Coalition forces kill Taliban who shot down chopper
Stars & Stripes reports that coalition forces have killed the Taliban insugents who are responsible for downing the CH-47 and killing members of the Special Operations Quick Reaction Force last week;
Taliban leader Mullah Mohibullah and the insurgent who fired the shot that downed the helicopter were killed in an airstrike on Tuesday in the Chak district of Wardak, the release said.
Mullah Mohibullah was a key facilitator in an insurgent attack cell led by Din Mohammad, a Taliban leader killed in a previous Special Operations mission, the International Security Assistance Force release states. As a leader in Mohammad’s network in Tangi valley, Mohibullah had as many as 12 Taliban fighters under his command, including potential suicide bombers.
After an exhaustive manhunt, Special Operations forces located Mullah Mohibullah and the shooter after receiving multiple intelligence leads and tips from local citizens. The two men were attempting to flee the country in order to avoid capture.
The security force located and followed the insurgents to a wooded area in Chak district. After ensuring no civilians were in the area, the force called for the airstrike which resulted in the deaths of the Mullah Mohibullah, the shooter, and several of their Taliban associates.
I hope they were tired when they died.
Thanks to Jeff Schogol for the link.
Category: Terror War
I just want to know where the CAS was when the shootdown was happening? The entire area where the shot came form should have been carpet bombed within seconds of the shot being fired.
Or more correctly, a predator should have picked up the shooters heat sig before he had a chance to fire and wasted him then.
I’m sure Gordy Duff will be along to tell us that this mullah and the shooter were just goat farmers that were killed to cover for the real shooters, which were Mossad.
I’m still wondering why large portions of Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan aren’t glass parking lots yet. Those who claim we’re too violent and quick to war would do well to ponder that.
This may be a horrid question, but I really don’t know, so I ask. After a manhunt and airstrike such as this, do our forces actually identify the bodies of the insurgents that were killed? Or is it just taken for granted that nothing could have lived through the strike?
It’s interesting to compare how SOG escorted reaction forces in Vietnam to how we have done it in Afghanistan, both in 2005 and 2011. In both of the SOCOM disasters were a lot fewer dedicated fixed and rotary wing escorts used than SOG would have used.
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert either, PN, but after seeing some of the videos that Weasel Zippers posts, I’m amazed there’s that much left to identify in a lot of cases.
Yes, without tweezers and DNA kits, I’d think it’d be so much guesswork. Just wondering.
PN – I think it’s just statistics. If someone were there, and the place was hit with so much ordnance, then statistically the target is dead.
That assumes target ID is near or at 100% and there are no bunkers, tunnels, or other available.
DaveO: Hmmm. Hadn’t thought of bunkers or tunnels. With the rock formation in those mountains, I was thinking caves. But even if there was something like that, I would guess concussive force from a strike could kill just as easily as shrapnel?
PN: tons of rock counter the blast. Like Cheyenne Mountain.
Thanks for the answers and info, NHSparky and DaveO.
I want to point out that Iran has been F***ing with the mission since mid to late 2004. At what point would we be justified to do something to them so they knock off the happy horseshit
Doc,@#12, in the mind of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, never.
well I am in doubt.
They really want us to beleive that they GOT 1 man or several in that country when they cannot find others?
I dont buy it. its TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE so…..
UpNorth@#13 I remember someone posted a link about blowback from that rescue they did off the coast of Somalia last year. It was suggested in the link that they may have almost or actually been charged with violation the ROE. If that’s the case you’d have to wonder the relation SOCCOM has with POTUS.
Is it wrong that when I read
The two men were attempting to flee the country in order to avoid capture
my first thought was, “well, at least they avoided capture!”
You can’t possibly believe that load of tripe.
Totally. Unfrakkin. Believable.
As was the whole “I got bin laden” BS.
Sorry for any errors but damn I have a tough time posting comments. “Taliban leader Mullah Mohibullah and the insurgent who fired the shot that downed the helicopter were killed in an airstrike… had as many as 12 Taliban fighters under his command…attempting to flee the country in order to avoid capture… the airstrike which resulted in the deaths of the Mullah Mohibullah, the shooter, and several of their Taliban associates… the insurgents were less the ten in number…The Taliban leader the forces were after in the original mission is still at large”. Good! Fuck’em! They were found, inciderated, and turned into goatslop. They didn’t get away, but this entire article and a similiar one at the Washington Times, raise a few thoughts. We don’t know exactly how many friendlies were there(not counting aircrew). A vague term like “Rangers” most likely refers to at least a platoon, and on the SEAL bird nearly the equivalent of a second. The Rangers might very well have called for more men to pursue disperate enemy since we know that some Taliban were at higher locations, they may actually needed more help to dislodge them. Our adversaries ability to use “micro terrain” to survive artillary and air support is well documented. This is still a substational force, most likely approaching company strength. The main target “is still at large”, which means the big baddie wasn’t there or he fled. They lured us in with bad intelligence, had higher locations manned, and covered a key LZ(s?). They had the audacity to do this with something around a dozen or so men? Umm… sounds fairly complex if you ask me. This means the enemy has a fairy could idea of not only the terrain but how we are most likely to react. The H.IGH V.ALUE T.ARGETing campaign, or the decapitation effort, executed by the SOF has serious short commings and is complimenatry to the main effort by the line units. Not a substitute for it. This will not work in Afghanistan beyond 2014 if reasonable security is not attained. The deaths of Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and… Read more »
Woo Hoo! It took!
I have to agree with Coldwarrior that this seems a little too convenient. ISAF says they can’t even say yet if the RPG was the only cause of the crash or is there was more.
In a running gun battle where some of our best were blindsided by an RPG shooter, is it reasonable that they ID’d the exact individual that pulled the trigger? I can understand the group leader Mullah Mullah Dirka Dirka Jihad, or whatever his name was, but an individual member of his militia that shot the RPG?
I served in Iraq with the National Guard, which is far removed from Special Forces operations in Afghanistan, but I do know the chaos of battle, and I question how anyone can know that we got ‘the guy’ that took down our troops. This just smells like politics to me.
Dave, maybe they just found an arm and a hand clutching the launcher mechanism from an RPG and went with it? Just one scenario, and probably not far off.
“The Rangers might very well have called for more men to pursue disperate enemy…” I wrote that last night.
An article from the Washington Times- “The top NATO commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that the doomed Navy SEALs mission that claimed 30 American lives was intended to stop fleeing Taliban fighters and not necessarily a rescue mission as first reported.”, it goes on, “As this mission unfolded, we saw some significant success occurring on the objective itself, but there were elements that were escaping”. There is even more “And in the course of their attempt to depart the objective, we committed a force to contain that element from getting out. And of course, in the process of that, the aircraft was struck by an RPG and crashed.” I thought so.
“Instead being pinned down, as NATO officials first said, the Ranger unit was winning the fight and wanted more troops to stop the enemy retreat.” can I call em’ or what?
Hey Jonn, that article was at the washington Times, sorry haven’t figured out hyperlinking yet.
I thought you might want to post that article.
Cedo
Here is the Link
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/10/fatal-seal-mission-was-not-a-rescue/
CEDO…..
Trying NOT to be Boring or Distracting but here is a way to HYPERLINK
FIRST: If use IE >>>>>SELECT >>>FILE …THEN ..NEW WINDOW
****Gives U the WashingtonTimes Article****
…….Plus U have “”This Aint Hell”” Comment Page Open Too…
SECOND: Use LEFT Mouse and SWIPE the LINK ….(backwards) ….****FROM Right To Left*****
LINK of WashingtonTimes should be Highlighted Blue
THIRD: USE >>>>>>>>….KEYBOARD……
…………………..ON Keyboard hold CTR + C ….
THEN insert HyperLink in Comment Section.
*****BTW …….
Anyone have an easier way????
If so PLS Post the ”how to”
I’m off to Military.com @ “Discussions” called “In The News”
Join Military.com if you want. ((Get VA Benefits Updates” etc. in your E-Mail ….Plus Vids) ***Some Vids are NEW Weapons tested by our Guys***
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!