By Jonah Kaplan and Michael Kaplan
Updated April 9, 2026 / CBS News
Survivors of the deadliest Iranian strike on U.S. forces since the war began say the Pentagon’s account of the March 1 attack in Kuwait mischaracterizes what happened and obscures how exposed their unit was when six service members were killed and more than 20 wounded.
For the first time, members of the Army’s 103rd Sustainment Command spoke publicly to CBS News about the attack and its aftermath, describing a compound they say lacked adequate defenses against aerial threats. They disputed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s description of the drone as a “squirter” that “squirted through” the defenses of a fortified position.
“Painting a picture that ‘one squeaked through’ is a falsehood,” an injured soldier told CBS News. “I want people to know the unit … was unprepared to provide any defense for itself. It was not a fortified position.” That soldier and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of military media restrictions.
The soldiers said they responded with speed and resourcefulness after the blast, which killed six and injured more than 20. “I don’t think that the security environment or any leadership decision diminishes in any way their sacrifice or their service,” one member of the 103rd said. “Those soldiers put themselves in harm’s way and … I’m immensely proud of them, and their family should be proud of them.”
CBS News obtained photos and videos of the scene showing smoke, fire and structural damage at the Port of Shuaiba, a smaller military outpost south of Kuwait City where the tactical operations center had been set up. The facility, soldiers said, resembled older expeditionary bases used in Iraq and Afghanistan: tin and wood structures inside perimeter barriers made of T-walls, which can blunt mortar or rocket blasts but offer little to no protection from weapons attacking from above.
In the hours before the strike, incoming missile alarms sent roughly 60 troops to a cement bunker as a ballistic missile passed overhead. At about 9:15 a.m., an all-clear alert sounded and many removed helmets and returned to a makeshift workspace roughly the width of three trailers. Thirty minutes later, the compound took a direct hit from what witnesses say was a Shahed-style Iranian drone.
“Everything shook,” one soldier recalled. “Your ears are ringing. Everything’s fuzzy. Your vision is blurry. You’re dizzy. There’s dust and smoke everywhere.” He described severe head wounds, heavy bleeding, perforated eardrums and shrapnel injuries across bodies and limbs.
Survivors described chaotic triage in the aftermath: improvised bandages, makeshift braces and tourniquets, and soldiers using civilian vehicles to rush the wounded to hospitals in the Kuwait City suburb of Fahaheel. Some said they feared not all the dead and wounded had been evacuated during the initial response.
About a week before the offensive known as Operation Epic Fury, most U.S. troops in Kuwait were repositioned farther from Iranian missile range, advised to “get off the X.” But several dozen members of the 103rd were ordered to relocate to Port of Shuaiba to manage logistics — moving equipment, munitions and personnel across the region. Soldiers questioned why their unit was placed within known Iranian strike range, saying they had seen intelligence that listed the post as a potential target.
“We moved closer to Iran, to a deeply unsafe area that was a known target,” a service member said. “I don’t think there was a good reason ever articulated.”
Officers and Assistant Secretary of Defense Sean Parnell have said measures were taken to safeguard troops and that the facility was fortified with six-foot walls. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment to CBS News about the soldiers’ specific claims, citing an active investigation into the Port of Shuaiba attack.
Some survivors said Hegseth’s characterization of the strike as a single drone that “squirted” through defenses did not match their experience or the compound’s capabilities. “It’s not my intent to diminish morale or to disparage the Army or the Department of War more holistically, but I do think that telling the truth is important and we’re not going to learn from these mistakes if we pretend these mistakes didn’t happen,” one soldier said.
When asked if the attack was an inherent risk of combat, the soldier agreed. Asked if it was preventable, he replied, “In my opinion, absolutely, yes.”
Despite their criticism of planning and defenses, survivors emphasized the bravery and sacrifice of their fallen comrades. “I am very sad for their loss and it’s something I’ll carry with me for the rest of my life,” one said. “But I’m also immensely proud of them and their sacrifice, and their family should be too.”
James LaPorta contributed to this report.