U.S. , SAS's unreported casualties

Sunday, 18 November 2001 11:30 (ET)
U.S. , SAS's unreported casualties
By RICHARD SALE, UPI Terrorism Analyst

NEW YORK, Nov. 17 (UPI) -- The Pentagon is not reporting battle casualties suffered by U.S. Special Forces fighting near the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar and some other one-time Taliban strong points, administration sources speculated.

"Some fatalities could be involved," an administration source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said there are estimates reported that between 25 to 40 Americans had been killed so far in clashes, but acknowledged that these were figures contained in "hard copy reports," and had not been confirmed.

A U.S. government official said: "The Pentagon takes casualties from one operation and extrapolates."

While some casualties have been due to friendly fire, most have been the result of intense battle clashes with the Taliban, with fighting rising to its most savage levels to date in some areas, these officials said.

These sources added that the British Special Air Services (SAS) troops in action in Afghanistan have also suffered casualties that were not being reported.

"The administration is managing the war differently," one U.S. intelligence official said when asked about casualties. "We've begun to do what the British used to do so well -- lie. It's an `all of our aircraft returned safely' approach."

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.

But as to casualties, he emphasized they had occurred: "Look, you cannot wage a hard war in earnest without taking casualties. We are waging war in earnest."

John Pike, president of Washington-based GlobalSecurity. Org, told United Press International: "The press can't say it wasn't warned," and he referred to a press conference last month where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was quizzed about the Taliban displaying a wheel of a helicopter, torn off in an accident, but which the Taliban claimed was shot down.

At the end of his explanation, Rumsfeld looked at the reporters and according to Pike, Rumsfled stated the equivalent of: "This is the last time I'm telling you the truth."

One U.S. intelligence official told UPI that during the war in Bosnia: "There were U.S. casualties in that campaign that simply were never declared. I think the Pentagon thought, hell, we got away with it then, why not now?"

Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday, during a trip to Illinois, that U.S. commando teams in the south are working to foment anti-Taliban rebellion by Pashtun tribal leaders. He added: "They're looking for information, they're interdicting roads, they're killing Taliban that won't surrender and al Qaeda that are trying to move from one place to another."

Rumsfeld said the teams were also scouting potential landing fields for U.S. and coalition aircraft.

Asked if the troops were engaged in ground combat, Rumsfeld said: "The answer is yes. In the south, they've gone into places and met resistance and dealt with it."

But Rumsfeld said that no Americans had been killed in such operations, a remark one State Dept. official called: "Crazy."

"The rationale in denying the losses is that you don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy," this source said.

The question of casualties first arose in the wake of an Oct. 20 raid involving Delta commandos who arrived in five helicopters to ransack the fortified home of reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Mohamed Omar in the village of Baba Sahib in the Arghandab district, five miles northwest of Kandahar.

A large body of 200 Rangers, plus helicopters and AC-130 gunships were sent in to back up the Delta force.

The raid, whose execution was described by a senior Pentagon official, as "flawless in execution" was to be the start of new, fast-paced hit-and-run ground strategy that would alter the course of the war, said Pentagon officials at the time.

But instead of being deft and fast paced, the mission proved to be cumbersome, noisy, and maladroit, and not only because of the back-up forces, according to one administration official.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said: "We were unfamiliar with the area, and we had poor intelligence. We didn't expect the Taliban to be there."

Another U.S. government official said that Taliban resistance around Mullah Omar's fortified house, built for him by bin Laden, was "surprisingly stiff," in spite of 13 days of pervious aerial bombardment.

Initial reports of casualties were as high as 22 wounded, but this figure was later "downgraded," he said.

When a DIA official was queried about reports of casualties, he said: "I have absolutely nothing to give you on that," and recommended that United Press International talk to public affairs.

According to other U.S. government officials, in the Oct. 20 raid, some hostile fire initially was mistakenly identified as coming from Taliban dug-in tanks or large mortars, U.S. government officials said. Actually, most of the fire proved to be coming from shoulder-fired Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), which caused serious shrapnel, wounds among the attackers and slowed them to a stall, U.S. government sources said.

The counterattack by the Taliban was "amazingly swift and tough," one U.S. intelligence official said.

The Oct. 20 raid was mounted from the remote Pakistan airstrip at Dalbandin, Pakistan, only 37 miles from the Afghan border, U.S. officials said. The raid was similar in character to the joint 1998 FBI/Kenyan security forces raid of the Kenya house of Wadhi El-Hage, sentenced last month in Manhattan Federal District Court to life in prison without parole for his part in the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa in which 224 were killed and 4,600 wounded.

In the raid on El-Hage's house, the FBI seized hard drives containing details of bin Laden cells in East Africa and inflicted "significant damage" on his al Qaeda organization, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

But in this raid, the Delta force came away "with little of intelligence value," according to one administration official. "We wanted their Rolodexes, their plans, their chit-chat, the names of Taliban commanders. We didn't get them," he said.

Top-ranked investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker Magazine first made the allegation of casualties and the mishandling of the mission.

Hersh told United Press International, "The standard for being wounded was very flexible. If you had a shrapnel wound which could be stitched up and you could still walk, then you weren't classified as a casualty."

A U.S. government source confirmed this. "Hersh right is on the money," he said. "The Pentagon doctored the figures of casualties. We are back in the Gulf War syndrome where we won a great victory with hardly any casualties. I think it's a mis-reading of the U.S. public mood."

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.

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!

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.