Camp Bastion attack, September 2012. A spot of daytime tv..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camp Bastion attack, September 2012. A spot of daytime tv..
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.
2.30 pm, Tuesday 17 December 2013
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 830
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:
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:
I'm glad she checked….
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.
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.
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.
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
The Investigation Final Report
https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...%20(Final).pdf
Or.....
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/...6%20Report.pdf
Newest Silver Star recipient defied death to save fellow Marines, crush Taliban ambush | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com
The Investigation Final Report
https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...%20(Final).pdf
Or.....
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/...6%20Report.pdf
Last edited by SASless; 9th Jan 2014 at 23:24.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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'......
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.
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!!
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!!
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!
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!
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.
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...."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"
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
"Some kit was destroyed" ... Er EIGHT Harriers, worst single hit on US air power since Vietnam. Masterful understatement. Did you work for Tony Blair?
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.
"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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My understanding is that the USMC are not blaming the UK for what happened, which might change the MOD response.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
(Thanks for pm, Roland, replied)
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.
Really, you should just say sorry for the accusation and backdown with good grace.