Why I Write, Pt. II

We don't know with any certainty
what hit the aircraft
--General Allen, Army Times

Ranger Word of the Day
Repsychled (df):
Having gone through the
military-entertainment complex enough times
that you believe what they say
____________________

[Happy Labor Day.]

Consider the monetary cost of the Chinook shoot down:

30 U.S. dead = at least 60 man years of costly training, to the tune of ~ $100 million. This will also cost another 60 man years of training to replace these men, not including the cost of the Chinook and its replacement, nor the cost of post-action airstrikes and clean-up.

The Service Government Life Insurance (SGLI) death payouts are ~$400,000 each, plus the costs of survivor's benefits. The wives will get retirement and dependent benefits; children (until age 23) and wives get G.I. Bill educational benefits and health care benefits.

Simply, this one action had a cost in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars (probably a light estimate). Army Times (27 Aug 11) brags that after the shoot down, the U.S. bombed and killed 10 of the fighters that took part in this fiasco we call a combat action.

If the U.S. killed 10 and lost 37 friendlies at such a dollar cost, we cannot afford to fight this war. This is a favorable kill ratio for a primitive, non-technological adversary facing the most sophisticated, specialized troops in the world (or so we are told). That is 3.7:1 -- respectable in any soldier's handbook.

The cost of each dead insurgent was at least $25 million. Ranger reckons the ISAF force has not heard about the budget cuts and cash shortfalls here in The Homeland ™.

It is too much lost for too little of a return on our investment. Thirty U.S. dead is not worth the heads of middling Taliban leaders at any cost.

I may no longer be a soldier, but these are things even a civilian should understand.

Why I Write

But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much
Does that make me crazy?
Possibly
--Crazy, Gnarls Barkley
_____________________

[Motivated by Sgt. Rabb's post @ Milpub]:

I was a soldier once and now not-so-young, a fact which allows me to connect the dots from present to past. The logic of soldiering has been left deeply ingrained in my thoughts and actions.

Last night was suffused with memories of past screw-ups and negative events that I still cannot justify or accept as being correct. Today's events resurface them, and I am discomfited down to my Ranger lizard brain.

When I was a platoon leader, my assigned strength equaled the 37 men killed in the recent shoot-down of the Chinook in Afghanistan. My platoon was line infantry, not elite in any manner. We did, however, stress one military precept: Dispersion.

We never put all our eggs in one basket. We would never allow one military round to kill or wound more than was militarily acceptable. We maintained dispersion while eating and even in the chow line when we were operational. My tracks (M 106) were never bunched up to allow enemy counter battery to knock out more than one of our guns. Not being bunched up is Rule One of ground combat.

On or about 21/22 Jan 71 there was an action at B53 in the Republic of Vietnam in which another entire helicopter of highly-trained Special Forces and Special Operations Assets men were blown out of the sky. To this day it is my contention that these men were sacrificed because there was not a proper and judicious recon. Helo gunship fire suppression of the area was not employed and the men did not know what enemy they were facing nor their capabilities.

U.S. SOF assets are still making the same senseless mistakes that get good men killed for no measurable reason. What is the benefit of the cost?

Thirty soldiers died at the hands (we are told) of a lucky RPG gunner. But in Special Forces, we are taught there is no such thing as "luck" -- there is only the presence or absence of solid planning and execution. No unit should lose 37 people associated gear from one lucky RPG shot.

Such a loss is criminal negligence on the part of the operational planners and team leaders. No sensible soldier would put all his assets in one bunch, hoping luck would not turn ill; it does not work that way either in gang warfare or combat.

Ranger does not believe the shoot down of the Chinook was an RPG loss. Why does the media not posit the employment of a ground-to-air Redeye or Strella-type missile? If the U.S. uses technology, then why not the Afghanis? Why the fiction that their successes are due to sheer, dumb-ass luck? The Gods of War need not be Christian or Western.

What would it mean if they were as tactical as we?

Whirly Bird

You'll never have a quiet world until you
knock the patriotism out of the human race

--George Bernard Shaw
_________

A little over a week ago, five Americans and two other soldiers died when their Chinook helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. The Taliban claimed responsibility.

"NATO's International Security Assistance Force said other troops rushing to the scene were ambushed and had to call in air support to drive off their attackers (U.S. Chopper Shot Down in Afghanistan.)"

Another secondary ambush. To borrow some Pete Seeger lyrics, when will they ever learn?

"Initial reports suggested the helicopter was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade."The downing with an RPG clearly shows the principle of war, economy of force. Imagine shooting a $40 million bird out of the sky with a primitive fire-and-forget rocket propelled grenade. It is so simple, it is embarrassing to discuss.

Why was a Chinook anywhere even remotely within range of an RPG? Hooks should only be used on secure LZ's, and or accompanied by gunships to suppress enemy fire.

Who is paying for this bird? It is not the dumb ass that sent it into a hot LZ. That's right, once again, courtesy the good old American taxpayer.

Maybe it is time to raise the minimum wage so that we can buy more Chinooks. Why not armor them up like Humvees? I'm sure this will help win the war. Nothing else seems to be working. If nothing else, these tricked out copters will certainly strike a very bad ass profile on new recruiting posters.

If this doesn't work, perhaps we could initiate a gun buyback program. This will take them off the board, thereby allowing the American government to issue more to everybody on both sides. The reasoning can be, we would then be operating from a position of parity, leveling the playing field, so to speak. The economy could use the stimulation.

Of course, the buyback would only be for the Afghan resistance fighters; U.S. soldiers would be ineligible since their rifles are required to spread democracy.