Camp Bastion attack [Archive]

orca

16th Sep 2012, 14:50

First off sincere condolences to the families of the USMC who lost their lives. Secondly BZ to the FP boys for fighting off the attack. Thirdly respect and regards to anyone down range.

Seriously though; I think that there are probably grounds for a good discussion here. I am very conscious that one way or another we end up discussing the 'what ifs' of a specific serviceman being wounded or worse in a war. Sensitive ground and fortunately unique (we don't for example have a thread on ARRSE wondering if L/Bdr Davis will make it and what would happen if he didn't). I proffer the following:

1. When we go after a HVT it is usually due to his position within the enemy C2 structure. Harry has no part in ours.

- I therefore assume that people talk of him as a HVT because public opinion and support for the op would drop catastrophically (perhaps even forcing withdrawal) if the unthinkable happened. I remain unconvinced myself that this is the case (although it might be - I am not the general public and only get one vote). I think it just as likely that public opion would be galvanised. I also consider the chance of it happening to be very small.

2. The science of ridding this world of HVTs is incredibly complex. The kill chain required is complex. I think that we can credit the enemy with cunning and bravery, but I remain unconvinced that they can, other than with a very lucky shot, plan on this sort of thing against the person in question. They seem to do very well using IEDs and suicide bombers at shurahs, weddings and funerals to hit HVTs...but a AH pilot flying in and out of Bastion? A symmetrical HVT if you will. Not convinced.

3. The enemy is competent and committed. Can someone point out to me how they would be any more competent or committed due to the presence of a single person in Bastion? I don't see how they can, or why they would, 'up their game', without falling into the trap of meeting our chaps/ chapesses head-to-head.

I am sure some or most will disagree but I look forward to the discussion. Dare I hope it will be adult and balanced? I would re-iterate how sensitive I think this subject is and again, my condolences to those that lost loved ones in the fight.

Pontius Navigator

16th Sep 2012, 14:51

Antelope, as he had qualified as an Apache operator it was a racing certainty that he would gom to Bastion. As he has a public profile it would soon be realised where he was.

Tourist is equally correct (though I hate to admit agreeing with him). It is accepted that an attacking force needs local superiority of at least 3:1. In this instance the TB clearly achieved that. If they attempt to repeat this type of action then Tourist is right although TB will still try to achieve local superiority.

Which would you prefer, to patrol and be ambushed or to defend a fortified position?

The Cryptkeeper

16th Sep 2012, 15:28

The Taliban don't often shoot at AH because if they do and we identify the firing point they are dead - simple as that, it's a Card Alpha engagement. To say that all of a sudden they're going to start targeting AH just because Harry is in theatre is quite simply ludicrous.

The Taliban would love to shoot down any aircraft but the vast majority of insurgents are incredibly afraid of us and have a quite sensible inbuilt sense of self preservation so they don't normally to it.

I personally quite enjoy hearing via ICom that they're getting "the big thing ready" as it will mean guaranteed trade!

SASless

16th Sep 2012, 15:39

To think the Yanks brag!

I have drawn up a chair, got my popcorn out, and am going to sit back and enjoy this discussion!

Does one Suicide Bomber trump the 3:1 rule?

Does a single Afghani Police Officer or Soldier who turns his Weapon on Friendly Forces trump the 3:1 rule?

The Taliban always scurry like Rats whenever an Apache flies over their valley?

This is a new kind of War....and there are going to be some wins and some losses.....we have to be honest and admit when each occur.

The most important thing is we must not believe our own propaganda....that can only end in tears.

5 Forward 6 Back

16th Sep 2012, 16:24

While Cryptkeeper's right, there are ways that the Taliban are capable of taking a pot shot at something and then rendering themselves unviable targets; even your most hardened AH gunner isn't going to follow them into a civilian-packed area once the attack has ceased.

I remember being told that a lot of old MANPADS kept by pro-Taliban forces are never considered for use as they're one shot weapons, and once used, the owner loses the bragging rights of having such a weapon. Perhaps the possibility that they'll take down a Prince means more will be tempted to pull them out?

Plus, if there are any arms being supplied by other nations, surey the chance to kill Harry would mean they might add a few MANPADS to their deliveries?

Pontius Navigator

16th Sep 2012, 16:26

SASless, you clearly don't understand the word 'local'.

One armed man in a room of unarmed men trumps the 3;1 rule everytime.

SASless

16th Sep 2012, 16:44

The 3:1 rule applies to Conventional Warfare and conventional thinking of tactics/strategy.

Down through the ages, as methods and technology altered the application of force during combat, perhaps that old rule has been outdated for the types of conflict we find ourselves confronting now.

Certainly in an Insurgency type conflict.....it is far more than 3:1 advantage the defending forces will have to have in order to prevail as it will have to secure and hold large areas with numerous defensive positions which are all vulnerable to attack as well as the lines of communication and supply.

That is the key to Asymetrical Warfare.....the advantage generally lies with the Insurgents to be able to initiate the action when it best favors them and puts the defenders at the disadvantage.

An excellent example has been given.....one guy with a rifle or LMG takes a pop at a helicopter, patrol, or convoy....then legs it back into a village or town...or does so from within the village surrounded by innocent civilians.....and now look at the amount of people, equipment, and logistics required to find him and neutralize that threat.

I think it is time to pack our stuff, fold our tents, and bring the Troops home. Once again....the Afghans have shown the outsiders that winning in Afghanistan can only be done if one does not overstay your welcome.

SilsoeSid

16th Sep 2012, 16:59

The Taliban don't often shoot at AH because if they do and we identify the firing point they are dead - simple as that,

Mmmm, assuming they did manage to down an AH and the above happens, what's the difference between that and a suicide bomber?

Tourist

16th Sep 2012, 17:08

The difference is that when a suicide bomber goes off, usually he has some success in taking others with him.

If the Taliban had many options re taking out AH do you not think they would have tried them in the past?

Heavy machine guns - yes they have some, and yes they might be successful, but they are almost certainly lost in the engagement. We have more AH than they have HMG.

Old SAMs - probably ineffective.

Double digit SAMs - they may have some. They may even have someone capable of using them effectively. Managing to combine the two at the right moment? Unlikely.

Realistically, they are playing into our hands if they try anything other than asymetric.

Pontius Navigator

16th Sep 2012, 17:19

it is far more than 3:1 advantage the defending forces will have to have in order to prevail

Ah, we are argueing the same point.

The 3:1 I was referring to was that of the attacking force over the defending one. In a simple case, like Bastion as it happens, 3/4 of the defending force are facing the 'wrong' way. Only one quarter of the force is looking toward the front. Of that force potentially 50% will be off duty thus reducing the effective local defence to 1/8th.

As that 1/8 is spread over a wide front then the TB needs only to have 3 times the number of attackers to defenders in a local area. Obviously they achieved local superiority for a time. Ultimately the defending force, which was much larger as a whole, would prevail.

Pontius Navigator

16th Sep 2012, 17:27

SS, what Tourist said holds the clue:

They may even have someone capable of using them effectively.

Suicide bombers are effectively like kamikazi pilots. A missiler OTOH is a much more skilled beast (they hope).

ralphmalph

16th Sep 2012, 17:50

Hmmm, I think the elephant in the room is that the combined force of many nations equipped with massively expensive weaponry and tools, are still not enough to decisively defeat 200 guys in flipflops in an area the size of Kent.

Yes we are slowly making inroads, but hats off to those fighters......******* ballsy work from my perspective.

Sure, my AH brethren have killed MANY people, why haven't we won by now?

I'm confused? ;-)

If I wanted to bleed the western worlds coffers white with expenditure, I'd back the Talibs.....much better value for money.

Waddo Plumber

16th Sep 2012, 17:53

My reading of the papers today suggests that the attack took place at the US end of Bastion, a mile or so from Harry. If so, it points to the attack being spuured by the film rather than his presences.

The Cryptkeeper

16th Sep 2012, 17:55

They will have to use a heavy weapon system to down an Apache... that kind of thing is not easy to hide (particularly after having fired a couple of bursts) - historically when they have tried it the Wing aircraft is the one that spots the tracer or muzzle flash/dust and has destroyed the firing point. Hence they don't try it very often.

As for the comment from SASLess about "I thought the Yanks liked to brag" - it was not a "brag" simply a fact. They don't like AH and are not that stupid that they will try and take us on.

I take it that you have recent operational experience of flying AH in theatre?

Thought not.

ralphmalph

16th Sep 2012, 17:56

Eastern side of the base (two runways and a HALs to get to before you are near any accommodation) that's a long long way to go! The place is huge!

SASless

16th Sep 2012, 18:02

Oh dear me....Gun ship drivers do go on!

That at least remains a constant since 1964......in other places!

I don' guess your tactics changed from the original fight the Russkies in Germany version you practiced prior to deploying to the Sand Box ahve t hey?

Scooting and Shooting now are we?

Gone the sneak up behind a hedge and pop off a missile or three....but back to old style gunship work.

The AH community is doing good work....but you are just one part of the puzzle and not the in the Leading Role....that belongs to the guys on the ground....the ones with rifles.....everyone else are just Support Staff.

Tourist

16th Sep 2012, 18:18

SASless

You are being silly.

All arms are needed, and the most courage is required by the boots on the ground, but to say the aircraft are merely support staff is as bad as the RAF idea that aircraft are all that is needed.

One thing for sure is that the aircraft could fly over Afghan killing bad guys without boots on the ground.

Without aircraft in the overhead ready to "support" we would not risk boots on the ground for a day.

nice castle

16th Sep 2012, 18:35

Ralphmalph,

Wrt the elephant in the room; it's a good point, and one with a subtle answer, IMHO. Here are my thoughts on it, designed to prompt thought and provide another angle, not to patronise or denigrate in any way, just to set the tone of my post.

The problem lies in interpreting the situation correctly, which we have failed to do entirely.

We (NATO/allies) think that we are in a fight with men. Men who wear flip flops, and identify themselves as a Taliban fighter. They fight asymmetrically, but despite their numbers, this fact is what makes it difficult to defeat them militarily, because they normally exploit surprise on us, making us reactive, and can blend in with the natives. Couple that with tactics like ieds where they are hard to find and fix, and there you have it. A tough campaign, where we can keep going until the politicians pull us out, job done, or not, basically we'll call it a day in 2014. Then will come the reflection, from the comfort of watching the nation unfold. At the moment though, it's easy to convince ourselves we're doing all we can, in the best manner, in a very difficult situation.

The Russians went through this, and the lessons they learnt the hard way, we will learn. Too late, granted, but the similarities exist.

I would propose that one of the lessons the Russians identified from making the same mistake that we now make, is that the 'Taliban' is not an organised bunch of troops, but is merely an idea. This ideal provides an avenue of activity which appeals to the motivational values of young men in that culture, one of achieving an identity, in a way that they would say is honourable.

So the real mistake is not to acknowledge this fact, and make efforts to offer an alternative to this ideal. We offer little in the way of alternative. It isn't easy to do so either. But I think that so many people who don't see it as necessary to do so are often those who wonder why the military might of the Western world has trouble stuffing a few hundred flip-flop wearers.

In trying to generate an Army there, we have a problem of identity. Here you go Afghans, have a democracy and an Army. Identity and honour sorted, yes? Well, no, actually. There are many in Afghanistan (as we call it) who have no regard for the borders that were drawn up, which often lie across tribal areas. Some individuals do not see themselves as 'Afghani' or from 'Afghanistan'. Again, we miss this point a lot of the time. So unfortunately, we now reap the problems of history and this will be very difficult to unpick. Ergo, train flip-flop wearers to become boot and beret wearers, take minimum risk for the final 2 years to drop the casualty numbers so the press lose interest, and we can say we now have the security situation totally under our control (no-one at home will know otherwise). Then declare victory in 2014 and hot foot it out of there. Hence the hitler YouTube spoofs of the 45 slide conop just to go outside the wire...

Sorry for the long post, hope it provides an alternative angle. It's all just my opinion personally of course, and I don't expect or need agreement, I just hope that after all of this, our gov't can engage brain before engaging in battle.

500N

16th Sep 2012, 18:47

Re HMG, wasn't one used on the Apache in the book by Ed Macy
which got destroyed and didn't he comment that the intel was that
someone from another country had come in to operate it ?
.

ralphmalph

16th Sep 2012, 18:47

Nice castle,

Excellent post! Eloquent and IMHO very accurate.

Cheers

Pontius Navigator

16th Sep 2012, 18:51

take minimum risk for the final 2 years to drop the casualty numbers so the press lose interest, and we can say we now have the security situation totally under our control (no-one at home will know otherwise). Then declare victory in 2014 and hot foot it out of there.

Logically the winners would sit back, similarly enjoy a drop in casualties, wait until we depart, have it totally under their control and declare vistory to.

Historically is has never worked that way.

Any defeat, withdrawal, handover, whatever you call it, has always been helped with a surge in hostile activities.

SASless

16th Sep 2012, 19:35

Without aircraft in the overhead ready to "support" we would not risk boots on the ground for a day.

The State rests its case Your Honor!:D

Air Power cannot occupy, hold, or secure ground....it takes the plain ol' Infantry Soldier with a rifle and (in the old days) a fixed Bayonet to do that. We own what is controlled by that guy on the ground.

As controlling a specified bit of dirt is always the central focus of warfare....anything else is secondary.

We Aviators, as much as it pains us at times....must remember that.

We can go off hunting with our airborne guns,rockets, and bombs....but in the final analysis....unless we send in the Grunts....as soon as we leave the opposite side just comes back, polices up the debris, and sets up shop once again.

nice castle

16th Sep 2012, 19:37

Ralphmalph, thanks, no worries.
Pontius, quite possibly so, we'll have to see how it pans out. I do violently agree with you that the other side would do exactly the same, but our fickle media having lost interest might not report the situation, thus hiding the reality of it. That has happened before, and seems to correlate with a story that wouldn't help sell papers.

nice castle

16th Sep 2012, 19:41

Sasless, I'd suggest 'grunts' or not, that last scenario is one we might end up facing. Arguably, the difference made by the presence of ground troops would appear to be little other than home casualties, sadly.

The Cryptkeeper

16th Sep 2012, 19:53

SASLess,

I'm not sure where in my previous posts that I think AH are "taking the lead" or indeed what your Cold War references were all about but they came across as both condescending and vitriolic.

I've been involved in All Arms operations for the last 24 years so I don't need you to tell me I'm there to support the guy on the ground. In fact I've been doing just that for 5 months of this year.

I have also been the guy on the ground - have you?

SASless

16th Sep 2012, 20:09

I have "walked" the walk Crypt....got the bullet wound and other scars to prove it. My sense of timing and getting the zag confused with the zig gave me those. Granted, having 40,000 pounds of aluminum and cast iron strapped to my Butt did slow me down a bit.

Do not think my remarks are directed exactly at you individually....as they are not.

The Cryptkeeper

16th Sep 2012, 20:12

SASLess,

In that case my apologies - maybe I'm a little oversensitive, I'll have to work on that!!

Easy Street

16th Sep 2012, 20:39

The lesson that we keep failing to learn is that regular ground forces quickly overstay their welcome and become part of the problem, not the solution - this has been true in any number of 'limited' conflicts over the ages. Once they become a target, political sensitivity to losses means that defending themselves occupies the vast majority of their time and effort. Without needing to do any detailed maths, I suggest that the vast majority of expenditure on operations in Afghanistan right now is on keeping NATO personnel and western civilians alive; the amount being spent on the campaign aims must surely pale by comparison.

We got it right in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2003 - we had SF on the ground, working with the Northern Alliance ground forces, with Western air support. Some commentators in the US are suggesting that the US's strategic goals were all achieved by early 2002 (although some will argue 2003). It's only become a disastrous mess since large-scale regular troop deployments took place thereafter.

Say what you like about post-Ghadaffi Libya - but the fact remains that the NATO campaign there was highly succesful, using SF on the ground, working with anti-Ghadaffi ground forces, with NATO (and UAE/Qatar) air support. Anyone see any similarities? The main point is that the majority of the troops are locals, who care passionately for their cause, and whose people are willing to take combat losses in pursuit of their aim. Which is not the case for us; a regular infantry whose first concern is to avoid losses is immediately fighting with one arm tied behind its back.

I hear a lot of regular Army acquaintances saying that a large regular army is needed to have a big enough pool to choose SF from. I call BS on that (the SBS seem to do pretty well choosing from 1 brigade) and anticipate major cuts to regular forces in the next SDSR.

recce_FAC

16th Sep 2012, 21:06

SBS is open to any brigade and has been for a number of years . Sorry !!;)

tonker

16th Sep 2012, 21:17

So the suicide bombers blew themselves up, and killed nobody doing it! Success

"We should nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"

NutLoose

16th Sep 2012, 21:17

Well it's probably the first sensible thing they have done to try to remove the fighter cover. Not that I am condoning it, just suprised it never happened sooner.

500N

16th Sep 2012, 21:22

tonker

From the various media reports, they were advancing towards the RAF Regt guys
and wounded a few of them.

Nutloose,
Agree, I often wondered why they didn't try to attack the jets at Bastion.
Even feint attacks every so often would keep resources tied up.

NutLoose

16th Sep 2012, 21:32

Something you avoid mentioning but every war since its inception it's been the key... Not that a single attack will take out your assets, you learn and you simply disperse it, even on a camp that size it has to be possible, but you do wonder why it wasnt done before, that said I am simply looking at it as the press have reported it, which is often far from the truth.

500N

16th Sep 2012, 21:50

Nutloose

I think the enemy have slightly less options now than before.

Suicide bombers and fighters storming the place like they did is one way.

Previously, lobbing Mortar and Arty shells was another but with
the counter battery radar and the sheer speed they can have rounds
going being returned accurately, it has to some extent probably removed
this from the equation. Plus of course getting it close in an area that is
probably patrolled non stop !

Father Jack Hackett

17th Sep 2012, 00:08

Like what you have to say about early days in Afghanistan. My take on this misadventure is that if we'd applied a fraction of the resources we threw at Iraq in 03 to Afghanistan, we my be looking at a more benign scenario. We are operating against a resurgent Taliban, whereas if we'd been a bit more serious about fostering and bolstering the Afghan central government and security forces in the early days, we may have been better placed to walk away from a reasonably stable situation.

Like many on here I was involved in the move into Iraq. I wasn't too bothered about the morality of it as we were resolving a situation that we'd left festering since 91. However, even at the time, before we became aware of dodgy dossiers, I just didn't see the hurry. It's interesting to ruminate on what might have been if we'd just sat on Saddam and let the whole thing play out. Maybe the Arab Spring would have emerged first in Baghdad. Certainly, the horrible sectarian, low-level civil war that blew-up in the aftermath of the invasion was always on the cards. It might have been better for all of us if we'd allowed them to get there on their own. The current emerging sectarian civil war in Syria bears all the hallmarks. There are many festering internal conflicts in these countries that we would do well to stay clear of.

As for Afghanistan, I hope we disengage from Afghanistan leaving some semblance of a stable government that can show some persistence. He may be a bit unstable but I hope that Karzai or his successor doesn't meet the same end as poor old Najibullah...

BBadanov

17th Sep 2012, 00:41

Am I missing something here...I don't know if has been commented upon.

But why the PR release of Harry's deployment, on day 1, and acknowledging his airbase? Sure it may have been broken later by the media, but that may have given him a couple of month's breathing space, like last time in 2008.

Public release of this by MOD has not been handled well.

500N

17th Sep 2012, 00:56

BB

I thought the same thing, why on Day 1 ?

Sure, take along the TV crew and the Photographer
but put all the pictures under wraps for a short while
until everything is settled, then when the story breaks,
they can say, "Yes, so what, he's been there for a while".

Or when the story was released, have him well away
from the location at the time.
.

melmothtw

17th Sep 2012, 14:56

...almost guaranteed to be a suicide mission.

I would say the suicide vests they were wearing (as reported by ISAF) made it something of a certainty.

Pontius Navigator

17th Sep 2012, 16:57

mel, you are probably correct as having penetrated so far in that capture becomes inevitable they may then be able to take a few more with them on their way up (or down).

I guess they were a bit like a 'forlorn hope' but with no follow on force.

SASless

17th Sep 2012, 18:26

It is hard to deter anyone that is bent upon dying for their cause....there is no down side in it for them as they care not to continue living.

That in my book makes them into the most dangerous kinds of folks extant.

Grimweasel

17th Sep 2012, 19:42

I'm not sufficiently versed on the capabilities of the later generation SAMs and MANPADS or the Apache's counter measures - nor do I believe they should be discussed here. But the notion of the AH fraternity being invincible is dangerous IMHO. It smacks of a failure to understand risk and probability. These 'tail risk' events can and do happen. Just look at the financial industry and its failure to fully appreciate tail risk (or dismiss it as unlikely). These so called 1 in 100 year tail events are happening now every 4 or 5 years?!

I would imagine that sufficient 'enabling nations' would readily supply some latest generation kit and possibly trained personnel to ensure that AH was targeted with the expressed outcome of taking out HRH. The MoD have not handled the release of this information well - and I wonder if there was direction from the Palace to divert attention away from the Vegas incident?

As someone said before, there is no difference between firing a MANPAD and becoming an instant target than there is to being a suicide vest wearing bomber.

We fail to fully appreciate or understand 'Terry's' mindset, ideals and want for martyrdom to be able to come to terms with their tenacity and drive to rid the world of Zionist infidels. Afghanistan has always been the graveyard of external political will and ideals. When we leave Terry will be rubbing his hands - he just needs to bide his time until he can revert to ops normal. Sad tho it is.

SASless

17th Sep 2012, 20:13

he notion of the AH fraternity being invincible is dangerous IMHO.

Believing one's own propaganda is always dangerous....and doomed to a very costly reminder that the Opposition understand the concept of adapting their tactics to the changing threat and defense capabilities of their adversaries.

Even Bad Guys have Good Days sometimes.....which means Good Guys have Bad days too!

500N

17th Sep 2012, 20:17

SaSless

And remember, a bad guy only has to be lucky once to have a good day,
a good guy has to be lucky all the time.

As you well know !

Pontius Navigator

17th Sep 2012, 20:33

and I wonder if there was direction from the Palace to divert attention away from the Vegas incident?

Harry's conversion, work up, pre-deployment training etc etc have all been so well documented as to make the press release almost preordained. I doubt the incident caused any change in the release.

Tourist

17th Sep 2012, 21:23

Grim

Have you ever asked yourself why Iran doesn't supply the Taliban with decent SAMs?

They have lots of them, and could easily supply them along with all the other munitions they smuggle across?

Grimweasel

17th Sep 2012, 21:42

Tourist - a fair point, esp if you believe the Israel/Iran strike story in the Torygraph today. They may have need of them to protect No1

I'm not professing to be a tactics or doctrinal expert here - just playing Devil's advocate and airing a different point of view. Now that I'm allowed to have one ;-)

500N

17th Sep 2012, 21:46

Grim
I think they have more than enough to let a few go to others if they
really wanted to but as Tourist indicated, once they do that and they
are used by whoever, it becomes a whole different ball game for Iran
- from everyone including probably Russia and China who are a bit
of a stop gap at the UN re Iran.

SASless

17th Sep 2012, 22:20

News report says it was the USMC Harrier Squadron Commanding Officer and a Marine NCO killed during the attack that destroyed six Harriers.

Squadron Commander Died in Taliban Attack - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578002651859024198.html?mod=WSJ_hpp _LEFTTopStories)

Duncan D'Sorderlee

17th Sep 2012, 22:45

RIP

Duncs:ok:

Feck

18th Sep 2012, 03:17

RIP Otis, you were a good friend to the UK F-35 crowd and one of the finest Marines. You will be sadly missed.

Melchett01

18th Sep 2012, 14:22

Hmmm, I think the elephant in the room is that the combined force of many nations equipped with massively expensive weaponry and tools, are still not enough to decisively defeat 200 guys in flipflops in an area the size of Kent.

Taking a completely dispassionate view of this incident, when the SAS carried out an identical raid on Pebble Island, it went down in British military history as an outstanding piece of soldiering. Like it or not, this is the Taleban equivalent and will undoubtedly go down in insurgent military history as perhaps their finest piece of soldiering for a generation or more.

This incident, unfortunately for us, serves as a stark reminder that despite being the 'guys in flip flops' they are still very capable fighters; we would do well not to underestimate them or their capabilties.

SASless

18th Sep 2012, 14:38

One small difference....the SAS guys did not wear suicide vests and had every ambition of having a Pint or two after the raid.

Lonewolf_50

18th Sep 2012, 14:54

Lt. Col. Chris Raible, USMC
Sgt. Bradley Atwell, USMC

Semper Fi, and RIP. :{

*taps*

AARON O'DICKYDIDO

18th Sep 2012, 15:27

Who needs a pint when you have 70 virgins waiting for you ?

Melchett01

18th Sep 2012, 15:51

One small difference....the SAS guys did not wear suicide vests and had every ambition of having a Pint or two after the raid.

I think that's largely irrelevent when set against the skills required to infiltrate a heavily defended installation and successfully render an entire FJ sqn non-operational. There have been many operations conducted by 'traditional' military forces over the years that in theory were one way trips - just ask any of the Cold War era pilots with targets in Russia. The limited prospects for return wouldn't have stopped us executing those missions.

As for 70 virgins - really? They must be onto 'sloppy seconds' by now?

SASless

18th Sep 2012, 15:57

Well I guess whatever floats yer boat! If it is Virgins they want....

http://www.barelyhangingon.com/wp-content/uploads/fat_women_bathingsuits.jpg

glad rag

18th Sep 2012, 17:39

Six of the jump-jets were destroyed, and two were seriously damaged in the attack, in which insurgents disguised in U.S. Army uniforms managed to breach the perimeter of the heavily fortified base.A determined foe prepared to fight to the death and take as many as they can with them.

Politely_amused

18th Sep 2012, 19:27

Rather than 70 virgins wouldn't you rather have some slutty chicks who knew what they were doing?

Halton Brat

19th Sep 2012, 08:11

This attack was straight out of the David Stirling textbook, and a very expensive (blood & treasure) object lesson in underestimating your enemy.

Melchett01 is quite right; this attack stands up well alongside the Pebble Island job, with the added dimension of a suicide aspect.

I long for the day when the last NATO troops depart this ungovernable, medieval cess-pit, which will then gracefully subside back to its' normal modus operandi. Declare victory & go home.

HB

John Farley

19th Sep 2012, 10:33

This attack was straight out of the David Stirling textbook, and a very expensive (blood & treasure) object lesson in underestimating your enemy.

Isn't that the truth.

WASALOADIE

19th Sep 2012, 10:36

Nobody ever said the virgins are female!

Finnpog

19th Sep 2012, 10:46

Or in fairness, human.:eek:

Grimweasel

19th Sep 2012, 11:48

Seems that whole NATO Afghan strategy is now is disarray anyway, with the announcement of the end of joint patrols?! Talk about a Taliban victory. We should just pack up and leave before any more lives are wasted unnecessarily.

Airborne Aircrew

19th Sep 2012, 12:28

I can never understand the ignorance and stupidity of our "leaders"...

It has been demonstrated several times throughout history that the longer someone stays in Afghanistan the more likely they are to leave unceremoniously.

Good work Rocks... Per Ardua!!!

Pontius Navigator

19th Sep 2012, 12:33

Grim, indeed an expeditious victory parade at home is called for. The snag would be getting out with your a*** intact.

TheWizard

19th Sep 2012, 13:45

http://cryptome.org/2012-info/camp-bastion/camp-bastion.htm

“My sources in the Taliban tell me that every time they want to attack an important target they use Google Maps and other available means for studying and understanding their targets.”

Nicely followed with a whole series of photos from inside the wire and indeed showing the camp layout, accommodation, flight lines and perimeter. Irony?? :hmm:

GreenKnight121

19th Sep 2012, 14:46

Not to mention photos posted on the facebook & twitter pages of military personnel and civilians posted to the outposts!

And people wonder why I hate much of modern social media!

SASless

19th Sep 2012, 15:07

We are making great progress towards the publically announced departure date aren't we?

The stated goal was to handover the security of the country to the Central Government....now we cannot do joint patrols due to the risk of Green on Blue attacks.

We just had a very successful attack on our Bastion base.

The protests and attacks on our Embassies are wide spread and frequent.

What am I missing here....the President goes golfing, misses half of his Daily Intelligence Briefings....just what the hell is happening to our grand strategy?

It seems to be in shambles or is it just me?

November4

19th Sep 2012, 15:45

RAF Force Protection Wing defends Camp Bastion during Taliban attack

Members of No 5 RAF Force Protection Wing, working alongside the US Marine Corps (USMC), have spoken about quickly regaining control of Camp Bastion Airfield following an insurgent attack on Friday 14 September, killing 14 and capturing one of the enemy.

Fifteen heavily-armed insurgents dressed in US Army uniforms and armed with PKM general purpose machine guns, AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades broke through perimeter defences and initially targeted tower guards with heavy fire. Tragically two US Marines were killed.

Subsequently they attacked the USMC flight line, damaging infrastructure and AV-8B Harrier jump jets. The RAF Force Protection Wing based at Camp Bastion was quick to react, deploying forces throughout the camp, with 51 Squadron RAF Regiment pushing out onto the airfield and the RAF Police from the Bastion Security Squadron maintaining security around key installations throughout the camp.

The RAF Regiment gunners' aim was to reclaim control of the airfield. Supported by a number of different direct fire weapons, and co-ordinating the assault with members of 2/10 Battalion US Marine Corps, they moved methodically across the airfield engaging in various fire fights as they dealt with pockets of resistance over a period of some four hours.

Flight Lieutenant Andy Beney was the Force Protection Wing's battle captain located in the Operations Room during the incident.

cont'd MOD website
(http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafForceProtectionWingDefendsCampBastionDuringTalibanAttack. htm)

orca

19th Sep 2012, 15:51

I think you are right to a large extent.

There are many issues coming to a head in Afghanistan. I personally believe that they all stem from the strategy of attempting to give the Afghans something they didn't want by military means.

By this I mean that I think we, the west, went into Afghanistan with a pipe dream of turning a tribal society into some form of democracy backed up by an inadequate amount of military hardware and no meaningful integration with other agencies/ resources who could give the Afghans what they actually wanted which was water, power, security and - to a degree - education.

I agree with Gen Jackson when he states that we should have had a rope, of which one thread was the military. Instead we went with a one string plan.

As for the enemy. Well we picked a fight with a bunch that don't need to win today or tomorrow but can sit it out and still be in the game long after western budgets have dried up, western stomachs have yet again turned over at the casualty count and western minds are more interested in the new i-phone than anything going on in Kabul.

Whilst the enemy is barbaric we haven't managed to alienate him from the population because for every beheading he does we slip up with a Koran burning, urination video or air-to-surface weapon that, despite our best efforts, has tragic consequences.

We have never put enough boots on the ground to truly hold it. We have never created the environment in which all the work that is needed can be achieved by unarmed agencies.

To cap it all we told the enemy when we were leaving, and I doubt very much they use powerpoint to brief but if they did they'd have a simple bar chart of 'blue-on-greens required until exit point'.

The really sad thing about this is of course the daily industry and heroism of our boys and girls, pan-coalition, which has never been in doubt and has never been anything other than humbling. I am sure that Afghanistan is, as a result of our combined efforts, a far better place than it was and that we have made a real difference. But that's not the same as 'winning' which I would define as 'ensuring it'll continue when we're gone'.

Thelma Viaduct

19th Sep 2012, 18:34

The whole expedition from start to present has been bollocks.

Just a total waste of life, time and resources for no actual benefit.

Same story with Iraq, but I suppose the spams got oil, building and military hardware contracts out of that sham.

SASless

19th Sep 2012, 19:27

PP....Oil was it....is it....really? Of course you can prove that statement by telling us who is buying all this Iraqi oil and where it is being shipped to I guess.

BY JASON SIMPKINS, Managing Editor, Money Morning
Iraq has auctioned off more proven oil reserves in the past six months than are collectively held by the United States, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.

But U.S. oil companies have signed surprisingly few development contracts – foreign rivals have swooped in to scoop up major deals.

Take last weekend, when Iraq wrapped up the biggest oil-field auction in history. Major new deals were announced by Europe's Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE: RDS.A , RDS.B), OAO Gazprom (OTC ADR: OGZPY), Lukoil (OTC ADR: LUKOY), China's China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), and Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas).

The U.S. oil majors – ExxonMobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX) – were nowhere to be seen.

PTT

19th Sep 2012, 19:36

Alternatively: Many Eyes : Who buys Iraqi oil? Official data from the EITI process (http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/datasets/who-buys-iraqi-oil-official-data-f/versions/1%20)
Chevron and Exxon were the second and third highest buyers of Iraqi oil in 2011, with ConcoPhillips fifth. It's not necessary to buy the field in order to get the oil.

SASless

19th Sep 2012, 19:51

Auctions go to the highest bidder right?

PTT

19th Sep 2012, 20:08

Maybe in your idealised world there are no backhanders or other shenanigans;)

Shall we keep this to the one thread?

Two's in

20th Sep 2012, 16:23

There's oil in Iraq? But at least we got the WMD's, right?

Al R

21st Sep 2012, 06:35

Well, it makes for an easy read, even if it is the Sun (usually on the ball with research, if not delivery?!).

Well done 51.

RAF heroes' five hour firefight routs Taliban | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4545430/RAF-heroes-five-hour-firefight-routs-Taliban.html?goback=%2Egde_1912530_member_165633183)

Backwards PLT

21st Sep 2012, 17:56

So RAF ground forces were supported by army Air power!!!

seafuryfan

21st Sep 2012, 18:03

"So RAF ground forces were supported by army Air power!!!"

So what were you expecting, RAF Apaches?? The Army have had them for years.

Backwards PLT

21st Sep 2012, 18:07

Thanks, seafuryfan, I didn't realise.
:ugh:

Airborne Aircrew

22nd Sep 2012, 02:10

Al...

Well, it makes for an easy read, even if it is the Sun (usually on the ball with research, if not delivery?!).

Well done 51. You'd do better on RockNet mate... Most of the indigenous population here have no clue what it takes to do what the men of 51 Sqn. did.

BEagle

22nd Sep 2012, 05:34

The whole expedition from start to present has been bollocks.

Just a total waste of life, time and resources for no actual benefit.

Rather like the Viet Nam experience? At least Harold Wilson kept the UK out of that...

rjtjrt

22nd Sep 2012, 05:52

"Just a total waste of life, time and resources for no actual benefit. "

There will be a lot of Afghan millionaires with fat bank accounts in Switzerland by the time the West leaves (granted, many will have to buy somewhere outside Afghanistan to live, but money talks). The rest will live in the north under a reconstituted Northern Alliance. Much the same as pre 2001, but with a lot more money in a few pockets, and lots of new 4 wheel drives and Mercedes.

Al R

22nd Sep 2012, 06:40

Backwards: Or, another way of looking at it, army royalty needs to be protected on the ground by the RAF? :ok:

AA: I dipped in the other day funnily enough. Did you read about the 90th anniversary tab..?

PS: Not forgetting the fire fighters.

RAF Regiment relives Bastion attack | British Forces News (http://bfbs.com/news/afghanistan/raf-regiment-relives-bastion-attack-60586.html)

Load Toad

22nd Sep 2012, 07:45

If we leave now - it'll go back to a bag of bollix; if we leave in a year - it'll go back to a bag of bollix.

Only the people there, if enough of them care, can stop it falling backwards yet again.

Unfortunately they are not united, organised or able to compete with the dedicated hard line wanqers that want to live in the middle ages.

I can't see how us staying there a day longer helps anyone.

SASless

22nd Sep 2012, 11:58

Amen Load and Beags! I absolutely agree with you....I would have the Lads and Lasses on the way home by Noon.....pack their personal kit....load up the airplanes....and make the big airfields look like the approaches to Dunkirk beach....one huge parking lot. One difference....i would take all our money with us....cut of funding to them and give them all the upraised single digit (or two digits as appropriate).

We stayed too long....tried to use our militaries as "Nation Builders" yet again and lost way too many brave and dedicated young folks in the process. The Strategy and political resolve failed our Troops once again.

The next time a President wants to take the Nation to War better be prepared for a fight right here at home unless he has a very clear, concise, patently clear reason for us to kick off another one and the goal best be one of Total War....mobilize the Reserves, the American People, and the entire Economy to the single purpose of fighting a WAR. Never again just the Military going to War.....That has the been the way since Korea and nothing good has resulted from that mindset.

Melchett01

22nd Sep 2012, 12:18

The reason it's a bag of spanners is, I'm afraid, down to the politicians (of all hues and nationalities) being largely incompetent and more interested in power games and politics rather than endstates. There, said it.

The military was sent in to defeat AQ and the Taleban. Tick VG for the first, a sort of tick for the second. However, Afghanistan is the perfect example of what happens when politics interferes with military operations. You can have a military success on the battlefield but overall campaign failure because your campaign is so complex and interlinked with other factors that the military is but one small part.

A failure to deploy the military with a defined endstate and a left / right of arc and a full set of rules and political guidance and direction, then relying on the miltary judgement of the commanders to achieve that end state has led us to where we are now. Constant low level fighting with the odd spike of horrific and needless violence, but without moving further forwad. Unless the politicians can sort something out, frankly this situation could go on for years without resolution. For over a decade the various militaries have performed admirably in Afghanistan, but the politicians' performance has sadly not been quite as successful and that is where we now need to be concentrating and asking serious questions.

Pontius Navigator

22nd Sep 2012, 12:57

Thank goodness our forebears chose unconditional surrender.

rubberband2

22nd Sep 2012, 16:04

A poignant comment received today.

Otis died while leading a counter attack to retake his flight line.

The Skipper’s jet was destroyed in the fighting, but the VMA had a couple of jets out of country, one of which was re-modexed overnight before returning to Bastion.

Otis leaves his wife Donella and three young children. The Memorial Service goes Monday 24 Sept at the MCAS Yuma Chapel. In a couple of weeks, Otis will fall-in at Arlington, date not yet determined.

With much respect and a heavy heart, ..................

orca

22nd Sep 2012, 17:23

If you can wade through various levels of obscenity there's a fairly interesting (and at times very funny, at times completely out of line) thread on this attack on Arrse.

Obviously there's the undertone that one bit of the military which did a good/bad job is better/worse than the next which would have done a better/worse (delete as appropriate) job....to which we on pprune are not strangers.

The debate seems to have three major discussion points.

1. Whilst the re-attack appears to have been spirited, gallant and successful and the fight 'won' 14-2, the FP on the whole actually failed at the point that a re-attack became necessary. (To any k##bs who think I am having a pop at a particular unit or service - think again.)

2. The (quoted as 17km) fence line is too long for the FP assets available.

Can we perhaps debate the notion that whilst getting CAS assets up threat is great for sortie generation, reaction times etc then we may have a lesson here that the FP needs to be watertight if the tactic is adopted.

All players seem to agree - beyond the lessons and a certain amount of recrimination that the actions of the USMC CO and his boys were excellent.

rubberband2

23rd Sep 2012, 11:41

This was sent to me by a retired USMC General who spent two years with the RAF on an exchange tour.

They say that he would walk the flight line every night to check on the crews and birds. When the attack happened he went after the bad guys only armed with his 9mm.
This is a true leader...not something taught at business school either. Here is his guidance to his pilots and it speaks volumes to the man he was.
Semper Fidelis

LtCol Raible's memo that he put out to his squadron.....

COMMANDER'S GUIDANCE FOR SQUADRON ATTACK PILOTS

1. Professional hunger. My goal is to identify those Officers who want to be professional attack pilots and dedicate the resources required to build them into the flight leaders and instructors that are required for the long-term health of our community. This is not a socialist organization. We will not all be equal in terms of quals and flight hours. Some will advance faster than others, and because this is not a union, your rate of advancement will have nothing to do with seniority. Your rate of advancement will instead be determined by your hunger, professionalism, work ethic, and performance. If flying jets and supporting Marines is your passion and your profession, you are in the right squadron. If these things are viewed simply as your job, please understand that I must invest for the future in others. Your time in a gun squadron might be limited, so it is up to you to make the most of the opportunities that are presented.

2. Professional focus. Our approach to aviation is based upon the absolute requirement to be "brilliant in the basics." Over the last few years Marine TACAIR has not punted the tactical nearly so often as the admin. Sound understanding of NATOPS, aircraft systems, and SOPs is therefore every bit as important as your understanding of the ANTTP and TOPGUN. With this in mind, ensure the admin portions of your plan are solid before you move onto objective area planning. Once you begin tactical planning, remember that keeping things "simple and easy to execute" will usually be your surest path to success. If the plan is not safe, it is not tactically sound.

3. Attitude. I firmly believe in the phrase "hire for attitude, train for skill." Work ethic, willingness to accept constructive criticism, and a professional approach to planning, briefing, and debriefing will get you 90% of the way towards any qualification or certification you are pursuing. The other 10% is comprised of in-flight judgment and performance, and that will often come as a result of the first 90%. Seek to learn from your own mistakes and the mistakes of others. Just as a championship football team debriefs their game film, we are going to analyze our tapes and conduct thorough flight debriefs. It has often been said that the success of a sortie is directly proportional to the caliber of the plan and brief. The other side of this coin is that the amount of learning that takes place as a result of a sortie is directly proportional to the caliber of the debrief.

4. Moral courage. Speak up if something seems wrong or unsafe. We all know what the standards are supposed to be in Naval Aviation and in the Corps. Enforce them! When we fail to enforce the existing standards, we are actually setting and enforcing a new standard that is lower.

5. Dedication. If you average one hour per workday studying, 6 months from now you will be brilliant. That is all it takes; one hour per day. As you start to notice the difference between yourself and those who are unable to find 60 minutes, I want you to know that I will have already taken note. Then, I want you to ask yourself this question: "How good could I be if I really gave this my all?"

6. When all else fades away, attack pilots have one mission: provide offensive air support for Marines. The Harrier community needs professional attack pilots who can meet this calling. It does not require you to abandon your family. It does not require you to work 16 hours per day, six days per week. It requires only a few simple commitments to meet this calling: be efficient with your time at work so that you can study one hour per day; be fully prepared for your sorties and get the maximum learning possible out of every debrief; have thick skin and be willing to take constructive criticism; find one weekend per month to go on cross country. When you are given the opportunity to advance, for those few days go to the mat and give it your all, 100%, at the expense of every other thing in your life. To quote Roger Staubach, "there are no traffic jams on the extra mile." If you can be efficient during the workweek, give an Olympian effort for check rides and certifications, and are a team player, the sky will literally be the limit for you in this squadron.

C. K. RAIBLE

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/Afghanistan/image002_zpsba86f0ac.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/Afghanistan/image003_zpsb333be6e.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/Afghanistan/IMG-20120919-00420_zps00e4dfdd.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/Afghanistan/IMG-20120919-00421_zpsf7a1d94b.jpg

Richard G

23rd Sep 2012, 12:14

Taking a completely dispassionate view of this incident, when the SAS carried out an identical raid on Pebble Island, it went down in British military history as an outstanding piece of soldiering. Like it or not, this is the Taleban equivalent and will undoubtedly go down in insurgent military history as perhaps their finest piece of soldiering for a generation or more.

Slight difference Melchett01, SAS in Pebble raid were not wearing Argie uniforms as far as I have read; if the press reports about the Bastion Raid are correct the Talibs were wearing US army uniforms or camo fatigues := which is very nasty business - they used to execute those captured in WWII for such offences... := and they have captured one insurgent in this instance...

Cannot believe the pencil pushers decided to publicize that Harry was in country and where he was operating from (to try and score points post his Vegas antics) - they should really be held accountable :ugh:

SASless

23rd Sep 2012, 14:49

It appears the Colonel was a Leader not a Commander. Hand Salute!

Way too rare anymore!

John Farley

23rd Sep 2012, 20:20

Thank you.

I would hope those words would make their way into staff colleges various because as SASless said the man was a leader and not just a commander

dogle

23rd Sep 2012, 21:36

So true.

WRT the views expressed earlier in this thread, I am interested - and disturbed - by this report:

China Officially Warns Japan Not To Infringe Its Territorial Sovereignty; Japan Reciprocates | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-23/china-officially-warns-japan-not-infringe-its-territorial-sovereignty-japan-reciproc)

"China's top security official on Saturday made a surprise visit to Afghanistan, the first time in 46 years that a Chinese leader set his foot on the soil of this landlocked Asian country."

- interesting times, indeed.

Roland Pulfrew

24th Sep 2012, 09:05

China's top security official on Saturday made a surprise visit to Afghanistan

- interesting times, indeed.

I understand that the Chinese have already sown up significant numbers of contracts to exploit Afghanistan's mineral resources. Never let it be said that the Chinese aren't good at playing the long game.:ooh:

dermedicus

24th Sep 2012, 12:01

I think it would be fair to say that the only country in the world that seems to have any long-term vision and perspective is China. Of course, it's easier if you do not consult your population or concern yourself with their rights or opinions. However, no English speaking country that I can think of has a plan that stretches beyond the next election or budget.

Airborne Aircrew

24th Sep 2012, 12:26

Of course, it's easier if you do not consult your population or concern yourself with their rights or opinions. However, no English speaking country that I can think of has a plan that stretches beyond the next election or budget.

Surely it's precisely because the Chinese don't have to worry about the inconvenience of elections that they can concentrate on effective policy... ;)

TheWizard

24th Sep 2012, 16:38

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19635544

I am sure Terry has it mapped already but just in case the BBC have produced a handy targeting map!!:eek:

November4

24th Sep 2012, 18:14

Or they could look at the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's own Camp Bastion website (https://www.motca.gov.af/?id=64)

Appears to be lots of helpful information on the site for anyone who wants to find the camp...

NutLoose

24th Sep 2012, 23:12

There was a recent docusoap following a unit in Afghanistan and what one of the commanders said struck home... They were patrolling a road to prevent the Taliban planting mines, and the Taliban were only planting mines to try to kill those patrolling the road..... As he said, if we were not here patrolling it the problem would go away... Sort of a chicken and egg situation.

You do wonder if it is all worth it.... In the history of the Country there has never been a winner... And I always thought in a Country where the Russians gave up and left, what chance did we have at changing things.

Brave guys on that marine squadron and a true leader, a rare quality in this day and age..

500N

25th Sep 2012, 00:20

Interesting interview on TV Sunday night in Australia
with Major General Cantwell, recently retired who had
been the overall Australian Commander in Afghanistan.

When asked, he did not believe it was worth it.

Andu

25th Sep 2012, 01:35

"Interesting" is an... err.. interesting description of that interview, 500N. Unless things have changed A LOT since my days wearing green, I think there would have been some rather ... "interesting" comments coming from the peanut gallery in the TV rooms in every Army barracks tuned in to that interview.

Until I saw at the end of the interview that he was flogging a book, I couldn't make out what in the world he was trying to achieve by going public with what he was saying. (I can't remember the exact words, but I also found the comments he made to his troops during a memorial service for a soldier killed in Afghanistan [played during the interview] to be "unusual" - in the extreme - for a commander of troops in the field.)

Happy to be shot down in flames by currently serving members if attitudes have changed that much since my day, but I really don't think he'd have garnered too much sympathy or empathy with too many of the troops of my day with that interview.

500N

25th Sep 2012, 01:57

Andu

I tried to use language that didn't cloud people's judgement re the interview.

What surprises me is the lack of media coverage of the interview
- it's almost like someone shut down any discussion.

Not sure about the sympathy aspect, I think PTSD needs to be spoken about
which was his main aim - I think.

I missed this bit - what did he say ?
"I also found the comments he made to his troops during a memorial service for a soldier killed in Afghanistan [played during the interview] to be "unusual" - in the extreme - for a commander of troops in the field."

500N

25th Sep 2012, 02:05

Andu - and others

It seems that a fair few of the recent top combat commanders - Molan, Cantwell and at least one other - have all left at a level below where I thought they might get to in the ADF.

After all, you don't become Chief of Operation for the whole of Iraq, commanding all troops (Molan) if you are a ******** and no good at your job.

racedo

25th Sep 2012, 09:37

In late 2001 as the war drums were beating for Afghanistan a friend in New York then engaged to an ex Airborne Division guy (retired) and was then recruiting for Navy / Coast Guard in one of the Western states.

At the time I felt going into Afghanistan was a silly idea, he pretty much agreed but made the point that people he knew and had served with would say the same in 1 on 1 conversations but never beyond that. Nobody had figured out WTF were they going to do afterwards and how were they going to exit.

His classic comment was "The enemy don't stay stupid forever ".

Red Line Entry

25th Sep 2012, 10:29

The US had no real choice about going into Afghanistan in 2001. The Taleban were harbouring the terrorists who caused 9/11 and were refusing to give them up. In the main, the original campaign using the Northern Alliance was an effective way of delivering the desired result - removal of the Taleban.

The mistake was then trying to 'nation build'. The right move would have been to immediately walk away and leave the country to sort itself out (or not).

racedo

25th Sep 2012, 11:17

The Taleban were harbouring the terrorists who caused 9/11 and were refusing to give them up.

Er and he then disappeared for best part of 10 years and was harboured by whom ?

No invasion there just billions in foreign aid..................... oh and they have a nuke.

Should have let Iran do what they wanted to do following the murder and sacking of its consulate in 1998 in Herat .

SASless

25th Sep 2012, 11:41

Perhaps we should pull out tomorrow...cut off the money to Afghanistan and Pakistan....cozy up to India....things might be a bit different.

Blacksheep

25th Sep 2012, 12:21

SASless

25th Sep 2012, 13:22

There were a few differences between Pebble Island and Camp Bastion in addition to the casualties. Happily, the casualty count is the most diametrical of them all!

Destroying the T-34 Mentors and the Skyvan was very crucial to the success of the Falklands campaign as they did pose a huge threat to the RN.

On the 10th of May, an 8-man recon team from D squadron's Boat Troop paddled ashore in 2-man klepper canoes. Caching the canoes, they moved inland over the barren, wind-swept landscape, towards the enemy-held airstrip. As with the rest of the Falkland islands, the terrain did not offer much cover and establishing a covert OP (observation post) was difficult, although not impossible. The recon team dug in and started observing the enemy, radioing back their findings to D squadron HQ onboard the helicopter carrier, HMS Hermes.

Due to proximity of civilians close to the airstrip, the use of air strikes was ruled out and the SAS were given the green light to conduct the raid. On the night of May 14th, D Squadron boarded Seakings from Royal Naval Air Squadron 846. Accompanying them was a artillery spotter from 148 Bty who would direct gunfire from HMS Glamorgan onto the Argentine defenders.

Once landed on Pebble Island, the SAS force linked up with their Boat Troop colleagues who escorted them to the objective, using routes they had previously proved. Cut-off groups got in position to prevent the enemy leaving or counter-attacking the target area. A cover group, including a mortar team was established to keep any Argentinean defenders pinned down whilst the assault team went in.

As artillery fire from HSM Glamorgan and mortar fire from the SAS cover group slammed into the Argentine ammo and fuel dump, the assault teams moved onto the airstrip, placing explosives on the Argentine aircraft. The SAS placed their charges in the same part of each plane to prevent the Argentineans from cannibalising aircraft from spare parts. The assault teams also raked the parked planes with fire from M16s and M203 grenade launchers. Others fired 66mm LAW rockets at their targets.

The response from the Argentine garrison, housed in nearby buildings was noticeable by its absence. The SAS attackers had expected a heavy firefight but instead only received light return fire. Only 2 SAS men were lightly injured in the raid, at least one of these was hurt from when an SAS explosive charge detonated early.

30 minutes after the attack started, the SAS began to withdraw, leaving burning on the airstrip behind them 6 Pucaras, 4 TMC Mentors and 1 SkyVan transport aircraft. In one action, the SAS had destroyed half of the Pucaras the Argentineans had on the islands.