Official · Document · Department of War
Military Personnel Saw Object Flying East Near Baghdad
He spotted the object during a mission in Iraq but did not pursue it.
Released to the public May 8, 20262 min readALIENS editorial
Share:
He spotted the object during a mission in Iraq but did not pursue it.
A US service member saw an object moving from west to east in the Baghdad area. He did not pursue it, and the report lists a drone as a possibility without explaining why.
USCENTCOM Mission Report (MISREP, ID 'undefined-8216304') from Operation INHERENT RESOLVE documenting an ISR sortie that took off from OKAS at 011206Z DEC 22 and landed at 020723Z DEC 22 (total mission time 19h 17m). The aircraft (callsign, MDS, and tail number redacted under 1.4a/1.4g) supported a redacted Task Force in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq, conducting target-development scans for HVI/POI signatures, POL, ADMS, weapons, convoys/sentry, and personnel. At 1620Z the crew observed one 'possible UAP/UAV' flying west to east in the vicinity of MGRS 38S MB 4_8_3_; the aircraft did not follow it and continued the tasked mission with no further events. Submitted by 482ATKS / 20FW; declassified by MG Richard A. Harrison, USCENTCOM Chief of Staff, on 8 October 2025.
During an ISR mission supporting a redacted Task Force, the crew observed one possible UAP/UAV flying west to east. The aircraft did not follow the object and continued the tasked mission; no further events were observed.
"AT 1620Z, [REDACTED 1.4a] OBSERVED lX POSSIBLE UAP/UAV FLYING WEST TO EAST IVO 38SMB4_8_3_[REDACTED]. [REDACTED] DID NOT FOLLOW UAP. [REDACTED] CONTINUED THE MISSION AS TASKED, NO FURTHER EVENTS WERE OBSERVED."
Why it matters: Core UAP observation narrative; characterized as 'possible UAP/UAV' and explicitly notes the asset did not pursue.
Page 6
"AT 1620Z, [REDACTED 1.4a] OBSERVED POSSIBLE UAP. SEE UAP LINE 1."
Why it matters: Mission-narrative line that flags the UAP event in the report's overall summary.
Page 1
"FROM 1518Z TO 0426Z, [REDACTED] CONDUCTED SCANS FOR HVI/POI, POL, ADMS IN SUITS, WEAPONS, CONVOYS/SENTRY, AND PERSONNEL"
Why it matters: Establishes the ISR tasking context (target development for high-value individuals/persons of interest) within which the UAP was sighted.
Page 5
"UAP Effects on Persons: (U) NONE REPORTED"
Why it matters: Standard UAP report field affirming no physiological effects.
Page 6
"UAP Signatures: No"
Why it matters: Indicates no detected RF or other emissions signatures attributed to the object.
Page 6
MG Richard A. Harrison
USCENTCOM Chief of Staff (declassification authority) · USCENTCOM · Page 1
Baghdad, Iraq
Page 1
OKAS (takeoff/landing ICAO), Kuwait
Page 4
MGRS 38S MB 4_8_3_ (UAP first-seen / tasked start point, partially redacted), Iraq
Page 6
482ATKS (Originator/Unit)
Air Force · Page 2
20FW (Wing)
Air Force · Page 2
603 AOC
Air Force · Page 2
12 AF PAROC
Air Force · Page 2
609 AOC / 609 CAOC
Air Force · Page 2
609th Operations Center
Air Force · Page 1
AIRHANDLER (SIGINT collection system)
sensor · Page 1
AH/BLASPHEMY (sensors available)
Aircraft callsign, MDS/asset type, and unit identifiers throughout the narrative
Likely reason: EO 13526 1.4(a) — military plans, weapons, operations
Supported task force / objective designators (TF and OBJ names) IVO Baghdad
Likely reason: EO 13526 1.4(a)
POC, QC, and APPROVER full names, phone numbers, and emails
Likely reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(6) personal privacy; (b)(3)/10 USC 130b for DoD personnel
ATO mission number; aircraft callsign; asset type; tail number(s); tasked start point coordinates
Likely reason: EO 13526 1.4(a) and 1.4(g) (vulnerabilities/capabilities of systems)
Coordination details, supported task force, objective, and operational scan timing/targets
Likely reason: EO 13526 1.4(a) and 1.4(c) (intelligence sources/methods)
MDS/asset type and tail number on the UAP line; partial MGRS coordinates of UAP first-seen location
Likely reason: EO 13526 1.4(a) and 1.4(g)
Standardized USCENTCOM MISREP form; UAP narrative is brief and confined to UAP LINE 1 / GENTEXT/UAP on page 6. The document explicitly cautions (per the manifest description, not the source PDF) that descriptive language reflects the reporter's subjective interpretation. Coordinates are partially redacted (MGRS 38S MB 4_8_3_ with last digits of easting/northing under 1.4a). Mission lasted 19h 17m total; on-station time 18h 35m. Declassified 8 October 2025 under MDR 25-0094 thru MDR 25-0099 / JS-250710-TM8S.
No. It lists a drone as a possibility but does not state what the object was or explain why that option was raised.
He did not pursue it and continued his mission. The report states that no further incidents were observed.
sensor · Page 4
FMV (primary sensor)
sensor · Page 4
DGS-AR (FMV exploitation)
ground · Page 1
During a military mission over Iraq, a US service member observed an aerial object. He spotted it in the Baghdad area, moving from west to east.
The report offers few details, but one stands out: the individual did not attempt to approach or track the object. He continued with his mission, and no further incidents were observed afterward. The report suggests two possibilities for what he saw — an unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP) or a drone — but does not explain how these options were chosen.
The report describes a single object that passed through the Baghdad area, heading east. It does not detail its appearance but notes that the service member saw it during the mission. This is all the information connecting the sighting to the location and direction.
The report refers to it as a possible UAP or an unmanned aerial vehicle, such as a drone. It does not state that the object behaved like a drone, nor does it describe any specific sign that led to this suspicion. A drone is listed as one of the possibilities, not a definitive identification.
After spotting the object, the service member did not alter his actions to investigate it. He did not pursue it and continued with his assigned mission. The report states that no further incidents were observed.
Thus, the sighting concludes almost immediately: one object, one direction of movement, and then a return to the mission. The report contains no description of a chase, an attempt to identify the object, or a subsequent encounter. Nor does it provide information about what happened to the object after it disappeared from view.
The report does not identify what the object was, nor does it provide its shape, size, or altitude. It lists a drone as a possibility but does not explain why or state that this is what was seen.
The object moved eastward, and the mission continued. Only the direction remains in the report — with no answer as to where it went.