Clue on RAF crash missile (c130 crash now missile attack,blame iran?)

[Monkie]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12169265%255E663,00.html
"THE RAF Hercules transport plane that crashed in Iraq killing Australian Paul Pardoel was hit by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile that insurgents obtained from Iran."

"Military accident investigators believe the Special Forces plane was hit when at least six heatseeking SA-18 missiles were fired at it."

"But first indications from investigators suggest that a new variant of the Russian-made SA-18, a shoulder-launched missile with a range of 6km, was used.
A suggestion that a faulty anti-tank shell exploded on board was being discounted by military sources last night."

so the iraqi resistance has the capability to shoot down planes, how do we spin it?

Blame Iran...
*sigh*

[mhr]

1. I Have Wondered For A Long Time If The Resistance Movement

Has been holding back.

[Supersedeas]

6. or are they growing stronger?

[anarchy1999]

10. IMHO, "we've not seen anything yet"!

I keep repeating, to everyone, just imagine if the US had been invaded and our cities "occupied" so we could have democracy and "free elections".

Read up on the history of the entire area and especially what happened with the British.

We really need to say we are sorry and get out, I fear for what is to come otherwise.

And yes, this neocon crowd, they are not done yet.

[Herkdrvr]

16. So what are you implying?

That the "resistance" movement is just recently firing on aircraft? If that's what you think, and that you feel this crash implys that the insurgent forces are getting stronger, I feel you are wrong...they have been trying to shoot down aircraft from Day 1, and finally they got lucky.

[tkmorris]

22. Not exactly

If they did in fact shoot down that plane with a SA-18 that is indeed a step up. Up until now they have been firing on planes, true, but they have been doing so with automatic weapons and RPG's, not SA-18's which are a far more capable weapon designed for exactly this purpose.

If that sort of weapon becomes widespread in Iraq we can forget about controlling the air, at least near ground level. They are plenty capable of bringing down just about any aircraft low enough to hit with one (or more).

[Herkdrvr]

24. They have been using missiles as well

Trust me, I know from experience.

[Inte11ectual]

51. nvm

nvm, i got here too late

[Herkdrvr]

52. They got lucky

Again I'm not going to dispense with info that probably shouldn't be on this board, but they did simply get lucky...

More sophisticated tactics on their behalf? Yes. Does it make a C-130 a sitting duck? No.

[Stella_Artois]

92. Some groups have used them before

There was a group in Baghdad in late November 2003 that fired many SA-7's and SA-14s at traffic coming out of Baghdad International.

They were untrained and missed with all of them, apart from one.





This DHL A-300 was VERY lucky to get back on the ground, the pilots were exceptional. They actually landed without any flight controls, using engine thrust only.

Incidently, this incident was filmed from the ground by a French news team who were doing a documentary on this group. They told the French that they were running out of missiles, and since then they have been quiet.



http://www.cargolaw.com/2004nightmare_on.target.html

It seems the RAF crew were not so lucky, the SA-18 has a larger warhead IIRC, and it seems they had a major structural failure before even managing to get a radio call out.

RIP.

[Herkdrvr]

98. Other incidents

There have been three incidents involving missiles that the media reported on.

First was the DHL Airbus that you mention, second and third involved a C-5 and a C-17, both of which were hit (only minor damage). All of those events have happened over the past year or so.

[ebayfool]

2. "...how do we spin it? Blame Iran." I do think you've got it!

Could see that spin coming a mile away, couldn't ya?

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Too bad we didn't guard the ammo dumps

I don't think the Iraqis need to import anything. We made sure they were fully armed before the war.

[Herkdrvr]

15. Too bad the Iraqi Army didn't have...

...the SA-18. They had -7s and some -14s.

[SpiralHawk]

4. "Mission Accomplished" !!!!! - George W. Bush*

Oooops, i guess that was a premature ejaculation, in a manner of speaking



*Titan of the Texas Air National Guard, Prince of the Imperial Pig Farm Upon Crawford, and Eddie Haskel Supremo clown-clone of the White House.

[frictionlessO]

5. They fired 6 missles at it!!!??? That is very odd.

If its true than it portends a situation worse than them having advanced /modified SA-18s it means they have a lot... a lot more than we probably ever thought...

Also boding extremely ill, is which groups have 'em and what the hell are they saving them for?

Something tells me they've been waiting for the real war to start.

Sad days indeed if this is true.

[mhr]

13. Target Practice With A Live Target - What Better Way To Give Resistance

Fighters real world experience.

[Herkdrvr]

14. This is nothing new

They have been firing missiles at aircraft since the war started. Now if it is an SA-18, then that's another issue since that missile is a fairly new design, and Saddam's old army didn't have any in their inventory. A third party (Syria, Iran, etc) may be providing these to the enemy.

[frictionlessO]

55. but whats up with the 6 at once thing??

can herks get away from 5? Or do you think they may have been training? Maybe they wanted to get someone really bad on that flight?

BTW my dad is an old f-111 and f-16 kinda guy, so hello from an AF brat!
:hi:

Not to many officer dems around, glad you're here and safe, thanks for your service!

[Herkdrvr]

65. It's not extremely common, but...

it does happen from time to time. Most of the ground fire received is small arms (ie, AK47, etc). I won't go into specifics, but yes a Herk (properly flown and equipped) can defeat shoulder-launched missiles, even if fired upon by multiple missiles. BTW, in many cases not all the "missiles" are actually IR missiles...some are RPGs designed to...better not go there!

And regarding being an "officer dem"...I prefer to call myself an independent. I read and visit many discussion forums of various flavors to see what everyone else's opinions are. And you'd be right in saying that many officers are not Dems...but you'd also be suprised that not all are hard-core RNC voters either.

[shadowknows69]

89. the sa-18 has a mounted variation doesn't it?

with several missles. If they had themselves a few of these they could launch quick multiple sam strikes and blend back into a cityscape before we could get a lock.

[Herkdrvr]

96. I'm not aware of a mounted version...

The SA-19 is similar to the SA-18, and is mounted on the 2S6 Tunguska system.

[mod mom]

58. How can you believe bu$h wacked news on what weapons were used when

you know they are trying to get into Iran to provide Halliburton safer, larger profit margins? What kind of evidence was produced to make you believe their story?

[Herkdrvr]

61. I don't get this stuff from the "news"

We get to find out for ourselves.

[Earth_First]

7. Connect the dots, la la la la...

[wovenpaint]

8. and weren't there quite a few Americans on that plane?

just asking.....(not confirmed/reported on)....futile, I know.

[DistantWind88]

9. Not that we know of

[Igel]

11. Insurgency, Hanafi Sunni; Iran, Shi'a.

Working together?

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. After the Super Bowl on Fox News,

They were reporting that Iran was having a "nuclear war of words" with the United States. The American people are being prepared for another imminent threat to attack with preemptive strikes.

After all Iranians greet us with flowers and kisses for our glorious battle, two years from now we will be celebrating our gift of 'freedom' to Iran. The madness and insanity continues, unchecked by our Banana Republic of Amerika Government and MSM.

[reprobate]

19. I fear you are right, we are being prepared to attack Iran.

And if we do this we are placing our 150,000 troops in Iraq in danger, far more than they have been.

So far they have been attacked sporadicly, with limited numbers of insurgents. If this happens we can count on the Iranian army, together will maybe a million Shia Iraqis attacking our troops there. They will not be safe anywhere in the region.

I believe that it will make our withdrawal from Vietnam look like a vacation cruise, and it will be far bloodier.

There has been a general feeling of the US losing it's edge in the hegemony department. If this happens it may be the final straw that destroys the illusion of invulnerability that we have been laboring under.

After Viet Nam, a second military defeat by another puny country may just destroy our nationalistic militaristic imperialism.

[Herkdrvr]

20. I doubt we're gearing up to attack Iran

The special ops flights within their country aren't aimed at starting a war.

[rustydad]

29. Escalation

In Vietnam when the going got rough it is rumored that Nixon was adamant about using nukes and only cooler heads kept him from it. Those where different days when even a scumbag like Nixon had advisers who had some credentials and a bit of brain power. Unfortunately Bush surrounds himself with dedicated yes men who are also losers by reputation. And at all times he has the Zionist lobby whispering in his hear along with the Christian nuts who want to call Christ down to earth by promoting a ME world war.

I do fear that Bush will attack Iran, then Iran will retaliate with maximum force taking out much of the 5th Fleet, blocking the Straights of Hormuse (sp?)to oil tankers and perhaps attacking SA if they are complicit in our attack on Iran.

Then of course Bush will push the nuke button with the full support of the American idiots who use Faux and other sources of government propaganda for their opinions.

So what does Russia, China, and perhaps India due? Sit back and watch us annihilate the ME. I think not. Bob

[Herkdrvr]

32. About this Iran invasion

First I'd like to point out that the article was written by Aussies, not Americans. Second it does not indicate any particular country is to blame for the potential SA-18 influx into Iraq. Thirdly, I am not aware of any official US position blaming Iran for the C-130 shootdown.

I'm just curious what people are using to base their opinion that we'll invade Iran in the very near future?

[jayfish]

63. Hello Herkdrvr...

and welcome to DU. Current events bear a striking resemblance to the run-up of our current conflict in Iraq. The timing, the tone, the language, it's uncanny. That's what I am basing my opinion on.

Jay

[Herkdrvr]

74. In my opinion...

Most of the hype is being self-induced. It's almost like some WANT another war to prove their fears. I'm basing my opinion on other things, such as operational experience.

[jayfish]

77. Some Do Want War...

and it's not who you think it is and it's not for the reasons you think.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1338069/posts

Read that thread, it's right on the front page.


Jay

[Herkdrvr]

80. I'm not denying...

...that there are some very pro-war nuts out there. Trust me, I hear it often...sometimes I run into these people and when they find out what I do they feel the need to say things like "we oughta just nuke those bastards", etc. I don't know if they live on another planet or what...but that's not what I'm talking about.

My own mother gets frantic over things regarding Bush (she absolutely hates him), and the prior to the elections all I heard was that Iraqis would be slaughtered wholesale and that no one would vote. Well, we all that doomsday scene didn't happen (other issues have cropped up, but that's another story). But I don't mean that some people WANT a war to prove how bad they think things are. But they way they talk, the decisions been made, and there's definitive proof that we'll invade Iran tomorrow.

I don't see those things. I DID see alot of the buildup concerning Iraq...not just the material being flown over there, but just talk within the squadrons, commanders telling us to "get ready", etc. None of that this time. Iran is basically a non-issue. If we're poised to invade, then they must've hired the entire Polish Army to do it because I don't know a single person who's talked about anything remotely involving an invasion of Iran.

[jayfish]

81. I'll Give You...

that one. I can't say with any certainty that it's going to happen. It's just a chain of events thing and a little deja-vu.

Jay

[Rex]

82. Those that fail to learn from history

are doomed to repeat it. That's proof enough for me.

[Inte11ectual]

53. anyone read the New Yorker article

about the special forces ops in Iran?

[Herkdrvr]

54. I have...

Or at least most of it. And I disagree about his assessment of the special ops forces that are supposedly in Iran.

[Just Me]

17. Now, whose psy-ops is this?

:shrug:

:evilgrin:

[Herkdrvr]

18. What do ya mean?

[coreystone]

21. North Viet Nam didn't have the technology to produce the weaponry..

that was unleashed against the French, English, or Americans. The armaments that the North Vietnamese utilized in that fiasco were provided by China and the USSR. We didn't go to war against either. Where the armaments came from is in the wind, the CIA, Military Intelligence, or, whomever.

Perhaps it was some American entrepreneur who misaligned their allegiances in "arms trading"???

Maybe Iran provided this weaponry? Maybe?

As Sergeant Joe Friday would say, "the facts ma'am, just the facts"!

Though, I am sure that the MSM will do its duty to do its spin politically correctly!

[Herkdrvr]

23. This is a different situation...

North Vietnam was a seperate country and had arms deals signed with China and Russia. The "insurgency" varies from terrorists to former Ba'athists to ethnic militants, and don't have any formal deals on the table.

It is quite possible that the C-130 was brought down with an SA-18...they are readily available through the black market and also through countries that do have arms deals with Russia.

Saddam's military had older generation missile systems like the SA-7 and SA-14. The -18 is more dangerous for a number of reasons that I won't go into here. But if it is an -18, it begs to wonder where did they get it from? If it came from the black market, not much we can do there...if it came from a sovereign third party (ie Iran, Syria, etc), then we can do something about it.

I doubt we're planning an invasion of Iran...that "story" was leaked by a reporter who does not understand the bigger picture in the region.

[Cocoa]

25. no "story" is needed to sense an attack on Iran

common sense will do.

And yeah, this spin about this missile sounds like part of the campaign. They go from "not a missile" to "an Iranian missile?" give me a break.

[Herkdrvr]

26. No one was seriously talking about any "Iran invasion" until that story

Those aircraft may have been operating in the country for other reasons. I'll leave it at that.

[henrik larssonisking]

27. give me an S, give me a Y, give me a R

give me a I, give me a A.

[Herkdrvr]

28. When I listed those countries...

I was just listing the ones with track records of doing such things. They may or may not have funneled SA-18 missiles to anyone...in fact there isn't any hard proof (outside the classified investigation) that it was even an SA-18...could've been any number of other things...but if I were a betting man I'd say some kind of shoulder-fired missile (known as MANPADs).

[Herkdrvr]

30. FYI...Syria recently signed a deal with Russia to purchase...

...SA-18s.

[henrik larssonisking]

34. yup, thats why i think if it was an SA18

the end user will read as beqqua valley, lebanon 20666

[mmonk]

40. So the neocons

are abandoning their plans?

[Don Claybrook]

31. Sy Hersch doesn't understand the "big picture"?

Oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up.

[Herkdrvr]

35. No he does not.

He's a writer sitting in an office...he'd like to pretend he knew what was going on but he doesn't.

[Just Me]

37. Why should I believe you know more?

:evilgrin:

[Herkdrvr]

38. Why?

Because I know what an MC-130H Talon II is, and I know what an MH-53M Pave Low IV is, and what these aircraft do. Sy would only pretend to know.

[Just Me]

41. I could spend about 15 seconds on the net and have your expertise.

Is that the only credential you have to offer?

[Herkdrvr]

43. I don't think you could spend 15 seconds and gain my expertise

I'm not trying to play a game here with you, it's just I don't feel it's very prudent to say certain things. Mr. Hersch, in my opinion, has his own politically-motivated reasons to write what he wrote. That's fine, he can do that. However, consider this. We know a bulk of al Qaida disappeared in Afghanistan and supposedly ran to Pakistan. The media has focused on Pakistan, yet nearly three years later, no luck.

Special ops aircraft like the MC-130H aren't used in risky operations that can be conducted using satellites, RC-135s or other C2ISR platforms.

In any event, this is a discussion forum...I'm not here to prove things to you, just spout my mouth off. I won't tell you exactly what I do or what I know. I will say that if you had my expertise, you'd know what I meant by saying the engineer will bark at you if you pull the throttles to flight idle and put the props into NTS. Anyone else in my line of work would clearly understand what that means, and why that is bad.

[Bhaisahab]

93. with all due respect

you may be an expert on the military, but i dont think anybody is an expert on the loonies that exercise political control over it. america has not seen lunatics of this kind ever. so i really would not be surprised if iran is attacked by september 2006. i got no facts, but i got this feeling, you see...

[Herkdrvr]

97. I'm not an "expert" on that...

...that being the inner circles of government. However from my point of view, there are certain things that don't fit with the idea that we're ramping up for an invasion of Iran.

First and foremost, prior to the Hersch article, there wasn't much talk about an invasion of Iran. Only until after his article was there more hype about it. Regarding the "special forces teams" that he said are in Iran...supposedly to "gather targeting info", that doesn't fit. Regardless of what you see in movies or read in novels, we don't use special forces teams to find targets. We have other platforms for that. Special forces teams are risky, and we would only put those personnel and systems in harms way for things that actually required their presence (like looking and search for someone).

On the other hand, prior to the Iraq war there was a general feeling in the military that it was going to happen. Reserve units were being called up out of the blue, AMC (Air Mobility Command) stopped flying channel missions and started flying contingency missions. Commanders were telling their troops to prepare for possible deployments.

That's not what I'm seeing now. In fact there's talk of reducing the C-130 deployment taskings. Other specialized C-130 units are slowing their deployment pacing as well. No one is talking about preparing for additional deployments. Instead of staying at the current pace or ramping up for another conflict, we're actually slowing down a bit. We wouldn't be if we were preparing to invade another country.

Seymour Hersch is a well known "opposition" writer. He's also an anti-war writer. That's how he makes his name. He doesn't talk about exact sources that are feeding him his information...for all we know the "intelligence" sources could be some kid working in the mail room (who really knows?). But from where I sit...what he's saying, and what I'm SEEING don't mix. Had he written an article about the impending Iraqi invasion I would have said he was correct, because we all knew something big was coming for many months, perhaps as far out as a year prior.

But anyways, that's just my .02 cents. If your "gut" tells you otherwise...well, that's your opinion.

[Don Claybrook]

60. Flying a C130 doesn't put you inside the head of the Bush Admin

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and then some. Knowing the technical details and capabilities of a particular aircraft doesn't give one an ounce of insight as to the reasoning behind doing reconnaisance work in Iran.

But that's almost beside the point. Seymour Hersch is no hack; he has a track record, and unless you're a member of the Joint Chiefs, I have to say that he regularly speaks to military types who have a much better picture of what's really happening than you are privy to.

[Psephos]

62. You're right, Hersh does have a track record

And it is spotty. Sometimes he gets things right, sometimes he gets them wrong.

Here are a few references to articles where he was very wrong.

Nov 12 2001 - Hersh analyzes the near-total reliance on special forces operations in the war in Afghanistan, and shows how the strategy is hopeless. The Taliban falls less than a month later.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/011112fa_FACT

April 7 2003 - Hersh investigates the military invasion of Iraq, shows how it is faltering badly, and denounces Tommy Franks as an incompetent Stepinfetchit to Rumsfeld. Baghdad falls April 9.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030407fa_fact1

There are a lot more cases where Hersh is wrong, and a lot more where he is right.

Look, Hersh makes his money pursuing controversial, anti-establishment stories. Being controversial is his schtick, how he pays the mortgage. I'm glad there are investigative reporters like Hersh. But he is not Bob Woodward.

Hersh is always interesting, but not always right. That's not an opinion, it's a fact that anyone can prove by merely checking the record. The smart policy is to read what he writes and give it due consideration, but then look for corroboration.

Peace.

[Don Claybrook]

64. He's no Woodward, you're right

Woodward became a sellout...not Hersch.

As to your other points...
Afghanistan: all fixed up now? Didn't think so? Problem? Taliban. Go figure.

Iraq: um, how was he wrong about this? Baghdad "fell", did it? Seems like the resistance just sort of melted away when the US got to Baghdad. Did you ever wonder what happened to that resistance? And how is Franks not a Stepandfetchit?

[Psephos]

84. I'm not persuaded

What's with the sneering tone? Do you realize how much that reduces the persuasiveness of your argument?

Apparently you didn't bother to follow the links to the Hersh pieces I mentioned before jumping in with your response. In fact, you don't even spell his name right.

I do not relish having to go into detail here. I feel like I'm doing some homework you could have done.

Re: your response -
"Afghanistan - all fixed up now? Didn't think so."
Actually, on balance, I rather do think so. However, I said nothing about the current state of Afghanistan. Unless all former members of the Taliban were rounded up and exiled, one would expect them to remain troublemakers in the remote provinces...and they have. But Afghanistan as a country is a vast improvement over the Taliban days. Hey, they actually play football in the football stadiums now, instead of use them to publicly shoot women in the back of the head for "crimes" against fundamentalist law. Under the Taliban, homosexuals were executed, and women beaten for being in public without a veil. Under the new government, women and homosexuals recently voted.

To get to the point, however, I pointed out a very specific analysis by Hersh in November 2001, where he "proved" how ineffective and doomed the reliance on special ops warfare was when taking on the Taliban. Instead, the Taliban melted like ice cream a few short weeks later. The special ops strategy was the right one after all, and Hersh looked pretty dumb.

As for Iraq, his article "proved" through insider reporting from unnamed high-level US commanders that the strategy of running hard and fast toward Baghdad was doomed by the "long tail" of logistics supply lines. Hersh's analysis is very clear on this: the strategy was doomed, and the war was in the process of rapidly reverting from an offensive to a defensive posture, aimed at protecting supply lines. (BTW, please avoid invoking the strawman of the postwar mess. Hersh was talking about the invasion strategy. From reading Hersh, one would gather there wouldn't even BE a postwar.)

Furthermore, Hersh avers that Franks kowtowed to Rumsfeld on the fast-run strategy, and was forced to use a strategy he didn't believe in. As Franks himself later said (and forcefully, too) in his book, Franks was the architect of the strategy, not Rumsfeld. He was the one who continued to press for it even after Turkey denied the use of the northern invasion route. The strategy worked, and Franks deserves the credit. Hersh was flat out wrong.

Despite your insinuation, Baghdad "fell" because the Iraqi army regulars were shocked to see the majority of their country's territory come under Alliance control in a matter of days. This was a centerpiece of Franks' strategy. They hated their officers, realized the Saddam Fedayeen who might have shot them for deserting were being neutralized, and that their lousy Russian surplus equipment was no match for the digital stuff being used against them. They realized if they surrendered, that maybe they wouldn't die.

Now, to repeat what I said in my earlier post, I have nothing against Hersh, and recommend that he always be read. Based on his record, however, one should seek further corroboration before accepting his word as gospel. That was my only point. Sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong, and that's just a fact of life for investigative journalists whose missions are to take on "the Man."

Last thing. If you want to be antiwar (as I vehemently do), then you have to study war, not just repeat ideological nostrums. Our political opponents are too sophisticated for anything less than our best efforts. They are smart, and we'd better be, too.

Peace.

[Herkdrvr]

99. Maybe...

...Hersch wrote his Iran piece to get back at those effective special ops troops!

No, really, I don't know what prompted him to write it. As for special ops troops in Iran...well, I won't say that he's wrong! But instead of looking for "targets" (that's what we have OTHER things for), they just might have another agenda.

As I said in another post, we've spent alot of publicity talking about the Pakistan border...we've sent conventional troops over to the border region...we've talked and talked about how top al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are supposedly hiding there. No one talked much about eastern Iran...

I just hope that we didn't flip the lights on too fast with that article and scare the roaches.

[Psephos]

102. An interesting take...and I do feel Hersh got it mostly right this time

But then what the hell do I know? :-)

As for the roaches, I also thought about that when I first read about covert operations over the border in Iran. Seems like a logical place to look, given the maxim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I am not a fan of war, or of its escalation once it's started. My belief is that if we can ferret out a few hiding bad guys in, say, Iran, then further military adventures may be avoided.

Herk, I like how every one of your posts adds information, in addition to opinion. Maybe some of that info is wrong (not that I've noticed any so far), but it is clearly offered with the aim of furthering discussion, and not to protect some pet view. I hope you keep posting frequently.

What's that old saying? "Each person is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

[Herkdrvr]

104. Thanks, and in response

I won't go so far to say that an Iranian invasion will never happen...I've been surpised before, and there are different levels of "invasion". It's just that after talking to friends who would be in a position to know, I don't believe the special operations forces that were or weren't in Iran were there to start a war.

If anything, using special forces to find "targets" would only perhaps be needed in congested areas where satellite, U-2 and RC-135 imagery/EW filtering would be inhibited to some degree by the closeness of everything. Yet supposedly these forces were out in the remote parts of Iran...we've got imagery systems that would easily document every part of any "target" without risking special ops insertion teams or the aircrews that get them there.

And again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Funny thing is I told a family member who was pissed that we had "forgotten" al Qaida that we were indeed still searching for them...just not perhaps only in Pakistan...maybe a little further west of Afghanistan (wink wink). Then Hersch's story came out and this same family member complained to me about the "illegal" presence of US forces in Iran and they were there to start a war...I had to respond that "hey, don't you remember what I was telling you about looking for bad guys?".

[happyslug]

107. I do not know if Hersh was wrong on those two occasions

First, Afghanistan was going badly, the Spec Ops Troops WERE not overthrowing the Taliban. That is what Hersh reported, and the next thing you have is an ARMORED THRUST from the Northern Alliance. The first question is where did this Armor Division come from? Previous to the US Intervention the Northern Alliance was holding its own, but was in NO POSITION TO ATTACK. The Taliban had forced everyone out of the Pathan dominated areas of Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance was reduced to the Non-Pathan areas. Than you had 911, than the Spec Ops attacks on the Taliban, than the Armored thrust from the Northern Alliance.

The story I heard at the time was the Armor Division used was an Russian unit made up of the same Nationality as the Northern Alliance. That this unit was paid for by the US. Thus it was NOT Spec Ops that forced the Taliban out but this Russian equipped US Paid for armor unit (Through the way for the Armor Thrust was paved by the Special Forces). Thus Hersh was right the Spec Op Offensive was NOT working so the CIA purchased an Armored Division to do the job right. This later fact was NOT available for Hersh (Or anyone else in the Pentagon) thus Hersh report is based on how the Pentagon was looking at the situation, which was grim until the Armor Thrust.

The sad part of this is that the late Attack by the Armor Forces permitted the Taliban to fall back on its own supplies. Given that the armor Attack was so late after the initial attack by Spec Ops, the Taliban could determine what was next. Once Tanks were committed in the form of the Armor Divisional Attack the Taliban rather than fight the Armor Attack melted back into the population and are waiting their time for the US to tire of Afghanistan. Remember do to the lateness of the Armor Attack the Taliban leadership and Cadre were NOT captured. Omar is still on the loose along with bin Laden. Without the Capture of the Leadership of the Taliban and Al Queda the whole attack on Afghanistan was a waste of time and resources.

As to the Second "Failure" of Hersh, it was clear to anyone who looked at the battle situation in Iraq that as long as the Iraqi Army kept the US forces outside the borders of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, the US was losing the War. The Iraqi conceded from day one US armor movements north and south of those rivers. Iraq did not have the ability to stop the US operating in those areas and did not try. The Iraqi army stayed where it could have protection from US Air Superiorly by staying in the area of Iraq watered by its two main rivers.

Thus the US in the Suburbs of Baghdad was no big deal in itself. The US could reach Baghdad via the Desert, the US could keep its forces supplied via the desert, but could those force enter AND stay in Baghdad? That was the question. Up till the Fall of Baghdad the Iraqi war was going the way anyone in Saddam's position would have expected it to go. The US Forces being kept south of the Euphrates and North of the Tigris and thus outside Baghdad, as long as that was the situation Saddam was "Winning" the war. It was at that point that the US had to storm Baghdad, this was going to be where the US was going to suffer a lot of causalities, and than the Iraqi Army collapsed. IT had held together till than and then Collapsed. Baghdad fell. Reports were made of Confusing orders (and a Cargo Airplane being permitted to land and take off from a Baghdad Military Airport). Some report implied at that time the leadership of the Iraqi Military gave conflicting orders to the troops so that they stopped acting together instead acted like troops without leadership (or orders). The US in this confusion moved into Baghdad and Declared Victory (And most of the Iraqi Army stopped Fighting).

I have NEVER heard of an satisfactory explanation for the fall of Baghdad (Except for the report that the Iraqi army high Command had been bribed by the the CIA to Confuse their own troops and than to Surrender those troops, the bribe would explained that plane permitted to land and take off).

Again sounds like a CIA job more than a Pentagon job. Almost like the CIA pulled the Pentagon out of the fix the Pentagon had ended up in (and costs a lot of money and revelation of CIA Agents to do). Again Hersh connections are in the Pentagon NOT the CIA and again the CIA may have pulled the Pentagon out of a fix it had found itself in.

My Point here is that Hersh's report in both situation seems to have been CORRECT, but than the CIA saved the Pentagon. The next question can the CIA save the Pentagon again if Bush goes into Iraq?

Here an Article on Iraqwar.ru and its reports during this time period:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/04/60808.shtml

[Herkdrvr]

67. You're right...

I'm not at the head of the Bush administration...

I suppose doing what I do wouldn't provide me with any insights at all! You're right...I spend each and every day flying training missions around my home base. And my friends, who all fly various models of the C130, also have no clue either.

Thanks for setting me straight...I forgot all I do is sit around and read about technical capabilities of my airplane. The same airplanes that perform...nevermind.

[ewagner]

101. Okay...

I know what a C-130 is and I know what an AC-130 is, but what is a MC-130H?

[Herkdrvr]

105. Different C-130s

AC-130H Spectre/AC-130U Spooky: gunships

HC-130P King: Rescue, refuels rescue helicopters, drops rescue supplies (both normal rescue and combat rescue)

MC-130E Combat Talon I: special ops infiltration/exfiltration, can refuel special ops helicopters

MC-130H Combat Talon II: special ops infiltration/exfiltration and will soon add the capability of refueling spec ops helicopters

MC-130P Combat Shadow: limited infiltration/exfiltration, mainly used to refuel special ops helicopters

EC-130H Compass Call: Jams enemy communications

EC-130E/J Commando Solo: Broadcasts propaganda/information/etc

Regular C-130 versions include the C-130E (T56-A-7 engines), C-130H1 (T56-A-15 engines with E model flight deck), C-130H2 (addition of updated flight deck) and the C-130H3 (modern "glass" cockpit with digital avionics). There's also the C-130J (totally updated C-130...only about 30% commonality between the older Herks).

[ewagner]

106. Thanks........

I love hercky-birds....was only able to "big-deal" my way aboard one back in '71....mostly hauled around on C-141s and KC-135s (my favorite of all-time AF hacks.)

[Magleetis]

39. Just because you

fly a C-130 doesn't mean you understand the big picture in the ME. I doubt that you know if we are preparing to attack Iran. Most C-130 pilots I knew when I was in the Navy just followed orders like everyone else. Thank you for your service and I hope that you stay safe in Boooshes illegal war.

[Herkdrvr]

45. Navy C-130s

...they are typically fleet support, not tactical airlifters or used for special operations.

[jayfish]

69. Someone Better Explain The "Big...

picture to the base of the Republican party then. They sense blood in the water and want more. If it were up to them they would unleash every horror in the US arsenal against the entire Middle-East. They wouldn't bat an eyelash about it either. They are someones' constituents they are vocal and well organized. If the Bush administration has some secret about the big-picture they better let their flock in on it and stop fucking around.

Jay

[makhno]

33. At least six?

That'd seem to indicate that the insurgents don't particularly worry about expending the last of a bottomless supply.

If SA-18s are so widely available, I'm surprised we haven't seen more successful attacks on US aircraft (two publicized so far? the DHL and the C-5 one?). Or maybe we have, just not fatal and no one was around to take the pictures afterward.

Who knows what really goes on there, it's not like reporters can either talk to insurgent sources or get realistic information from the US military.

[Herkdrvr]

36. Tactics change

Early in the conflict they (the insurgents) used a variety of missiles and other weapons, on a singular scale usually. I can't get into specifics, but they've been observant and have attempted to adapt...that and they figured out that 25 year old missiles are almost worthless.

As for the 6 missile shot...they aren't always all missile shots.

[Just Me]

42. Why don't you educate yourself about PNAC.

www.pnac.info

Get the "big picture",...one beyond your box of weapons specialization. One that might give you a picture of WHY your weapons skills are being USED.

Just offerin'

You can always take or reject, your choice.

[Herkdrvr]

44. My job isn't politics

Sorry

[makhno]

46. War is an extension of politics ...

... by other means. I personally like to understand what forces shape my world and drive my actions. An informed citizenry is essential in a democracy, since we actually have a responsibility for (indirectly) making political decisions.

Stay safe.

[Herkdrvr]

47. But would you want a military run by politically-motivated officers?

I wouldn't. All that aside, I didn't jump into this thread to get political...just saw how some indicated that this was a "new" thing...and as for Iran...from where I sit I just don't see this "invasion" happening. I see something entirely different that was distorted by a certain writer.

[henrik larssonisking]

48. interesting and informative answers mate.

[Magleetis]

49. If you

don't want to discuss politics why are you on a political board?

[Herkdrvr]

50. Sometimes...

I do like to talk politics. Being considering my profession, I won't get into arguements about Bush being blamed for SA-18s or whatever. I just didn't intend to get political in this thread. Sometimes I see postings that have inaccurate info about things I've experienced and I post stuff for the record. Nothing more.

[Rex]

56. For the record?

No offense, but around here that means little without some kind of credentials. Nothing against you - just how it works around here.

[Herkdrvr]

79. Credentials...

If I worked at a bank, then perhaps I could tell you all my experiences online. But I can't. You can probably conclude that I fly C-130s for the Air Force. And I've flown various other aircraft as well for a number of years. That being said, there are many different C-130s out there, and they all have different missions. And we all attend the same schools and get based at the same forward locations. And we all like to talk over beer. Not everything comes out in these discussions...but you glean quite a bit about what your friends are up to, and they learn the same about you.

[Rex]

57. So the officers in the Pentagon are not politically motivated?

Interesting.

[Herkdrvr]

68. They aren't supposed to be..and many aren't

Just because there might be some that are doesn't mean that I have to be as well.

[Rex]

70. You're Top Brass?

So you are Top Brass at the Pentagon? Hmmmmmmmm...

[Herkdrvr]

72. What are you talking about?

I didn't say that...the assertion was that officers assigned to the Pentagon are politically motivated. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that most are not. Earlier in my career I flew C-21 VIP jets, and Pentagon "brass" was our most popular clientele. Not to mention my father and many other people I have known in my career worked there. You forget that the vast majority of the officers at the Pentagon are not generals and admirals.

[Rex]

78. You said the ones that run the military

that's not the top brass? I took run as to mean 'runs the show'. My mistake.

[Laurab]

59. But isn't that exactly what we have?

"A military run by politically-motivated officers?" Seems to me that's what we've had for quite a while now. This administration does not listen to any real "military" people, they ignore them, fire them, or ask them to resign.

The "certain writer" has a very good record for being right on target, particularly when it comes to this administration and their follies.

[Herkdrvr]

71. If you want to talk about...

...the upper levels of the Pentagon, like the service secretaries and others, you'd be correct that many are politically motivated. However, that's not what I'm referring too. 95% of the military's officer corps does not work at the Pentagon, nor do many of us have the desire to do so. We do have our personal political bias and we exercise our right to vote how we please. But we do not participate in open politics.

[Laurab]

83. Yes, but at the end of the day

aren't they the ones who make the rules and plans that the officers have to follow, whether or not they agree with them? That's certainly what it seems like to me, because most military people tend not to agree with this administration or it's policies, yet, they are the ones who have to act on them. Accountability falls on the little guys, policy on the big ones. Sure you can vote how you please, and maybe your vote is even counted, but isn't the policy politically motivated, and isn't that the only thing that really matters, as far as what we, as a country, do with our military?

[Herkdrvr]

103. At the end of the day, every decision...

...made, regardless of party, is a political one. Everyone injects their own views, -isms, and ideals into the decisions they make, then twists it to make it more acceptable. As you know, there are politics within the workplace, at the home, and anywhere for that matter.

But regarding partisan politics (ie, RNC vs DNC), military officers typically stay clear of claiming one or the other. Be that it may, "defense spending" is often seen as an RNC issue, and since military officers deal with improving, enlarging or otherwise doing anything with defense, their positions are viewed as "RNC".

Secondly, we exist to serve the public via the president, congress and the judiciary. The only thing we aren't allowed to do is carry out illegal orders. Illegal, that is, in the context of the judiciary (ie US criminal code, Constitutionality), NOT international treaties (the President and Congress determine if we will adhere to treaties or not).

Just as we are projecting Bush's foreign policies, we did the same with respect to Clinton's. And who ever occupies the White House in January 2009, we'll continue to do the same then, as well.

[paineinthearse]

66. Now probably in the archives....

....another thread ad a photo of an Iraqui army mobile SA-18 launch vehicle. They were part of the army arsenal, why is it such a stretch that "insurgents" could not get their hands on one (or many more).

Of course the M$M will point the finger at Iran.

Shades of Gulf of Tonkin.

[Herkdrvr]

75. There is no SA-18 "launch vehicle"

The SA-18 is a development of the SA-7, and falls into the category of MAN-Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) missiles...shoulder-launched missiles that is. And the Iraqi military did not have the SA-18.

[DistantWind88]

94. That was an SA-13

Not an SA-18

[ausiedownunderground]

73. Likely 6 "Iglas" used to overwhelm countermeasures.

More and more sophisticated missile systems will fall into the hands of the guerrillas. This is no surprise as the "rest of the World" is severely "pissed off" with America. You have few friends left in the world. Putin offloads more and more sophisticated missiles to ensure the US continues to be "bogged down" in the Iraqi quagmire -So What! If Israel can get whatever weapons they want why can't Syria,Iran,Venezuela,China,Iraqi Guerrillas etc etc get what they want. Russian missile systems are far ahead of US countermeasure systems. If the guerrillas get their hands on a lot of these missile systems US air superiority will be severely compromised. As a lot of logistical support around Iraq is now being airlifted due to safety reasons the arrival of these types of missile systems will be ringing the alarm bells at CENTCOM!. However it still could have been a bomb on board or a faulty shell going off in cargo or a black-ops operation by Mossad. I'm fascinated by how they identified a missile as Iranian? Do they have markings of origin on them??? written in Persian??

[Herkdrvr]

76. No, your a bit off

Russia isn't selling arms to countries to "bog" down the US in Iraq. Russia has always sold arms to anyone who had the cash. They have never been very discriminating. One of the industries that Russia makes money on is the arms industry.

I have to take issue with your claim that the Russian missiles can defeat US countermeasures. I can't say why, but that's not entirely accurate. And I haven't read anything that definitively says the missile came from Iran.

[bvar22]

85. There is one C-130...

...that couldn't defeat this missle.
How many more?

[Psephos]

86. The C-130 in question was RAF, not USAF n/t

[bvar22]

87. Are we keeping secrets from the British....

...our valiant coalition allies and partners in International War
Crimes?

If this were true, and I were British....

[Psephos]

88. No, but each country uses its own avionics and countermeasures n/t

[bvar22]

90. What you say makes sense.

IIRC, even in GW1, the British had to stay out of the AA Hotspots because of limitations of their electronic countermeasures.

[Herkdrvr]

100. The Brits...

...have their own way of doing things, for better or worse.

[Gyre]

91. Well, HDvr I think you make sense.

Welcome to DU! We could use some informed opinions on issues like this. :)

Gyre

[Stockholm]

95. "Military accident investigators believe" n/t