(Updated) Disturbing Trend In Iraq Helicopter Crashes
When a U.S. CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crashed about 20 miles northwest of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing all seven crew members and passengers on board, it was the fifth such incident in less than three weeks. Reports indicated that the large transport chopper was brought down with a surface-to-air missile, which begs the question of whether insurgents have adapted their tactics and are becoming much more effective against American aircraft.
Military and intelligence sources tell military blogger Bill Roggio that is indeed the case and say Al Qaeda was behind four of the five shootdowns, including the Sea Knight incident.
Roggio, whose The Fourth Rail is a must read for people who want large helpings of what the military is doing with their Iraq war news, writes that his sources say Al Qaeda has organized groupings of cells to disrupt the heavy U.S.-Coalition helicopter activity, which includes conducting assaults, ferrying troops and resupplying outlying areas.
Says Roggio:
Al Qaeda wants to force Coalition forces to use ground transportation, where it believes heavier casualties can be inflicted on U.S. forces via roadside bombing and mine attacks (IEDs). Helicopter shoot-downs also “make for compelling television,” according to a military source, which “helps project the image of a deadly, unbeatable enemy.” Al Qaeda is believed to have deployed multiple anti-aircraft cells along the known overflight routes in and around Baghdad.
The cells are thought to be armed with Russian made Strela SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles (see photo), a first-generation shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile which is widely distributed throughout the world. These weapons are not as sophisticated as U.S. made Stingers, which were used with deadly consequences by mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet fixed and rotary wing aircraft. U.S. aircraft have systems to deter missile threats (jammers, flairs, chaff), but there are no reports these systems were deployed during any of the engagements.
The New York Times says that the number of choppers brought down recently is six, not five, and includes a previously unreported January 31 incident. It also reports that a missile deterence system was operating on at least one of the choppers, but apparently was ineffective.
The Times says:
American officials emphasize that a new sense of coordinated aggressiveness on the part of insurgents toward attacking aircraft, or even luck, may be playing as large a role in the high pace of crashes as improved skill and tactics among insurgents.
“I do not know whether or not it is the law of averages that caught up with us,� said Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during Senate testimony on Tuesday. Another possibility, he said, was that there had “been a change in tactics, techniques and procedures on the part of the enemy.�
More on this disturbing development here and here.
Meanwhile, IraqSlogger notes that Saddam Hussein’s Army was equipped with Strela SA-7s and speculates as to whether an improved version that is much more effective against aircraft is now in insurgent hands.
More here.
42 Responses to “(Updated) Disturbing Trend In Iraq Helicopter Crashes”
Excellent followup on this story, Shaun! I suspect your posting reflects a new phase in the war.
As you suggested yesterday, this new insurgent strategy may be a “mission-killer” for the surge. We all know how devastating the Stingers were in the hands of mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet gunships.
More disturbing (see NYT story below) it seems the Apache that was shot down the other day was also by a missile – not by small arms as originally thought. Even worse — and updating Roggio’s comment in your post that “U.S. aircraft have systems to deter missile threats (jammers, flairs, chaff), but there are no reports these systems were deployed during any of the engagements” — it seems these were deployed in the Apache missile strike…TO NO EFFECT!
I think this is a very important story. Kudos on following it up!
From the New York Times:
“There is a On Jan. 20, in the deadliest recent crash, attackers appear to have fired from a pickup truck near Baghdad. The first of two Black Hawk helicopters passed over the truck and saw nothing amiss. But a witness said that the second helicopter fired the flares that were used to confuse heat-seeking missiles before bursting into flames and then crashing. An Apache gunship in the area then pursued the truck and destroyed it. The American military later said that the debris from the truck contained tubes consistent with missile launchers.”
The NYT story is “Copter Crashes Suggest Change in Iraqi Tactics” (Feb.8, 2007)
Here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/world/middleeast/08helicopter.html?ex=1328590800&en=56c2f75b6bedbe04&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Marlowecan:
I had asked Roggio about this apparent trend yesterday after TMV queries and he responded magnificently. I hadn’t yet read The Times account and have updated my post to include it. Thank you.
Shaun… I would point out that you are actually out ahead of the New York Times on this story.
With Rudi’s suggestion and research yesterday, and your following up with your contact to flesh out the background on this trend, you were ahead of the Times (and with greater detail and analysis).
This is a very disturbing trend, given our knowledge of what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan…and the US dependency on helicopters in Iraq. Possibly a determining phase in the war.
It is excellent that a blogger is on the edge of this emerging story, ahead of much of the MSM!
Marlowecan:
The media revolution in Vietnam was videotape, which enabled people to see what was happening on the battlefield within hours after it had occurred, not days later.
The media revolution in the first Gulf War was the satellite TV phone, which enabled people to see what was happening (albeit through grainy images) in real time.
The media revolution in the second Gulf War is the blog, which enables people to bypass the MSM entirely and go behind the big story of the moment in myriad ways.
I hasten to add that there is a lot of unreliable stuff being spewed into the blogosphere, but people like Bill Roggio are doing tremendous work and frequently are ahead of The Times and other outlets, and there are a number of Iraqi bloggers who are doing the same.
Komrads Shaun and Marlow,
A more troubling issue is the Pentagon spin to claim ‘mechanical failure’ yesterday. Tillman and Lynch lies didn’t work, why not just claim “we are currently investigating”. I wait for the daily ‘Operation’ news, when does Kid Rock or Toby Keith get theirs.
I’m put curiously in mind of the Afghan muajahedeen and the tactics used against the Russians when I hear of these helicopter attacks.
In that conflict, the CIA was planning to introduce a mix of weapons to be used against the heavily armoured MIG-24 helicopter. One was the famous Stinger missile (which proved very effective). Another was the PKC heavy machine gun (which may have been used against one of the helicopters in Iraq). The third was the Oerlikon antiaircraft gun, which was never really used (though I’ve heard the Iraqi insurgents may have similar, truck-mounted weapons).*
The idea was to have a mix of weapons, rather than a single one. That way the MIG-24 could be attacked at high altitude or low altitude, at close range or at a distance. I wonder if the Iraqi insurgents are trying something similar.
*All of this information is from George Crile’s book Charlie Wilson’s War
With every downed copter we are one step closer to war with Iran.
While the Fourth Rail post is excellent, it still uses the ‘Bad Iranian’ spin to assign blame. As TPM posted, wealthy Saudis are supplying Sunnis with large amounts of cash, I would like to see ‘Iranian and Saudis’ in the assigning blame for the sources of arms and cash. The ‘Bad Iranians’ sounds like the ‘Iraqis responsible for 911′ BS.
From the Fourth Rail:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012259.php
LOL I wonder if Osama
Obamalearned how to use a Stella during his education at that Saudis funded madrassa. We report you decide…….Yes a new phase for sure.
The real question to be begged is:
Just where exactly are these weapons coming from and why all of a sudden now after 4 years are they showing up?
Alan G:
“Charlie Wilson’s War” is one of the best resources on that conflict.
For my money, the best book to cover that era and then the run-up to 9/11 is Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, to September 10, 2001.”
Coll’s sourcing is extraordinary and one cannot read the book without understanding the there were good men and women in the Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton administrations who had the big picture, but almost always were marginalized for one reason or another.
Rudi:
Caveat emptor applies in the blogosphere, as well. Bill Roggio has his spin and I mine, and readers should be aware of both. But Bill has contacts in the military and intelligence communities that many reporters would die for, and that is why The Fourth Rail is a must read if you really want to follow the nitty gritty of the war.
Shaun-
I’ll have to see if the library has “Ghost Wars”.
Another good book about the period prior to 9/11 is “The Perfect Soldier”. While it focuses mainly on Mohammed Atta, it also talks about other associated terrorists, like Ramzi Yusef.
Alan G:
Thank you. And while we’re talking indispensible books, the best big picture account that I’ve read on Al Qaeda from its formative years on is Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.”
It is a terrific counterpoint to “Ghost Wars” in that it makes the case, which Wright does not cram down the reader’s throat, that the FBI and CIA may have been able to prevent the 9/11 attacks. And, again without being preachy, puts the lie to the Bush administration’s protestations that it was in the dark in the run-up to the attacks.
In fact, based on this book and other accounts, an argument can be made that some of the key players, including my favorite present day secretary of state, are criminally culpable, and that is not something that I say casually.
“Meanwhile, IraqSlogger notes that Saddam Hussein’s Army was equipped with Strela SA-7s”
And I guess it’s safe to assume that the wherabouts of not all of these weapons were accounted for. However, it’s a long time since 2003 now, and if the militas spared their best weapons and only use it now, wht does it say about the situation? That they think now is the right time to further escalate the crisis? Awful thought.
“With every downed copter we are one step closer to war with Iran.”
That’ a point. Even if a heli wasn’t shot down with Iraqi weapons, the Bush posse is perfectly capable to create a faux case. The public wouldn’t notice before 2008 anyhow.
^^^^^^^^
oops…
They don’t hear you, Rudi. Nobody wants to see past their own noses sometimes, it’s frustrating.
C’mon lefties and righties, speak on this!
In terms of raw information, this is one of the best threads I have seen. Clearly, there ain’t no dumb bunnies at TMV.
Comrade Rudi…your links were excellent! I have always thought your research surprisingly sound for someone on the Left
but your picking up on the possible significance of the Strelas yesterday was remarkable even for your worthy self.
Upinsmoke said: “…why all of a sudden now after 4 years are they showing up?”
That is a very interesting question. Why now? I can’t really believe these were just lying about ignored for years, and now picked up.
Further to AlanG on Afghanis, and Rudi on the possible Saudi connection, the Saudis were the bankrollers of the muajahedeen. If anyone has longterm memory of the strategic value of these things, it would be the Saudis.
No one in the MSM has touched upon a point talked about with Rudi and Shaun in yesterday’s thread — namely Bush’s avoiding flying into Iraq on his trip to the region a few weeks ago, for the first time. Logically, this suggests Bush advisers have intel that the missile threat must have increased over the level of the past.
What is this intel? Was this intel shared with local pilots? Why has no one in the MSM connected these two dots?
Shaun might have nailed it in his comment above: “The media revolution in the second Gulf War is the blog, which enables people to bypass the MSM entirely and go behind the big story of the moment in myriad ways.”
Marlowecan:
I have feelers out on the no-fly zone question you raised. No bites yet, but I’ll keep casting my net.
Yeah, due to excess bullet holes.
I think its the Saudis following through on their threat.
Rudi- Given the close nature of this administration to the Saudi royals, its not surprising that we don’t hear more about their state-supported terrorism. Much of the money comes from oil revenue, so in a way we are supporting it ourselves at the pump.
I have to agree 100% that Bushco is playing up the Iranian interference, while downplaying interference from the Saudis. Saudi oil money also supports the madrassas which spread extremist ideology that is similar or identical to al quedas.
Much of this saber-rattling is because Israel and remaining neocons surrounding the administration are urging Bush to confront Iran before he leaves office, and force them into a more submissive stance in the region.
That wasn’t the article I wanted to link to. This one is this one is. This is the money quote,
Then why aren’t we vilifying the Saudis? Why isn’t anyone on EITHER side speaking on this? Scared to admit the truth to what’s actually going on? That Saudi AND Iran are both funding the Iraq Civil War? Huh? Why are some of y’all scared? Let’s go lefties and righties, prove Chuck Prez wrong!
Its black viscous and rhymes with spoil.
ChuckPrez:
Several bloggers who cover the Middle East have noted that the U.S. has tied itself in such knots over the war that it is supporting a Shiite regime in Iraq while its closest allies (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) are Sunni regimes.
Something’s got to give, right? Right.
Okay the left-leaning folks spoke…it’s time for those right-leaning people to speak and prove Chuck Prez wrong!
CP –I had c-span on today and Sen Weyden? (sp?) from Oregon was speaking at length about the Saudi connection. But nothing is coming out of the WH. Even though it is an outrage, we are heavily reliant on the Saudis for oil, bases and regional stability. If you read State of Denial, a Saudi prince tutored W in foreign affairs along with Condi before he took office. I can’t see us turning on the Saudis no matter what they do. Its more politically expedient for Bush to blame Ahmadinejad, since most Americans already think he’s a nutcase.
I’ve always had this secret suspicion that OSB was not detained by Bush or Clinton because both families were close to King Abdullah.
Also I might add that (I can’t remember where) I heard that the first person GWB told that he intended to run for the presidency was a certain ambassador to Saudi Arabia. That might have something to do with it. As far as, the lefty people are concerned. I’m sure oil lobbyists have their hook deeply implanted somehow.
The Saudis have given up on W/Cheney/Condo fixing up the mess we’ve made. The Saudis are now in cahoots with Iran to fix Lebanon. W’s talking with the Holy Father and Condo’s Ruby Slippers can’t get the US back to Kansas.
kritter said: “Given the close nature of this administration to the Saudi royals, its not surprising that we don’t hear more about their state-supported terrorism. Much of the money comes from oil revenue, so in a way we are supporting it ourselves at the pump.”
I agree. But would the Democrats be different?
Saudi puritanical Wahhabism has warped contemporary Sunni Islam thanks to grants to mosques and Islamic schools around the world from Saudi oil money.
Yesterday the British media were up in arms about a school in the UK where student textbooks praise the killing of Jews and infidels.
Guess whose money funded the school and the textbooks?
If you consider the recent history of Islam, the current wave of puritanism – particularly with regard to the treatment of women – has its roots in Wahhabism. Prior to Saudi oil grants, much of the Arab world was focused on modernization a la Nasser etc.
And the Saudis are our allies?!!
…you know who’s take I *REALLY* want? Laura’s
I agree. But would the Democrats be different?
Marlowe- I don’t really know what the Democrats would do differently, and for once, it wasn’t an attack just on Bush, but on our whole convoluted history there. Its outrageous to think that Americans may be arming terrorism when we fill up. I do think we need to wean ourselves off of Saudi oil, but that relationship may be helping to repress even more attacks against us.
I will say that by removing a Sunni leader that provided stability in Iraq, Bush is responsible for destabilizing the region and thereby inviting the interference of the surrounding countries. It was naive of him to think that democracy would flourish overnight after the experience that the British had in the 1920′s.
Lets make one thing perfectly clear. No one that I am aware of has claimed the Saudi Government is funding the Sunni insurgents. Rather it is claimed individual Saudi citizens are doing so.
And on a related note, our idiotic TSA and customs folks could actually be exacerbating the situation by endlessly and needlessly harrassing Saudis who might be in a position to help track down funding sources. A note to US customs and TSA, the terrorists aren’t likely to arrive in the US in a 150 million dollar custom Boeing aircraft. But the folks that do arrive in that aircraft run the biggest bank in Saudi Arabia and could be in a position to provide some good tips. Now, perhaps no matter what they just won’t be inclined to do so, but making them sit on the flightline next to their 150 million dollar aircraft for hours why you count how many pairs of shoes are in their luggage isn’t going to convince them to.
Good point, Davebo. The government hasn’t been able to crack down on individuals who support terror organizations or give to the madrassas. A lot of donations take place at the mosques, so it is hard to track.
kritter said: “Marlowe – I don’t really know what the Democrats would do differently, and for once, it wasn’t an attack just on Bush, but on our whole convoluted history there.”
Kritter, I totally agree. Whether GOP or Democrats are in charge, the Saudis are treated with kid gloves. This has been going on for decades. I admit I don’t see it changing.
Davebo, the Saudi government may not officially approve of everything, but the country is based upon a deal that was made between Ibn Saud and the Wahhabi sect back in the 1920s. The House of Saud rules because it supports the Wahhabi view around the world with oil money.
The Saudi royal house is far from puritanical, but for its survival it must turn a blind eye to Wahhabi extremism and, in fact, fund it.
According to a study I read in the early 2000s, approximately 80% of the mosques in the United States have been recipients of Saudi grants.
There are clearly a lot of reasons why the Bush administration might prefer seeing Iran behind these missiles than the Saudis.
Iran my arse.
Saudi’s funnel cash to Iraqi Sunni’s, as do Syrian’s, Jordanians, Egyptians, while Iran funnels cash to Shiites in Iraq. Anyone with an IQ above 3 knows they are all in on this, just remove brain from CNN/Fox for awhile and think about it. That money buys black market arms from Africa, surplus Soviet stuff from ex-commie countries Bulgaria, Romania so on. It’s probably shipped into Iraq from every single country with a border with Iraq (all coviently unguarded by the US military except Syria to a small degree), and probably the leakiest border is the Saudi Arabian border with a wink and a nod from the US government.
But if you want believe the guys that gave us “Saddam has WMD’s, and mushroom clouds LOL.
Btw the Iraqis have tons of leftover AA-AAA weapons most probably 23mm cannon in use by the Soviets from WW2 as AAA and mounted on aircraft to this day. Oerlikon cannons are German WW2 era, and very hard to come by on the black market. Btw be wary of China testing out new weapons in Iraq…hey we did in Afghanistan in the 80′s.
All of the above contributes to an impossible situation. Our forces have to worry about al queda , Sunni insurection, surrounding countries providing weapons and cash to the Sunnis, Shia and al queda, disarming Shiite death squads, the corruption and incompetence of the Iraqi government, police and army, and rebuilding the trust and infrastructure of a splintered society. Its too much. They shouldn’t be in the middle of this.
I think if we just kept this discussion going long enough that you would all come to the conclusion I have a long time ago.
While vehemently opposed to being in this war I see leaving it as an impossibility.
I asked where are these weapons coming from is the main question to be asked. Its obvious that Anyone with an interest in this region is getting involved.
Our forces need to be more like umpires then players and just let it sort out while keeping it manageable is about the best scenario I can come up with.
“No one that I am aware of has claimed the Saudi Government is funding the Sunni insurgents.”
Well, the royal famil is the government, and some of them supported terrorist groups until this became public…
“Our forces need to be more like umpires then players and just let it sort out while keeping it manageable is about the best scenario I can come up with.”
Not a bad idea, but in parctise…
Who’s right, who’s wrong?
It would be much better for the US to stay out of the fighting, moce away from the cities, and only give humanitarian aid to reugees, imho.
[...] We reported the other day on a disturbing trend: Multiple crashes of U.S. helicopters in Iraq that may have been brought down by insurgents using surface-to-air missiles. [...]