US Special Forces launch rare attack inside Syria

[echoes]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.
I find it interesting that the last line is where they stuck the most important item!

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pn...&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]

Originally Posted by blue02hd

Hey bud, ever been shot at from across a border? Take your time to answer.

LOLOLOL

[hoot72]

Originally Posted by morolen

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]

Originally Posted by csquare

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]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

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

GB TFS

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

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

[Jgood]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

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

[AF Doc]

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]

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

[Sigaba]

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?

[SF_BHT]

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.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.

[JSE]

Very well-said, SF_BHT.

[stuW]

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

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by stuW

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. 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.