Tom,
While the commanders assessment is very important it is also important to keep in mind the political factors. This skirmish was all over the news. The politicians don't want to appear ineffective.
This incident is one that will change the face of operations in Afghanistan.
While I would not dispute the role of the political world, I would not rush to judgement concerning ops and this attack. Much is going to change in OEF in the coming months but I doubt those changes will be driven by this attack.Originally Posted by Darksaga
The politicians were already making noises about Afghanistan as were military leaders.
Tom
What it may ignite is more controversy on the M4. At least one news account I read said that weapons froze up during the battle:
Outnumbered but not outgunned, a platoon-plus element of soldiers with 2nd Platoon, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team accompanied by Afghan soldiers engaged in a fistfight of a firefight.
After maybe two hours of intense combat, some of the soldiers’ guns seized up because they expelled so many rounds so quickly. Insurgent bullets and dozens of rocket-propelled grenades filled the air. So many RPGs were fired at the soldiers that they wondered how the insurgents had so many.
When you read the piece in full, there is only one instance where a weapon is specifically mentioned as seizing, and that was a M249 SAW. There is no mention of an M4 failure in that article.
A bit later than that, the article says "several of the soldiers’ machine guns couldn’t fire..." I'm assuming here (perhaps mistakenly) that probably actually refers to the soldiers' rifles.
The rest of the sentence is ....several of the soldiers’ machine guns couldn’t fire because of damage.
With the amount of shrapnel flying due to the high rate of RPG fire, plus grenades, that is not surprising - and it is very different from a statement of mechanical failure, as with the SAW.
This is another journalistic effort that comes close but does not quite get it right. First as Jed and Entropy are discussing is the issue of weapons failure versus weapons damage. The other is his use of FOB when it was patrol base. FOB implies a much more permanent structure. So far the coverage has been ok;I am reminded how off base reporting, press and military, was after the 5307th convoy incident. Compared to that, coverage of this one has greatly improved.
Tom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks