September 8, 2009 10:34 AM

Airstrike Opens Rift between Germany, U.S.

(CBS/AP)  Updated 10:16 p.m. EDT

An airstrike by U.S. fighter jets that appears to have killed Afghan civilians could turn into a major dispute for NATO allies Germany and the United States, as tensions began rising between them Sunday over Germany's role in ordering the attack.

Afghan officials say up to 70 people were killed in the early morning airstrike Friday in the northern province of Kunduz after Taliban militants stole two tanker trucks of fuel and villagers gathered to siphon off gas.

Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday called for a "thorough, quick" NATO-led investigation into the events surrounding a German-ordered airstrike in northern Afghanistan and whether civilians were killed in the attack.

Merkel said Sunday she would "deeply regret" if any civilians had been killed and insisted the aim of the German mission is to gain the support and trust of the Afghan people.

Afghan and NATO investigations are just beginning, but both German and U.S. officials already appeared to be trying to deflect blame.

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said the Taliban's possession of the two tankers "posed an acute threat to our soldiers." German officials have said the tankers might have been used as suicide bombs.

"If there were civilian casualties or injuries, of course we deeply regret that. At the same time, it was clear that our soldiers were in danger," Jung said in comments to German broadcasters. "Consequently, I stand clearly behind our commander's decision" to order the air strike.

Meanwhile, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, the top U.S. and NATO spokesman in the country, said German troops let too many hours pass before visiting the site of the bombing Friday.

He explained that it's important to hold the ground after a strike and determine what happened before the enemy comes out with its own version of events.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, visited the site Saturday where two charred trucks and yellow gas cans sat on a riverbed. He asked a top commander in Regional Command North about the response time.

"Why didn't RC-North come here quicker?" McChrystal asked Col. Georg Klein, the commander of the German base in Kunduz.

"I can honestly say it was a mistake," Klein answered, in a discussion witnessed by an Associated Press reporter.

On Sunday, Smith said that in McChrystal's judgment the response time "was probably longer than it should have been."

German troops in Afghanistan have long been criticized for avoiding combat operations, even as militants have increasingly infiltrated northern Afghanistan the last year, destabilizing the once-peaceful region.

Taliban militants stole two fuel tankers late Friday that became stuck on a riverbed outside Kunduz. Villagers - either forced by the militants or enticed by offers of free fuel - gathered near the trucks, even as U.S. jets patrolled overhead.

German commanders watching images from the U.S. aircraft could see about 120 people, McChrystal said Saturday. The commanders decided that the people were militants and ordered the airstrikes, Smith said, even though images provided by the U.S. aircraft would have been grainy and difficult to see.

Whether the German commanders or the U.S. pilot are at fault for any civilian casualties may turn into an inner-NATO tussle.

Smith said the ground force commander "is the decision maker for close air support. That's doctrine." But he also conceded that a pilot can refuse an order to drop a bomb.

Klein, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, declined to say whether images provided by the U.S. jets had been clear enough for weapons to be seen among Afghans on the ground, citing the ongoing investigation.

A German Joint Terminal Air Controller, or JTAC, who spoke on condition that his name not be used because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said the rules for ordering an attack clearly state that the ultimate decision rests with the ground commander.

But rules also require that both the pilot and the JTAC get a good positive identification of the target before the commander can order a weapon deployed, the JTAC said.

"Only when both are sure that what we see is a target, only then will the pilot drop the bomb," the JTAC said.

The German Defense Ministry, meanwhile, pushed back against a story published in the Washington Post that German officials said painted their commander in a poor light and played up the U.S. version of events. The ministry said the article "will definitely influence at least the preliminary investigation by the various bodies."

"The Defense Ministry is very surprised about the unusual procedure of using a journalist as a source to reveal initial investigation results," the ministry said.

Kris Coratti, director of communications for the Washington Post, said in an e-mail: "The story speaks for itself."

Smith said a trip to Kunduz by military officials from Kabul was not an official investigation but a fact-finding trip.

"And I think it's much, much better for people to understand the facts," he said of the decision to allow a journalist to witness the discussion among military officials.

No NATO officials will yet say how many civilians they think may have died. Smith on Saturday said the preliminary overall death toll was believed to be 56. Afghan officials say it's in the low 70s.

Smith said he hopes a U.S.-German rift does not develop over the strike. "I hope everyone allows the investigation to proceed and we'll determine what we know more precisely and move on from there," Smith said.

The director of an Afghan human rights group criticized NATO's International Security Assistance Force for the deaths. "It was carelessness in terms of ISAF using force without doing enough to investigate whether this is a civilian location," Ajmal Samadi of Afghan Rights Monitor said.

German troops have long been criticized for restrictions that limit the battle their troops see. A U.S. based military analyst, Anthony Cordesman, said German troops don't have "the situational and combat experience" to confront Taliban on the ground.

"They're as oriented toward staying in their armored vehicles as any group I've met," Cordesman said. "They're not active enough to present much of a threat to the Taliban most of the time."

Klein rejected the claim that his troops lacked combat experience.

"Since I arrived here we have unfortunately seen many combat situations and my soldiers performed very well," he said.

"But the thing that's always given us a very good reputation in the civilian society here is that we tried as best as possible to exclude any civilian casualties, and I've got very good feedback on that from the Afghan people," he said.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 25 Comments
by Dunestrider September 7, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
Britain is America's lap-dog. Germany is America's ***** cat. Until other countries stop placating to the Great American Bully, there is no need to even discuss the topic.
Reply to this comment
by Sloughfoot September 7, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal will bring an end to this war in Afghanastan by alienating NATO forces, giving sanctuary to the enemy and using his own troops for enemy target practice. This man has little regard for those he should admire most and is the classic military example of "I would be the greatest if it weren't for all the imbiciles I'm surrounded with".
Reply to this comment
by White_Duck September 7, 2009 4:16 AM EDT
Enough is enough already! It is sickening how the press is reporting this story. Pretty soon you'll have it up to 100+ civilians killed! Give some honest numbers. Like 65 Taliban killed, with the balance of deaths being civilians trying to steal unexploded gas. And to hell with the Germans. I seem to remember them targeting thousands of civilians during WW 2!
Reply to this comment
by nextgenman09 September 7, 2009 8:16 AM EDT
Thus spake the conservatard......
by hissteps4u September 7, 2009 12:55 AM EDT
If we would only go in and destroy the Poppy productions and plants the entire country would collapse from the lack of revenue
Reply to this comment
by babooph September 7, 2009 12:50 AM EDT
Germany can always threaten to re-release the video of the Walker capture ,contrasted with the "ALTERATIONS" the US propaganda system did to it-that will slow down US complaints.
Reply to this comment
by piBen11 September 7, 2009 12:26 AM EDT
This is silly. Why should we blame the Germans or the pilot that dropped the bomb on those who hijacked the fuel trucks? Civilians should know better to stay away from anything that is hijacked or stolen from the other side of a conflict. Clearly, the ten-year old boy, who was injured in this case, was told by his father to stay away from those trucks, a piece of advice the tenager ignored. In my opinion, the death of the civilians in this case was unavoidable. In fact, they intentionally or ignorantly called for it. Unless of course, they were forced by the Talibans to be in the surrounding of the trucks. In that case, neither the Germans nor the pilot would be aware of that. As regrettable as the death of civilians in this situation was, we should not rush to blame NATO for it. The Talibans are solely responsible for this particular incident - death of civilians.
Reply to this comment
by cg37102006 September 7, 2009 12:09 AM EDT
I may have missed it in this article, but, are German forces commanding US fighter planes in Afghanistan? If so, is that normal NATO practice?
Reply to this comment
by ksmit2 September 6, 2009 9:55 PM EDT
Well, this is yet another reason, in a mile-long list of why the US can
no longer succeed in warfare.
It is impossible to win in warfare without having civilian casualties.
What would history look like if the US had decided; "well we can't drop
an atomic bomb, it would kill too many innocent civilians".
It is an ugly truth, this argument is not about "right or wrong", it is
a simple fact that you will never win any campaign, without accepting that innocents will be killed as well. If you cannot accept that, then
pull your troops out, and remain as a "defense" force, and refrain from
engaging in nation building, and attacking other countries or populations.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 September 6, 2009 10:28 PM EDT
"What would history look like if the US had decided; "well we can't drop
an atomic bomb..."

Seeing as how Japan had already begun to sue for peace before the bombs were dropped, it was the US' decision to ignore the offer to surrender until after the bombs were dropped.

Knowing those facts, the world would look pretty much the same, just a few hundred thousand more Japanese would be living in it.

It is indeed an ugly truth, already public history, that you ignore. the bombing of Japan was not necessary.

The argument is indeed about right and wrong, we are wrong to be there in the first place, so nothing right can ever come of it, there is no defined campaign, other than the slaughter of anyone who resists our slaughtering them.

So yes, we do indeed need to pull our troops out, and remain a self-defense force, anything else is sacrificing our soldiers, our hard assets, and our economy for nothing other than free mercenary services for multinational corporations, and the corrupt politicians who profit from the bribery.

That is the ugly truth, there is no success in warfare.
by brianbwb-2009 September 6, 2009 10:28 PM EDT
"What would history look like if the US had decided; "well we can't drop
an atomic bomb..."

Seeing as how Japan had already begun to sue for peace before the bombs were dropped, it was the US' decision to ignore the offer to surrender until after the bombs were dropped.

Knowing those facts, the world would look pretty much the same, just a few hundred thousand more Japanese would be living in it.

It is indeed an ugly truth, already public history, that you ignore. the bombing of Japan was not necessary.

The argument is indeed about right and wrong, we are wrong to be there in the first place, so nothing right can ever come of it, there is no defined campaign, other than the slaughter of anyone who resists our slaughtering them.

So yes, we do indeed need to pull our troops out, and remain a self-defense force, anything else is sacrificing our soldiers, our hard assets, and our economy for nothing other than free mercenary services for multinational corporations, and the corrupt politicians who profit from the bribery.

That is the ugly truth, there is no success in warfare.
by BuddyBeanbags September 6, 2009 9:46 PM EDT
Get out! Get a grip on Pakistan's nuclear weapons whatever it takes, grab 'em and get outta there, too. Then let the whole region fight itself out and may the best man win (which doesn't mean we can't support the good guys however they're defined). I can't believe that their hard core old time religion believers, much like the republicans today, are more than a small percentage of the people while the overwhelming majority of the population wants desperately to enter the 21st Century. Look at any major metropolitan area in that part of the world. They look just like us! Buzzing along doing their thing and making money and trying to enjoy life. What's so wrong with that? Their coloring's a little off, their eyes too slanted, they don't look like you? So what? Welcome to the new America... we invited most of these people here in our 'Great Experiment' and we are now getting back the test results. Are we going to pass the test? After all, we did create this great democratic utopia...
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 September 6, 2009 10:17 PM EDT
Hubris of the fatal kind.

You think you will succeed in invading Pakistan and taking their weapons? That is beyond hubris, they would rather detonate them than have you take them.

Think for a second, if they are going to lose them anyway, might as well take out the enemy invaders with them. If India, Earth's second largest country, and a long time adversary of Pakistan, and also a nuclear power, could not stop their next-door neighbors from developing nuclear weapons, what do you think a corrupt, disorganized US military, even in cooperation with other corrupt NATO countries, can do?

No need to even get involved, we need to get out and let them fight it out, they cannot reach us with their nuclear weapons anyway.
by rwsmith29456 September 6, 2009 9:35 PM EDT
As long as there is fighting, people are going to get caught in the fire. Instead of passing blame it's more important that the job get done and we get out of there. Then they can be resposible for their own casualties.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 September 6, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
To rwsmith29456

What job?

There is no "job" to do there.

Any answer is either illegal, immoral, or false.
by brianbwb-2009 September 6, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
To rwsmith29456

What job?

There is no "job" to do there.

Any answer is either illegal, immoral, or false.
See all 25 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook