F-15 Fleet grounded

[Bill Greenwood]

I miss typed.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

Randy, it looks like we are having a civil and interesting discussion. PRAISE BE to Allah, Buddah, Jesus and the Great Pumpkin! Let me rephrase and simplify my question. Have Allied air forces altered their missions after Pres Karzai requested that air power stand down on the recent TV interview?

[JDK]

Let me rephrase and simplify my question. Have Allied air forces altered their missions after Pres Karzai requested that air power stand down on the recent TV interview?

Perhaps this is not a question to pursue further? Randy's been very frank (where he can) and I can think of a number of reasons why he may not be able (allowed or wise) to comment on this - AT ALL.

[Bill Greenwood]

James, I understand there may be security concerns, things Randy may not or should not say. I was not asking for tomorrow's target list. The request by Karzai was not secret, rather is was on a TV interview broadcast on a major US channel. I thought it was a unique and noteworthy situation where a Pres is asking an ally not to use airpower in his country. The US resonse might well be secret, if so they can say that.

[Bill Greenwood]

Randy, it would be better if you and everybody had seen the TV report. In summary, the US interveiwer is talking about civ casulties. He shows a Allied post near a village, says someone fired a rocket at it. He says then planes bombed a house in the village. He interviews a couple of dozen Afghan men who say 9 civ killed, no armed men, no al Queda. The viewer has NO WAY of knowing who these guys are or if what they say is true, they aren't even speaking English. No big deal so far. But then he interviews Pres Kazai, speaking in English and he CLEARLY says twice he wants Allies to stop ALL AIRPOWER. He did not say just stop bombing civilains. Also yu posted my quote, but then added your own word to it. I did not write "back" as in back to bombing, that is your word and it might change the meaning. As for a military target, I assme it might be like a tank or a plane. I guess a house might be civilian or military depending on who is in it. Before the Alamo was a fort, it was a church. You guys do have a tough time in a modern war like this. I think all of us hope you guys get home safe and soon. If I find the exact story, I'll try to post or reference it. PS. I'd offer you a Spit flight, but the wings are only stressed to 9 gs.

[Randy Haskin]

I don't know the response...I'm not over there anymore.

President Karzai has made statements similar to this before, most notably in response to an incident earlier this summer.

Remember, we as those *providing* close air support all ready live under ultra-strict guidelines for letting ordnance fall off the jet. It is the ground parties, the vast majority of the time, who are selecting targets for us to hit.

You'd have to ask them if their guidelines for picking targets have changed. I doubt it, since the rules of engagement all ready preclude attacks against civilian non combatants.

There has been zero tolerance for collateral damage since the first day the US set foot in Afghanistan. There is still zero tolerance today. The reality of combat is that there is natural "fog and friction" as Clausewitz called it -- confusion about who is who and where they are. This is what causes fratricide and collateral damage -- aspects of war that have existed since the first day two cavemen decided to go attack two other cavemen for the meat they had in their camp.

Every high tech and low tech means available is used to ensure that ordnance hits the bad guys and does not hit the good guys or the neutral guys. Leaders can make all the proclaimations they want, and it doesn't change the realities of a battlefield. It's sort of like the President of the US making an evening address on television telling Americans to stop having traffic accidents.

[Randy Haskin]

Pres Kazai, speaking in English and he CLEARLY says twice he wants Allies to stop ALL AIRPOWER. He did not say just stop bombing civilains.

I haven't heard that quote, and quite frankly I'd be very surprised if that's what he really asked for -- no more airpower.

If that IS what he asked for, then I highly doubt that the ISAF leadership will ever allow it. Airpower is our asymmetric advantage on the battlefield. It allows ground units to operate much more light and agile, and not have to drag their own artillery everywhere they go.

If airpower were halted, in my opinion collateral damage would be WORSE. Artillery and mortar fire is significantly less accurate than a GPS or laser-guided bomb. It's even less accurate than strafing with 20mm or 30mm.

[Bill Greenwood]

Fair enough Randy. I can't walk down the street and tell who is a Baptist and who is a Catholic. Do the different factions look any different to a Westerner, can you tell? Do these guys come into town and mingle like the VC did? By the way you can tell a Longhorn, they are the trim, tall, handsome, intelligent looking guys usually flying the beautful elipitical wing airplanes. And thanks for your service.

[Randy Haskin]

Here's a recent 60 minutes interview transcript that has some quotes from Karzai about this subject:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drenn ... ad-taliban

[Randy Haskin]

Fair enough Randy. I can't walk down the street and tell who is a Baptist and who is a Catholic. Do the different factions look any different to a Westerner, can you tell? Do these guys come into town and mingle like the VC did? By the way you can tell a Longhorn, they are the trim, tall, handsome, intelligent looking guys usually flying the beautful elipitical wing airplanes. And thanks for your service.

That's exactly part of the problem.

Here's a quote from that 60 minutes piece:

PELLEY: Of course, the Taliban are killing civilians too -- targeting them deliberately. By contrast, we watched American airmen calculate how to minimize civilian casualties with the choice of timing, weapon, and direction of attack.

GARLASCO: I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians.

PELLEY: If so much care is being taken, why are so many civilians getting killed?

GARLASCO: Because the Taliban are violating international law and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground, and sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.

Make no mistake -- it is tragic when those who are not part of the fight are injured, maimed, or killed. Nobody in the US military wants that.

[Bill Greenwood]

RANDY, DIRECT HIT. THAT IS EXACTLY THE REPORT I SAW. You are sure as heck a deadeye with that computer. Thanks, pro or con, agree or disagree, now at least you and other folks can see I did not invent it and I hope I summarized it fairly. Of course your version is from an anti-liberal site and the report I saw was the original TV version not just in print. Your conservative site does give accurate quotes of what I saw. Maybe what Karzai said is not a extrodinary as it struck me.I notice your conservative rebutal is furious at the interviewer, but they don't address what Karzai said.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

[muddyboots]

WE ARE NOT BOMBING NON MILITARY TARGETS. It has NEVER been policy to do so.

Erm...with the exception of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, no, I can't argue with you.

I meant in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I know, I was just pulling your finger, Randy.
My point was that it has in the past been policy, and it no longer is. That is a positive change for all concerned. Except the bad guys, who take advantage of it. You'll note that later I noted that I'm impressed and happy to see that the AF has got sick of being painted as murderers and has made it more difficult for you to drop ord in doing so (by ensuring target verification). While I'm sorry your life got more difficult with all the newer safeguards, I am also glad you can now do so in full confidence that your targets really are solid targets.

[6trn4brn]

Ya know, I just sat here and read all 6 pages of this thread and I don't know if the F-15s were grounded for mechanical reasons or something else. Very interesting read, but I feel so stupid 'cause I don't know why the Eagle is grounded.

I remember my first sight of an Eagle at Elmendorf AFB up in Alaska. My God what a gorgeous site to see/hear/feel one of those lovely planes taking off at full afterburner, especially at night!

I am so jealous of you Randy insofar as your being able to fly one! Now, I think it best for you to go ahead and take one of those new Raptors, so long as you drop off your old Eagle at my house on the way A nice bombload and full tank of gas would be appreciated also

[John Ceglarek]

The Eagles are grounded because one came apart in the air during a training exercise on Nov. 3rd or thereabouts. Possible structural failure, and the birds are grounded pending an Air Force/Boeing investigation into the cause of the accident.

John

[Randy Haskin]

F-15C fleet grounded again! More cracks found, more inspections needed. Film at 11.

On an unrelated note, but in like with my thread-jack in this thread, anyone see this on cnn.com today?

NATO made several video excerpts available to CNN. One excerpt shows an armed Taliban fighter disguised as a woman in a full burqa, taking refuge with women and children to avoid being targeted by NATO.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiap ... index.html