Why no helo transport? Are we condemning our diggers to an easy victimology?
In the big scheme of things, losing 20 diggers in Afghanistan isn't earth shattering across the termly spectrum of a limited regional war. However speaking as an ex-Vietnam conflict helo pilot, I cannot help but wonder why we are playing into Taliban hands by committing our ground-pounders to foot-patrol forays from their bases along well-known and oft-plied routes. The Taliban doesn't need intell to interdict those routes. They simply set up the IED's and rely upon their teenagers to give them 20 minutes notice of a patrol tracking towards.
I'm not sure whether all of these IED's are being command detonated by cell phone or walkie-talkie, but I'd suggest that a vast majority are. If so, are the patrols carrying jammers?
Enough said on that subject, however there's another aspect that requires explanation. Instead of foot-tracking towards regional population centers or suspected arms caches, why not utilize the tried and tested methodology of choppering in to somewhere else and foot-tracking in on an unexpected axis? Obviously I'd not be well versed in modern tactics as my experience dates back 40 years, however I do hope that we are NOT putting our forces in harm's way through being afraid of the MANPADS versus helo threat.
Helo's at low-level are sufficiently safe if escorted by gunships. Whenever we did people-sniffers in Vietnam at ultra low-level we had gunships in 2 click trail and all it took was a smoke-pop and an R/T call to deter the gooks from taking potshots or engaging you with LAW's or RPG's. They eventually found it wiser to keep their heads down. Escorted helos at low-level using terrain-hugging and nap-of-the-earth masking techniques have the distinct advantage of their tracking and destination being indeterminate and time precious - as far as the opposition is concerned. Courtesy of modern NVG'ss you can do it night and day. Contrast that tactic to a foot-slogger patrol heading fortress outbound in daylight on a known tracking with an obvious objective. Chalk and cheese.
Even if MANPADS come into the equation, very few of these are effective against low-level helos and they'd be easily engaged by follow-up supportive gunships. Contrast this effective quid pro quo against the current nil cost to the insurgents of simply detonating an IED from a safe hidey-hole..
So I guess my question is quite simply: "Would a company/squadron of slicks with a heavy hog team of three gunships help drop this IED toll?" If the answer is yes or even just maybe, I'd be prepared as a taxpayer to stump up $500 to help fund this change of strategy. If the shared bill was $1500 I could also manage that. There's no great difference between rugged terrain and jungle as far as a helo squadron is concerned. If you put this solution to the people I'd suggest that about 30% would be prepared to send the Def Dept $500, even if they had to add it to their credit card bills.
Gaining the upper hand and minimizing casualties might be as simple as using proven tactics to defeat a very unsophisticated enemy.
If this is a viable proposition and it isn't being addressed by my old Sqn mate CDF Angoose Houston, then colour me confused. It takes more than crocodile tears and heartfelt pronouncements to turn a situation around each time a digger is killed in action. I'd like to see some Israeli style strategic change of direction, even if it costs a few quid. Sometimes the solutions are obvious and sometimes they are obscurely elusive. This one is fairly plain to me.
.