First US ground attack 'could have ended in disaster'
By Kim Sengupta
26 October 2001
news.independent.co.uk
The much-hyped first American ground attack on Afghanistan
ran into unexpectedly fierce resistance and almost ended in
disaster, senior defence sources have disclosed.
The public admissions by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary
of State for Defence, and US Navy Rear Admiral John
Stufflebeem that they were surprised by the toughness of the
Taliban gives a glimpse of how badly things could have gone
wrong.
The attack was meant to be a purely cosmetic exercise for the
benefit of the media and the public against a relatively safe and
poorly defended target.
But there had been a failure of intelligence, and the troops from
the elite 75th Rangers Regiment ran into such heavy fire on the
ground near Kandahar that they had to beat a hasty retreat. A
Chinook helicopter airlifting them out lost its undercarriage and
had to make a forced landing.
The Pentagon presented the operation as a complete success
and evidence that Operation Enduring Freedom was going
according to plan. There was blanket and mainly adulatory
media coverage on both sides of the Atlantic with the prognosis
that the ground war had begun.
But, instead, what happened last weekend made US and
British planners at central command in Tampa, Florida,
reappraise the military campaign, and continue with air strikes
rather than carry out any more missions on the ground. Within
24 hours the Pentagon has requested special forces troops
from Britain and Australia. And the British Government was
forced to consider a much larger deployment of ground troops
than originally envisaged.
The near-shambles on the first Afghan ground mission had
unhappy memories for the Americans of Somalia, where 18
soldiers died when their two Black Hawk helicopters were shot
down by militiamen. There, too, intelligence had
underestimated the opposition.
One senior defence source said of the Afghan operation: "The
intelligence had been quite clear that the target near Kandahar
was pretty easy to take out.
"But what the Rangers discovered was the Taliban force there
fighting back quite hard. The enemy regrouped very well and
their counter attack was such that the Rangers made a tactical
withdrawl.
"That's when the Chinook got into difficulties and lost its
undercarriage. Some of us are surprised that such senior US
figures are surprised at the tenacity of the Afghans. They had
been fighting for the last 20 years."
The British chief of defence staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce,
pointed out that to beat the Taliban in their own lair would need
serious long-term commitment and not just commando raids.
Pointedly, he added: "The quick pinprick operation will be valid
for certain targets where you have really good intelligence.
Sometimes one might have to stay longer to achieve a proper
reconnaissannce of the area you are looking at."
Sir Michael's views were contrary to that of those of some US
officials who suggested this was going to be a "new kind of
war" of sophisticated commando operations.
The difference in emphasis between the British defence chief
and the US officials first appeared when some in Washington
talked about a short campaign. But the chairman of the joint
chiefs of staff, General Richard Myers, now speaks about
Operation Enduring Freedom stretching into next spring or
beyond. |
