Raid inside Syria by US SOF huge success (Bill Roggio)

[meade95]

US strike in Syria "decapitated" al Qaeda's facilitation network

By Bill RoggioOctober 27, 2008 4:51 PM

Al Qaeda leader Abu Ghadiya was killed in yesterday's strike inside Syria, a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. But US special operations forces also inflicted a major blow to al Qaeda's foreign fighter network based in Syria. The entire senior leadership of Ghadiya's network was also killed in the raid, the official stated.

Ghadiya was the leader of al Qaeda extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq along the entire length of the Syrian border. Ghadiya was first identified as the target of the raid inside Syria late last night here at The Long War Journal. The Associated Press reported Ghadiya was killed in the raid earlier today.

Several US helicopters entered the town of town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. US commandos from the hunter-killer teams of Task Force 88 clear the buildings sheltering Ghadiya and his staff.

The Syrian government has protested the attack, describing it as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" carried out by the US. The Syrian government claimed eight civilians, including women and children, were killed in the strike. But a journalist from The Associated Press who attended the funeral said that only the bodies of seven men were displayed.

The US official said there were more killed in the raid than is being reported. "There are more than public numbers [in the Syrian press] are saying, those reported killed were the Syrian locals that worked with al Qaeda," the official told The Long War Journal. "There were non-Syrian al Qaeda operatives killed as well."

Those killed include Ghadiya's brother and two cousins. "They also were part of the senior leadership," the official stated. "They're dead. We've decapitated the network." Others killed during the raid were not identified.

The strike is thought to have a major impact on al Qaeda's operations inside Syria. Al Qaeda's ability to control the vast group of local "Syrian coordinators" who directly help al Qaeda recruits and operatives enter Iraq has been "crippled."

[Elmar Bijlsma]

*cough*

Hydra

*/cough*

Meanwhile, further diplomatic egg on your face in the region. Mission uncomplished.

Wanted the guy dead? US should have improved diplomatic relations with Syria and offered a trade deal. And then slide in a note with the whereabouts of the AQ member. Make a certain hand signal if you must. Within 24 hours the dude is chained to a wall if he's lucky.

You catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.

[ChrisND]

*cough*

Hydra

*/cough*

Very true, although it may disrupt them long enough to help solidify control over certain areas. Or maybe not. These sorts of things are so hazy. At any rate, it remains to be seen what sort of fallout will occur and if it was worth it or not.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, we know for sure that we didn't win any friends in Syria for this move

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Interesting how this happen about a week before the election. I suppose now McCain will follow suit and tell us how he will keep us protected from the "evil doers".

[ChrisND]

Well, we know for sure that we didn't win any friends in Syria for this move

Steve

Maybe we could bake them a pie.

[Battlefront.com]

That would have to be one HELL OF A PIE. Personally, I think we should make them a big apple pie and secretly hope that they reject it so we can eat it. Of course it would be made from Argentinean apples (so say our local apple growers) but it's the thought that counts

Steve

[panzermartin]

Yep, Obama cant pull a trick like that..yet. But an Iran raid would be far more impressive for McCain. Syria isnt risky enough. Its so safe that even the first CMx2 game takes place there

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Syria was originally very, very helpful after 9/11. AQ is not something they want operating on their soil because the Assad regime is on the Jihadist hit list because Assad's regime is secular and oppressive towards Muslim extremists (the slaughter of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example). But in the Islamic tradition of "an enemy of my enemy is my brother" they now welcome AQ since Bush put Syria on the Axis of Evil list. Iran, too, turned its back on the US after initially being very helpful. Iran doesn't like AQ either because it competes with its own control of the Islamic message.

So what to do now? Well, there's not a heck of a lot that can be done without the sort of major moral compromises the US has made with totalitarian regimes in the past. The fact that Syria is an active supporter of terrorism and meddling in Lebanon causes other problems. If we cut them a carte blanche deal in Lebanon we'd see its border with Iraq become quite solid. That doesn't work out for other US interests in the area (i.e. Israel), so that's out.

The most viable course of action I've heard of is to force the Israelis to negotiate in good faith with the Syrians over the Golan. Syria, at least at one point, was quite interested in giving up something significant for that. But that has all kinds of problems for a nearly blindly pro-Israeli American administration, so it's off the table.

Practically speaking, there aren't many good options. But violating international borders has a very low chance of making the overall picture better, IMHO. AQ in Iraq might just have been dealt a big blow, true enough, however I'm not sure it was worth the strategic level backlash. We'll just have to see.

Steve

[meade95]

Syria was originally very, very helpful after 9/11. AQ is not something they want operating on their soil because the Assad regime is on the Jihadist hit list because Assad's regime is secular and oppressive towards Muslim extremists (the slaughter of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example). But in the Islamic tradition of "an enemy of my enemy is my brother" they now welcome AQ since Bush put Syria on the Axis of Evil list. Iran, too, turned its back on the US after initially being very helpful. Iran doesn't like AQ either because it competes with its own control of the Islamic message.

So what to do now? Well, there's not a heck of a lot that can be done without the sort of major moral compromises the US has made with totalitarian regimes in the past. The fact that Syria is an active supporter of terrorism and meddling in Lebanon causes other problems. If we cut them a carte blanche deal in Lebanon we'd see its border with Iraq become quite solid. That doesn't work out for other US interests in the area (i.e. Israel), so that's out.

The most viable course of action I've heard of is to force the Israelis to negotiate in good faith with the Syrians over the Golan. Syria, at least at one point, was quite interested in giving up something significant for that. But that has all kinds of problems for a nearly blindly pro-Israeli American administration, so it's off the table.

Practically speaking, there aren't many good options. But violating international borders has a very low chance of making the overall picture better, IMHO. AQ in Iraq might just have been dealt a big blow, true enough, however I'm not sure it was worth the strategic level backlash. We'll just have to see.

Steve

I would venture to say for any helpfulness Syria or Iran (as you claim) were days after 9-11 was out of FEAR....not out of compassion or respect for the United States. The world waited...especially terrorist supporting regimes (like those above) to see what this big giant angry elephant was about to do......

The idea that because Syria was called out by POTUS GWB as a terrorist supporting nation (as they had been since mid 80s mind you) caused them to stop supporting us after 9-11 is laughable.

As for whether the raid was worth it or not.....and your humble opinion. I'll trust the guys at CENTCOM with actual real facts and Intel as to if it was worth it or not. Both tactically and strategically.

[teeps]

That's a touching level of trust you have there meade95.

[hoolaman]

It really annoys me that we are still calling these people Al Queda. Al Queda as a functional organisation does not exist, they should more properly be called "unaffiliated jihadist" or "individually motivated mujahideen", but that doesn't sound as scary.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Alan8325]

Are brains in leadership something AQ can simply replace easily? er, individually motivated mujahideen and unaffilated jihadist? (Do they have personals for that?)

Just like leaders of any group, there are good ones and bad ones. If he was good, he will take longer to replace with equal talent. If he was incompetent, he will be replaced fairly quickly by someone better.

[Brian Smith]

I've seen reports on World News tonight that US forces also took back captives - any workd on that?

A week before the election - a good time to give Syria a friendly bloody nose. I mean, who are they going to complain to?

[Bigduke6]

As for whether the raid was worth it or not.....and your humble opinion. I'll trust the guys at CENTCOM with actual real facts and Intel as to if it was worth it or not. Both tactically and strategically.

Your faith is touching. But of course, faith-based foreign policy is not an approach favoured by the recognized pros in the field, you know, the Bismarcks, Metternichs, Kissengers, Ghandis, Meirs - they really didn't base their foreign policies on blind hope. And if you think CENTCOM has all the facts, or even a significant part of them, then riddle me this: Why isn't the war won already?

My opinion, CENTCOM is a US military command structure lacking a spy network and experience in the region. They are woefully, and I mean it's shocking when you look at it, dependant on unreliable, inappropriate or biased intelligence sources: among them electronic collection, what Mossad chooses to pass on, the corrupt Iraqi government, the Kurds, the Turks, the Russians, the Pakistanis. How many CENTCOM staff actually can speak Arabic? How many of those few is an intelligence professional first, and a career officer/NCO second?

Of course, it is your right to repeat the matra "CENTCOM" knows best. But I think you will agree that decision is not really anything similar to critical thinking.

Some one else asked to whom the Syrians going to complain.

I respond: How about to the UN, Russia, China, India, the Muslim world, developing nations with a colonial past, and any rich European or Asian nation that doesn't happen to speak English? You know, the rest of the planet, whose support would probably be pretty useful if you are an American government serious about fighting a Global War On Terrorism.

While the Americans are telling themselves what a great raid this was, the Syrians have brought cameramen into the raid site, and now there are video images of smashed dolls and cooking pots from a house the Syrians would have us believe the American ransacked while killing women and children. Independant reporters, by which I mean international wire services, have been to the scene of the raid, and guess what - every one they talked to is saying the Americans attacked the wrong house and killed a bunch of women and children.

Off hand it's hard to say which version we should believe, the Americans' or the Syrians'. Both governments have lied about the Iraq war and what they are doing in it, repeatedly.

But I can say this for sure: If the media image of the this raid circulating the world is on the one side a US talking head saying Al Quaeda took a hit, and on the other side Syrian footage of a smashed up house and the kids' toys and beds inside of it, and international reports saying yes, there are Syrians at the site of the raid, and they back up the Syrian not the US version of events, then the Syrians are going to beat the Americans like a dead horse on in the propaganda battle.

If that isn't bad enough, the Syrians have a press spokewoman who speaks beautiful BBC English, very presentable and smartly-dressed, and she is going on every channel that will get her and saying "Hey, why aren't the Iraqis and the Americans securing the Iraqi border? If they want to keep people from sneaking in through Syria then just be a superpower and close the frontier. Why should America have to violate Syrian territorial integrity and attack yet another Muslim country? Why isn't America cooperating with Syria on tracking down smugglers moving products to and from Iraq and Syria? We've offered to exchange police data but the Americans have decided Syria is an Axis of Evil nation and so instead of talking to us, they send their helicopters and trained killers to attack out people."

All that the US has to put up against that, is some Pentagon or State Department guys saying, essentially "Well you have to believe us because the Syrians lie and we always tell the truth."

Of course, if the US had brought credible independant observers along in the raid, you know, embedded American reporters, then quite possibly this news story would have played differently. But of course as we know the US military is not a fan of the media, and even more so the US special forces community, and the approach generally is "We don't talk about special forces much and when we do you have to trust us." This approach is justified by the Pentagon on grounds the media hates the military, the media can't keep a secret, and the Pentagon is run by US officers who are honor-bound to tell the truth.

Well, the Americans certainly made their choice. Their bet is, either the world is going to take US military spokesmen at their word, or the media fall-out from this raid is not significant compared to the intelligence/operations payoff for whomever the secret squirrel troopers killed or captured.

My opinion, unless this raid has some huge impact on the entire anti-US insurgency in the region, it seems to me odds are the net effect will be to undermine the US position in the region.

Elmar's analogy about the Hydra is accurate. It's no good to lop off a head that is trying to bit you if two more are going to grow up in its place. Hercules of course dealt with the problem by torching the stumps, that fixed the Hydra but good. Of course, the US government is not a mythological hero, nor does it - in my opinion anyway - have the ability to torch the places the insurgents come from.

In circumstances like that, there is only one rational policy option if you don't happen to be a muscle-bound bearded Greek guy wearing a lion skin and famous for cleaning out stables - you back away from the friggen' hydra. If your name isn't Hercules, then avoid Herculean tasks.

[JonS]

I would venture to say for any helpfulness Syria or Iran (as you claim) were days after 9-11 was out of FEAR....not out of compassion or respect for the United States.

Who cares why they were being helpful. It might make you feel all manly that the Iranians were quaking in their boots about what Big Bad Uncle Sam might do, but isn't the mere fact that they were helping enough? Do you often find yourself looking gift horses in the mouth?

It's not a claim, BTW. It's quite well known (by everyone except you, apparently) that Iran in particular was being more than helpful with regards to Afghanistan after 9/11. Right up until that whole "we don't talk to evil" nonsense. Then the Iranians told the West in general, and the US in particular, to go fvk themselves. Which, on balance, was entirely fair enough.

Bigduke - I enjoyed the imagery you used in that last post, especially in the last two paragraphs. Nicely written.

Jon

[rune]

There is also the possibility that Syria did green light this and gave information to the US, while playing the injured party for show. Don't want to upset their allies, the Iranians. Before this happened there was talk of some back channel contacts between the US and Syria.

No proof, just another possibility, the Saudi Arabians do it all the time.

Rune

[Clavicula_Nox]

*cough*

Hydra

*/cough*

Meanwhile, further diplomatic egg on your face in the region. Mission uncomplished.

Wanted the guy dead? US should have improved diplomatic relations with Syria and offered a trade deal. And then slide in a note with the whereabouts of the AQ member. Make a certain hand signal if you must. Within 24 hours the dude is chained to a wall if he's lucky.

You catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.

The problem is that Syria is already supporting proxies inside Iraq, there is literally no reason they would help us. Improving diplomatic relations wouldn't do anything, at best they would give us the guy on the bottom rung of the ladder.

[Kat Johnston]

There is also the possibility that Syria did green light this and gave information to the US, while playing the injured party for show. Don't want to upset their allies, the Iranians. Before this happened there was talk of some back channel contacts between the US and Syria.

No proof, just another possibility, the Saudi Arabians do it all the time.

Rune

That was certainly my suspicion, (for what it's worth), and the same for the raids inside Pakistan. A difficult game for the unfriendly friendly governments to play, and even harder for the US.

[Secondbrooks]

That was certainly my suspicion, (for what it's worth), and the same for the raids inside Pakistan. A difficult game for the unfriendly friendly governments to play, and even harder for the US.

But why couldn't Syria do it by itself in this case, hidden behind curtains? And result for US and Syria would have been better, bunch of bad people getting nailed and nobody knows anything. No diplomatic clashes, no bad PR, no killed kids (in public) etc.

Now Syria stepped forward and claimed that US forces killed several civilians within it's borders... Is this partnership?

Naah. I don't claim to be mastermind. I hate politics and such, and believe my mundane mind can't handle reality it has. Like one our former foreign minister from days of cold war said, understanding foreign affairs is more like rolling dice than careful analysis.

[rune]

Remember there is no love lost between the goernment of Syria and AQ. Syria is non-secular, a fact AQ has brought up before.

Why allow the US to do it? IF it was done, to keep ties with iran and hezbollah <sp?> alive and taking out an enemy of the government. Also who know what quid pro quo was offered behind the scenes.

If there was an arrangement, we won't know about it. Just pointing out Saudi Arabia supports one thing and says another all the time. {akistan also.

Rune

[Bigduke6]

The Syrians are absolutely sneaky enough to sick a third party on funamentalists hanging out in Syria, but I would think the Syrian police would be happy to come down on any one the government decided needed hammering.

There is of course the risk of leaks within the Syrian government making a Syrian raid against the insurgents difficult, and so justifying a US strike. But that assume the Syrians can keep their collaboration with the hated Americans a secret, and considering how deeply penetrated Syria is by Mossad and I'm pretty sure the Turks, I doubt that.

So although I don't discount Rune's theory, I would say on the balance odds are higher the US just was acting unilaterally, it fits a pattern of end-of-administration acts that were too risky to execute a couple of months or a year ago, but right now no one the Americans care about is going to pay attention.

[Battlefront.com]

I am of the opinion that a certain amount of "green lighting" was done in Pakistan, but I highly doubt it is true in Syria. Pakistan is largely dependent on the US, Syria is not. Because Bush decided to isolate Syria there isn't much hope that they'd do much to help us out in Iraq. They don't want to help out too much, because they don't want Iran next door to them, but they also are keen to see the US struggle.

After 9/11 and the quick destruction of Afghanistan's Taliban regime, there was indeed quite a bit of fear in both Iran and Syria that they would be next (and quite rightly, apparently). So they were definitely partly motivated to help out because of fear. However, in both countries they had fairly new regimes that were looking to get their countries out of isolation. The US was the only super power at the time and looked like it could squash any regime it chose to within a few months notice. So why suck up to Russia when it had only recently been shown to be militarily incompetent and economically weak? Self interest, therefore, came into play big time. Just like many of the former Soviet satellites joining up with the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq (especially Iraq).

But the US is in a bind. The regimes in Syria and Iran were never great to begin with, so that poses some problems. Worse, though, is that since the US snubbed them the reformist trends within each country has been seriously stalled. Especially in Iran where its reformist government was ousted almost entirely because its overtures to the US were "ineptly handled" (that is the kindest thing I can print on this Forum and not have to ban myself ). This makes the task of cooperating with them against a common enemy almost impossible.

The Bush mantra of "diplomacy as a last resort" has been cracking lately because it has so thoroughly been proven a horrible mistake. The loss of disgraced and disgusted personnel within the State Department is severe. I know people in the State Department and I hear things Whomever is elected President in the US will likely not repeat the same mistakes.

Steve