When the attack occurred, the U.S. and Afghan soldiers were scouting for a location in the remote area to set up a coalition observation point. The Taliban never breached the main coalition base near the village of Wanat in Kunar province, which borders Pakistan.
So a squad was ambushed rather than the base itself being stormed.
Which makes the decision to abandon the fort all the more stunning.
UPDATE: I'm confused. This article says that the fighting at the main outpost was very intense:
The base was occupied by 45 US soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division and 25 Afghan soldiers. It was only two days old when it came under fierce bombardment on Sunday morning. Taleban fighters successfully breached the outer defences and were prevented from overrunning the base only after fierce hand-to-hand fighting.
Yet 8 of our 9 deaths took place away from the outpost at a site for an observation post. I'd have expected that an assault that breaches the outer defenses to get inside that line would have caused more casualties. And the enemy had every reason to assault the position:
Western military sources told The Times that the Wanat Combat Outpost was poorly sited and overlooked on three sides by buildings in the village, which Taleban fighters from a force estimated to be around 200 strong were able to use as firing points.
But given that the article says the outpost was poorly placed, it is more understandable that the post was abandoned.
Still, we should move back to the village in another outpost better positioned to repel the enemy--and with more troops assigned to it.
