WikiLeaks logo

Browse by Type

air mission (431) counter insurgency (4) counter-insurgency (39) criminal event (480) detainee operations (1208) enemy (13) enemy action (27078) explosive hazard (23082) friendly action (13734) friendly fire (148) non-combat event (7719) other (2752) suspicious incident (208) unknown initiated action (12)

Browse by Category

accident (836) air assault (3) air movement (8) ambush (538) amf-on-ana (2) amnesty (1) ana-on-anp (6) anp training (283) arrest (50) arson (41) arty (77) assassination (48) attack (2283) black list (1) blue-blue (18) blue-green (10) blue-on-white (2) blue-white (6) border ops (11) breaching (2) cache found/cleared (2742) carjacking (33) cas (123) casevac (14) cca (5) checkpoint run (37) close air support (95) convoy (53) cordon/search (80) counter insurgency (8) counter mortar fire (41) counter mortar patrol (7) counter narcotic (6) counter terrorism (1) criminal activity (27) defecting (5) deliberate attack (69) demonstration (237) detain (185) detained (683) detainee release (60) detainee transfer (517) direct fire (16293) downed aircraft (13) drug operation (6) drug vehicle (2) elicitation (1) enemy action (13) equipment failure (81) erw recovered (24) erw/turn-in (58) escalation of force (2271) evidence turn-in/received (50) extortion (5) finance (3) food distribution (4) frago (404) graffiti (1) green-blue (16) green-green (72) green-white (6) hard landing (9) idf counter fire (5) idf interdiction (137) ied ambush (350) ied explosion (7202) ied false (550) ied found/cleared (8581) ied hoax (185) ied suspected (895) ied threat (10) indirect fire (7237) insurgent vehicle (9) interdiction (488) internal security forces (2) kidnapping (110) looting (11) medcap (160) medevac (3301) medevac (local national) (428) medevac (other) (64) medevac patient transfer (162) meeting (1405) meeting - development (988) meeting - security (753) mine found/cleared (396) mine strike (321) movement to contact (4) mugging (1) murder (100) narcotics (1) natural disaster (55) nbc (1) negligent discharge (19) none selected (2) other (4693) other (hostile action) (418) other defensive (30) other offensive (132) patrol (365) planned event (404) poisoning (1) police actions (24) police internal (3) premature detonation (259) project closeout (81) project start (88) propaganda (100) psyop (190) psyop (tv/radio) (2) psyop (written) (4) qa/qc project (400) raid (44) recon (33) reconnaissance (169) recruitment (willing) (1) refugees (12) released (110) repetitive activities (8) reported location (1) resupply (7) rpg (76) sabotage (6) safire (1697) search and attack (7) sectarian violence (30) security breach (1) sermon (5) show of force (2) small unit actions (32) smuggling (23) sniper ops (154) snow and ice removal (49) supporting aif (4) supporting cf (15) surrendering (4) surveillance (369) tcp (3) tests of security (22) theft (40) threat (1) transfer (399) tribal (7) tribal feud (12) turn in (840) uav (16) unexploded ordnance (2770) unknown explosion (156) vandalism (11) vehicle interdiction (11) vetcap (13) voge (29)

Browse by Region

none selected (19) rc capital (3191) rc east (38003) rc north (2143) rc south (30234) rc west (2934) unknown (359)

Browse by Affiliation

NATO (1342) enemy (50887) friend (13882) neutral (10471) unknown (1671)

Browse by Date

2004-01 (138) 2004-02 (101) 2004-03 (105) 2004-04 (89) 2004-05 (194) 2004-06 (175) 2004-07 (189) 2004-08 (191) 2004-09 (192) 2004-10 (232) 2004-11 (203) 2004-12 (178) 2005-01 (136) 2005-02 (143) 2005-03 (201) 2005-04 (221) 2005-05 (387) 2005-06 (432) 2005-07 (451) 2005-08 (435) 2005-09 (558) 2005-10 (413) 2005-11 (279) 2005-12 (314) 2006-01 (305) 2006-02 (403) 2006-03 (494) 2006-04 (713) 2006-05 (700) 2006-06 (663) 2006-07 (759) 2006-08 (936) 2006-09 (1050) 2006-10 (1248) 2006-11 (1145) 2006-12 (1020) 2007-01 (1416) 2007-02 (1251) 2007-03 (1263) 2007-04 (1514) 2007-05 (1777) 2007-06 (1788) 2007-07 (1833) 2007-08 (1784) 2007-09 (1902) 2007-10 (1694) 2007-11 (1536) 2007-12 (1362) 2008-01 (1222) 2008-02 (1040) 2008-03 (1230) 2008-04 (864) 2008-05 (885) 2008-06 (869) 2008-07 (930) 2008-08 (1244) 2008-09 (1076) 2008-10 (1529) 2008-11 (1676) 2008-12 (1418) 2009-01 (1290) 2009-02 (1164) 2009-03 (1453) 2009-04 (1436) 2009-05 (2004) 2009-06 (2429) 2009-07 (3078) 2009-08 (3645) 2009-09 (3123) 2009-10 (3282) 2009-11 (2938) 2009-12 (2573)

Browse by Severity

High (76911) Low (76911)

Community resources

Follow us on Twitter Check our Reddit Twitter this Digg this page

280600Z TF Eagle conducts border flag meeting in Bermel

To understand what you are seeing here, please see the Afghan War Diary Reading Guide and the Field Structure Description

Afghan War Diary - Reading guide

The Afghan War Diary (AWD for short) consists of messages from several important US military communications systems. The messaging systems have changed over time; as such reporting standards and message format have changed as well. This reading guide tries to provide some helpful hints on interpretation and understanding of the messages contained in the AWD.

Most of the messages follow a pre-set structure that is designed to make automated processing of the contents easier. It is best to think of the messages in the terms of an overall collective logbook of the Afghan war. The AWD contains the relevant events, occurrences and intelligence experiences of the military, shared among many recipients. The basic idea is that all the messages taken together should provide a full picture of a days important events, intelligence, warnings, and other statistics. Each unit, outpost, convoy, or other military action generates report about relevant daily events. The range of topics is rather wide: Improvised Explosives Devices encountered, offensive operations, taking enemy fire, engagement with possible hostile forces, talking with village elders, numbers of wounded, dead, and detained, kidnappings, broader intelligence information and explicit threat warnings from intercepted radio communications, local informers or the afghan police. It also includes day to day complaints about lack of equipment and supplies.

The description of events in the messages is often rather short and terse. To grasp the reporting style, it is helpful to understand the conditions under which the messages are composed and sent. Often they come from field units who have been under fire or under other stressful conditions all day and see the report-writing as nasty paperwork, that needs to be completed with little apparent benefit to expect. So the reporting is kept to the necessary minimum, with as little type-work as possible. The field units also need to expect questions from higher up or disciplinary measures for events recorded in the messages, so they will tend to gloss over violations of rules of engagement and other problematic behavior; the reports are often detailed when discussing actions or interactions by enemy forces. Once it is in the AWD messages, it is officially part of the record - it is subject to analysis and scrutiny. The truthfulness and completeness especially of descriptions of events must always be carefully considered. Circumstances that completely change the meaning of an reported event may have been omitted.

The reports need to answer the critical questions: Who, When, Where, What, With whom, by what Means and Why. The AWD messages are not addressed to individuals but to groups of recipients that are fulfilling certain functions, such as duty officers in a certain region. The systems where the messages originate perform distribution based on criteria like region, classification level and other information. The goal of distribution is to provide those with access and the need to know, all of the information that relevant to their duties. In practice, this seems to be working imperfectly. The messages contain geo-location information in the forms of latitude-longitude, military grid coordinates and region.

The messages contain a large number of abbreviations that are essential to understanding its contents. When browsing through the messages, underlined abbreviations pop up an little explanation, when the mouse is hovering over it. The meanings and use of some shorthands have changed over time, others are sometimes ambiguous or have several meanings that are used depending on context, region or reporting unit. If you discover the meaning of a so far unresolved acronym or abbreviations, or if you have corrections, please submit them to wl-editors@sunshinepress.org.

An especially helpful reference to names of military units and task-forces and their respective responsibilities can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom.htm

The site also contains a list of bases, airfields http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/afghanistan.htm Location names are also often shortened to three-character acronyms.

Messages may contain date and time information. Dates are mostly presented in either US numeric form (Year-Month-Day, e.g. 2009-09-04) or various Euro-style shorthands (Day-Month-Year, e.g. 2 Jan 04 or 02-Jan-04 or 2jan04 etc.).

Times are frequently noted with a time-zone identifier behind the time, e.g. "09:32Z". Most common are Z (Zulu Time, aka. UTC time zone), D (Delta Time, aka. UTC + 4 hours) and B (Bravo Time, aka UTC + 2 hours). A full list off time zones can be found here: http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/military/

Other times are noted without any time zone identifier at all. The Afghanistan time zone is AFT (UTC + 4:30), which may complicate things further if you are looking up messages based on local time.

Finding messages relating to known events may be complicated by date and time zone shifting; if the event is in the night or early morning, it may cause a report to appear to be be misfiled. It is advisable to always look through messages before and on the proceeding day for any event.

David Leigh, the Guardian's investigations editor, explains the online tools they have created to help you understand the secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/video/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-video-tutorial


Understanding the structure of the report
  • The message starts with a unique ReportKey; it may be used to find messages and also to reference them.
  • The next field is DateOccurred; this provides the date and time of the event or message. See Time and Date formats for details on the used formats.
  • Type contains typically a broad classification of the type of event, like Friendly Action, Enemy Action, Non-Combat Event. It can be used to filter for messages of a certain type.
  • Category further describes what kind of event the message is about. There are a lot of categories, from propaganda, weapons cache finds to various types of combat activities.
  • TrackingNumber Is an internal tracking number.
  • Title contains the title of the message.
  • Summary is the actual description of the event. Usually it contains the bulk of the message content.
  • Region contains the broader region of the event.
  • AttackOn contains the information who was attacked during an event.
  • ComplexAttack is a flag that signifies that an attack was a larger operation that required more planning, coordination and preparation. This is used as a quick filter criterion to detect events that were out of the ordinary in terms of enemy capabilities.
  • ReportingUnit, UnitName, TypeOfUnit contains the information on the military unit that authored the report.
  • Wounded and death are listed as numeric values, sorted by affiliation. WIA is the abbreviation for Wounded In Action. KIA is the abbreviation for Killed In Action. The numbers are recorded in the fields FriendlyWIA,FriendlyKIA,HostNationWIA,HostNationKIA,CivilianWIA,CivilianKIA,EnemyWIA,EnemyKIA
  • Captured enemies are numbered in the field EnemyDetained.
  • The location of events are recorded in the fields MGRS (Military Grid Reference System), Latitude, Longitude.
  • The next group of fields contains information on the overall military unit, like ISAF Headquarter, that a message originated from or was updated by. Updates frequently occur when an analysis group, like one that investigated an incident or looked into the makeup of an Improvised Explosive Device added its results to a message.
  • OriginatorGroup, UpdatedByGroup
  • CCIR Commander's Critical Information Requirements
  • If an activity that is reported is deemed "significant", this is noted in the field Sigact. Significant activities are analyzed and evaluated by a special group in the command structure.
  • Affiliation describes if the event was of friendly or enemy nature.
  • DColor controls the display color of the message in the messaging system and map views. Messages relating to enemy activity have the color Red, those relating to friendly activity are colored Blue.
  • Classification contains the classification level of the message, e.g. Secret
Help us extend and defend this work
Reference ID Region Latitude Longitude
AFG20070928n987 UNKNOWN 32.51723862 69.27606964
Date Type Category Affiliation Detained
2007-09-28 06:06 Friendly Action Border Ops FRIEND 0
Enemy Friend Civilian Host nation
Killed in action 0 0 0 0
Wounded in action 0 0 0 0
EXSUM:  TF Eagle Border Flag Meeting in Shkin (28SEPT)

On the afternoon of 28SEP07 TF Eagle hosted a border flag meeting at the Angorada checkpoint with PAKMIL representatives from the 21st Sindh (LTC Zahid) 13th Sindh (MAJ Saqib) and 6th Punjab (LTC Zahid) Battalions.  The purpose of the meeting was to further the trust and communication between the PAKMIL and U.S. Forces.  The meeting started with introductions, and a TF Eagle presentation to PAKMIL including U.S. Forces locations, strength, and contact information.  The presentation included intelligence updates with direct reference ACM HVTs currently believe to be inside Pakistan and detailed information (cleansed of sources and methods) concerning rocket attacks on CF originating in Pakistan. The critical point discussed was the need for PAKMIL to update U.S. Forces on their checkpoint locations to ensure situational awareness and synchronization. Following this discussion, the PAKMIL covered the importance of good communications with U.S. Forces and the need for a better system of communication than the existing TacChat that is too heavily relied upon now. Both parties discussed the need for reliable FM communications and methods to increase effectiveness despite the mountainous terrain. The next topic discussed was the importance and need to include ANSF in future border flag meetings in order to facilitate their development, professionalism and mutual trust with PAKMIL. The meeting ended with discussions about conducting a large, multi-battalion/BDE BFM at FOB Bermel in late October that will include ANA leadership. Following the discussions, the PAKMIL offered refreshments and photographs were taken to commemorate the event.  

General Observations: The attendance of the CJTF-82 PAKMIL LNO (LTC Tariq) was extremely valuable.  LTC Tariq knew many of the PAKMIL officers in attendance from prior assignments and brought immediate credibility to U.S. officers attending. LTC Tariq spoke freely and, many times, very bluntly to his fellow PAKMIL officers. He commented on the need for PAKMIL to take action on reports of ACM activity on their side of the border and then, necessarily, report their findings to their US counterparts. He requested that the PAKMIL BN commanders take aggressive action to develop trust and cooperation between US and PAKMIL forces. He requested that the PAKMIL BN Cdrs personally address their junior leaders and press the issue of developing trust with CF officer; in effect, to start acting like allies. His comments were invaluable since they would not have been well received coming from U.S. officers. It appeared to shock the attending BN commanders that there was a senior PAKMIL officer working in the CJTF-82 headquarters. 

Overall, LTC Tariqs presence immediately increased the level of trust between the two parties and led to the most effective border flag meeting we have had in our battle space. As a result, this BFM did not became a blame game (LTC Tariq also exhorted the PAKMIL officers stop engaging in these types of sessions as they accomplish little and harbor distrust). The tone of the meeting was relaxed and comfortable, the collective feeling of participants was that it was a productive event where all sides looked to immediately increase ways to reduce and stop miscreant activity along the shared border.

ANA Distrust of the PAKMIL IVO Shkin:  ANA forces at BSP-213 were surprisingly and openly hostile to LTC Tariq. The ANA were visibly upset at U.S. Forces for bringing a PAKMIL officer to their checkpoint and made openly hostile remarks and gestures towards him. This reaction was unexpected but further highlights the need for U.S. Forces to speak with the ANA chain of command and address the issue directly. While senior ANA Officers routinely attend the BSSM, the spirit of cooperation does not extend down to the company level and below. The level of cooperation and view of PAKMIL must be enhanced in order for border relations to continue to improve and progress. TF Eagle is going to immediately engage the ANA leadership on this point and ensure they understand that it is a critical step in their development as a professional force.
Report key: B988F889-9AF9-459E-A477-F64E2891CB78
Tracking number: 2007-272-150912-0131
Attack on: FRIEND
Complex atack: FALSE
Reporting unit: TF EAGLE (1-503D)
Unit name: TF EAGLE 1-503 IN
Type of unit: None Selected
Originator group: UNKNOWN
Updated by group: UNKNOWN
MGRS: 42SWA2592997804
CCIR:
Sigact:
DColor: BLUE