Vengeance

Vengeance

The Taliban fighters who shot down the CH-47 Chinook and killed 38 people on Saturday were killed by an American airstrike on Monday, said the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Marine Gen. John Allen told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday via satellite that U.S. commanders tracked the group of insurgents that fired the rocket propelled grenade at the helo, apparently back to a hideout, and then ordered an Air Force F-16 to put “ordnance on target.” Which it did.

Allen said he and other top leaders were confident it was the same group of men, but he did not go into details about how they were tracked or how that was confirmed. This is just Buzz talking, but it’s possible a Predator or other unmanned surveillance aircraft was watching Saturday’s operation as a matter of course, and it may have caught the insurgents firing on the helo and followed them fleeing the area.

Allen confirmed everyone’s basic understanding of what happened: American special operators were pursing a senior Taliban commander who runs the local insurgent network in that part of Wardak Province. After they got intel he might be in a position to be captured or killed, Army Rangers apparently went in to try to take care of it. The Taliban leader and his entourage offered resistance, which led to a firefight, and they also apparently began to slip away. So the Rangers called for help from the SEAL Development Group operators, who were on their way in aboard the Chinook when another group of Taliban insurgents shot it down.


Allen also confirmed that he believes at least one RPG hit the Chinook, but he said he couldn’t rule out that it might have taken small arms fire, too — those details will come out as a part of the investigations. Reporters pressed him for explanations about some of the big questions about this operation: Was it smart to put so many high-value special operators on one big helo? Was it smart to send them into the fight aboard a regular Army Chinook? What are you going to change about the way you operate in the wake of these losses?

Allen said he would not talk about details of special operations and reiterated the DoD line that the investigation into this crash — which will be headed by Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt, the deputy commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division — will determine all the facts and yield the appropriate “lessons learned.”

The Taliban leader who was the object of the whole operation ended up escaping, Allen acknowledged, but he said the special operations teams will not let up on the pressure they’ve been putting on him and his network. He said Saturday’s operation was just one of many going on across Afghanistan, and that all the different flavors of SOF across the country will continue at their high levels of operational tempo.

Neither Allen nor reporters addressed a key question: Was this whole thing a setup? Was this “Taliban leader” just bait? Allen repeated his and other top officials’ belief that Saturday’s crash, however terrible, does not reverse ISAF’s progress in the war. Allen reiterated top officials’ line about how, because the Taliban is so weak, it has had to change its tactics and focus on “spectacular attacks,” including assassinations and suicide bombings of civilian targets, because it’s no longer capable of stand-up fights with American and allied troops. (To the extent it ever truly was.) But even though DoD officials say ‘we need to wait until the facts are in’ before concluding that Saturday’s crash might have been a Taliban trap, as Afghan officials claim, they have implicitly acknowledged it’s a possibility: If insurgents really are changing their tactics to try to inflict maximum casualties with a smaller, weaker force, this would seem to be a textbook example.

Then again, it’s also possible that elements within the Afghan government just made that up, to try to make what could have been a lucky break, from the Taliban’s perspective, seem as though it had been planned all along. And if the Taliban does reel out more of its fighters and leaders to try to spring these kinds of traps, American commanders might well agree to play the game despite the risks, betting that their superiority across the board will give them the edge no matter what the bad guys think they can make happen.

Join the Conversation

How could we actually do something with only a Gen4 fighter???? Don’t we need Gen5 to fight these RPGs…

No, we need a Gen 2 helicopter.

comment above should be deleted

So, which is it? (1) The stories are true and our competent military leaders are killing off the Taliban leaders? Or (2) we’re back to the Vietnam “body count” (counting dead trees) so we can allege success in another failing war. Why does our American military keep making the same exact mistake? Insurgencies are fought by the local people, not a formal army, for their freedom from foreign invaders, no matter who they are or what they stand for? Afghanistan has outlasted all foreign invaders. ALL of them. Time the American military learned what the expression “sunk costs” means. Time to leave.

Classic Oblat BS, make an inflammatory statement backed up by zero facts to troll hostile comments from the crowd.

They cant tell what shot down the vehicle or even which group shot it or even if it wasn’t mechanical failure but they know they got the guy who did it — yea sure. Can fool some of the people all of the time though.

So if they can’t tell how can you be so sure? I mean after all you’re speaking in the same absolutes you’re mocking them for which makes you more or less as bad really. Kind of rhetorical because it isn’t like you care you’re just engaging in your typical trolling bullshit.

Sounds of propaganda are ringing loud and too clear?????

If we were unable to detect an insurgent with an RPG in the first place, how would we know with certainty we killed the very insurgent who fired the RPG??

I would tend to believe this IF the retaliatory strike against that insurgent occurred right after launching the RPG; so his launching of the RPG would leave a telltale indicator of where that hostile fire came from.

But ask me to believe that days later we were able to keep track of that same individual and know that he was the same guy who was killed just is a LOT to believe.

Why the doubt? Well if our sensors can’t detect a hostile target in the first place, how can our sensors be sharp enough to visually identify the same target days later??

The target wasn’t identified days later. The article is a little confusing, but I believe the information was given days later, but the strike supposedly took place after immediately tracking the targets from the RPG attack. The confusing bit was in the wording of, “
Marine Gen. John Allen told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday via satellite that U.S. commanders tracked the group of insurgents that fired the rocket propelled grenade at the helo” The reporting was Wednesday, not the retaliation.

THEY SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN SENT ON THAT MISSION, C-130 GUN SHIP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT,A-10 WARHOG COULD HAVE DONE IT ALSO OR JUST SEND IN THE A/C AND BOMB THE HELL OUT OF THEM.…LETS START USING YOUR HEADS,YOU ARE THERE TO KILL THEM AND NOT OUR TROOPS.….USE THE RIGHT THING FOR THE JOB,IF YOU CAN’T THEN BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW.….

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement