Terrorist commando raid KO's Harriers in Afghanistan

[gunnergoz]

http://theaviationist.com/2012/09/16/vma-211/

Looks like this incursion was one of the worst in terms of how far they got and how much damage they inflicted. Makes you wonder who was watching the wire: don't they have those aerostats on duty 24 hours a day? Did these guys not only have US uniforms but also our vehicles? The US media seem to be glossing over this story to a great extent.

[Michael Emrys]

Well that sucks.

Michael

[Bigduke6]

It's been reported, but it's not really been brought out how successful the attack was. I suspect the Pentagon plan is to spin this hoping that the general public doesn't really know what a base, Harriers, and fuel dumps are. Kind of ignore it and hope it will drop off the news radar. Also since Prince Harry is there they can depict the incident as a victory, i.e., the Prince wasn't hurt.

If the Taliban are getting better at their base assault tactics, the NATO people get points for using Royals in a new way: as a foil, by the Royal's mere Not Dying, to spin what by most any standard is a military embaressment into a qualified success.

I read somewhere an estimate that those 15 Taliban guys caused about 180 million dollars of damage. Seems to me like what they did was cut a hole in the perimeter fence, bypassing the ID checks, and then, wearing US uniforms, attacked aircraft and installations. Inside a base, at a moderate distance, at night. It must have been nuts in there before the Marines tracked them all down.

Although I hate to say it, you have to give the jarheads credit, the Taliban must have been hoping to get some NATO types killed by friendly fire. Although the damage is bad enough, the Marines inside the base managed to deal with these guys without killing either Brits or each other. (Probably.)

Still, this is not looking good. Last month the Taliban rocketed the US joint chief of staff's personal C-17. (He wasn't in it.)

Somebody correct me but isn't the worst Viet Cong raid on a US air base the November 1 assault sapper/mortar attack of Camp Holloway where they destroyed 10 - 17 aircraft and killed 10 or so US personnel?

[JonS]

wearing US uniforms, attacked British aircraft and installations.

The RAF doesn't fly Harriers, and hasn't for a couple of years.

Edit: and Hescos take a bit more than a pair of tin-snips to cut through.

[Redwolf]

Why do they have harriers in Afghanistan in the first place? Surely no lack of long runways there.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As you know, you go to war with the Marine Corps aviation you have, not the Marine Corp aviation you might want or wish to have at a later time.

And frankly, why not Harriers? Do they suck at CAS or something?

[JonS]

In other news:

"Terrorist commando raid KO's Harriers in Afghanistan"

Imagine how that headline would look if it were written 25 years ago.

Something like:

"Mujahideen Freedom Fighter Raid Destroys Hinds in Afghanistan"

Spin. It's a wonderful thing in cricket, tennis, and ping-pong. It's not so great in the news.

[Ranger33]

In other news:

"Terrorist commando raid KO's Harriers in Afghanistan"

Imagine how that headline would look if it were written 25 years ago.

Something like:

"Mujahideen Freedom Fighter Raid Destroys Hinds in Afghanistan"

Spin. It's a wonderful thing in cricket, tennis, and ping-pong. It's not so great in the news.

Believe me, trying to point out this irony is great way to get blank (or angry) stares from a lot of people. For most Americans, the history of Afghanistan begins on 9-11 and they have no clue that is called "the place where empires go to die" or how it earned that reputation.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I suspect the Pentagon plan is to spin this hoping that the general public doesn't really know what a base, Harriers, and fuel dumps are. Kind of ignore it and hope it will drop off the news radar. Also since Prince Harry is there they can depict the incident as a victory, i.e., the Prince wasn't hurt.

I think you are ascribing far more influence over the media to the Pentagon than exists. The loss of the Harriers is of far less importance to the general public than it is to military hardware geeks such as ourselves. The public cares more about casualties -- which were not unusually high for an incident in Afghanistan -- and the fact that a celebrity resides at the base. The main stream media simply caters to its audience.

EDIT: This is the official ISAF press release.

KABUL, Afghanistan (Sept. 16, 2012) — Following the 14 September attack at Camp Bastion, in which two Coalition service members were killed when insurgents attacked the base’s airfield, the International Security Assistance Force provides the following additional details. Because it is still early in the investigation of this attack, this information is subject to change as new details become available:

The attack commenced just after 10 p.m. when approximately 15 insurgents executed a well-coordinated attack against the airfield on Camp Bastion. The insurgents, organized into three teams, penetrated at one point of the perimeter fence.

The insurgents appeared to be well equipped, trained and rehearsed.

Dressed in U.S. Army uniforms and armed with automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and suicide vests, the insurgents attacked Coalition fixed and rotary wing aircraft parked on the flight line, aircraft hangars and other buildings.

Six Coalition AV-8B Harrier jets were destroyed and two were significantly damaged. Three Coalition refueling stations were also destroyed. Six soft-skin aircraft hangars were damaged to some degree.

Coalition forces engaged the insurgents, killing 14 and wounding one who was taken into custody. In addition to the two Coalition service members that were killed, nine Coalition personnel – eight military and one civilian contractor – were wounded in the attack. None of their injuries are considered life-threatening.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-provides-additional-details-on-camp-bastion-attack.html

Yep, they TOTALLY used Prince Harry's survival to chalk it up as a win.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's been reported, but it's not really been brought out how successful the attack was.

It is on these rare occasions that the Taliban manage to accomplish something of military significance that I pause to wonder at the vast disparity between what passes for success to them and for us.

Imagine, if you will, that the US or any other NATO country sent in a team of 15 commandos to strike a Taliban or al-Qaeda training base. They blow up a few buildings and kill a couple of bad guys, but in the end all 15 commandos are killed or captured. It would be considered a minor disaster. There would be calls for investigations. Bigduke6 would be making predictions on how the Pentagon will put a positive spin on the defeat. But when the Taliban do it people talk like its the ****ing Battle of Isandlwana.

[JonS]

I pause to wonder at the vast disparity between what passes for success to them and for us.

Is that not implicit in the definition of Assymetric Warfare?

Use what you have available to attack what the enemy values.

The Taliban and AQ have an excess of highly motivated warm bodies. The west values money (and lives). Therefore, use those warm bodies to attack things that cost a lot and to kill westerners.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Sure. I didn't say it wasn't a good strategy for them under the circumstances. My point is that I'm not as impressed with their military prowess as some others.

[JonS]

Well, no, you wouldn't, because your tradition and values are wildly different.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And apparently wildly different than Bigduke6.

[JonS]

Maybe he's viewing things in a different way.

Tactically; yes, getting the entire attack group killed or captured is bad. 15 gunmen don't have the same tactical skill sets as a USMC platoon - who knew!? However ...

Operationally: wiping out the better part of a Marine Harrier squadron is a big payoff, that'll reduce Coalition air support for several weeks to come, and ...

Strategically: showing that even the biggest bases and flashest kit are vulnerable is going to apply a lot of welcome leverage.

(Incidentally, the LRDG and SAS in the Desert raided airfields reasonably often, and occasionally suffered heavy cas doing it. That didn't stop them. High levels of casualty aversion is a very new - and very western - 'thing')

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh I'm sure he's viewing things in a different way. I just happen to think it's a kinda ****ed up way to view things. Those 15 commandos were almost certainly hand-picked fighters who had a level of training that is uncommon among the Taliban. Yeah, you can make the argument that they still got good bang for their buck. But how often does that happen? Every dog has its day, and it seems like only a few times per year we see them kill more people at a time than you can count on one hand or blow up something expensive.

(Incidentally, the LRDG and SAS in the Desert raided airfields reasonably often, and occasionally suffered heavy cas doing it. That didn't stop them. High levels of casualty aversion is a very new - and very western - 'thing')

I know. We also no longer allow ourselves to win wars by crushing the enemy with overwhelming force, which happens to be what our military is best at. That is very considerate of us, but it makes everything so much harder, and perversely also increases our own casualties.

[JonS]

I just happen to think it's a kinda ****ed up way to view things. Those 15 commandos were almost certainly hand-picked fighters who had a level of training that is uncommon among the Taliban.

True, but we - the West - do exactly the same thing; hand pick highly motivated fighters, provide them with a level of training unheard of in the rest of the armed forces, then send them off alone on half-arsed missions. The main difference seems to be that we give ours berets in cool colours.

[Vanir Ausf B]

... and we care if they come back, and get quite upset if they don't.

I grok the reasons for the double standard. But it is a double standard we have imposed on ourselves rather than one imposed on us by an enemy. I give credit to the enemy for recognizing it and taking full advantage, but I also recognize that if we were a lot less morally conscious -- or if the outcome of the war were far more critical to our well-being than it actually is -- we could go Roman on their asses and win it in a year.

[gunnergoz]

An update from the same site: http://theaviationist.com/2012/09/17/vma-211-commander/

Apparently the CO of the Marine Harrier squadron was killed in the attack. That really adds to the propaganda fuel for the other side.

Anything that seems to strike and dull the Americans' technical edge, is potentially like landing a big haymaker punch for the opposition. We tout our technology as being a war-winner and they are showing just how frail and vulnerable that technology can be.

The opposition's gains from the raid are not based on how much they factually damaged, but in how much the influence they gained with the civilian populace. It is sort of like counting coup by Native American plains warriors. The mere fact you touched the other guy, gives you cred.

[gunnergoz]

... and we care if they come back, and get quite upset if they don't.

I grok the reasons for the double standard. But it is a double standard we have imposed on ourselves rather than one imposed on us by an enemy. I give credit to the enemy for recognizing it and taking full advantage, but I also recognize that if we were a lot less morally conscious -- or if the outcome of the war were far more critical to our well-being than it actually is -- we could go Roman on their asses and win it in a year.

If we can't do it in 10 or 11 years, what makes you think "going Roman" is going to do it in a year? We don't have the troops to occupy the entire country without imposing a draft, nor the funds nor national will to stay there as long as it would take to nation build it into a semblance of a stable democracy, which I'd guess would take at least 2 or three generations.

[JonS]

we could go Roman on their asses and win it in a year.

Win what?

If every man woman and child in Afghanistan swore a blood oath to destroy the US and all it stood for ... you could flat out ignore them. There is only one organisation in Afghanistan that could conceivably hurt the US in any kind of existential way, and it ain't the Taliban.

There is simply nothing there to 'win,' so going Roman on them would be wildly counter-productive. At best.

There is some tangentially related good news though:

http://boingboing.net/2012/09/17/terrorists-suck.html

[JonS]

stay there as long as it would take to nation build it into a semblance of a stable democracy, which I'd guess would take at least 2 or three generations.

I think the "Colonial Model" is one that the UN should aggressively follow. Something along the lines of

'Look, you guys suck at running this country, so we're going to do it. For at least 40 years. Maybe longer - we'll see how it goes.

In that time our corps of professional civil servants - who will become citizens of your country - will establish national transport and services infrastructure, build up a functional education system at all levels, and create a national helath system. We will set up the tax system and control international trade. Oh, and we'll have the police force, courts, and army too, and kick you in the head if we need to. Along the way we will create a functional civil service, and over several generations we'll train your own people in the methods and - most importantly - the ethos of civil service. We will create a constitution, justice system, and the government departments needed in a modern, functional state.

Initially we will run pretty much all of this, and it'll be funded mostly from international aid. But over time - generations of time - funding will become internally sourced, and responsibility will gradually be transferred, until eventually you pay for and run pretty much all of it. Sometime around then, you'll have full national elections and we'll bow out and it'll all be yours.

Instead we generally see 3-5 years of UN involvement, staffed by people on lucrative 12 month contracts who have little emotional engagement or investment in the host country. Then it all gets thrown over the fence to folks who just a few years ago were running about in the hills or jungle with a rifle, and have absolutely no experience or mental model of how a functional, modern society operates.

Then we sit around and wonder why it always seems to go pear shaped.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The opposition's gains from the raid are not based on how much they factually damaged, but in how much the influence they gained with the civilian populace. It is sort of like counting coup by Native American plains warriors. The mere fact you touched the other guy, gives you cred.

And we still conquered the Native Americans because we weren't trying to win their hearts and minds like we are in Afghanistan. Even the shock of the defeat at Little Big Horn, relatively far more significant than the attack on Camp Bastion, was a bump on the road.

If we can't do it in 10 or 11 years, what makes you think "going Roman" is going to do it in a year? We don't have the troops to occupy the entire country without imposing a draft, nor the funds nor national will to stay there as long as it would take to nation build it into a semblance of a stable democracy, which I'd guess would take at least 2 or three generations.

Eh, no. I'm talking about redefining victory from winning hearts and minds and building the country up to simply crushing all resistance by whatever means necessary. Villages that are sympathetic to the Taliban: annihilated. Safe havens in Pakistan: invaded and destroyed. Not saying we should, only that we could.

The Romans had a process for putting down insurrections that they called vastatio, which translates to "devastation". As they marched they burnt crops and killed all the animals. Hostile settlements that capitulated were left untouched on condition that they supply hostages for the Romans to keep to unsure the town's continued good behavior. Settlements that resisted were wiped out. The process was continued until the rebels lost their will or ability to resist. It was quite effective.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Win what?

Whatever we wanted. The whole country, potentially. But we don't want it, and I completely agree that it's not worth it.

[Ranger33]

I grok the reasons for the double standard. But it is a double standard we have imposed on ourselves rather than one imposed on us by an enemy. I give credit to the enemy for recognizing it and taking full advantage, but I also recognize that if we were a lot less morally conscious -- or if the outcome of the war were far more critical to our well-being than it actually is -- we could go Roman on their asses and win it in a year.

Err..the Soviets tried that tactic, and it didn't go all that well for them. They at least had the good sense to give up after just shy of a decade.

One could certainly argue that our tech is leaps ahead of what theirs was, while the Afghan resistance is still at pretty much the same level. However, I don't see how blowing up more stuff and killing more people is going to improve the situation. The Soviets took out tens of thousands of insurgents, and made exactly as much progress as we have now.

It's really interesting to read this article and note the similarities in strategy and obstacles faced.