The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 



    Follow Tom


    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.

      The Chinook Catastrophe: Why Does U.S. Pack So Many Troops in Slow Helicopters?

      Part one of an exclusive series. See also Familiar Tactics and Thoughts on Ambush.

      Yesterday’s successful Taliban attack on a Chinook CH-47 helicopter that killed 30 Americans, including 22 Navy SEALS, raises serious questions about the risks of U.S. night raids. Bob Mulholland, a longtime Democratic Party operative and disabled Vietnam veteran, issued a scathing analysis:

      “The Americans taught the Afghans why it was important to shoot down the big Russian helicopters (because) you would kill more of them per missile. Twenty-five years later the American military packs as many American troops in a helicopter as possible. And they will continue to do so because ‘it won’t happen again.’ I doubt if anyone will get relieved of duty.”

      As the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday, “large and slow-moving, the Chinook is vulnerable as it flies through mountains and valleys that allow insurgents clear lines of fire.” In 2005, another Chinook was shot down in Kunar province, resulting in 19 deaths of SEALS and special operations troops.

      What effect the nightly operations are having on the Taliban is largely unknown, since the operations are secret from the American media and public. But the Taliban attack is undeniable evidence that the insurgents have staying power as the U.S. begins to withdraw. The Chinook catastrophe is being called “bin Ladin’s revenge” by many in Afghanistan, and shatters any Western PR claims to success.

      Instead of curbing the night raids as often demanded by Afghan president Hamid Karzai and others, the likely U.S. response will be to repeat the high-risk policy in the name of revenge. As the head of the U.S. Central Command declared, “this loss will only make the rest of us more determined, something that may be difficult for those who aren’t in the military to understand.”

      Roger that.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (2)

      I totally agree, I found this article searching for "why were so many troops in a vulnerable helicopter?". I still have not found a reasonable, or *any*, reason for it. I don't understand "Let's pack 30 of our best soldiers in a slow moving, easy to hit helicopter and fly them into a *hot* combat area", I'm not in the military and that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

      August 8, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRobert

      Repeating high-risk policy in the name of revenge is easy to understand, albeit childish and foolish. When will the Obama administration cease this pusillanimous behavior and help the military to reform their cruel and inhuman ways?

      Determined not to vote for a warmonger,
      Elizabeth Lerer

      August 9, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth Lerer
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.