The continuing secrecy surrounding the attack on Ossama bin Laden's facilities in Afghanistan coupled with criticism for using only cruise missiles during that attack has opened the door for speculation regarding the whole affair. Numerous articles and news stories have questioned the wisdom of not following the initial cruise-missile assault with additional attacks by manned aircraft. Questions have circulated whether garden variety TLAMs could successfully penetrate hardened, buried shelters. The question, therefore, begs asking: were these really "garden variety" TLAMs?

In general, the reasons to maintain secrecy about an operation can be divided into three categories: 1) to hide the capabilities of battlefield assets (including hardware and personnel), 2) to mask tactics and operational details (including items like "reaction time"), and 3) to protect the identity of under cover intelligence assets (sometimes it's not what you know that's secret, but rather how you found out about it). Examining the admittedly limited public information in light of this criteria produces some interesting possibilities.

Let's begin with what we've been told, which I've summarized into three points. The attack consisted of (or included) some 70 cruise missiles. No damage assessments have been made public. The timing of the attack coincided with a meeting of "terrorist leaders" at that location. Meanwhile, through reports in Aviation Week and elsewhere, several retired high-ranking military officers have criticized using only cruise missiles, citing a need for manned aircraft to "finish" the job and engage targets too heavy for cruise missiles.

Keep in mind that there have been plenty of cruise missile attacks in the years since Desert Storm, and the public has received a fair amount of information about cruise missile accuracy and damage-inflicting capabilities. Consequently, we have a situation where the military has announced the weapon used in the attacks but declines to offer any information about the results of that employment. Strictly guarding the BDA (bomb damage assessment) therefore suggests a possible discrepancy between what the weapons are reportedly capable of doing and what they actually accomplished.

Based on the aforementioned criteria for classifying information, it seems least likely that the military is exercising option "3" and trying to protect in-country intelligence assets. Announcing that missiles damaged 60% of the structures at the target site probably wouldn't compromise any agents (although it is possible that intelligence reports helped planners decide which structures to target).

On the other hand, protecting damage results fits nicely with option "2." For example, we know that U.S. Special Forces were inserted into Iraq well before the ground action started in Desert Storm. Suppose the U.S. used secretive methods to insert special forces deep into Afghanistan where they directed the strike and designated targets. Certainly, the fact that U.S. forces penetrated foreign soil would be cause enough for secrecy!

The most intriguing scenario, though, deals with option "1." Although entirely speculation, the U.S. may well be protecting information about a new weapon system (or possibly maintaining secrecy around a system used in Desert Storm). Perhaps the U.S. released an improved cruise missile with superior damage inflicting capability. Perhaps the U.S. really did follow up the strikes with sorties by manned aircraft… aircraft which apparently passed through foreign airspace totally undetected.

Ironically, it is no secret that the U.S. military does indeed keep secrets from the general public. We know about highly accurate missiles; radar-avoiding aircraft; and stealthy remotely piloted recon vehicles. Although we can only speculate, based on the technology available to the commercial sector it's not hard to envision significantly smarter, significantly more accurate, or significantly more powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal.

Imagine a modified Tomahawk cruise missile which, after using GPS and terrain mapping to reach the target area, switches seekers and searches for a homing beacon-a beacon planted by Special Forces in a terrorist leader's get-a-way vehicle. Imagine missiles so accurate that each missile flies through the hole blasted by the preceding missile… allowing multiple Tomahawks to penetrate deep into a buried complex. Such scenarios are little more than fodder for the X-Files television series, but are certainly plausible given technology available at the local Radio Shack.

The U.S. clearly doesn't want other potential targets to know how the attack was conducted or how successful it was. This could indicate a successful marriage between intelligence and tactics, or it could indicate that the U.S. has battle tested a new "black" program that, like the F-117 Stealth Fighter before it, has been successfully kept secret from the U.S. public.

Although there's little doubt that such secrecy is warranted, a little deductive reasoning coupled with a few educated guesses often comes close to hitting the mark. Of course, as long as the information remains classified, the individuals doing the speculating will never really know just how close they might be.

Tom "KC" Basham is an electronics engineer and former defense contractor with expertise in flight simulation. Basham publishes Computer Entertainment Debrief magazine, a magazine focusing specifically on simulation and strategy gaming tactics, written primarily by real-world military and aviation personnel.

For more information on Debrief magazine go to :Debrief Online

For more on modern weapons systems go to Strike Weapons