Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Confirmation. The attack on the Harriers was Green on Blue.


via CBS.
The strategy for getting U.S. forces out of Afghanistan depends on training Afghan soldiers and police to protect the country themselves, but on Monday the U.S. military suspended most joint field operations with Afghan forces because so many Americans are being killed by the men they are training.
Afghan government troops -- our allies -- have turned their guns on NATO forces 36 times this year, killing 51, most of them Americans. That is more attacks than the last two years combined.
The order effectively suspends "until further notice" most of the operations which U.S. and Afghan troops conduct side by side. At higher headquarters, Afghans and Americans will still work together, but in the field small unit operations putting Afghan soldiers alongside Americans -- the guts of the U.S. strategy to turn the fighting over to Afghans -- will be suspended unless an exception is granted by a commanding general.
The order was issued after a long weekend in which four American and two British troops were killed by so-called "insider attacks" -- Afghans turning their guns on their supposed allies.
Ths is too little too late.

Bear in mind this disturbing fact.  Leadership was willing to go along with groups of Soldiers and Marines being killed by their allies...until these insider attacks resulted in the loss of a eight Harrier jump jets.

That is the real turning point here.

The next target was going to be the airfield at Kabul and that would mean you'd see C-17's and civilian airliners burning on the tarmac.

That couldn't be allowed and that's why they terminated the program.  This is tacit confirmation that my tipsters were right.  The destruction of our Harriers was an INSIDE attack----a Green on Blue attack.

14 comments :

  1. Where is the quote about the Harrier attack being Green on Blue?

    ReplyDelete
  2. dude.

    either read my blog and then comment or don't comment at all. i pointed out how i thought this all tied together.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Spud
    If it wasnt ANA who blew the jets, why cancel joint ops?

    Clear enough?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You nailed it; when it was "just" regular troops getting killed nothing was done. Now that we're out $200 + million they have decided to do something about it. Hate to be cynical but it sure looks like they're more concerned with financial impact than the killing of a few troops.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OMFG Sol, look at this shit!!! http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isafclarifies-information-on-partnering-with-ansf.html

    Pure bullshit, especially this quote: In response to elevated threat levels resulting from the "Innocence of Muslims" video, ISAF has taken some prudent, but temporary, measures to reduce our profile and vulnerability to civil disturbances or insider attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. yeah but i'm wondering how much impact this has. we basically lost a squadron. rotations are off, aircraft are going to have to be built etc...

    they're worried that they could lose a fighter wing at Kabul or a transport wing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think they'll be able to replace the lost Harriers? Unless they can refurb some of the British ones then I'm afraid they're just gone and won't be replaced.

      And the F-35B is going to replace the Harrier, right? Imagine if 6 of those things were destroyed. At around $100 million each (depending on who you believe) that would be a mess.

      Delete
    2. i really believe the impact is the same. if it had been 6 F-15E's or C-17''s the issues would be the same for the AF as they are for the Marines.

      Delete
    3. Actually the F-35B is around $150 million unit flyaway so plus another two damaged with 6 destroyed you're talking about $1 billion.

      The whole blame the video thing began with the Administration blaming it on all the anti US demonstrations and now DOD is doing it. It's simply a way to not deal with long standing policies that actually did get us where we are now.

      If the mission is training the Afghans and we're now sharply cutting back on doing that what's the mission now? Seems to me the real mission is fighting Taliban with NATO forces and supporting operations against Taliban within Pakistan. After ten years of doing both I really fail to see the point in continuing?

      The only issue is Pakistan refuses to deal with Taliban, and other groups, within their borders and are still in bed with many of these actors. Getting out of Afghanistan isn't going to mean very much as long as we have other bases for the drones that operate within Pakistan. The only caveat to that is the degree we have ground forces operating over the border.

      In any case I fail to see how we can effectively deal with groups within Pakistan that are being protected by Pakistan? Killing leadership on a regular basis seems to accomplish little given new leadership keeps rising up.

      Delete
  7. Sorry, but when I saw "CONFIRMATION", I expected a quote, not "It just makes sense".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just another indication that you commented without reading what i wrote or you were just tryin to be argumentative.

      Delete
    2. I never (ok, hardly ever unless talking to f-35 haters ;) ) am argumentative and I must have missed something in previous posts.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.