The Taliban’s Air Force
Stumble Upon
Newsvine
Mixx
Diigo
Delicious
Reddit
Facebook
The Taliban’s air force recently delivered another devastating strike, hitting two fuel tanker trucks that had been captured by local Taliban-affiliated forces in northern Afghanistan. As usual, many civilians were killed, inflaming the local population against NATO forces in an area that had been relatively quiet. The air strike was thus not merely tactical but operational in its effects.
As is always the case with the Taliban’s air force, the air strike was a “pseudo-op.” A pseudo-op is where one side dresses up in the other side’s uniforms or otherwise duplicates his signatures, then does something that works against the goals of the simulated party.
You say you did not know the Taliban had an air force? It has a very powerful air force, not restricted to traditional flying carpets but employing all the latest combat aircraft: F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Harriers, Tornados, the works. That air force has been one of the main factors in the Taliban’s resurgence. Many of the strike missions it has carried out have had positive results (for the Talibs) at the operational and moral levels, if not always at the tactical and physical levels of war.
What has confused many observers is that the Taliban has taken pseudo-ops to a new level in its air operations. It does not merely paint American or NATO symbols on its aircraft for a specific mission. Its aircraft are permanently disguised, not only with appropriate insignia, but with American or NATO pilots, command and control and maintenance. Across the gulf of war, one has to say the Talibs have been brilliant in the air, if not always in other respects. They have actually managed to get their opponents to provide and pay for the air force that is defeating them!
Pseudo-ops can be difficult to detect. However, close analysis usually reveals a small flaw that, to knowing observers, gives the game away. The flaw in the case of the attack on the two fuel tankers is visible to anyone who knows the NATO mission approval process. For U.S. or other NATO aircraft to launch an air strike in support of European ground forces (German in this case), approvals must be obtained from many levels.
In fact, just one requirement for approval would almost certainly have stopped any genuine NATO airstrike. Everyone in the command chain must know that whenever an accident to a fuel tanker or a pipeline makes free fuel available in a third or Fourth World country, the locals come out with pots and pans and jars to scavenge whatever they can. For most of them, scavenged fuel is the only alternate to no fuel. How often to we read about a leaking pipeline in West Africa killing hundreds of people when it explodes, because it was surrounded by people scavenging fuel?
It is thus impossible that NATO could have launched the strike that destroyed the two fuel tankers, killing dozens of scavenging Afghan civilians in the process. This is the tiny flaw that reveals the Taliban pseudo-op.
The question bedeviling senior NATO and American commanders in Afghanistan is how to stop the Taliban’s air force before it wins the war for Mullah Omar. My sources inform me that serious consideration is being given to assigning U.S. or other NATO fighter CAP to all Taliban operations, with orders to shoot down any aircraft launching strikes that would hit Afghan civilians. Marine Air is reportedly comfortable with the idea, but the U.S. Air Force is resisting strongly for fear of fratricide.
Should that option not prove viable, some senior American officials think it may be necessary simply to end all U.S. and NATO air strike missions in Afghanistan. That would shut down the Taliban’s air force as well, because pseudo-ops would no longer be possible. Any air strikes launched by Taliban aircraft would be attributed to their real source.
Meanwhile, the example set by the Taliban’s pseudo-ops may be spreading. Some reports suggest the Pakistani Taliban (a separate organization) is now employing its own Predators, carrying out “hits” in internal feuds that get blamed on the Americans. The current leadership thus wins a double victory.
Clearly, the aviation pseudo-op genie is now out of the bottle. It will be interesting to see how the American and NATO leadership in Afghanistan try to tempt it back inside.
Filed under: War



An interesting article William.
Here is a question – I don’t know the answer.
Why can’t we put up half a dozen geo-sync’d satellites, and another half dozen AWACs, and be able to totally track every time a rock is thrown into the air?
Am I overestimating our scientific capability, or does it come down to bean counters and purse strings?
===========================================
I still say, when we’re ready to cut and run, then hold a general election, to include the Taliban folks, on whether they want us to stay. If they say “No”, then there’s our exit strategy.
If they want us to stay, then we give each province goals, and if goals not met, that PROVINCE falls out from under US protection. When the last Province chooses it’s own path, there’s our exit strategy.
(LAZY BOY RECLINERS, making large problems simple, for over 50 years…)
Bravo Bill! W.S. Gilbert could not have done better in his prime!
My hat is off to you!
Mike
A neocon who takes a lib seriously, is a fool waiting to be made.
Many superior people are known for their wit.
Certainly many libs are full of it.
I stumbled upon this site and read an excellent article by Prof. Mearshimer.
I have NO idea what I just read. Is it satire? Is it the delirious ramblings of a shell-shocked neocon?
Should I fear more for the sanity of the author, or the poor saps who might actually BELIEVE a fever-dream such as this?
My god (well, not really, I’m agnostic)… drop your strongly held views for a millisecond and look at these events objectively. To say that your article lends me to believe “you’re smoking crack” would be a disservice to the fleeting pleasurable effects of illegal drugs.
You’re out of your mind.
Mr. Beisbol, I am fairly certain that Mr. Lind meant this article to be satire and not to be taken seriously at all. He was just demonstrating the mental gymnastics some people will go through in order to avoid ever assigning moral guilt for the death of noncombatants in foreign countires to U.S. or NATO military forces. It’s like the parent who refuses to acknowledge that their child was caught in the act of shoplifting, insisting instead that someone else must have put that CD covered with their son’s fingerprints in their son’s inner jacket pocket.
My guess is that Mr. Lind’s reference to “traditional flying carpets” in the third paragraph was a bit of a wink to let readers know that the article was not to be taken at face value.
Of course he was being serious, the point being that every time we bomb civilians we are ultimately leading to our own defeat.
A pseudo-op is an inverse-false- flag op accomplishing blowback. Bring to a boil, stirring repeatedly until the pudding quickens.