Thirteen years after the Mogadishu debacle that left 18 American soldiers dead, U.S. forces were back — this time dealing death from above.
An Air Force AC-130 Spectre gunship attacked suspected al-Qaida members near the border with Kenya. The result: many dead, including the now-ubiquitous “senior terrorist figure,” this one linked to the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
While the quagmire in Iraq — like the Battle of Mogadishu years earlier — demonstrates the limits of American military power, operations like this one demonstrate a key strength: drone-guided airborne attacks that keep stateless enemies on the defensive.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
63 Comments
AC-130 Spectres are scary, having seen several myself. It is a flying artillery battalion all in one package.
This is how we should have handled Iraq and all the terrorist countries there after.
I’m curious why the AC-130 instead of the warthog. I don’t know all that much about their relative capabilities.
Basically, without getting into the technical aspects, the Warthog is anti-tank and the AC-130 is anti-personnel.
OK. Thanks. Like I said, don’t know much about the planes.
One thing apparently is they are both propeller and slow – great for getting right in there but eprhaps vulnerable to ground fire?
Hm- An AC130 takes and control areas, whereas a Warthog is a sinlge target weapon- mainly tanks.
Ac130 is a Hecules 130 aircraft with a Vulcan Gattling gun and a 105MM Howitzer.A Warthog has a single high volume cannon.Both are lethal.
hmmm, the A-10 “Warthog” is not a propeller driven aircraft; it has two rear mounted jet engines; designed for anti-tank operations, inter alia; is somewhat vulnerable to ground fire, but, IIRC from my USAF days, is a remarkably sturdy airframe. AC-130 (see C-130), transport aircraft specially armed for close air support, generally destroying everything it fires upon; prop aircraft, slow, but again, durable air frame. HTH.
The C-130 has the ability to loiter in an area far longer than a hog as well. Didn’t Clinton de-commission the A-10? Thought I read somewhere that he said that the A-10’s role was better served by Apaches.
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
Sol, thought A-10s were removed from active USAF fleet, assigned to the reserves; don’t really know, just my (perhaps faulty) recollection.
Thanks VT. My error. I guess I thought anything that ugly …
Yea, I had heard that they can take a lot of fire and keep flying; that is what makes them so effective. Thanks for correcting me guys …
That is a shame. I heard many war stories about hog drivers getting SMASHED and not just flying home, but completing the mission and returning home. Like with 8′ holes in the wing, missing an engine, etc.
I heard that every system is triple redundant and that the pilots sit in a titanium bath tub. I used to be WAY into military aircraft, outdated info now though…
They are virtually a flying tank in that regard.I used to watch them at Ft. Riley, and they fly like no other aircraft. They reminded me of watching a dragonfly in flight- it’s something to see!
Sol, your information might not be as outdated as you believe. There hasn’t been many new aircraft brought into the inventory over the past 20 – 30 years or so; the development time, cost, etc., has begun to stretch out to the point that rehab of old airframes, updating avionics, etc., has been a more common event.
I was pretty excited about the joint strike fighter. Stealth, super sonic, and all services share the same parts. Makes for a logistical wet dream. Haven’t heard much about it recently though, save for the Air Force contracting for another version.
Seems to be everyone wants their own toys. If they would see that having the same supply chain would make things SOOO much easier. If you need an engine or a wing, you could ask the Marines or vice versa. Shame.
Yes; the penalties of separate services, everyone has their own turf, wants their own toys as you put it, Sol. There is some sense to standardization of aircraft, etc., but so long as the petty jealousies of the various branches of the armed forces exist, won’t happen.
Ahhh, another Bradley fighting vehicle fiasco. As goes the military. We had some pretty cool toys while I was in… but what they have now and are developing. HoooAhhhh!!! Good poop !!!
It really is a GREAT multi role aircraft… jsf.mil
I hope USA sees the plight of the Somalis and sees American interest is best preserved by helping the people of that country than attacking it. USA should not provide Air Support Ethiopia’s invasion in Somalia.
Wow. The biggest, most expensive and most powerful military in the history of the world can kill lots of people in the poorest country in the world.
Another great day for America (heavy sarcasm).
“Some day this nation will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its creed.” Martin Luther King Jr.
C’mon, capn, tell us how great things were when the traitor clinton was in office!
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
In many ways, Clinton was a traitor to his supporters–NAFTA for instance is one reason that migrants are swarming across the border.
But compared to Worst President Ever, there is no comparison.
This is a bold new strategy against terrorists. Imagine, Bush finally thought about invading a country where the terrorists actually reside. All this in just four years, absolutely brilliant. Thankfully the Ethiopians did most of the work.
SCREW SOMALIA and here 18 reasons why:
SFC Randy Shughart killed defending the crew of Super Six 4 Medal of Honor (posthumously) 1MSG Gary Gordon killed defending the crew of Super Six 4 Medal of Honor (posthumously) 1MSG Tim “Griz” Martin killed on the Lost ConvoySFC Earl Fillmore killed moving to the first crash siteSSG Daniel Busch crashed on Super Six 1 and was killed defending the downed crew Silver StarSGT Matt Rierson killed on Oct. 6 by a mortar which landed just outside the hangar160th SOAR (Nightstalkers)CWO Raymond Frank copilot of Super Six 4 Silver Star,Air Medal with Valor DeviceSSG William Cleveland crew chief on Super Six 4 Silver Star,Bronze Star,Air Medal with Valor DeviceSSG Thomas Field crew chief on Super Six 4 Silver Star,Bronze Star,Air Medal with Valor DeviceCWO Clifton “Elvis” Wolcott pilot of Super Six 1 and died in crash Distinguished Flying Cross,Bronze Star,Air Medal with Valor DeviceCWO Donovan Briley copilot of Super Six 1 and died in crash Distinguished Flying Cross,Bronze Star,Air Medal with Valor Device75th Ranger RegimentSGT Casey Joyce killed on the Lost Convoy Bronze Star with Valor DeviceSPC James Cavaco killed on the Lost Convoy Bronze Star with Valor DeviceCPL Jamie Smith bled to death with the pinned-down force around crash site one Bronze Star with Valor DeviceSGT Dominick Pilla killed on Struecker’s convoy Bronze Star with Valor DevicePFC Richard Kowalewski killed on the Lost Convoy Bronze Star with Valor DeviceSGT Lorenzo Ruiz killed on the Lost Convoy Bronze Star with Valor Device10th Mountain DivisionSGT Cornell Houston killed on the rescue convoy Bronze Star with Valor Device,De Fleury medal14th Infantry (2nd Battalion)PFC James Martin killed on the rescue convoy
May the country and its people rot in hell!
Any bets that Bush will use this battle in his speech on the new direction in Iraq tomorrow night?
It will go something like this:”We will continue to fight those who would do harm to Armerica on their home courts, whether that be Iraq or Somalia. To do otherwise would put America in grave peril…”
I am going to watch a movie tomorrow night and skip the speech. I prefer entertaining, and potentially plausible, fiction over that offered in BushWorld.
I’ve heard and read reviews that _Children of Men_ is supposed to be pretty good. Near future science fiction can’t be worse than what the W. is going to be talking about.
Meanwhile, Somalia’s deputy prime minister claimed that much of the funding for the Islamist militants was coming from Britain and that some of their fighters were British and American passport holders.
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1963762
“While the quagmire in Iraq — like the Battle of Mogadishu years earlier — demonstrates the limits of American military power,…”I am struck by the absurdity of knadler’s comment above. Properly used, there are no limits. The limits come from you people, like this:It will go something like this:”We will continue to fight those who would do harm to Armerica on their home courts, whether that be Iraq or Somalia. To do otherwise would put America in grave peril…” from davisand this:”Wow. The biggest, most expensive and most powerful military in the history of the world can kill lots of people in the poorest country in the world.” from capnor this:”I hope USA sees the plight of the Somalis and sees American interest is best preserved by helping the people of that country than attacking it. USA should not provide Air Support Ethiopia’s invasion in Somalia.” from xasanYou people cannot be trusted to defend this country.
Jefferson’s QuranWhat the founder really thought about Islam.By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/fr/flyout
My second tour during the Viet Nam war was in the AC130. I have recently started an AC130 site
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AC130/
[though I in no way waht to take away from this one].
The chief advantage of the AC130 is its accuracy. If we were flying at 7500 feet (which we had to, at the end of the war, due to the SA7 threat) and missed by one mill (7.5 feet),, we were firing badly. With a 105MM canon, 7.5 feet is not a great matter.
In a recent posting, there are the full specifications for the AC130 on the above site.
Majot John Hanscom, USAF (ret)
Defend it from what, Felletiwood?
Somalies? Iraqis?
I don’t think they hated us until we invaded them.
Just like the Saudi terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 didn’t hate us until we occupied the “place of the two holies–Mecca and Medina” with “kafiri” (unbelieving) US troops.
Christopher Hitchens has zip credibility. He only writes with an opposite tack to stir the pot so that he can claim some self-delusional “higher understanding.”
And, Capn’, the Iraqi’s did not hate us, by and large, until we invaded THEIR country.
The only place in Iraq that had an al Qaeda presence before March of 2003 was in the Kurdish north that was under the protection of the US no-fly zone.
In other words, WE were protecting al Qaeda from Saddam.
I hope our adventure in Somalia turns out better than the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would seem that our endeavor in Somalia is the better way of approaching the ‘War on Terror’. Don’t go in a throw out the government; just blow the bastards up from the air. We have the drones to do it w/o risking American lives.
Sol – I would add that we need some sort of allied presence on the ground. I hope the ‘provisional government’ can be that.
Maybe in Iraq we should have gone after the alQuada presence in Kurdistan – after all, we were already patrolling there.
Truth is that we’ll never REALLY know WHO they actually killed over there.
Right, and don’t worry about the innocent civilians that just happen to be in the same house as the “terrorists.”
American terrorism against innocent civilians who happen to live at the same place terrorists congregate is not terrorism–it’s “self defense.”
Funny, that’s the same rationale the terrorists use.
Capn, what would be your plan to deal with al Qaeda? Make sure there are no civilian loses though k?
“caught between a rock and a hard place” …
I don’t know what is happening there; I just hope we get good intel about targets.
“You people cannot be trusted to defend this country.”
It seems, Fleetwood, that you have a much greater interest in killing people than actually protecting America.
Killing people willy-nilly is not a military strategy.
As Solozzo said in the Godfather, “blood is a big expense.”
The actual killing may be cheap, but the consequences can be very expensive.
Ask Virgil.
“You people cannot be trusted to defend this country.”
It seems, Fleetwood, that you have a much greater interest in killing people than actually protecting America.
Killing people willy-nilly is not a military strategy.
As Solozzo said in the Godfather, “blood is a big expense.”
The actual killing may be cheap, but the consequences can be very expensive.
Ask Virgil.
Yes. That’s exactly what’d I do.
Terror bombing from 7500 feet has no honor in it and creates more terrorism than it kills.
It made somewhat more sense when Clinton did it–at least he attacked the training camps.
According to the new book “The Looming Tower, the Path to 9-11,” bin Laden WANTED a massive military retaliation for the 9-11 atrocity so that the US could get sucked into to some middle eastern country and get the death by a thousand cuts like The USSR had in Afghanistan.
The USSR too was retaliating for jihadist attacks.
Bin Laden got his wish when Bush jumped into the quagmire of Iraq.
Now we’ll be the ones handing Al Qaeda a moral victory by fighting us to a stalemate in Iraq.
Cap’n, don’t bomb them from 7500 ft, don’t go into a country… so just let them go?
Actually, capn, alQuada wins by getting some else to fight us to a stalemate.
Capn: Are you a pacifist who would not agree with any use of force? Or if you do, would you only agree with violence against soldiers lined up in their red coats like the British used to do?
Sorry, but the days of being able to clearly discern friend from foe are long gone. It’s a shame but it’s a fact. Our enemies now largely hide among the women and children. That is their cowardly choice and not our fault.
So we do the best we can to sort things out and minimize injury to civilians. But we must act to defend ourselves.
Sollie–
It’s not rocket science.
You build contacts with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. You get a warrant and you arrest them.
This is what the French did with Carlos the Jackal and what Clinton did with Ramzi Yousef for the first WTC attack and many others, and what Bush did to Khaled Shaik Mohammed.
Dead men tell no tales. Live witnesses can be interrogated and their contacts followed up.
One thing I know, doing what they do is not good policy. Two wrongs never yet made a right.
Outlander–
No, I’m not a pacifist. I believe people have a right to defend themselves.
But we don’t have a right to kill innocents to get to the bad guys.
That’s how the terrorists justify themselves too.
I prefer to stay on a slightly higher moral plane than a terrorist, don’t you?
We got the targeting information from HumInt. In an Islamic environment, that is VERY hard to come by. In Iraq, a lot of the police ARE the terrorists.
Sounds like a utopian plan that MIGHT work to find a person or two, but to get the hundreds of thousands that are planning attacks against us? Pipe dream.
My concern, Capn’, is that our policy has not been working since March 2003, and shows no signs of being workable. Something has to change.
I am not suggesting that we cave in to terrorists, but we have to do a better job of working with moderate Arabs and Muslims. What we are doing now is inflaming tensions between the West and moderate individuals.
We will never be able to win over the radical Islamists, but we have to be able to address the issues with the moderates.
Right now, the Arab and Muslim worlds see us as aggressors, killing innocents as well as terrorists and insurgents.
Our current policy just flat out does not work.
We have to change course.
Sollie, with all due respect, if there are hundreds of thousands that are planning attacks against us in Iraq, why the Hell are we staying?
Okay, fine, but don’t complain when Americans are targetted anywhere, anyplace in the world.
Because you’re saying that killing innocents is part of achieving your goal.
That’s what the terrorists say.
I don’t think it’s a pipe dream to bring criminals to justice as many decades has shown.
It’s a lot harder when you arrogantly bomb little kids because you believe that your cause is so much more important than their lives.
That doesn’t usually win hearts and minds on your side . . .
It is impossible to have a war where there is no collateral damage. To try to go about this your way would take centuries.
We are trying to locate Osama thru HumInt. Working well isn’t it?
You can be as dramatic as you like, but we are TARGETING ‘bad guys’ and SOMETIMES civilians are harmed as well.
Terrorists TARGET CIVILIANS. That is absolutely disgusting that you would lump our soldiers in with terrorists.
WSC, I never said anything about Iraq. This thread is about Somalia and al Qaeda.
“WSC, I never said anything about Iraq. This thread is about Somalia and al Qaeda.”
Sorry, Solly, I thought you were replying to a comment about Iraq.
My apologies, Sol.
“In Iraq, a lot of the police ARE the terrorists.”
Sol, I thought you were referring to a prior comment about Iraq because of this reference.
Apologies again.
Is Sorry, Solly redundant?
My bad – couldn’t resist.
HAHAHA
I caught that too in a post for KSFarmGrl. Sounds like an Asian apologizing doesn’t it?
Apology accepted graciously. No worries.
Whoa, hold on there, big fella.
I never lumped our soldiers with terrorists.
Our soldiers most certainly are not responsible for terrorism against civilians.
Even the witch hunt against Lindy England at Abu Ghraib prison was utterly ridiculous. Obviously those prison guards were doing what they had been told to do by their superiors, and the people in power, not the grunts, should have been charged for it.
The commanders in Washington, taking their cues from the Liar-in-Chief most certainly are responsible for terrorism against civilians.
Some 600,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the American invasion.
In fact, we have a terrorist training camp formerly called “the School for the Americas” in Columbus, Georgia where we bring in right-wing militias and teach them how to terrorize the locals to make sure that a Hugo Chavez style democracy doesn’t break out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
We can’t stop all the evil in the world, but we can reduce evil in our own country and evil by our own gov’t.
“arrogantly bomb little kids because you believe that your cause is so much more important than their lives.”
Us Airmen in those planes. They are arrogant?
Arresting these guys is a joke. They would die before being taken in. These folks are about 4 aces shy of a full deck. Logic need not apply =)
So, summarizing CapnAmerica’s position:
It’s all America’s fault; viva Chavez, viva socialism!
That about right Capn?
We don’t want to spread democracy.We want brutal dictators who will toe the line for our govt(corporations).outie, it’s a long, long story about our last 60yrs of foreign policy.Can’t be told in a sound byte.
Outlander–
No, you know that’s not right and I know you know.
My point is that we shouldn’t do what terrorists do and then attempt to claim the moral high ground.
I’m not responsible for what Salfasits (Wahhabis) like Osama bin Laden. They commit horrible atrocities, but I’m not connected to them in anyway.
I AM responsible for what my own government does . . . with my tax dollars no less. This is supposed to still be a participatory democracy, I think.
As such, I refuse to support US terrorism like the attempted coup against the thrice elected president of Venezula. I believe in the self-determination of local people, not in the most powerful military power on earth subjecting peoples at the barrel of a gun.
If Venezula votes for socialismo, that is their democratic choice. Our “interests” are not more important than foreign democracy or foreign lives.
SolVB–
“[There are] US Airmen in those planes. They are arrogant?”
No, the airmen delivering the bombs are entirely blameless. This is what they have been trained for and what they are expected to do.
If they didn’t do it, they’d be in violation of the law and every military tradition for a thousand years.
The arrogance is in the man who orders the planes to drop those bombs–to decide that American children should be protected from terrorism by terrorising someone else’s children, the arrogance of thinking that one’s enemy cares less for his children and less for avenging the death of those children than we do, that somehow indiscriminate killing leads to the end of indiscriminate killing.
That’s the arrogance.
Cap’n, I think you make extremely good points.