View Full Version : US Special Forces launch rare attack inside Syria
Team Sergeant
10-27-2008, 12:47
You can run but you cannot hide..... Bet that left a mark....
Team Sergeant
US Special Forces launch rare attack inside Syria
By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press Writer Albert Aji, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 26, 7:26 pm ET
DAMASCUS, Syria – U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."
A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.
"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.
The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.
A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said.
The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children.
A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and troops exited the aircraft and fired on a building. He said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. The witness spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information,
Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest against the strike.
"Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch and immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," the government statement said.
The area targeted is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.
Iraqi travelers making their way home across the border reported hearing many explosions, said Farhan al-Mahalawi, mayor of Qaim.
On Thursday, U.S. Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a "different story."
"The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement."
He added that the U.S. was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border.
"There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years," Kelly said.
The foreign fighters network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, the U.S. military official said.
He said that while American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach.
"The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria," the official said.
The White House in August approved similar special forces raids from Afghanistan across the border of Pakistan to target al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. At least one has been carried out.
The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior U.S. military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official.
Ninety percent of the foreign fighters enter through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence. Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bomb-making and with small-arms expertise and more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis.
Foreign fighters toting cash have been al-Qaida in Iraq's chief source of income. They contributed more than 70 percent of operating budgets in one sector in Iraq, according to documents captured in September 2007 on the Syrian border. Most of the fighters were conveyed through professional smuggling networks, according to the report.
Iraqi insurgents seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing U.S. Marines to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem accused the United States earlier this year of not giving his country the equipment needed to prevent foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq. He said Washington feared Syria could use such equipment against Israel.
Though Syria has long been viewed by the U.S. as a destabilizing country in the Middle East, in recent months, Damascus has been trying to change its image and end years of global seclusion.
Its president, Bashar Assad, has pursued indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey, and says he wants direct talks next year. Syria also has agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, a country it used to dominate both politically and militarily, and has worked harder at stemming the flow of militants into Iraq.
The U.S. military in Baghdad did not immediately respond to a request for comment after Sunday's raid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria_us_raid
I always have a sense of gratification when we chase some vermin to ground. But in this case I do wonder if this action results from a short-term perspective. From a strategic point of view, might it have been more prudent to respect the Syrian border?
It may have been useful to send a message--we are willing to kill you anywhere, anytime--but doesn't this put the Iraqi government in an awkward position? Perhaps the targets had strategic value, I don't know.
The Iranians and Russians are trying to use this against us as well. OK, rant on. But add this to the recent Pakistan raid and how do our European allies view this? And why this raid now? I'm curious about the strategic thinking that went into this decision.
It sounds like everyone made it back intact. Good work men. :lifter
Here is a nice news clip from the local News station.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=268_1225110420
Nickname: Abu Ghadiyah
Real name: Badran Turki al-Mazidih
Nationality: Iraqi
Age: early 30s
Position: Al-Qaida in Iraq's head of logistics in Syria since 2004
Duties: Providing foreign fighters with passports, weapons, guides and safe houses enroute to Iraq
Good for them, hope they got good intel.......
Here is a nice news clip from the local News station.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=268_1225110420
Nice spin on the operation they've got going there. Nothing less than stellar reporting from Memri TV. They always tell the truth :rolleyes:
I'm thoroughly suprised that it wasn't 3000 women and children.
Gotta love the sound of that mini-gun rippin into some terrorist ass!! :D
You can run but you cannot hide..... Bet that left a mark....Team Sergeant
Oh hell yeah! Outstanding!:lifter
Holly
I've been saying for several years now that the border "situations" in Iraq and Afghanistan show uncanny similarities to those of the Vietnam War. I'm glad to hear that we're finally taking their sanctuaries away from them and running them to ground. And I couldn't think of a better group of hard-chargers to carry these operations out. Good on ya, boys!
Yes, excellent hunting, job well done.
i am very much for chasing these people around but at the same time, violating a nation borders is pretty serious stuff, to say nothing of the shitstorm that would have manifested if the intel was wrong. With that said, way to rock guys.
blue02hd
10-27-2008, 17:42
i am very much for chasing these people around but at the same time, violating a nation borders is pretty serious stuff, to say nothing of the shitstorm that would have manifested if the intel was wrong. With that said, way to rock guys.
Morolen, the countless deaths of our brothers in uniform, not to mention the lives lost of dedicated Iraqi's and innocent civilians is pretty serious as well. Seems to me, the intel was right on the money,,,,,
I just wish it could have avoided international attention.
Red Flag 1
10-27-2008, 17:45
Yes, excellent hunting, job well done.
Indeed!!!
It is nice to know that lines on a map are just that; and not a barrier to hunting down an enemy.
Strong message to enemies! Press be damned!
My $.02.
RF 1
Morolen, the countless deaths of our brothers in uniform, not to mention the lives lost of dedicated Iraqi's and innocent civilians is pretty serious as well. Seems to me, the intel was right on the money,,,,,
I just wish it could have avoided international attention.
And if the Viet Nam analogy applies, the only s***storm that will ensue will be brought about by our own Congressmen. Remember, it was they that pressed the issue of incursions into Laos and Cambodia.
Warrior-Mentor
10-27-2008, 19:24
Nickname: Abu Ghadiyah
Real name: Badran Turki al-Mazidih
Nationality: Iraqi
Age: early 30s
Position: Al-Qaida in Iraq's head of logistics in Syria since 2004
Duties: Providing foreign fighters with passports, weapons, guides and safe houses enroute to Iraq
Big time shit head.
How does the saying go?
Oh yeah, "Wish I could'a been there."
Great news! It's good when plans come together.
Morolen, the countless deaths of our brothers in uniform, not to mention the lives lost of dedicated Iraqi's and innocent civilians is pretty serious as well. Seems to me, the intel was right on the money,,,,,
I just wish it could have avoided international attention.
and for that, i think we are fortunate and even in the right without question(as Syria has little to no ground to stand on in the eyes of the international community), however this is the 2nd time this sort of action has been taken, first, with Pakistan and now Syria. The Pakistani government didn't think it was very funny if I recall, in fact i seem to remember they shot "flares" at the US forces.
It just seems like a particular trend of "fuck your sovereignty" is emerging, and that is something to be concerned about.
The Reaper
10-27-2008, 20:16
and for that, i think we are fortunate and even in the right without question(as Syria has little to no ground to stand on in the eyes of the international community), however this is the 2nd time this sort of action has been taken, first, with Pakistan and now Syria. The Pakistani government didn't think it was very funny if I recall, in fact i seem to remember they shot "flares" at the US forces.
It just seems like a particular trend of "fuck your sovereignty" is emerging, and that is something to be concerned about.
It occurs to me that it is something our enemies should worry about quite a bit, and our friends not at all.
Maybe there was a message there for others, perhaps Iran to consider as well.
TR
blue02hd
10-27-2008, 20:23
and for that, i think we are fortunate and even in the right without question(as Syria has little to no ground to stand on in the eyes of the international community), however this is the 2nd time this sort of action has been taken, first, with Pakistan and now Syria. The Pakistani government didn't think it was very funny if I recall, in fact i seem to remember they shot "flares" at the US forces.
It just seems like a particular trend of "fuck your sovereignty" is emerging, and that is something to be concerned about.
Hey bud, ever been shot at from across a border? Take your time to answer.
i sit corrected by my betters:eek:
I am a big fan of the "fuck your sovereignty" approach.
Public and violent... I dig it. I agree with TR, It occurs to me that it is something our enemies should worry about quite a bit, and our friends not at all.
Our enemies need a few sleepless nights knowing that their safe havens aren't so safe any longer...
TOMAHAWK9521
10-27-2008, 20:40
When I first heard about the incident, it reminded me of a wacky idea my team was toying with while in Iraq earlier this year. We knew of a village in Syria that was a fortified staging area for running men and equipment across the border into our sector. Our plan wasn't just outside the box but on a couple shelves lower. Although we never put the plan into action (for obvious reasons) my guys and I still giggle about how much damage and chaos it would have inflicted on the enemy's infrastructure had we pulled it off.
It occurs to me that it is something our enemies should worry about quite a bit, and our friends not at all.
Maybe there was a message there for others, perhaps Iran to consider as well.
TR
If we engage in such behavior, it legitimizes such action for other less honorable and democratic state actors. That doesn't mean I'm opposed - but these actions will make us look stupid when we condemn other countries for doing the same thing. The world has a lot of problems with non-state nationalistic groups. I'm not certain the cost-benefit analysis comes up positive, unless the people/info they got is really, really good. We aren't going to know that...
Smokin Joe
10-27-2008, 21:57
If we engage in such behavior, it legitimizes such action for other less honorable and democratic state actors. That doesn't mean I'm opposed - but these actions will make us look stupid when we condemn other countries for doing the same thing. The world has a lot of problems with non-state nationalistic groups. I'm not certain the cost-benefit analysis comes up positive, unless the people/info they got is really, really good. We aren't going to know that...
Okay first have a little faith that these SOF personal are doing a great job and are acting based on the best intel available. You can't honestly think that any officer let alone any General or staff Officer would lay there career on the line to conduct a day time cross border raid into Syria without unbelievably rock solid intel that some serious shithead was in that rat hole.
Secondly screw there sovereignty, war sucks so they can help us end it sooner by getting on our team or getting out of our way. They can take there protest and shove it up their ass. The Syrians have been given amble opportunity to get on the good guys team, but have chosen to, at the very minimum "sit this one out". But more likely they have passively (if not actively) helped Al-Qaida promote and execute their missions against our men and women in uniform.
So again I say screw Syria, oh ya and Pakistan too, while I'm at it; its no secret Al-Qaida has been sleeping their backyard but they don't want to help either.
Just my .02 cents.
Openly rolling a rogue military force across an international border with the intent of pitching a tent is a world apart from conducting a direct strike at a specific target and then putting your toys away and going home.
Magnolia
10-27-2008, 22:36
I would like to add two relevant articles to the discussion.
Michael Scheuer suggests the Syrian regime may not be able to exert total control over the insurgents in the area and that the regime may even be experiencing blowback from their previously robust support of AQIZ infiltration. Personally, I don’t think the Syrian regime has made the calculation that supporting infiltration is no longer in their long term interest. I’m also unsure this raid will further that goal.
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2374480
The second article leads me to believe that while JSOC has demonstrated the ability to execute these raids successfully, the Executive Branch has not mastered the use of this tactic politically. Both are necessary for an operation to be successful over the long term.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/Army_border_ops_092608w/
Outstanding work and thanks to the Men and Women that made it happen.
I, for obvious reasons am a big fan of get 'em wherever they are. To me, this is operation is another indication that the situation in the ME is coming to a head. A major regional conflict is inevitable and the sooner it happens and is over with, the better for us to move past it (providing "we" win of course :-) ).
Well done!
H
Is it possible that al-Assad and the government may have known or given the green light for the operation? This POS may have been causing problems internally and they gave up some intelligence to the US. This would show the US (passive/aggressively) they are against terrorism and their hidden agenda; it would eliminate one of their internal problems without them actually pulling the trigger. It was a daylight operation and the Syrian's didn't return fire. Then they show some video, get upset and condemn the entire whole operation internationally to show we're the evil empire. Just something to think about......
The Reaper
10-28-2008, 07:21
If we engage in such behavior, it legitimizes such action for other less honorable and democratic state actors. That doesn't mean I'm opposed - but these actions will make us look stupid when we condemn other countries for doing the same thing. The world has a lot of problems with non-state nationalistic groups. I'm not certain the cost-benefit analysis comes up positive, unless the people/info they got is really, really good. We aren't going to know that...
I disagreed with the cross-border ops in Pakistan. I do not have any issues with this op into Syria. I believe that the terrorist movement across the border is taking place with the full approval of the Syrian government at the highest levels. I do not believe that is necessarily the case in Pakistan.
Again, if it gains significant advantage, and does not harm an ally, I see no issues with it. And any other entity who has the ability and desire to conduct cross-border ops is going to do it regardless, and the impotent UN is not going to stop anyone.
As noted, we did not stay on site or have any desire to engage the regular Syrian forces. Contrast that to the Russians conduct in Georgia.
I think it is easy to criticize when you are an academic and have not stood a post, or lost a friend to the enemy.
TR
I think it is easy to criticize when you are an academic and have not stood a post, or lost a friend to the enemy.
I agree.
stu
I disagreed with the cross-border ops in Pakistan. I do not have any issues with this op into Syria. I believe that the terrorist movement across the border is taking place with the full approval of the Syrian government at the highest levels. I do not believe that is necessarily the case in Pakistan.
Again, if it gains significant advantage, and does not harm an ally, I see no issues with it. And any other entity who has the ability and desire to conduct cross-border ops is going to do it regardless, and the impotent UN is not going to stop anyone.
As noted, we did not stay on site or have any desire to engage the regular Syrian forces. Contrast that to the Russians conduct in Georgia.
I think it is easy to criticize when you are an academic and have not stood a post, or lost a friend to the enemy.
TR
TR Sir,
Here is what the MSN is reporting today.:rolleyes:
I find it interesting that the last line is where they stuck the most important item!
http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7401&eeid=6173675&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt
Syria orders US school, cultural center closed
Published: 10/28/08, 10:25 AM EDT
By ZEINA KARAM and HUSSEIN MALLA
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - The Syrian government has ordered that an American school and a U.S. cultural center in Damascus be closed in response to a deadly raid by U.S. helicopters near the Syrian border with Iraq.
The official SANA news agency says the decision came at a Cabinet meeting Tuesday chaired by Prime Minister Naji Otari.
The report says the Syrian education minister was given instructed to implement the decision.
Syria claims U.S. troops in four helicopters attacked a building near the border with Iraq and killed eight people on Sunday.
U.S. officials said the raid killed a top operative of al-Qaida in Iraq who intelligence suggested was about to conduct an attack in Iraq.
Team Sergeant
10-28-2008, 09:28
Hey bud, ever been shot at from across a border? Take your time to answer.
LOLOLOL
and for that, i think we are fortunate and even in the right without question(as Syria has little to no ground to stand on in the eyes of the international community), however this is the 2nd time this sort of action has been taken, first, with Pakistan and now Syria. The Pakistani government didn't think it was very funny if I recall, in fact i seem to remember they shot "flares" at the US forces.
It just seems like a particular trend of "fuck your sovereignty" is emerging, and that is something to be concerned about.
I think its one of those chicken and egg situations; the military know where some of the weapons and explosives are coming from across the border but because the Syrians can't or won't do anything about it, it doesn't seem logical not to launch a pre-emptive strike to stop the supply.
The pakistan issue is not new; we (the world) have known for year's whats been going on at the border region and have been terribly fustrated by the pakistani government's inability to take a more aggressive posture consistently over a lenght of time into these sensitive area's where they (the pakistani military) don't have much success or haven't had much success over the year's in combating the various tribes and terrorist who have made these border area's their homes and training bases.
This isn't a new problem but an old one and sooner or later, SOMEONE has to take action and to start hammering these terrorists in their safe havens.
I think there was a comment recently by a regular board member that it can lead to massive instability for the pakistani government but it has to be done if there is to be any hope in the future of a peaceful and relatively safer afghanistan for its people and the coalition forces.
The pakistanis and Syrians have had all the time in the world to do something more than what has been done, and haven't necc./ always been seen to want to put an end to the funnelling of weapons and explosives.
Can you blame the coalition for launching cross border attacks?
I know I would if it was one way to save lives.
Magnolia
10-28-2008, 11:17
Is it possible that al-Assad and the government may have known or given the green light for the operation? This POS may have been causing problems internally and they gave up some intelligence to the US. This would show the US (passive/aggressively) they are against terrorism and their hidden agenda; it would eliminate one of their internal problems without them actually pulling the trigger. It was a daylight operation and the Syrian's didn't return fire. Then they show some video, get upset and condemn the entire whole operation internationally to show we're the evil empire. Just something to think about......
That's exactly what I was trying to suggest with the Scheuer piece but I was going to let one of you make the jump first. I'm not sure it's permanent but the regime making that decision once for expediency wouldn't surprise me either.
greenberetTFS
10-28-2008, 11:20
Okay first have a little faith that these SOF personal are doing a great job and are acting based on the best intel available. You can't honestly think that any officer let alone any General or staff Officer would lay there career on the line to conduct a day time cross border raid into Syria without unbelievably rock solid intel that some serious shithead was in that rat hole.
Secondly screw there sovereignty, war sucks so they can help us end it sooner by getting on our team or getting out of our way. They can take there protest and shove it up their ass. The Syrians have been given amble opportunity to get on the good guys team, but have chosen to, at the very minimum "sit this one out". But more likely they have passively (if not actively) helped Al-Qaida promote and execute their missions against our men and women in uniform.
So again I say screw Syria, oh ya and Pakistan too, while I'm at it; its no secret Al-Qaida has been sleeping their backyard but they don't want to help either.
Just my .02 cents.
Smokin Joe,
+ 1 :lifter
GB TFS :munchin
Blitzzz (RIP)
10-28-2008, 11:43
We are soldiers, the fist of of our nation.
Borders are maintained by force not words. I love the fact that we run the rodents down and kill them. Give them no safe haven. give them no rest and cut off their supplies. Excuse me I get a little carried away. love it, love it ...love it. Blitz
We are soldiers, the fist of of our nation.
Borders are maintain by force not words. I love the fact that we run the rodents down and kill them. Give them no safe haven. give them no rest and cut off their supplies. Excuse me I get a little carried away. love it, love it ...love it. Blitz
+1
We are a nation at war and must do what is needed to save the lives of our men and women serving and keep this scum away from our homes
I my earlier comments, I did not mean to come across as criticizing the decision to conduct the cross-border operation into Syria. Operations like this one are viscerally satisfying. It feels good to strike back, to disrupt the enemy in his preparations to attack us. Clearly this operation was a tactical success.
It makes me proud that we have the people who can conduct operations like this one in such a professional manner and be so effective. Few nations can. To my knowledge, we do it better than any.
But I did ask the question if, from a strategic point of view, it was the best decision. I am not saying I have the answer to that question—I am keeping an open mind. Several posters’ responses suggest that there was indeed strategic value to this operation; I appreciate their thoughtfulness. But I don’t think adopting an attitude of ‘screw your sovereignty, we’ll kick down any door we want ‘ is the best way to win a focused conflict and garner international support and cooperation.
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. “ -- Sun Tzu
OK, I am way ‘out of my lane.’ I have not ‘stood a post’: my AFSC keeps me mostly out of harm’s way. I have lost a couple friends and comrades. My brother is in the Big Army and does end up in harm’s way at times (He’s mostly behind the wire with his precious 155’s.). This is important to me personally as well as professionally.
I recognize I am one of the ‘academics,’ as The Reaper says. Fair enough. But does that mean I can’t ask the question? I think to answer ‘yes’ would be arrogant. I know how to follow orders, but I also feel I can ask a few questions along the way.
I submit this post with humility and without the intent to offend anyone.
The Reaper
10-28-2008, 15:21
My understanding of my oath or office is to go where my civilian controlled military leadership directs and follow orders from superior officers, except as it conflicts with the Constitution, the UCMJ, or the laws of land warfare.
Looks to me like a clear case of defending against all enemies, in this case foreign.
Anybody here remember a little thing with a crew called the Barbary Pirates?
TR
I don't have to be a physician to understand that if a doctor tells me I need an emergency operation to save my life I should heed his advice and let him do his job. Should not the same respect be afforded to the expert judgment of armed service professionals operating lawfully under the guidance of civilian authority?
AF DOC
You have good Points. We have to maintain some sort of proper stance in the world of Opinion and Legal aspects. We would be screaming at the top of our lungs and prepping a retaliation if someone came across our borders in Military equipment and did such a thing.
In contrast we are not Syria or Pakistan. These two situations are quite distinct and have different solutions and restraints.
Syria - Is not a friend and has not tried to stop this type of aggression when they do have a military that could do it. The problem that they have is their military is busy keeping the population in check so the government keeps in power and also they have been helping the bad guys from just turning a blind eye to facilitating the bad guys in various forms. They had been warned over and over and finally you have to do something. No matter if we went in and killed OBL or any other high value TGT the Syrian Gov would be spinning a tale to the press and that has been weighed prior to the operation.
Pakistan - This is a different environment. Pro US supporter as best as you can say over the last few years on the WOT. They have a lot of political hot potato's they have to juggle and have helped us in our battle. I would like them to allow us to enter the bad lands if we have a HVT that is verified but they have to show that they are not our puppets. I can support that as we would not want Canada to fly in to Montana to capture a criminal that they have found. If we do not walk that tight rope with them they could totally collapse and go completely anti US and then we would have a completely ANTI US country with Nukes there. They have a lot of internal problems that are pulling at their people and government that are just barely keeping the Non Fanatics in Power. I have been there and the majority of the people there just want to be not bothered and just pass their days quietly without anyone telling them what to do. I can relate to this. We are working at balancing this delicate problem and advancing to solve the Taliban and OBL problem. It is not perfect but is better than no progress.
These are just some of the points that are relevant to the two areas.
My understanding of my oath or office is to go where my civilian controlled military leadership directs and follow orders from superior officers, except as it conflicts with the Constitution, the UCMJ, or the laws of land warfare.
Looks to me like a clear case of defending against all enemies, in this case foreign.
Anybody here remember a little thing with a crew called the Barbary Pirates?
TR
TR
You are correct but being a bull in the china shop is not the way to do all opns and Policy for the Good Old USA. We are defending our people and our alleys, but sometimes being the bull in the china shop is not the way. We can not go around the world and just cross every country's borders in complete disregard to international law.
This one was a good example of doing an Opn that was needed. They were warned many times and we had good Intel so we can justify our actions in the world with our heads held high. Running around and violating a country just because we can is not what we are about and never will be about.
The Barbary Pirates is a good ref but the world has changed a lot since then.
There have been some very interesting points brought up in this forum. I also wanted to state that I was very proud to hear of the successful operation, as I believe it is telling of the abilities of our SOF to be able to act in pure daylight with lightening speed in a complicated, capricious environment and perform the mission. However, I am highly cautious to allow those feelings to impact my decision making - this is not at all to suggest it has interfered with anyone on this forum or in the military. TR made a prior suggestion, if I interpreted him correctly, that my perspective may differ if I had lost a friend to the enemy. This made me think of an interesting theory (prospect theory) that I believe has relevant application to this discussion.
The theory caught several academics by surprise in 2002 when it was awarded the Economics Nobel Prize, as the academics who developed it were psychologists. It currently is being introduced to various social sciences beyond economics, including political science and violence, and appears to provide a new way to explain decisions made by people given their situation. I would be interested in feedback if you are inclined.
In its most basic form, the theory suggests that people tend to normatively value benefit and cost differently - diverging from traditional economic theory - with cost/loss being more impacting to people than gain. This may be a theory worthy of consideration and cognition during decisions when facing potential loss - I imagine this situation may be common in the military. More information is available at the link below, and I do know of some work where it has been applied to political violence if there is interest. I'd be interested in commentary, application or relevant experience if others find it interesting and worthwhile to this discussion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
Stu
There have been some very interesting points brought up in this forum. I also wanted to state that I was very proud to hear of the successful operation, as I believe it is telling of the abilities of our SOF to be able to act in pure daylight with lightening speed in a complicated, capricious environment and perform the mission. However, I am highly cautious to allow those feelings to impact my decision making - this is not at all to suggest it has interfered with anyone on this forum or in the military. TR made a prior suggestion, if I interpreted him correctly, that my perspective may differ if I had lost a friend to the enemy. This made me think of an interesting theory that I believe has relevant application to this discussion.
The theory caught several academics by surprise in 2002 when it was awarded the Economics Nobel Prize, as the academics who developed it were psychologists. It currently is being introduced to various social sciences beyond economics, including political science and violence, and appears to provide a new way to explain decisions made by people given their situation. I would be interested in feedback if you are inclined.
In its most basic form, the theory suggests that people tend to normatively value benefit and cost differently - diverging from traditional economic theory - with cost/loss being more impacting to people than gain. This may be a theory worthy of consideration and cognition during decisions when facing potential loss - I imagine this situation may be common in the military. More information is available at the link below, and I do know of some work where it has been applied to political violence if there is interest. I'd be interested in commentary, application or relevant experience if others find it interesting and worthwhile to this discussion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
Stu
Stu
Thanks for posting. Wikipedia is a poor ref for facts/etc it is changed on the fly by anyone so we do not use it on this board. :mad: If you are an academic you would be better served to ref real factual references. We deal in Reality not theory. We would be better off if Academics prior to teaching had been out in the world and served so they would have a better grasp on reality in the Real World. Too many have never been outside of the academic environment and had to get dirty and earn a living the hard way with blood, sweat and Tears.
Ref the Theory - We gain nothing when we do operations except the security for our team mates, Family and country. We do asses our Risk and train Train TRAIN to limit the loss of life of our members and civilians. The Commanders and Policy makers determine what type of operations our government is willing to do.
The Loss we have is Loss of Life. There is no economic gain or loss. When we make our decisions it is not economically driven it is driven by success or failure. We succeed the bad guys are dead or captured and all of my men come home to kiss the kids and hug the wife. That is our loss and gain.
Team Sergeant
10-28-2008, 18:47
Stu
Thanks for posting. Wikipedia is a poor ref for facts/etc it is changed on the fly by anyone so we do not use it on this board.
I agree, I will not even look at a Wikipedia reference. But had you posted the Prospect theory with a .edu I'd have looked.
Wikipedia is for the lame, lazy and uneducated. (And yes I did use it once or twice, but in your case I'm sure there are much more credible references on the internet.)
Team Sergeant
I agree, I will not even look at a Wikipedia reference. But had you posted the Prospect theory with a .edu I'd have looked.
Wikipedia is for the lame, lazy and uneducated. (And yes I did use it once or twice, but in your case I'm sure there are much more credible references on the internet.)
Team Sergeant
I was not going to rub your nose in it but I know your feelings on it are the same as mine and many others. Any bozo can post info and the facts are not checked.:D
I understand your skepticism. The wikipedia article, better than any other open source medium I can find, provides a basic explanation of the theory. I'm still looking for open source medium explaining prospect theory's application to international affairs and military, as it has not seemed to be easily accessible to the public, despite it being awarded the Nobel Prize. It does however, exist in academic literature.
Here is info from Nobel Prize website. This unfortunately, does not show it's application to international relations.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/public.html
Kahneman has thus demonstrated that in situations with uncertainty, human judgment often exploits rules of thumb which systematically contradict fundamental propositions in probability theory. His most influential contribution, however, concerns decision-making under uncertainty. A striking finding is that individuals are much more sensitive to the way an outcome deviates from a reference level (often the status quo) than to the absolute outcome. When faced with a sequence of decisions under risk, individuals thus appear to base each decision on its gains and losses in isolation rather than on the consequences of a decision for their wealth as a whole. Moreover, most individuals seem to be more averse to losses, relative to a reference level, than partial to gains of the same size. These and other results contradict predictions from the traditional theory of expected-utility maximization.
Not satisfied with having criticized standard theories of decision-making under uncertainty, Kahneman and Tversky also developed an alternative, known as prospect theory, intended to provide explanations for empirical observations. Prospect theory and its extensions can be used to better explain behavioral patterns which appear to be anomalies from the perspective of traditional theory: the propensity to sign up for costly small-scale insurance for appliances; willingness to drive many miles for a few dollars’ discount on a minor purchase, but reluctance to do so in order to save the same amount on a more expensive good; or resistance to lowering consumption in response to bad news about lifetime income.
While their initial findings were limited to the economics realm, the theory has since been applied to political violence and other social sciences. I thought this might be interesting to this community, as when making decisions, you also deal with risk. The risk is different though because losses does not obviously consist of just money.
This reference below is great because it provides empirical data using interviews of former IRA and Palestinian guerrillas/terrorists to suggest that many nationalistic rebellions are formed under conditions suggested by Prospect theory. It also applies prospect theories to these political situations, allowing illustration of the theory. I don't know how I can make it accessible to you though, and more importantly, if you want to read 30 some pages...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118771559/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Operation Desert Storm Application: This shows the theory is being applied directly to US military decision making processes.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/jss/2001/00000024/00000003/art00004
I guess the bottom line is I will look for more open medium and get back to you when I get the chance...
Blitzzz (RIP)
10-29-2008, 16:50
THEORY = 1. Contemplation/ Speculation
2. A speculative idea or plan as to how something may be done.
FACTS = 1. A thing that has actually happened or that is really true.
2. A thing that has been or is.
3. The state of things as they are.
As to Theory, the intelligencia must know "why" and then explain "why'. so to that end have created schools, colleges, providing "Doctorates" . Under the Umbrella of the Doctorates anything can be explained as fact.
The other side of that is, We invented fire, sharpened sticks, and changed our standing in the food chain. From the cave to walking on the moon, and done despite Theories.
In here we are more to relate in facts not theories. Theories are interesting reads, but all speculative.
Not to be rough on Assets, but think about your tag lines. Sun Tzu was honestly a great general and tactician , They are expressed in well thought out tidbits on warfare. So good that they still hold water and still apply. Not theory Fact.
Anyway I ramble, excuse me thanks, Blitz
Here's an explanation anyone can understand. :lifter
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Blitzzz (RIP)
10-30-2008, 16:56
X2 thanks Richard. Blitz
magician
10-31-2008, 08:28
Does anyone doubt that this operation (as well as the Pakistan incursion) was reviewed by competent legal authority before it was green-lighted?
Further, does anyone believe that the ops were authorized by any but the highest levels of the national command authority?
Much ado about nothing, gentlemen.
I hope that Iran is next.
Team Sergeant
10-31-2008, 09:04
Does anyone doubt that this operation (as well as the Pakistan incursion) was reviewed by competent legal authority before it was green-lighted?
Further, does anyone believe that the ops were authorized by any but the highest levels of the national command authority?
Much ado about nothing, gentlemen.
I hope that Iran is next.
I’m not sure about a legal review; I doubt there was any legal reason that would allow us to enter a sovereign nation’s territory uninvited. Hence the reason the bottom feeding terrorists decide to run and hide in scum nations such as Syria.
I would say there was probably an impact review and then a decision based off that.
Personally I think it sets a great precedence, it also gives notice to the cowards we are attempting to engage and the countries that would harbor them.
magician
10-31-2008, 09:26
I’m not sure about a legal review; I doubt there was any legal reason that would allow us to enter a sovereign nation’s territory uninvited. Hence the reason the bottom feeding terrorists decide to run and hide in scum nations such as Syria.
I would say there was probably an impact review and then a decision based off that.
Personally I think it sets a great precedence, it also gives notice to the cowards we are attempting to engage and the countries that would harbor them.
I think that you and I agree: "impact review" in my mind equals "legal review."
I grant that your terminology is more precise.
On the other hand, the impact/legal review undoubtedly cited recent presidential findings and decided that was sufficient. President Bush recently stated at the UN that the sovereignty of weak states or states that could not exercise control over border areas would not prevent US forces from striking targets within their territory.
I just wish that this policy had been enforced earlier.
The inherent assumption is that the Pakistan and Syrian governments did not get advance notice of the raids. I believe there is the possibility that they knew, but cannot publicly acknowledge the same. Does anyone believe this is possible?
Team Sergeant
10-31-2008, 11:10
The inherent assumption is that the Pakistan and Syrian governments did not get advance notice of the raids. I believe there is the possibility that they knew, but cannot publicly acknowledge the same. Does anyone believe this is possible?
If they knew we would never have hit the intended targets as they would have also known we were inbound.
greenberetTFS
10-31-2008, 15:15
If they knew we would never have hit the intended targets as they would have also known we were inbound.
+1 :D
GB TFS :munchin
This made me smile: Questions raised over Syrian complicity in US raid (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/10/america/10military.php?page=1
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/10/america/10military.php?page=1
StuW
FYI: This was posted on another thread today.
I think the editors selected a misleading headline to generate interest among the president's critics.
The article points out that the "secret order" (a tautology if ever there was one)
establishes a streamlined go/no go process that has resulted in many missions getting canceled. The article also points out that different executive agencies are involved in the process.
More generally, is this story news or what passes these days for a subtle editorial? In his 2002 state of the union address, Bush the Younger made it clear that much of GWOT was going to be conducted covertly. Does it not make sense that a thoughtful president would put into place a process by which covert operations could be planned, reviewed, and executed?
JumpinJoe1010
11-10-2008, 12:07
A PDF of the article is attached as a convenient option.
I think the editors selected a misleading headline to generate interest among the president's critics.
The article points out that the "secret order" (a tautology if ever there was one)
establishes a streamlined go/no go process that has resulted in many missions getting canceled. The article also points out that different executive agencies are involved in the process.
More generally, is this story news or what passes these days for a subtle editorial? In his 2002 state of the union address, Bush the Younger made it clear that much of GWOT was going to be conducted covertly. Does it not make sense that a thoughtful president would put into place a process by which covert operations could be planned, reviewed, and executed?
IIRC, the President elect had an intelligence briefing the other day. Coincidentally these plans have surfaced in the media.
I am curious to know how the war can be handled when information such as this, and that our captors in GITMO are going to be tried on American soil. And with full vigor of American law will be used in the process I'm sure. :rolleyes: