U.S. , SAS's unreported casualties

UPI ^ | Sunday, 18 November 2001 11:30 (ET) | RICHARD SALE, UPI Terrorism Analyst

[Leisler]

Serbian boob bait.

"This source said that he had seen reports of 25 to 40 U.S. fatalities, but said the figures were in "cables and reports" and not confirmed. " From personal experience being in Special Forces I can tell you that any, any, KIA is immediatly reported and isn't in some 1930's type "Cable form Our Correspondent( depending upon ol'Western Union" type b.s. Still though, these efforts are useful in giving the usual dotlish suspect here at FR another opportunity to expose themselves.

[SamAdams76]

Chances are we might have run across each other during those years. I was stationed at 29 Palms from May of 1981 to May of 1982 for training. From May of 1982 to February 1985, I was stationed at Camp Pendleton and participated in many exercises in 29 Palms, Yuma, Niland, and El Centro, including all the Gallant Eagle exercises from 1982 to 1984. I was in the 3rd Air Wing, Marine Air Support Squadron 3 and worked with the DASC (Direct Air Support Center) and ASRT (Air Support Radar Team). Many times, I was in the belly of a C-130 with my mobile communications van flying high over the desert. Those were good times!

[Whilom]

I'll bet the source is not military. The use of "U.S. government official" is, I believe, deliberately broad. The source is a Democrat (or someone on his staff) on the House Armed Services Committee.

[rickmoe]

oh i bet the pentagon is really worried about YOU trusting them again.

[TomGuy]

The source concluded: "Now, I need to get back to sweeping the floor. I've still got trash cans to empty, too."
(/sarcasm)

[Illbay]

My parsing/analysis is this: It's the State Department--known 'peaceniks'--doing everything they can to besmirch the DoD. Very sad, but I'm afraid it's true.

"Unnamed State Dept. officials" saying things like "No casualties? They're crazy!" and "We've begun to do what the British used to do so well -- lie."

[Illbay]

The Hirsch article may have been "refuted" but that's hardly "proof" that it was false. There is too much detailed information given in that article, and in the early UK press reports, which is consistent and which goes unchallenged by DoD. They simply state "that didn't happen."

Plausible deniability isn't the same as a thorough debunking.

MY PERSONAL OPINION is that there were casualties, that the raid was poorly planned and executed, using Delta personnel in ways that were not consistent with their training ("Big, noisy ops" are not their cup of tea).

And the intelligence was bad.

Call the Taliban what you will, they are and have been fierce fighters. That's why they were able to overcome the OTHER "fierce fighters" among the many factions of mujahedeen that were vying for control of Afghanistan, and hold power for five years--an eternity in politics in that part of the world.

We stubbed our toes, we didn't (I hope) get anyone killed, and we learned a valuable lesson.

[The Squid]

What will it take to get you to use capitalization and puntuation? It's really hard to take an opinion seriously when it looks like my eight year old nephew wrote it. Thank God he's smart enough not to have thought it let alone to have written that bit of trivel.

[oxi-nato]

so you judge a book by its cover with your childish replies!

you don't know me, so go ahead and says things like that, its your credibility that just went down the toi/et!!!

[meenie]

There is a multitude of reasons why battlefield casualties are hidden. The biggest reason is informing the enemy of your weaknesses. The next secondary reason is keeping the public behind thr war. We have such a bunch of wusses waiting to criticize any casualties that it has to be hidden to prevent them from making the war a defining issue.

Secrecy is the most disturbing aspect of our present nation. When we have such a problem of national unity toward our enemy, this should place everybody on guard. It is unfortunate that secrecy is required to conduct warfare.

[elfman2]

"Many times, I was in the belly of a C-130 with my mobile communications van flying high over the desert. Those were good times!"

Glad you remember them that way. I don't think I'll ever call too many of them "good" times, but they were some freaking amazing times! Very focused and turbo charged! Life for me today couldn't be more different.

The only time that I was in a C-130 it was like a roller coaster. The pilot must have flown through thunderstorms all the way from Monterey to Pendleton. I couldn't help but think that he was just screwing with us ground-pounders.

I only spent a few weeks in 29 Palms, and my first ride on a CH46 was a wild one there. They were old aircraft 20 years ago, and this thing had hydraulic fluid dripping inside the fuselage. We flew low through the mountain passes and banked around cliff only 100 yards away from us. Very thrilling!

I remember the name Gallant Eagle but don't recall if what we were doing was part of it. I still have most of my original orders and some other literature, and could probably look it up.

I was in 1st Mar Div G2 intelligence operations at mainside all the time except for brief deployment with various MAU's (Marine Amphibious Units) and MABs (Marine Amphibious Brigade). I did basic intelligence school in Northfork VA, and did maneuvers in Ft Ord, 29 Palms Ft., Camp Roberts and one float to Hawaii. I also worked in the Division map room for almost a year. It sounds like we likely worked in support of the same ops, but no telling if we bumped into each other.

I was writing to another old Korean era Marine a couple of days ago here, and his experience made me think that it would be nice to be able to enter your military locations and dates into an Internet application and chat with others who were in the same space. Something like FR, but where threads would be units you worked with during a specific time frame. It' wouldn't be an easy project, but with a good interface and database design, it wouldn't be rocket science either,… Hey now were back at your MOS. Got any opinion on that?

[financeprof]

This doesn't pass the smell test.

1. WIA usually outnumber KIA by 3 or 5 to 1. If there are 25-40 KIA, this translates into as many as 240 total casualties, and at least 100. Even if one assumes that there are as many as 1000 SF in country (which is more than triple the official figure) this implies almost 25 pct total casualties. This seems very unlikely.

2. The article talks about the Pentagon "extrapolating" from known reports to get a total casualty figure. Modern SF are in constant communication with HQ. They can report actual casualties from all units (unless a unit gets wiped out) quite expeditiously--no "extrapolation" necessary.

3. Relatedly, I am certain that these guys don't like to leave their dead buddies behind, and that as a result, every effort would be made to recover any KIA. Remember the Mogadishu battle occurred because the Rangers were not going to leave a dead helo crew for the Somalis to desecrate. These guys are committed to ensuring that their dead are taken care of properly. If there are 25 bodies, we would know that there are 25 bodies--no need to guess--because we would have picked up 25 bodies or tried our damndest to do so.

4. It is known that SF are operating in conjunction with N. Alliance folks. It is quite possible that the NA forces have taken KIA, perhaps 25 to 40. I wouldn't be surprised if the cited figures refer to NA folks, NOT US or UK SF.

All in all, I think this guy is pulling this story out of his blow hole. This isn't to say we haven't suffered any casualties, or even any KIA, but this story doesn't convince me that we've suffered one such fatality, let alone a score or more.

[willyone]

The Pentagon or the US govt. is under no obligation to tell anybody anything. The days of the courtesy briefings are over. The press is pissed because there have not been any deaths to add to their anti US propaganda. Non of us have any right to expect to be told anything. Grow up and get a life. Except as spectators non of us have anything to do with the events taking place. Anything that will help the enemy or hurt national unity is just going to have to come out later. Tough crap. Remember the German torpedo boat raid that caught a bunch of landing craft off England while they were practicing for D-Day? Over 700 of our guys were killed. It was kept secret until after the war. Thats how it should be.

[Michael Barnes]

Annonymous sources are like assholes, everyone has at least one. From the get go, this administration has been very stead fast about leaks of any kind. I am willing to bet that many will some how or another find a way to refute this. Bottom line though, a forces are far safer under this adminstration than under the previous.
Furthermore, I have no doubt that were taking hit's, but ya know what? This type of work is what the special op's men signed up for. We will read books in the years to come about awesome operations the pulled off over there in that wasteland..just you wait.

[Illbay]

The Pentagon or the US govt. is under no obligation to tell anybody anything. The days of the courtesy briefings are over.

I agree with everything you're saying here. Nevertheless, my comments were really aimed toward those FReepers who are in deep denial anytime "bad stuff" is reported about our military's effort.

I even had one guy tell me that the raid on Mullah Omar's house could not POSSIBLY have met with stiff resistance from the Taliban, because "they couldn't fight at night."

When I reminded him and the rest of them that lots of "impossible" things have happened in recent years to U.S. military covert ops, giving the example of Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, I was attacked VICIOUSLY.

I'm simply saying "keep your eyes, ears and MIND open about all you see and hear. Don't swallow whole, but don't imediately spit it out and ignore it either."

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

I appreciate your analysis in your post #72.

I have a question that I hope you will answer. Does the term casualties only refer to KIAs or is that a term used for injured as well?

Thanks,

Jane

[astounded]

Undoubtedly there will be SOF casualties. We will not necessarily know of them until much, much later. Throughout the war in SEA, nothing was revealed about the losses incurred by MACV SOG until 20 years after the war "ended". Now, it turns out that they were substantial, but the intelligence and interdiction they provided were invaluable in terms of protecting other US units and personnel. How the SOF forces are being used now is unknown in the U.S. -Rangers in small unit actions, clandestine hit-and-run by USASF and Force Recon? We can only hope they are being used appropriately and in accordance with their individual capabilities. Most are not front-line shock troops and should not be used as such, as some did with SEAL teams in SEA. These individuals are not turned out overnight and should not be wasted - they are too hard to replace.

[grania]

We all understand that the liberal media DOES NOT want a George W. Bush Administration to succeed, no matter how many airplanes run through buildings or how many Americans are murdered by terrorists.

That may well be true, but the media has been more supportive of actions taken by non-liberals than it has been in the past. If casualties exist, it would be best for the government to report them. I think most Americans EXPECT that there will be casualties, and will accept them as part of winning this war.

Withholding information could backfire...it could give the press something to expose. Also, Americans could be lulled into a false sense of security and forget that we all need to be vigilant and supportive of those who suffer most directly.

[mad_as_he$$]

Wow this story MAY be true but is so full of half lines it makes me wonder. IF the Chinook was shot down how come all that the Towel-a-ban had was the wheels? Makes me believe the Pentagon more. Also, there is no upside for the Pentagon in lying. Sooner or later the families will have to be told that there loved on bought it. IF they are lied to that will insure that W will not get re-elected. In the old days you might be able to mask the deaths due to the county being mostly rural. Today if you set-up a webiste and told everybody who had lost someone to register you would have the answer within a few days. Also, I believe that we would take combat deaths well in the face of gains that have been made. Show me one dead American soldier in Afghanistan then I will listen.

[A Simple Soldier]

Casualties are an all encompassing term, but it is frequently misused to only indicate killed in action. Some of the categories are:

Killed in Action

Wounded in Action (this is not a slight wound either, it is a wound that requires treatment by a medical officer)

Missing in Action, Presumed Dead

Died of Wounds (if you are evacuated to a medical station and die there, o/w no different than KIA)

This list is not all-inclusive, but it gives the most common categories.