Posted on 08/10/2011 6:55:41 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Rangers’ danger, single helicopter among questions
Some in the special operations community are privately criticizing the wisdom of Saturday’s failed rescue mission in Afghanistan, saying commanders should have sent more than the one Chinook helicopter that was shot down, killing 30 American troops, including 23 elite Navy SEALs.
They also questioned whether the quickly assembled mission was necessary to rescue a band of Army Rangers reportedly under fire from Taliban militants.
“I squarely blame whoever planned and authorized the mission for the deaths,” said a Special Forces soldier who served in Afghanistan.
“It was simply uncalled for unless Rangers were being overrun and the ground situation required this much operational risk.”
Special operations sources also told The Washington Times that it would have been better to send two helicopters instead of one to reduce risks.
“The SEALs do seem to like stuffing a lot of valuable guys in one [helicopter],” said a second special operations officer who also served in Afghanistan.
“There may have been an operational reason not to spread them out over two, [but] I just don’t know what that would be.”
They also questioned the type of aircraft dispatched for the mission. The NATO command in Kabul identified the downed helicopter as a Boeing CH-47 Chinook, not the modified version, the MH-47.
The MH-47 Chinook is configured for nighttime missions by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.
The Army Times said the Chinook was piloted by a regular Army crew, not aviators from the specially trained 160th.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
...As they say, “You don’t have the need to know.” That means cover-up...
...BTW, not to put down “elite” units, but, any military loss of life is a tragedy...
WHY was not an airstrike (from fast movers, apache helos, cruise missiles, or drones) used in the 1st place, rather than rely on using the SEALS as a “Rapid Response Team” to help out the Army who though were under fire, had not (as reported) suffered any casualties.
______________________________
Great question. I have wondered the same thing. Pure speculation on my part but I am guessing the Rules of Engagement have changed to an extreme point where they are more afraid of one “civilian” casualty than they are of losing a helicopter flying at low altitude from a lucky shot.
Hell of a way to fight a war. The Taliban routinely use civilians to shield them from airstrikes. We never learn.
I’m hoping that this is the military disappearing their best men in order to use them while Obama is still president.
Of course, it would be best served if they suddenly reappeared right before Obama’s impeachment.
I think that the theories of “conspiracy” are probably stretched. Here is why:
If you were a Taliban soldier, some of whom have been fighting “invaders” since I was a boy you would begin to pick up on the tactics of your enemy.
As a guerrilla warrior you would know where the troops are being dispatched from. Would you not set a person up to watch the airfield?
When you attack a group with overwhelming force, they in turn would call for help. Your person watching the airfield (or the entrances to the valley) would call and let you know when the chopper is coming. That would give you pretty decent time to prepare for the arrival in a choke point.
And, then its a lucky shot.
If you think like an insurgent, it seems pretty straightforward.
What you cannot do is make the assumption that these fighters are stupid. Poor does not equate to stupid.
They seemed pretty smart when they were knocking USSR choppers out of the air.
I hate that our guys are dead, and I hate that they sent in so many on a chopper. But I think the simplest answer is usually the most likely to be correct.
Keen insight.
I have wondered that myself.
When I was a young Platoon Leader, I was sure that my platoon could defeat the entire Warsaw Pact. Some old guys wearing combat patches shamed me into realizing that my Soldier’s lives were more important and that the US taxpayers had spent a good deal of money to provide me with things to help me like artillery and helicopters and engineers. If I was in a shooting match, I’d be calling for all the support I could get. I’m not sure that it’s a good idea to put everyone on one helicopter, but two helicopters provides twice as many targets.
I’m no expert, but would tend to agree. This would seem to be a Rangers / Marines type mission, not a SEAL mission.
The question remains, where they sacrificed because of the political exploitation related to the UBL mission?
You know, you are probably correct in your well-thought out post.
It really speaks volumes to the level of crap that we are experiencing right now, where so many of us out here (myself included) have to the very first thought cross our minds that this assclown in charge set up our own boys to get whacked. And what’s REALLY horrible is that it’s an entirely plausible and believable scenario, knowing his background, the backgrounds of his comrades, and who he was raised by and who he hung out with all his life.
What an effed up state of affairs we’ve come to.
God rest the souls of those warriors, and grant their families some measure of peace.
“Enemies Foreign and Domestic”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.