Inside a US air base attacked by Iranian missiles

BBC News ^ | Jan 14, 2020 | Nafiseh Kohnavard / BBC

[Paul R.]

US air base Al Asad in Iraq was targeted by Iran in response to the death of Qasem Soleimani, the top Iranian military commander, who was killed in a US air strike.

BBC Persian correspondent Nafiseh Kohnavard was allowed inside the high security base to see the damage and speak to soldiers who survived the attack.

[Paul R.]

Of note: Our soldiers got a warning hours in advance, but it was a general warning: They didn't know specifically that missiles were incoming until a few moments before they hit. And... Look at what they hit. Rush was clearly wrong to say the Iranian military only hit "sand pits". The attackers were clearly not demonstrating that they "could hit us harder" with a grouping, say, at the end of a runway, away from potentially killing many. (It has been pointed out by other FReepers that these were fairly heavy warheads on not particularly precise missiles, and even if one assumes the Iranians didn't aim for highest casualties, if a missile hit a shelter bunker directly, anyway, the results could be deadly to many of our people.)

Also note the timing if the incoming as discussed in the vid - typical terrorist tactic.

[Paul R.]

I left out that apparently it was our own defense systems that gave the specific warning of incoming missiles, with scant moments to spare.

[Paul R.]

And to repost the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQm0AwgVaM

[wbarmy]

Only if you buy the story being peddled. A large prefab tent and a few blast holes, with closeups to make sure you do not see that the Air Base is fully operational.

I have been in bombardments and seen a lot of collateral damage like that. It doesn’t hurt the mission capability of the unit at all.

Maybe the unit got real advanced warning, or short notice advance warning, but it would take a direct hit, maybe more than one, to hurt the people in the bunkers.

[GOPJ]

Aren’t democrats pushing the lie that soldiers were killed? Isn’t this part of that effort? BBC? Makes our ‘progressives’ look conservative...

[ptsal]

Why would any military commander allow a reporter on base?
~~Gen. Stanley McChrystal

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

wbarmy :" ..it would take a direct hit, maybe more than one, to hurt the people in the bunkers."

True that, but according to the video, barracks were hit in several volleys.
Also the volleys were not simultaneous, but were timed out, with enough timing
to allow 'first responders' to be out looking for the wounded and assess the damage, when the next volley came in.
This seems to be a typical terrorist tactic to maximize casualties
That there were no fatalities was purely accidental.

[nwrep]

[Grognard49]

I’ve been in enough “Bunker Dives” to tell you that no one leaves shelter just because there hasn’t been incoming for a few minutes. Once you are in there, you wait for the all clear to be given (or other instructions) before you exit.

With the surveillance systems that the US has, the command personnel have a real good idea if there will be any more incoming, whether it is rockets or mortars.

[MplsSteve]

I wonder if Laz would hit that...?

[Paul R.]

True, but, that sort of timing and targeting* is still a typical terrorist attack.

*Within certain limits - the rockets used are not terribly accurate. One can reasonably say the attackers were not trying to hit the far end of the runway, but whether they actually targeted bunkers vs. barracks, we don’t know.

IMO, the Mullahs actually wanted large US casualties, and believe, incorrectly, that would be a proportional response that would also cause sufficient political pressure to “dump Trump” (ie., most Americans are sissies) whilst they endure our following retaliation. I doubt they care how many of their own people are harmed - they sent children by the thousands into mine fields to clear them - by getting blown up - in the Iran / Iraq War.

It’s also important to consider that the Iranians are not a monolith, and not even two 100% divergent sides internally. They have various power struggles galore. Do we REALLY know who the advance warning originally came from?

[Paul R.]

The BBC would generally be soft toward Iran...

I think if there’s an agenda here, it’s more likely more along the lines of “Oh, golly, we’d better be nice to the Mullahs. People could be killed!” (Typical modern Western Euro mindset, with some exceptions.)

Don’t get me wrong - as things worked out, Pres. Trump played it well. The Mullahs are now in a somewhat difficult position.

[Safetgiver]

Did she forget her tits that day?

[Paul R.]

What are you stating “the story being peddled” to be? That Iran did a lot of damage, therefor we should be scared of them?

MY take* from the vid is that the attackers did not target “mission capability” — they targeted the area where the most people were, for political effect. Typical terrorist mindset.

*That’s a bit conditional. We really need to see a map of the base and a bit more perhaps — say, a 10 sq. mile area, to see where each rocket hit. For example, if all but one rocket hit in a loose group well away from buildings, etc., and one strayed over and hit the barracks, that’s one thing. If most of the hits grouped around the barracks and bunkers, that’s another. (Were BUNKER doors blown in?) Maybe the impacts were widely scattered. Listening to the soldiers’ comments, I lean toward several rockets hitting near the barracks & bunkers, but, maybe I am misinterpreting.