AP: Taliban may have shot down chopper (Afghanistan)

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.kbcitv.com/x5154.xml?ParentPageID=x5155&ContentID=x51828&Layout=KBCI.xsl&AdGroupID=x5154&URL=http://localhost/apwirefeed/d8b0pio80.xml&NewsSection=InternationalHeadlines

KABUL, Afghanistan There's word that a rocket fired by the Taliban may have brought down a U-S military helicopter in Afghanistan.

The military says the C-H-47 Chinook helicopter went down today while flying troops into eastern Afghanistan. There's no word on the fate of those on board.

A provincial governor tells The Associated Press that the chopper was hit with a Taliban rocket. And a man who purportedly speaks for the Taliban called The Associated Press before news of the crash was made public -- and claimed that the rebels had brought it down. But the man has made such claims before, and they haven't always proven true.

[pie]

1. That's a big boy

Let's hope it wasn't full

[Minstrel Boy]

2. They brought down Soviet gunships.

So why not Chinooks?

[Herkdrvr]

6. Different tactics and equipment

Afghanistan is full of arms, but most of the weapons that can reach out and touch a helicopter are RPGs and SA-7 type weapons. Most of the Stingers were either used, sold to someone else, or don't work anymore.

That, and US Army tactics are vastly different than how the Russian military flew their aircraft.

[Stockholm]

31. Maybe all the old Stingers are gone

But don´t you think another country could come up with the same idea as the US in the 80`s...

[Herkdrvr]

33. Those threats already exist

Advanced MANPADs are already in the country. Not anywhere near as common as the older systems (SA-7s), but they are there.

[ismnotwasm]

3. Wouldn't surprise me

Where are they getting rockets from? Lord this all so sick.

[htuttle]

4. Peshawar

Big arms bazaar there.

[Kraklen]

11. United States?

I wouldn't be surprised if they'd cached some stingers.

[Herkdrvr]

12. More unlikely...

The vast majority of the arms over there were made in Russia. The few Stingers that may still exist in the country may not even be operational.

[greendeerslayer]

17. Lets Hope Putin Wants To "Play Nice,""

Cause if he were to cut loose some SAMs to the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe even a few SPETSNATZ teams to provide technical support (the equivalent of what we did to the USSR in the 80s), then we'd have a much bloodier war on our hands

[Herkdrvr]

18. I doubt you'll see any Russians

It would be very unlikely to see Russian forces in Afghanistan. Political and domestically he Putin can't afford it. The missiles, on the other hand...they will sell them to anyone with the cash. Lately, the issues with the missiles involve Syria buying up SA-18s and then having these systems show up in Iraq.

[izzie]

5. Guess paying off the tribes does not work.

This is sure the same group that Queen Victory set up to run the Crimean War. That is the war where every thing went wrong. Right? And it really is a good move building more jails in Iraq. Saddam will love that.

[daleo]

7. Bush speech-writers will have to do a quick re-write

"Better play up the sacrifice and revenge for 911 angle, and play down the democracy bit. We got a big helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Say we've linked it to to a direct order from Ossama....I know we haven't, but that doesn't matter."

[whistle]

8. The helicopters remain very vulnerable in combat.....

...not to mention their fuel consumption, For example, a CH-47D Chinook helicopter consumes 130000 gallons of fuel in its
effort to refuel the force with 200000 gallons.

<snip>
The Helicopter's Grim Future in Modern Combat
December 3, 2003
by Ralph Omholt

Despite our rapid defeat of the Iraqi army last spring, one clear lesson that has emerged from both the combat and occupation phases of the war is that the entire concept of helicopter operations in battle is undermined by their extreme vulnerability to ground fire.
Unlike our experience in the jungles and wooded mountains of Vietnam, the helicopter is a prime and easy target in desert and urban warfare environments such as we have seen in Somalia, and are still seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The combat record of the helicopter in Vietnam was different from subsequent battlefields. That was true by virtue of the limitations of the Viet Cong-NVA firing accuracy, the limitations of their weaponry - including quantity - and the visual limitations of the jungle or forests which served to protect the helicopters flying overhead. It was also true that the UH-1 Huey was a simple and tough helicopter, easily repaired. The application of the helicopter was uniquely successful in a unique environment. And, their relatively low cost ensured that quantity was rarely a factor.

The harsh reality is that today the helicopter is a terrible choice of troop transport or firepower against any competent or well-equipped force - of any size. Whether in Mogadishu 10 years ago or Iraq today, the helicopter equation has changed for the worse. Typically, the adversary's ground arms are more available. And whether by luck or skill, the effectiveness of enemy ordnance is far greater than that experienced in Vietnam.

While the details remain unclear eight months after the fact, the only major battle in the Iraq war centered on U.S. attack helicopters ended in mission failure. The raid involved 40 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters that attacked Iraqi Republican Guard units south of Baghdad on March 24. One was shot down (the two crewmen taken prisoner) and 30 returned to base having sustained severe damage. The Washington Post subsequently reported:
"In attacking a formation of about 40 Apache Longbows on Monday, the Iraqis staged a classic helicopter ambush first perfected by the North Vietnamese in the 1960s. As the lethal, tank-killing aircraft approached on a mission to destroy the Medina Division's dispersed armor, troops dispersed throughout a palm-lined residential area and opened fire with antiaircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenades and a wall of fire from rifles and other small arms. ... "The Iraqi fire was so intense that the Apaches had to break off their mission and return to base."

<more>
<link> http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_120303_Helicopter,00.html

<snip #2>
Fueling the Force in the Army After Next—Revolution or Evolution?

by Captain Marc Lawton and Captain Tacildayus Andrews

Today's Army is heavily dependent on oil and its byproducts as the primary fuel for the force. Yet oil reserves are limited. Current predictions indicate that the decline of oil reserves will coincide with the timeline for implementing Army After Next (AAN) technologies. AAN plans for the year 2025 and beyond call for a more fuel-efficient Army—in particular, making fossil fuel powered vehicles up to 75 percent more efficient. Unfortunately, little or no effort is being directed toward developing and using alternative energy sources. This is a shortsighted plan that leaves the Army vulnerable to another 1970's-like oil crisis. Now is the time to pursue a revolution in technology rather than merely accepting the currently proposed evolution in technology. Logic and national security concerns mandate a complete break from fossil fuel dependence. One such revolutionary change is the use of hydrogen—a resource that no country or organization can monopolize—as a fuel.

<more>
<link> http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JulAug99/MS406.htm

[Herkdrvr]

9. They will be useful for the foreseeable future.

Helicopters aren't any more vulnerable than anything else on the battlefield. Just depends on the threat environment and the tactics used. The article above (the first one), it seems the author is fairly ignorant of a few things.

[rainbow4321]

10. Up to 20 on US chopper down in Afghanistan

Crap,crap,crap...15-20 on board.


http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-06-28T200430Z_01_N28476739_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-DC.XML


A big U.S. military Chinook helicopter that crashed in Afghanistan on Tuesday was carrying between 15 and 20 American troops, according to preliminary reports, a U.S. defense official said.

There was no immediate indication of the fate of the passengers or the cause of the crash, according to the U.S. military. But an Afghan official said that a rocket was fired at the helicopter.

"A rocket was fired at an American helicopter in the district," said the official in Kunar province, who requested anonymity.

In Washington, the U.S. defense official, who asked not to be identified, cautioned at the Pentagon that early reports were sketchy from the rugged area near the border with Pakistan where the twin-rotor CH-47 went down. "Reports indicate between 15 and 20 were aboard," said the official

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. Seems to be another pitched battle going on behind the scenes

in Afghanistan. The Taliban is very persistent and able to wear down the opposition. This will go on for years.

[Herkdrvr]

15. Granted, Taliban is resiliant...

but that's why the US is trying to create a stable society in Afghanistan that won't put up with the Taliban.

And you can't use the Soviet's performance in Afghanistan as a measuring stick...they did a very poor job. The US military is much more effective at fighting them than the USSR ever was. Now I didn't say the US is perfect, but over time the Taliban will continue to see tactical defeats while the country as a whole develops to a point where the Taliban is moot.

[mbperrin]

19. You surely remember that the US put the Taliban in to fight the

Soviets, and that the Soviets lost, right?

Do you think Karzai has any control beyond Kabul?

[Herkdrvr]

22. The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet era

The Taliban, per se, formed in the mid-1990s.

The Soviets lost for a variety of reasons, mostly because they had no real interest in developing a more open society in Afghanistan, secondly because their military wasn't set up to fight such a war...the commanders failed to adapt the tactics.

[mbperrin]

30. No, as a few minutes Google will reveal:

just the first hit:
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm
“CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban”

LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."
Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.
Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster." more....

[Herkdrvr]

34. Any Jihadist does not equal Taliban

In the 1980s, the CIA did recruit and fund jihadist to fight the Soviets. But they were not the Taliban. They existed in several loosely formed Islamic "freedom fighter" groups that operated in various parts of the country. After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, those groups then turned against each other, and the group that would become the Taliban emerged victorious in the mid-1990s.

But prior to 1989, the Taliban, per se, did not exist. It was formed from other militant jihadist groups at a later date.

Additionally, the CIA funded the jihadists and provided them with weapons, but don't fool yourself to think that the CIA "created" the jihadist movement. That was already going on prior to CIA involvement, and the CIA only served to organize and equip them in a limited degree. The US did not fully train and fully equip the militants, they were only provided some help.

So I do have contention with the claim that the US "created" the Taliban.

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. The only thing that is stable in Afghanistan in the opium trade

Don't kid yourself.

[Herkdrvr]

24. I did say "try"

[Qanisqineq]

14. Very sad

Even if there were survivors, it sounds like it was in a rugged area that would be difficult to get to.

:cry:

[Herkdrvr]

16. The Army is set up for such issues...

During operations like that, there are rescue and recovery forces nearby. We've got a long history of providing effective rescue to downed aircraft.

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. That's good, because they sure need it don't they?

[Herkdrvr]

23. Sometimes they do

[killbotfactory]

25. I thought we won Afghanistan?

Mission Accomplished?

[JohnyCanuck]

32. Mission not accomplished 'till the pipeline gets built

That's the one that they wanted to build long before 911, but which the president of Unocal said they couldn't build until Afghanistan had a government they could deal with.

From the 1998 Congressional record, a speach by John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation:

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war.From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company. (emphasis added)

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have worked very closely with the University of Nebraska at Omaha in developing a training program for Afghanistan which will be open to both men and women, and which will operate in both parts of the country, the north and south.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopolitical challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline.As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.(emphasis added)

From the BBC Dec 27, 2002

An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation.

This follows a summit meeting bringing together the presidents of the three countries last May when the project received formal go-ahead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

More (including full text of Maresca's speach) at: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

Sure was convenient of Osama to strike when he did to give a ready-made excuse to launch an invasion that had already been planned for the Fall of 2001.

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

[spinbaby]

26. I'm not noticing this story on the news tonight

Being buried for the speech?

[BlueStateBlue]

27. I'm so glad we got rid of the Taliban before we went into Iraq n/t

[leftchick]

28. chimpy** says that repeatedly

"The Taliban are gone from Afghanistan"!!! just number 1,397,456,028 in the list of his** LIES!

[plasticsundance]

29. The situation in Afghanistan is getting worse.

The UN put out a 2004 report that says many conditions are deteriorating among the general population. Some in the Afghan government have already tried to offer Omar amnesty. He flatly refused it. The Afghan government nor the US can control the war lords. The war lords are truly in charge of the country, and they play both sides, the Afghan government and the Taliban.

It's a mess that is almost virtually ignored by the MSM.