Stephen Ramsbottom says nothing at the port could intercept a drone
Stephen RamsbottomU.S. Army major with the Army Reserve's 103rd Sustainment Command, wounded in the March 1 strike
Maj. Stephen Ramsbottom told the Associated Press that at Port Shuaiba "there was nothing that was going to intercept a threat coming at us other than ballistic missiles." He was one of five soldiers who told the AP that officers overseeing protection had warned the generals the port would not be safe without air protection against drones, and he called the explanation that the military did not expect a drone attack "preposterous."
Responding to
Officers told the Associated Press that the generals who moved the unit to Port Shuaiba knew it lacked defenses against drones, and that intelligence officers had warned them it was a likely secondary target for Iran.
“There was nothing that was going to intercept a threat coming at us other than ballistic missiles”
Reporting
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Did the military fail the troops wounded in the March 1 Iranian drone strike at Port Shuaiba?
On March 1, 2026, an Iranian drone struck a U.S. Army tactical operations center at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, killing six soldiers of the Army Reserve's 103rd Sustainment Command and wounding dozens more. The next day Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the drone as a "squirter" that made its way through air defenses and hit a fortified building. Survivors have since told CBS News and the Associated Press that the post had no defense against drones, that commanders had been warned, and that wounded soldiers waited days to be evacuated, were not recorded as combat wounded on arrival at Landstuhl and waited weeks or months for brain-injury care. The Pentagon says wounded troops are evaluated and may be admitted based on the severity of their injuries, the Army has rejected claims that it downplayed injuries, and the Army has not released its completed investigation. Democratic lawmakers have asked for answers. The dispute is over whether the military failed the troops at Port Shuaiba in how it protected them and how it cared for and documented the wounded.
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Associated Press investigation based on interviews with 13 soldiers, primarily officers, several on the record and others anonymously, plus Gold Star families. It includes the Army's statement declining to comment on specific details before families are briefed, and a statement that the Pentagon also declined to comment. The AP page lists an update on October 6, 2026; the wording we quote matched an AP member copy published October 5.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
Associated Press report in which nine wounded service members spoke on the record about their medical care after the March 1 strike. It reports that the Army and the Pentagon declined to comment on the AP's reporting, quotes a Pentagon statement that wounded troops are evaluated and may be admitted based on severity according to physicians who follow "healthcare-industry practices," and quotes a Pentagon official on Landstuhl's mission.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The AP reports that the only U.S. air defense covering the port was a Patriot system near Camp Arifjan that was ill-equipped to shoot down Iranian drones. Ramsbottom said the generals were focused on missiles rather than drones, noted that drone warfare had gone on in Ukraine for five years, said "our excuse is we didn't expect it to happen to us" and called that "preposterous in my mind."
After the quotation
Ramsbottom told the AP that on the morning of the strike he and Capt. Cody Khork worried that the radar used to issue all-clears was not detecting low-flying drones. In a separate AP report he said he waited more than four months for MRI results and had "to build my own case for everything."
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is whether the military failed the soldiers at Port Shuaiba in protecting them or in caring for the wounded. Ramsbottom says the post had no defense against drones, and in the same AP account he calls the excuse that commanders did not expect a drone attack "preposterous," which asserts a failure of protection. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but he goes beyond disputing a description and criticizes the preparation itself. Evidence: direct quotations in an Associated Press report.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- United States Army
More from this case
Read the full caseArmy declines to comment on soldiers' accounts until families are briefed on investigation findings
United States Army
“Out of respect for the primary next of kin who will be scheduled for briefs on the official findings of the completed investigation, we will not comment on specific details, individual accounts, or leaked portions of the report at this time”Read statement
Tina Marzan says those responsible should be held accountable if someone made a mistake
“If somebody messed up, those people need to be held responsible.”Read statement
Tim Halbur says senior commanders knew the intelligence reports before the move
“Obviously, somewhere at the two-star, three-star level, they knew the intelligence reports”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Stephen Ramsbottom says nothing at the port could intercept a drone
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4871-maj-stephen-ramsbottom-told-the-associated-press-that
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Stephen Ramsbottom says nothing at the port could intercept a drone". First published: 2026-10-06. Last updated: 2026-10-06. https://disputeindex.com/events/4871-maj-stephen-ramsbottom-told-the-associated-press-that