Taliban attack inside Camp Bastion

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by carl

If you left off the dates and location, the attack on Bastion could have taken place in Vietnam. Sappers penetrate the perimeter and blow up some airplanes.

When I was at my big base, my LSA was the first thing somebody getting through the wire would bump into. I used to think of things I read about the sappers of old and be relieved that it wasn't the VC or NVA who were out there. Looks like the Taliban & Co and the Pak Army/ISI are upping the game.

Somebody speculated somewhere about where they got the layout of the base. Couldn't you get most all of what you need from Google Earth? And barring that, I suppose the Pak Army/ISI could get even more details of the base layout. I wonder if people on the inside would really be needed.

None of this layout stuff would be especially hard to determine, especially if you've got the time and patience to do the right kinds of recon (and you don't need Google Earth to do that). I suspect that they'd do the wise thing and back up any remote observations with people on the ground verifying as much as possible. It's not rocket science, after all. And the techniques are out there to be studied. You don't need ISI support to do that (although some may want to make the linkage - real or imagined - for reasons of their own).

The assumption that it couldn't be planned locally strikes me as being more based on ego than reality. If we want to use the Vietnam model, most sapper teams actually did their planning and rehearsals fairly close to their targets (if memory serves the sapper team that hit the MACV/SOG compound in Da Nang did their planning close by). US forces often do their training at a distance because, quite frankly, we can. We've got the resources and mobility to shift teams quickly (and move so much junk that it's frankly fairly easy to hide them in the shuffle). Others don't have that luxury so have to conduct things closer to home.

And, in point of fact, that same "it must be skilled outsiders" argument was often used (mistakenly) during Vietnam.

[carl]

Steve:

All your points are well taken. It could very well have been pulled off by locals. But given the history of the area, it is just my opinion that it was most likely done with a lot of ISI help. I think I recall that the stagey attacks in Kabul were done by the Haqqanis and the attackers came from outside. It is just a lot easier to do all the planning and practicing in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

The survivor will tell us and then somebody will know. I didn't say we will know because if what he says is judged inconvenient they will just lie about it or super classify it. That would be one more in a never ending string of tragedies that is our effort in Afghanistan.

And I assume your right about the VC or NVA practicing nearby. But it was a different time, place and enemy. The VC and NVA both had the first team close by. They didn't have the recourse to drive their Toyota Hi-Lux from the practice place to the target. And last but not least, I believe from what I've read, the VC and NVA were a bit of a cut above Taliban & Co when it came to fighting.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Circling the Lion's Den for its commentary, notably drawing attention to the similarities to the attack on Camp Salerno (June 1st 2012) and the profusion of official photos of the camp - originally on Cryptome:

for pointing to the extraordinary array of tactically useful photographs of Camp Bastion published by the UK Ministry of Defence (369 images) and the US Department of Defense (over 500 images).

It seems quite remarkable that these two organisations should have published photos that allow Taliban strategists to make accurate models of the layout of the camp. The positioning of hangars, medical centres, troop bivvies - pretty much everything - is on view in these high-res photos. The photo of the church is pointless and inflammatory in the hands of a Taliban recruiter.

Link:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....an-attack.html

Link to Cryptome photos:http://cryptome.org/2012-info/camp-b...mp-bastion.htm

A "lurker" commented on the post-attack Taliban video:

Still, in a supposedly clear area around the base, it is remarkable that someone was able to get close enough to film the smoke plume. ISAF says it has detained a local Taliban leader who provided support to the attack team, but details are scanty.

We have briefly looked at "high tech Taliban" before:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=16197

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by carl

Steve:

All your points are well taken. It could very well have been pulled off by locals. But given the history of the area, it is just my opinion that it was most likely done with a lot of ISI help. I think I recall that the stagey attacks in Kabul were done by the Haqqanis and the attackers came from outside. It is just a lot easier to do all the planning and practicing in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

The survivor will tell us and then somebody will know. I didn't say we will know because if what he says is judged inconvenient they will just lie about it or super classify it. That would be one more in a never ending string of tragedies that is our effort in Afghanistan.

And I assume your right about the VC or NVA practicing nearby. But it was a different time, place and enemy. The VC and NVA both had the first team close by. They didn't have the recourse to drive their Toyota Hi-Lux from the practice place to the target. And last but not least, I believe from what I've read, the VC and NVA were a bit of a cut above Taliban & Co when it came to fighting.

In terms of competence, the VC and NVA varied quite a bit depending on the time and place. What I've seen indicates that the Taliban is no different.

Part of my point is that we do have an unfortunate tendency to decide that any sign of competence on the part of current opponents MUST be due to outside influence (going all the way back to the Indian wars).

[Fuchs]

As long as those official photos did not have GPS info embedded...that's what's supposed to have doomed two parking Apaches a few years ago.

[carl]

Steve:

Again your points are well taken. But when I read them something occurred to me about how this is viewed. If the bulk of the training took place in Pakistan with beaucoup ISI help, I don't think that should be viewed as "outside". The Quetta Shura is based in Pakistan. The Haqqanis are in Pakistan. Taliban & Co can't exist without the Pak Army/ISI. So if the training, planning and practice took place in Pakistan under sponsorship of the ISI it isn't "outside" anything. It is part of the normal whole that has existed for over a decade.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by carl

Steve:

Again your points are well taken. But when I read them something occurred to me about how this is viewed. If the bulk of the training took place in Pakistan with beaucoup ISI help, I don't think that should be viewed as "outside". The Quetta Shura is based in Pakistan. The Haqqanis are in Pakistan. Taliban & Co can't exist without the Pak Army/ISI. So if the training, planning and practice took place in Pakistan under sponsorship of the ISI it isn't "outside" anything. It is part of the normal whole that has existed for over a decade.

Local? I really have my doubts.

Did these guys forget to formulate an extraction/withdrawal plan... or were they going to keep going until done?

Local knowledge, yes... local Taliban, no.

.

[Fuchs]

Wasn't this kind of mission without return the speciality of AQ mercs inside Afghanistan till late '01?
If I understood reports from years ago correctly, this was the speciality that made them so useful to the Taliban leadership whose own troops were either chieftains or not motivated enough for such tactics.

[AdamG]

Originally Posted by carl

Somebody speculated somewhere about where they got the layout of the base. Couldn't you get most all of what you need from Google Earth? And barring that, I suppose the Pak Army/ISI could get even more details of the base layout. I wonder if people on the inside would really be needed.

Exactly - Open Source is a sword that cuts both ways.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

...I wonder if people on the inside would really be needed.

Not needed but helpful, very much so. You can bet they are there -- just as they were in Viet Nam and where they contributed heavily to NVA Sapper success, such as it was (they didn't do all that well but the media loves 'disasters.' If they can't find one, they'll get all creative..).

Google earth makes a difference but it can be fooled. So can observers located on distant or even nearby peaks that look down on the area in question

In Viet Nam, only the Australians were smart enough to site their main camps where observation was difficult, then surround them with large, high berms so they were not only very difficult to attack but one could not view or map the layout from outside. The Strines had a sort of fenced of quarantine area just inside the gate were they met with local dignitaries and military people; those visitors could not leave that secure meeting area.. They absolutely refused to hire local nationals to work inside their Camps, no matter how much the US pressured them to do so. Why did the US want to hire local nationals? Because westerners can't do scut work? Nope -- why "to boost the local economy..." Why else.

We're nuts...

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Ken White

In Viet Nam, only the Australians were smart enough to site their main camps where observation was difficult, then surround them with large, high berms so they were not only very difficult to attack but one could not view or map the layout from outside.

I believe I remember that the Brits used the opposite against the IRA, reasoning that it's important for security to see the outside from the inside (even concerning soldiers not on guard duty).

[carl]

Very clever those Strines. Do you think that would work given the size of our bases now? Those things are beyond huge.

In an attack like that the primary thing would be to work out where the airplanes were parked. If you know about airports you can work that out pretty easy without ever actually looking at the place. I won't say how but I'll bet Ken knows. Combine that with Google Earth, even a fooled Google Earth and combine that with commercially available sattellite (sic) imagery that the Pak Army/ISI could get hold of and there isn't really much you can hide about the layout. But inside confirmation of patterns and behavior is invaluable.

I can see helping the local economy in a way that would help us too but without having to allow locals on base. One thing I could never understand is why they didn't seem to buy local produce where I was. They flew in Wonder Bread, shiny yellow cheese and peaches from Chile. The best place to eat on base (when they let us) was the chow hall of a Turkish construction company that used local produce. I don't get it.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

Very clever those Strines. Do you think that would work given the size of our bases now? Those things are beyond huge.

They are huge because we do not adapt to the mission, local people and terrain, we take the US with us and try to make the terrain, local people and mission adapt to that...

So two answers, first; No, not without changing the way we do business. Second; Yes by changing the way we do business (and, concomitantly, the equipment we buy and the number of our people needed to support it). That means not using the GPF for such missions -- or, better, avoiding such missions. Sort of like the second Fire Extinguisher -- if you have to resort to that, you may already be too late.

I can see helping the local economy in a way that would help us too but without having to allow locals on base. One thing I could never understand is why they didn't seem to buy local produce where I was. They flew in Wonder Bread, shiny yellow cheese and peaches from Chile. The best place to eat on base (when they let us) was the chow hall of a Turkish construction company that used local produce. I don't get it.

Heh. That's due to two factors, one of which is something I keep mentioning and which you discount. Congress. They like it when US Contractors they support and love use US and favored nation products. So talk to Congress.

The second and less important but ostensibly defensible reason is to preclude introducing locally contaminated and / or tampered-with food that might sicken the Troops. There are other minor things but those are, in order, the two most important.

On the airfields, you are of course correct. Doesn't take much planning or help if you understand the basics of layout and construction and can watch takeoffs and landings even from a distance. Their necessary size also makes them vulnerable and that's hard to counter, even if one had enough troops (which will almost never be the case). Two good options are more and better S/VTOL birds or Hoptiflopters and more range and loiter time for more secure and distant airfield locations. The Bone and the Warthog are the birds of choice in the 'Stan for good reason. A better option is avoiding such employment in the first place -- that isn't that hard either

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by carl

One thing I could never understand is why they didn't seem to buy local produce where I was. They flew in […] shiny yellow cheese […].

Ah, Canadian cheese.

Originally Posted by Ken White

There are other minor things but those are, in order, the two most important.

Plopping a G8 institution down in the middle of a place like Afghanistan and having it buy local certainly presents the possibility of playing merry hob with pricing, don’t know if that is one of the whys. Probably not, as it is also an issue with utilizing local labor.

[jcustis]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Wasn't this kind of mission without return the speciality of AQ mercs inside Afghanistan till late '01?
If I understood reports from years ago correctly, this was the speciality that made them so useful to the Taliban leadership whose own troops were either chieftains or not motivated enough for such tactics.

Good connection of the dots.

[Firn]

Originally Posted by Ken White

They are huge because we do not adapt to the mission, local people and terrain, we take the US with us and try to make the terrain, local people and mission adapt to that...

So two answers, first; No, not without changing the way we do business. Second; Yes by changing the way we do business (and, concomitantly, the equipment we buy and the number of our people needed to support it). That means not using the GPF for such missions -- or, better, avoiding such missions. Sort of like the second Fire Extinguisher -- if you have to resort to that, you may already be too late.Heh. That's due to two factors, one of which is something I keep mentioning and which you discount. Congress. They like it when US Contractors they support and love use US and favored nation products. So talk to Congress.

The second and less important but ostensibly defensible reason is to preclude introducing locally contaminated and / or tampered-with food that might sicken the Troops. There are other minor things but those are, in order, the two most important.

On the airfields, you are of course correct. Doesn't take much planning or help if you understand the basics of layout and construction and can watch takeoffs and landings even from a distance. Their necessary size also makes them vulnerable and that's hard to counter, even if one had enough troops (which will almost never be the case). Two good options are more and better S/VTOL birds or Hoptiflopters and more range and loiter time for more secure and distant airfield locations. The Bone and the Warthog are the birds of choice in the 'Stan for good reason. A better option is avoiding such employment in the first place -- that isn't that hard either

The whole effort looks a bit like a farmer trying to grow rice in a isolated desert. The big difference is that with science on his side, very deep pockets and a massive investment of ressources he has an excellent chance to succed in his stupid enterprise.

It is of course tragic to see so much human live and ressources wasted, sometimes in a noble, sometimes in a criminal manner. There is no simple technological solution to the behavior of persons and institutions and sometimes, when the aim is something more then to loot, burn and kill even the best effort can fail if the horse does not drink.

---

In this case Fuchs is right to point out that supposedly everybody of the attackers was wearing suicide vests. If this has not to do with foreign mercs ( I don't know how socially acceptable suicide missions have become for Afghan insurgents in the various regions) it certainly required quite a bit of effort to get so many individuals willing to blow themselves up and to prepare them as a unit for the mission. This and the the use of American uniforms as well as the ambitious aim of the attack seem to point, even if you grant them luck, to an effort on a more regional level. Great support on the local level seems highly likely for various phases of the mission.

[carl]

Originally Posted by ganulv

Plopping a G8 institution down in the middle of a place like Afghanistan and having it buy local certainly presents the possibility of playing merry hob with pricing, don’t know if that is one of the whys. Probably not, as it is also an issue with utilizing local labor.

Plopping a G8 institution down is going to affect the local prices no matter what you do. I always figured that if you bought what you could local, at least you could get the money more directly into the hands of the local and regional farmers.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

The second and less important but ostensibly defensible reason is to preclude introducing locally contaminated and / or tampered-with food that might sicken the Troops. There are other minor things but those are, in order, the two most important.

On the airfields, you are of course correct. Doesn't take much planning or help if you understand the basics of layout and construction and can watch takeoffs and landings even from a distance. Their necessary size also makes them vulnerable and that's hard to counter, even if one had enough troops (which will almost never be the case). Two good options are more and better S/VTOL birds or Hoptiflopters and more range and loiter time for more secure and distant airfield locations. The Bone and the Warthog are the birds of choice in the 'Stan for good reason. A better option is avoiding such employment in the first place -- that isn't that hard either

Do you think a possible problem with contamination is a realistic worry, could it be gotten around?

As you say, B-1s are great because they can be based far, far away. A-10s are great because of their effectiveness at killing people but I don't know if they can get away with a short runway. In the summer with a load they may require a long runway and therefore a big base anyway.

Helos are great and STVOL aircraft are always a promise on the horizon. But in either case the limiting factor isn't the combat airplanes, it is the runway and ramp space required for the logistics airplanes, the Hercs, C-17s, IL-76s and the 747s. If those are going to come in, you need a long runway and hence a big base.

My concern with the attack is not that such a big place can't set up invulnurable (sic) physical defenses but that such an important installation apparently has so little idea of what is happening just outside the wire that this thing could be set up and carried out. I know that is going to happen occasionally no matter what you do but if this got to be a regular thing that would be bad. We'll see I guess.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by carl

Plopping a G8 institution down is going to affect the local prices no matter what you do. I always figured that if you bought what you could local, at least you could get the money more directly into the hands of the local and regional farmers.

An influx of foreign money can cause serious social tensions. You see it often when refugees arrive and they have access to food aid. This tends to drive the costs in the local markets up and create resentment towards them.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by ganulv

An influx of foreign money can cause serious social tensions. You see it often when refugees arrive and they have access to food aid. This tends to drive the costs in the local markets up and create resentment towards them.

Without being too picky... it often destroys the local "economy" as the influx of food and other stuff supplied to the refugees quickly finds its way into the markets driving some costs up and mostly others down. The down side is normally for the "chain" - the local traders who used to source goods from afar, the distributors who brought goods from afar in all manner of vehicles on impossible roads, the wholesalers based in a regional town and on the the importers/manufacturers. They all get screwed.