this line in RedState’s initial piece, then distances himself from the MG.

A Pentagon source speaking on condition of anonymity told RedState that some in the chain of command have been interviewed about the incident, including Col. Joe Buccino.

Buccino states:

3. I am not ‘in the chain of command.’ I am nowhere in General Chris Donahue’s chain-of-command at all. We are not in the same unit. My only proximity to General Donahue is that we both live on Fort Bragg.”

While Buccino is literally correct, and there are some nuances that could be discussed there, it’s a silly argument because it has nothing to do with the extremely serious allegations in the piece and is merely an attempt to deflect. Also, as evidenced above, Buccino has been a spokesman for Donahue by virtue of his position with the 18th Airborne Corps. And, Donahue was a guest on Buccino’s podcast in early June 2021 – an episode in which Buccino heaps praise on Donahue. Yes, Fort Bragg is a massive installation, but for these two it’s a small world.

These conflicting statements from Army public affairs officials and the dubious report (or true story) of how the “truck” was acquired just lead to more questions – and they’re questions for which RedState is actively pursuing answers.