Onward
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Operation Flintlock
06 August 2011
Zhari District, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan
A tragic loss of dozens of Americans and Afghan partners has occurred. Apparently their helicopter was shot down during a raid. The investigation is underway.
This sad day will not deter or slow US forces. No doubt that tonight other helicopter assaults are underway. The image above was made last weekend just minutes before we infiltrated using CH-47 helicopters – similar to the helicopter that was just lost – into the middle of a Taliban stronghold. During the next two days there were 27 firefights. 4-4CAV lost one Soldier KIA and two others wounded. The enemy faired far worse.
These missions are dangerous. This is the profession of arms and this is war. Everyone here knows the risks. The Soldiers here and I would do another such mission tonight. It’s time to pay our respects and move forward to prosecute the enemy.
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
Troops of this quality are precious - on the face of it, it seems crazy to risk so many in one helo.
Next time we should consider sending 40 helicopters with one troop each.
This is war. We take our chances.
Michael
Thank you Michael for continuing to give your time and energy.
Because this was one MF mission!
Unfortunately, as it's SPECOPS, we will never know what that mission was.
RIP to those brave soldiers, and prayers for those left behind.
Mr. Yon you're the man, but that was a ridiculous thing to say; no one is suggesting a soldier per chopper.
With all due respect, Obama doesn't give a damn.
Semper Fi Seal Team 6. You died doing your job. Its all anyone can ask for.
Guy was being ridiculous in his comment. Maybe the post just made Mike go "PUH-LEASE" kinda like it did me. MY first reaction was "how ridiculous! What they're supposed to only have 4 or 5 guys per chopper? Get real!" Mike wasn't being ridiculous - ask a ridiculous question & get a ridiculous comment. Go off the wall w/ some lame brain comment and ya mite get one in return. Jes sayin.
Just not Judy. Sorry
Is it normal to have notoriously untrustworthy Afghan forces on the same heli with so many of our elite troops?
Somehow, I feel down in my gut, that there was a leak or security breach.
Thanks for the photo and dispatch. Please tell the troops that we appreciate them and are praying for them and trying to elect leaders worthy of them.
And Mike ... Stay Safe!
James F. McClellan
Rest in pace
Obama?? You know how many of our troops assume he MADE SURE seal team 6 couldn't tell tales??? This nation isn't long for the maps people, 2012 is do-or-die time.
could teach those running the war certain lessons about our enemy, once and for all.
One too frequently feels our troops are not getting the support and backing they must have.why, I wonder, are we afraid of the goal and the word, "Victory"?
Bless all of their families and the others serving for us so we can be free.
Oftentimes they position themselves to take a short-range, easy shot during infil or exfil as this is when they are vulnerable. Being this was a QRF mission, they likely assumed more acft were coming. (not sharing any secrets that the enemy doesn't know quite well)
Alex
I guess I was saying what I would do if I was in his shoes.
I am still very dubious that it was necessary to have nearly 40 elite troops on one helo. The Bin Laden operation did not use 1 Chinook to carry that many troops - so why was it necessary here?
There have been many incidents here in the UK of the government and defence bureaucrats risking the lives of British troops for no good reason. In Iraq we came very close to losing 50 members of the SAS (which may be 10% of the entire SAS) when a C-130 was shot down. The C-130 was lost because it had not been fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks in order to save $100,000. That kind of risk simply does not make sense. To risk 10% of your most elite troops to save $100,000 is just stupid.
Of course war involves taking chances, but the question is are they sensible chances and was it the operational commanders choosing to take them? Or are the chances being forced on them by bureaucrats?
Perhaps you could explain to us all why exactly it is 'lame brain' to question why 40 elite troops were on 1 helicopter.
Is it unreasonable to argue that perhaps no more than 10 or 15 elite troops should ever be on 1 helo?
I take the view that the government has the duty to shift heaven and earth to minimise the casualties of its military.
It should be the first priority of government from the President downwards to ensure that all that can be done is done. Everyone in government and the country has a right and duty to ask these questions.
Here in the UK we see lazy government bureaucrats in our 'Ministry of Defence' pampering themselves with all sorts of benefits and bonuses and leaving troops to die for no good reason. For years the UK government was sending troops out in Iraq and Afghanistan in small SUV-type vehicles which were death traps. There was no good reason for it.
It should be the number 1 priority of government and military leaders to ensure that the military is given all it reasonably can be to minimise casualties.
But from a purely military point of view it makes perfect sense to give a higher level of resources to special forces formations. On average the missions carried out by special forces will be more dangerous and technically demanding than those carried out by other troops. In addition the resources put into selecting and training elite troops are greater than other troops so it makes sense to protect them even more highly. Finally the war in Afghanistan appears highly dependent on special forces and therefore their loss is even more serious than that of non-special forces.
31 gems "creme de la creme" cut down along with "the budget" ...
We will never know what the mission was: BUT it's all aver the news that's 31 SEALS lost at once and Karzai toots it the FIRST ...
A key motivating factor for Bin Laden was the perception that the West was weak. Each time we got hit in the past - the Beirut marine barracks and Somalia for example - Bin Laden saw that we withdrew.
He believed that all you had to do was to keep hitting the West and we would keep withdrawing and eventually submit to his demands.
The Western reaction to 9/11 represented the end of our retreat. The war in Afghanistan has been critical in dismantling much of Al-Qaeda and in killing Bin Laden. The war has in fact been far more successful than many predicted in 2001.
Don't think for one second that a withdrawl would be cost free. Your enemies remember withdrawls and defeats and will come after you.
Alas all any of us who must go on can do is remember. RIP, the world is poorer for your loss.
Have you ever been on an operation like that? Fewer helos means less noise less movement quicker deploy times etc. Don't question our militarys operatives, we have the best in the world. Thats what happens when good people go downrange, sometimes its the bad guys that get all the luck, thats all. We can't win all the time, they just got really lucky with one rocket. Could have happened a lot more, maybe this WILL make them break up the teams smaller, who knows? Just don't put conspiracy where none belongs, 41 guys happens to be a platoon, bro.
What a tragic loss of these wonderful, selfless people. God Bless all our great men and women in the service.
Who says I am questioning your military? What I am questioning is why so many troops on 1 helicopter. Was it a purely operational decision or did it result from inadequate support?
Here in the UK, time and again the government has cost the lives of soldiers for no good reason except bureaucratic laziness and indifference. And no one is ever held to account.
Political Correctness and naive ROE's is foundation for putting our soldiers at unnecessary risk while conducting missions.
Michael, do you have info? Can you find out? There is concern that these men might have been taken down by "friendly fire" because they had knowledge of the Bin Laden raid to protect Obama's ass. If so, the usual outlets and even the military will NOT report what happened.
One mistake, here: NOT "friendly fire" but fire from tipped-off Taliban. This is not my theory and it may be incompetent, but it is interesting. See what you think.
The sad fact is that the Chinook, or any other helicopter, is vulnerable in the terrain and operational parameters of Afghanistan to this type of attack. The soldiers themselves know this and accept the risk. The Taliban know it and try to exploit it. This time the Taliban won. We will go on, they would want us to.
God rest their souls and comfort their family and friends.
Clearly if you fly a Chinook time and again through mountains into firefights sooner or later you are going to lose some either through crashes or enemy fire.
The objective therefore must be to minimise the costs of losing a helicopter. The obvious answer is to limit the number of troops on each helo except in truly exceptional circumstances.
Now I am reading that a National Guard helo was used in this mission when more than 1 Spec Ops helo was available. So, why 40 troops on 1 helo and why not a Spec Ops helo?
This should be investigated.
I have also read that a National Guard helo was used when 1 or more Spec Ops helos were available. If true this should be investigated.
However I do not think it credible at all that Obama or anyone in the US government/mili tary was involved in any way in the deliberate destruction of this helo.
Just think - how exactly would Obama get this done, even if he wanted it done? Who does he ask to do it? How do they keep it secret? How exactly would it benefit Obama? What is this information he is trying to keep secret? I'm no fan of Obama, but it just makes no sense.
I AGREE, too!
To the other person no I've not been on this kind of mission but I probably have 100s of friends and family who have. So tell me have you masterminded an op like this one?
Thank you Michael. I'm getting sick and tired of these armchair qb's and their conspiracy theories. Unless you're there involved in the mission you have no idea what was going on. Leave it at that. May God Bless these brave men and their families.
RIP you valiant warriors. In spite of anything that the politicos throw at you, you are beacons of freedom and integrity to anyone who sees you throughout the whole wide world.
We will send in a contribution. We hope others will also.
We mourn everyone of these including our Allies and the interpreter who perished in the Chinook. We also should never "put down" anyone who would ask hard questions about why, when, and where. That is how we learn and do better next time.
So onward!
From Joseph Patrick Meissner (LTC-RET)
Editor of Daily PSYOP FRONTPOST Letter and of POA Journal of "Perspectives"
meissnerjoseph
An H-60 has a mission endurance of 2.3 hours,
H-47 has a mission endurance of 5
The reported bin laden operation was the assult, it went well so the QRF troops were not needed, you are continuing to display your lack of knowledge the more you try to espouse your conspiriacy theories so just stop. carrying
That is just plain wrong. That sort of thinking is a large part of the problem.
The goal is not to do "everything" but instead take all reasonable precautions.
Doing everything possible means no missions. Doing too much means 3 or 4 birds in the air increasing the likely hood of a mechanical failure (look up the MTBF calculation for a system), human error, more targets for the enemy to shoot at and more chances of a lucky shot.
That same thinking gives a land vehicle that is slow and not manuverable (and an easy target) instead of a quick and nimble one. It weighs soldiers down with 10s of pounds of safety gear that reduces their mobility and ability to evade and engage.
God Speed, Mike. “Sau Sponte”
Re Chinooks: I hope I NEVER hear that ANY President even cares what kind of helo is used on a mission. That's not his job or his concern and every time a President has thought it was it has bee trouble. Other than a very few exceptions (UBL takedown being one) the details of any mission are way below the President's pay grade. That's why we have Captains and Colonels.
RSS