US Joint Chiefs of Staff's plane damaged in Afghanistan

Gen. Martin Dempsey was not near the plane at the time of the overnight strike, officials say. It is not considered an intentional attack on the aircraft. Dempsey was in Afghanistan to raise the issue of 'insider' shootings by Afghan security forces.

Yuri Gripas/Reuters
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in a June file photo in Washington. While he was in Afghanistan, his plane got hit by a missle or mortars overnight at a NATO base. Dempsey was not near the plane during the attack.

Mortars or missiles fired by insurgents hit the plane being used by the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff while it was on the ground at a NATO base, but the top American general was not in or near the aircraft at the time, Western military officials said Tuesday.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, who had traveled to Afghanistan to confer with senior Afghan and U.S. officials, was in his quarters at sprawling Bagram air base, north of Kabul, at the time of the overnight strike, said Lt. Col. Hagen Messer, a spokesman for the NATO coalition.

'No targeted attack'

Shrapnel damaged a NATO helicopter and the exterior of the C-17 aircraft that had been used to transport the general to Afghanistan, and Dempsey departed aboard another plane, Messer said.

“It was not a targeted attack,” the spokesman said, adding that indirect fire was not uncommon at the Bagram base. Usually such strikes cause only minor damage and no injuries, although in the past there have been fatalities inside the installation as a result of Taliban rocket strikes.

Dempsey’s visit came on the heels of a spate of “insider” shootings by Afghans that have claimed the lives of 10 American troops this month. He conferred with officials including Gen. John Allen, the American who heads the NATO force, and Afghan army chief of staff Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi about ways to prevent such attacks.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.