PDA

View Full Version : Camp Bastion attack, September 2012. A spot of daytime tv..


Al R
17th Dec 2013, 09:18
An inquiry into the events surrounding the insurgent attack on Camp Bastion, Afghanistan of 14-15 September 2012 and the subsequent response. This is a one-off evidence session for this inquiry to examine the circumstances surrounding the attack on Camp Bastion of September 2012.

Player (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14496)

2.30 pm, Tuesday 17 December 2013

London Eye
7th Jan 2014, 12:20
Here is the link to the HCDC transcript of the seesion (public session only, redacted private session not yet available).

House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 830 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/uc830/uc83001.htm)

Just This Once...
7th Jan 2014, 19:22
So we believe the US were right to hold an inquiry and to hold their own personnel accountable. As for the absence of a UK Service Inquiry you get the first quote from CJO, supported by the 2nd quote from CoS PJHQ:

If your question is about service inquiries and all that, there are specific reasons why you conduct service inquiries. First, I cannot disburse a service inquiry. I am not empowered to conduct a service inquiry, because that is a single service issue.

There are certain circumstances in which, by statute, a service inquiry has to be conducted, such as following the death of a serviceperson. They can be convened in circumstances not mandated by statute or policy at the discretion of the convening authority. The CJO does not have the authority to convene a service inquiry.

So that's ok then, the UK has decided that nobody is empowered to convene a service inquiry in such circumstances. Are we really that incompetent that we have no ability to conduct inquiries on joint ops or is this a convenient fib to Parliament?

As for this bit:

Q69 Ms Stuart: My memory may be playing tricks on me, but when you made your opening statement, I think that you concluded with some personal remarks, and then you went on to say that you gave the advice to your superiors and the Secretary of State that there was no fault, and you stand by that. At that moment, I thought, "Here’s a man who is about to fall on his sword." Was I wrong to think that?

Lieutenant-General Capewell: Was I about to fall on my sword? Oh goodness me, no.

Ms Stuart: Okay. I just thought that I would check.

I'm glad she checked….

SASless
7th Jan 2014, 19:36
The Marine Aviation Executive Officer, who led the USMC response to the Camp Bastion Attack following the Commanding Officer being mortally wounded, has received a Silver Star for his actions during the Attack.

Newest Silver Star recipient defied death to save fellow Marines, crush Taliban ambush | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301070004)


The Investigation Final Report

https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Camp%20Bastion%20Leatherneck%20Shorabak%20(BLS)%20Investigat ion/Enclosure%200.%20AR%2015-6%20Report%20(Final).pdf



Or.....

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/USCENTCOM%20Bastion%20Attack%20Investigation%20Redacted%2015-6%20Report.pdf

Whenurhappy
7th Jan 2014, 21:36
Thanks for posting the Link. It seems a large number of Army personnel believe that the RAF Regiment were at fault, but I hope they are exonerated.

One question, however, when was it approriate to wear a woolly pully to Parliament? * What is wrong with the 'if you would wear a suit, wear your No 1s'. I know, i sound a grumpy old fool, but it looks sloppy.


* Never, I hope!

SASless
7th Jan 2014, 21:53
It would seem the forced retirements were not as uncalled for as some have opined.

I see it as someone was going to carry the can for the loss of the Harriers and the lives lost in the attack.

That being said.....some other careers should come to a screeching halt as well but at a much lower level in the chain of command.

Each Unit Commander has a responsibility to provide for physical security arrangements for his Troops and equipment.....there were some glaring failures in that regard.

Concertina barbed wire and other physical barriers are not in short supply in Afghanistan. Unit personnel can stand guard duty when not on their normal work assignments.....it is not easy, is fatiguing, and a proper pain in the ass.....but it has to be done.

Bulldozers and other earth moving equipment is in theater.....and could have been used to mold the ground around the Perimeter to afford better visibility from the Guard Towers and for other surveillance systems.

A proper response to the security survey would have addressed the weak points of the defense.

Complacency seems to be the root cause of the failures.....and the complete ignoring of the possibility of a small unit ground attack being one of the methods the Taliban would utilize.

What ever happened to a wise old soldier asking himself....."If I was the bad guys....how would I do this?". Then, fixing that weak point.

Also.....as I have posted before....the most important tactic to prevent such attacks is active and aggressive patrolling. The Report clearly points out the complete inadequacy of such measures and the lack of Commanders to properly address that lack of resources and capability.

It sounds to me like the Helicopter Units and the Osprey Unit had taken Squadron level measures to effectively guard their aircraft and personnel while the Harrier and other units had not.

BEagle
8th Jan 2014, 07:15
Following the March 2012 incident, sometimes known as the "burning man" incident, in which an Afghan employee gained access and drove a car on to the runway, a business case was made focusing on preventing access to the runway from inside the camp.

A 'business case'......:\

Party Animal
8th Jan 2014, 07:56
A 'business case'......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif


BEagle,

I was initially tempted to use strong language in my reply but lets just say for those of us, old, bold and operational types seeing out our last few years, you can probably 'feel' the despair of how we face up to a typical day in our current modern RAF. :mad:

Roland Pulfrew
8th Jan 2014, 20:46
PA

I can feel the despair.

Colleague of mine has just had a JPA claim audited and almost rejected because he did not have a business case to support his travel claim. A claim that was a result of travelling to MPA, on duty, on work directed from the highest levels of Defence. But he didn't have a business case to travel - talk about a bureaucratic nightmare!! :ugh:

Party Animal
9th Jan 2014, 07:57
RP,

Yep - where I work requires the completion of a 5 page spreadsheet just to get an MT vehicle. It then has to be e-mailed to my Budget Manager for approval before being forwarded to MT, where it needs to arrive 3 days before the car is required!

Always sporting when my boss at Air asks if I can nip across to HWY for a short notice meeting!

:yuk:

BEagle
9th Jan 2014, 09:15
What utter bolleaux with which to waste peoples' valuable time, PA and RP.

Was the F658 system so difficult?

Mind you, the logic of the system was pretty flawed in the last couple of years of my time. I had to go to High Wycombe for some meeting about a forthcoming exercise and was happy to use my own car, given that I live on the east (High Wycombe) side of Brize.

When the claim came back, 'they' had deducted 7 miles 'personal contribution'... So I rang to query this silliness.

"Say I'd driven from Brize to High Wycombe and back. Would you have paid for the whole journey?"

"Of course, Sir"

"So, if I'd driven from home to Brize, gone round the entrance roundabout, then back to the A40 and past my house on the way to High Wycombe some 30 minutes after leaving home - and the same thing on return - you'd have paid the whole lot? As well as RPOD for the day"

"Err....yes, Sir"

"But because I've saved myself and the RAF some 60 minutes of driving, you've knocked off 7 miles?"

"Err, err....that's correct, Sir"

"Can you not see how daft that is?"

"Them's the rules, Sir"

...and lo, slowly but surely did the pins in the B&Y begin to move....:\

ShotOne
9th Jan 2014, 18:25
It's pretty straightforward; Why do you feel entitled to be paid expenses for more miles than you've driven.? Esteemed Members of Parliament are eating porridge for violating that principle.

To come back to the topic, this attack caused the biggest combat aircraft loss for a Western power for many decades. I'm astonished by the lack of an official UK enquiry and generally by the lack of interest and discussion of the event.

Roland Pulfrew
9th Jan 2014, 20:00
It's pretty straightforward; Why do you feel entitled to be paid expenses for more miles than you've driven.? Esteemed Members of Parliament are eating porridge for violating that principle.

He doesn't! Perhaps you might read what he wrote before leaping in and making silly comment.

WRT the Bastion attack, how many UK enquires, reports and lessons do YOU think there have been so far?

2 blokes died and some kit was destroyed. Avoidable - possibly, but maybe not. Lessons to be learnt - definitely. Measured against loss of life in theatre so far - a small percentage but no less sad or tragic.

ShotOne
10th Jan 2014, 08:17
"Why don't you read what he wrote.." I have re- read it Roland and it gives the clear impression the claim was base to base while the journey was (slightly) shorter. Perhaps beagle will clarify otherwise?

"Some kit was destroyed" ... Er EIGHT Harriers, worst single hit on US air power since Vietnam. Masterful understatement. Did you work for Tony Blair?

Roland Pulfrew
10th Jan 2014, 08:59
ShotOne

Check your PMs!!

Just This Once...
10th Jan 2014, 09:04
ShotOne, you are not in the military and you just don't understand what has been written. This may be a good point for you to back down as you are looking a bit silly with the fraud allegation when the post says nothing of the sort.

:ok:

BEagle
10th Jan 2014, 09:06
"Why don't you read what he wrote.." I have re- read it Roland and it gives the clear impression the claim was base to base while the journey was (slightly) shorter. Perhaps beagle will clarify otherwise?


No need to clarify anything. Rather than making stupid comments, perhaps you should read my post more carefully this time....

If (note use of the conditional) I'd gone to Brize and driven round the entrance roundabout, I would have been paid for 102 miles for the entire journey and it would have taken a total time of 2:06, according to Autoroute. However, because I elected to go direct and save 0:41 driving time, the miserable $ods would only pay for 68 miles rather than 75.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

WhiteOvies
10th Jan 2014, 09:42
If they had been UK Harriers and UK personnel then a Service Inquiry would be mandated. But the losses sadly sustained were to a USMC unit. The USMC has done it's own investigation, I don't see why the UK should feel compelled to do more than it has.

My understanding is that the USMC are not blaming the UK for what happened, which might change the MOD response.

ShotOne
10th Jan 2014, 17:36
Beagle, no it's not. Are you saying it was an entirely arbitrary deduction of seven miles for no reason at all? If so that's outrageous and I'm very sympathetic. But if you're going to get huffy about discussing it, why did you raise it on a public forum...particularly when there's only the most tenuous link to the thread subject?

(Thanks for pm, Roland, replied)

Just This Once...
10th Jan 2014, 18:21
ShotOne, you have no experience or knowledge of the military claims system yet you throw accusations around and keep on digging.

Really, you should just say sorry for the accusation and backdown with good grace.

West Coast
10th Jan 2014, 18:26
White ovies

I can't speak to any official account, but the friends I still have left in the Marine Corps looked inward for blame.

ShotOne
10th Jan 2014, 18:36
So what experience do I have, just this once and how would you know? Clearly it's changed since I served. I most definitely haven't accused anyone of fraud just asked a straightforward question about the reason for this deduction -which hasn't been answered. If you know the answer why not post it rather than ladelling out abuse...or not, I won't lose sleep either way?

The words of the resigning Marine commander and the straightforward way he took responsibility reflected much credit on the Corps.

BEagle
10th Jan 2014, 19:46
Really, you should just say sorry for the accusation and backdown with good grace.

Quite so....:hmm:

Not that I expect any such courtesy from anyone so clearly ignorant.

Laarbruch72
10th Jan 2014, 20:03
Or maybe we could stop the pointless discussion about being short changed by a few paltry quid on a travel claim from many years ago, and get back to the otherwise interesting thread about a major operational loss at Camp Bastion? The two are in no way related.

BEagle
10th Jan 2014, 20:15
Quite happy to do so, once an apology for false accusation has been forthcoming....

Cows getting bigger
10th Jan 2014, 20:16
Perhaps one of the biggest lessons the RAF could learn about ground defence (despite the fact we all were paranoid about Spetznaz during the Cold War) and all we can whine about is travel claims.

I thought we had moved-on a little further from the Samsonite Air Force. :ugh:

Roland Pulfrew
10th Jan 2014, 21:41
CGB

Out of interest is that Northern Ireland or Eire?

Cows getting bigger
11th Jan 2014, 07:17
Ireland, as in Eire. I guess you're wondering about nationality?

clicker
11th Jan 2014, 10:11
Well even before the fun started I knew what BEagle was on about and I've never been in the forces as such.

The police service had a similar line of thinking. They would deduct your normal mileage in the principle that you would have used it to go to work anyway. So I go to station x, distance 10 miles each way. My normal run is 5 miles each way. Home to x would therefore allow me to claim 10 mile for a return run but if I had gone to work booked on and then gone to station x I could claim 20 miles and overtime if it was outside my rostered hours.

I presume is that similar to what BEagle had.

ShotOne
11th Jan 2014, 12:55
I was in the police as well as the RAF, clicker, so that would make total sense. Otherwise, well, why seven miles?? But I asked in a pm exchange if that was the reason but was told it wasn't... and that I was too stupid to understand! -you get the picture! Unfortunately, having chosen to raise the issue here (rather impolitely since there's no link that I can see with the Bastion attack)beagle won't say, preferring to go off on one with personal abuse about a non-existent allegation. For the record, while I feel he may have lost the plot here, I don't consider him a fraudster.

To return to the thread, I hope this attack has sent shock waves behind the scenes if not in public. If I was an enemy and wished to strike against this country I wouldn't buy jet fighters, just a couple of old 4x4's, small arms and wire cutters and some determined young men who our enemies seem to be able to recruit.

SASless
11th Jan 2014, 13:46
What pray tell does non-payment of a mileage claim have to do with the Camp Bastion Attack?

Why don't you guys take that argument to any one of the thousand past such threads on that topic and not clutter up this discussion about the Attack on Camp Bastion.

Even allowing for Thread Creep....this is way off topic by anyone's definition.

clicker
11th Jan 2014, 14:16
Just been reading the US account which gives a little more information about the attack, a little about what they did and how.

One point made was that some people had thought the Tongan guards may have been a little slack on their duties but the report also says that the normal procedure was that the tower was manned by 4 men, two upstairs carrying out their duties and two down on ground level, regarded there are off watch, sleeping, cooking etc until their spell upstairs. People may have seen the downstairs lads and mentally formed the wrong idea.

Another point mentioned was that two towers overlooked the area of the fence incursion but one would have been shielded by slopes and dips. only 2% of light available also made it hard to see.

Finally I noted that the towers were not build to see towards the airfield, only to their fronts and sides. I wonder if that caused any problems in the defence of the Harrier apron.

Guernsey Girl II
12th Jan 2014, 08:25
"I will no longer tolerate a half-million Air Force personnel without a combat role. All airmen are to be armed and trained, ready to fight and die in defense of the airfields; every airfield should be the stronghold of fighting air-groundmen, and not the abode of uniformed civilians in the prime of life protected by a detachment of soldiers."

Winston S Churchill 29 June 1941

I can't find what Churchill thought about having 7 miles knocked off a travel claim.

However, Churchill's response to Business Cases was a big rubber stamp with 'ACTION THIS DAY' on it.