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

[meade95]

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

Are we talking the same State Dept that assured the DoD / POTUS that it would have X number of Civ-Reconstruction-Teams within Iraq at the start of OIF (and 6 years later still wasn't even near 50% filled?). Are we talking State that couldn't pull its own junk out if its own pants once again and left the 4th ID sitting on boats because they could not get Turkey to cooperate after assurances that they could......

Just curious.....

[meade95]

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.

Jon

What did they exactly help with? Hmm? How many AQ Operatives did they "turn over". Are they still sheltering Binny's oldest son? Who else? Didn't Zarqawi travel through Iran into Iraq?? Yes. (and that was before the Iraq war even started....Zarqawi /AQ going into Iraq).

Lets have it? What exactly did they help with? Outside of helping some within the Taliban (whom they had their own axe to grind with)......

Iran did nothing helpful other than from the fear of their own past actions and what that could mean to/for them.....

[JonS]

2002: US Refuses to Exchange Information with Iran about Islamist Militants

Twice in 2002, the US passes requests to Iran to deliver al-Qaeda suspects to the the Afghan government. Iran transfers two of the suspects and seeks more information about others. Iran, in turn, asks the US to question four Taliban prisoners held at the US-run Guantanamo prison. The four men are suspects in the 1998 killing of nine Iranian diplomats in Kabul, Afghanistan. But in late 2001, the Bush administration decided on a policy of accepting help with counterterrorism efforts from officially declared state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, but not giving any help back (see Late December 2001). As a result, the Iranian request is denied. Counterterrorism “tsar” Wayne Downing will later comment, “I sided with the [CIA] guys on that. I was willing to make a deal with the devil if we could clip somebody important off or stop an attack.” The Washington Post will report, “Some believe important opportunities were lost.” (Gellman and Linzer 10/22/2004)

January 29, 2002: Bush Labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an ‘Axis of Evil,’ Ending Cooperation with Iran

President Bush’s State of the Union speech describes an “axis of evil” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Bin Laden is not mentioned in the speech. (US President 2/4/2002) Bush says, “States like these and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” Bush goes on to suggest for the first time that the US might be prepared to launch pre-emptive wars by saying, “The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” (Burrough et al. 5/2004) When Bush advisor Richard Perle was asked one month before 9/11 about new challenges the US faced, he replied by naming these exact three countries (see August 6, 2001). Michael Gerson, head of the White House speechwriting team at the time, will later claim that, as Newsweek will later put it, “Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn’t ready to say so.” Iran and North Korea are inserted into the speech in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq. The speech is followed by a new public focus on Iraq and a downplaying of bin Laden (see September 15, 2001-April 6, 2002). Prior to the speech, the Iranian government had been very helpful in the US fight against the Taliban, since the Taliban and Iran were enemies. (Hirsh and Bahari 2/12/2007) At the time, al-Qaeda operatives has been streaming into Iran from Afghanistan following the defeat of the Taliban. Iran has been turning over hundreds of suspects to US allies and provided US intelligence with the names, photographs, and fingerprints of those it is holding. (Linzer 2/10/2007) Newsweek will later say that it is “beyond doubt” the Iranian government was “critical… to stabilizing [Afghanistan] after the fall of Kabul.” But all this cooperation comes to an end after the speech. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Hossein Adeli will later say that, “Those [inside the Iranian government] who were in favor of a rapprochement with the United States were marginalized. The speech somehow exonerated those who had always doubted America’s intentions.” (Hirsh and Bahari 2/12/2007)

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?iran_general_topic_areas=us_force_against_iran_diplomacy&timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran&printerfriendly=true

[meade95]

Newsweek will later say that Iran was helpful? Newsweek? Seriously,Newsweek!? That is who your link here is referencing........ The same Newsweek that wouldn't admit the forged documents of CBS / Dan Rathergate? The same Newsweek with a constant political bias.

And again, I already said of course Iran helped dropping dimes on those Taliban members of whom they had a long running feud with........That is neither here nor there.

Editorials/opinions from completely bias Newsweek. That is classic.

Again, outside of the Taliban where was Iran "helpful". Did that stop supproting terrorsim? Did they clamp down on Hezz in Lebanon? No. Did they open up with full transparancey their energy and weapons programs? No. Did they clamp down on known highlevel terrorists (such as Zarqawi) moving through Iran into Iraq (prior to OIF) No. Did they stop those AQ elements they did put under "house arrest" from supporting other terrorist actions (No, your own link says these elements helped conduct further terrorist acts from within Iran)....All they did was grabbed up Tally's that they had a long axe to grind with. So be it. It was benefiical to them to do so. And we owed them nothing for it.

It is like to old saying "I take care of my babies".... .So what! You're suppose to! You're not suppose to get some reward for doing so.

And again, your own link goes on to show/say how Iran was using any AQ types they had in custody as a bargaining chip.....for their Own gain. That is fine, however, there are consequences for doing such.....especially when you're a State sponsor of terrorism going on 30 years.....

The notion that they were being "helpful" is absurd. They were being helpful for their own self-interests (Vs the Taliban) and trying to bargin AQ elements for further power plays. Again, this is all well and fine.....But we don't have to accept such terms...and it isn't us than this acting unilaterally.......We are not accepting their terms. They made that choice / options..... They live with the results.

[Bigduke6]

Are we talking the same State Dept that assured the DoD / POTUS that it would have X number of Civ-Reconstruction-Teams within Iraq at the start of OIF (and 6 years later still wasn't even near 50% filled?). Are we talking State that couldn't pull its own junk out if its own pants once again and left the 4th ID sitting on boats because they could not get Turkey to cooperate after assurances that they could......

Just curious.....

Certainly. The very same State Department that said, the military has to provide security, we can't reconstruct if the inurgents are trying to kill us diplomats.

And last I heard, it was the government of Turkey, not the US State Department, that determines what foreign troop movements take place on the territory of Turkey. Is it possible some one in the Petagon put 4ID in motion, and then left it to the State Department to sort out how to get 4ID the right permits from the Turks? Could it possibly be the soldiers had little idea what was diplomatically possible? (Hint: A reference to "junk in trousers" usually has little effect on the diplomatic front.)

And it is the military and no one else that has failed to defeat the insurgencies, it is the military that failed to speak out when Rummy said it would we easy, and it is the military that thinks the life of a soldier outweights the value of a local about 100 - 1. So far the military's attempt to defeat insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us what, about a trillion dollars? That's an awful lot of money for very thin results, and one of the crappy results is they still can't make either country safe enough for State Department reconstruction teams to travel without bodyguards.

The State Department is responsible for diplomacy. The military is responsible for fighting and winning wars. A military that points fingers at civilians when the war results suck, and says "Not our/b] fault, blame the civilians!" is displaying moral cowardice of the worst sort.

[meade95]

Certainly.

And last I heard, it was the government of Turkey, not the US State Department, that determines what foreign troop movements take place on the territory of Turkey.

This is too rich - Hell of a way to take any responsibility off of State, I'll give you that.

[Clavicula_Nox]

What did they exactly help with? Hmm? How many AQ Operatives did they "turn over". Are they still sheltering Binny's oldest son? Who else? Didn't Zarqawi travel through Iran into Iraq?? Yes. (and that was before the Iraq war even started....Zarqawi /AQ going into Iraq).

Lets have it? What exactly did they help with? Outside of helping some within the Taliban (whom they had their own axe to grind with)......

Iran did nothing helpful other than from the fear of their own past actions and what that could mean to/for them.....

Zarqawi was not affiliated with Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda, so what he did is irrelevant to Al-Qaeda.

[meade95]

Zarqawi was not affiliated with Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda, so what he did is irrelevant to Al-Qaeda.

Wrong. You must start to be WILLING to be intellectually honest. It is clear you're not at this time. You refuse to let facts or reality interfer with your already established bias....

Here is just some of the bio on Zarqawi and his direct affliation to AQ/Bin Laden....

In 1989, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to join the insurgency against the Soviet invasion, but the Soviets were already leaving by the time he arrived;[6] where he met and befriended Osama bin Laden while there.

.....

Upon his release from prison in 1999, Zarqawi was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, where many Israeli and American tourists lodged.[8] He fled Jordan and traveled to Peshawar, Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. In Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a militant training camp near Herat, near the Iranian border.[9] The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives.[10] According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers of Zarqawi in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders after travelling to Afghanistan.[8] He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat.[11] WITH al-Qaeda's SUPPORT, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants.

.....

Jordanian and European intelligence agencies discovered that Zarqawi formed the group Jund al-Sham in 1999 with $200,000 of start up money from Osama bin Laden.[12] The group originally consisted of 150 members. It was infiltrated by members of Jordanian intelligence, and scattered before Operation Enduring Freedom.

.....

After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again traveled to Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion.[14] He was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he fought along side of the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.

......

..before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi ran a "terrorist haven" in Kurdish northern Iraq, and organized the bombing of a Baghdad hotel.[36] According to a March 2003 British intelligence report, Zarqawi had set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war. The report stated "suggests that senior al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city...These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received [chemical and biological] materials from terrorists in the [Kurdish Autonomous Zone]),...al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March."[37]

[Sgt Joch]

It is hard to figure out whether the impact of the raid was sufficiently thought out (probably not). Based on reports, the CIA received actionable intelligence over the weekend and the order was given resulting in the apparent death of a top AQ leader.

However, the route which they "closed" was already largely irrelevant. The US has successfully coopted Sunni groups in Iraq both as a counterpoint to the influence of Iran in Iraq and to defeat the so called "Al-Quaida in mesopotamia". Foreign fighters have been no more than a nuisance factor for the past year in Iraq.

The Bush administration still makes the mistake of viewing the world as being made up of monolithic blocs of either US allies or enemies.

Syria is not an Iranian stooge. The only interest of the Assad family is to stay in power and they are doing what they can to navigate the treacherous waters of ME politics. They are allied with Iran based on current mutual interests.

The Assad family's position in Syria is increasingly fragile. They are from the Alawi sect, officially shiites running a country where 75% of the population is Sunni. Basher Assad is by all accounts secular and his wife is a Sunni who was raised in england. He has more affinity with the west than with the Mullahs in Teheran (although by all acounts he can be as brutal a dictator as Saddam Hussein was).

Even though the syrian army left lebanon, syria has been trying to maintain control through proxies, with the key one being Hizbollah which is close to Iran. Syria wants to reestablish contacts with the west, but they are worried about the final report on the Hariri assassination which should come out soon and which may again brand Syria as a "pariah" state.

Syria has actually been quite helpful with the US, they have intercepted a large number of foreign fighters coming into Syria, increased security along the Iraq border and took in 1-1.5 million Iraqi refugees during the worst of the fighting.

However, Syria realizes that if Iraq descends into civil war after the US leaves, they will not be able to just stand by and let Iraqi Sunnis be massacred, even if that puts them in conflict with Iran. Therefore, they cannot afford to cut all their ties to Sunni extremists, even if they are unpalatable to the US.

There are also reports that the US has been trying to detach Syria away from Iran. If the US made a reasonable effort, it could easily pry Syria away from Iran, the question has always been what the US is willing to offer in return: a freer hand in Lebanon? modern weapons? the Golan Heights? ...

All of which makes the reasons for the raid hard to explain. Its military value is dubious and its immediate impact will be to strengthen the Iran-Syria alliance.

[meade95]

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.

Steve

Hmm, looks like your judgement could be off (once again concerning the current WOT and this operation inparticular)....As more on this raid continues to leak out - Nothing concrete and I'm sure none of us will know for cretain for quite some time anyhow......however...

From The Long War Journal

Publicly America is still saying nothing but US officials are making intriguing claims off the record. Now, a respected Israeli intelligence expert says he has been told the operation was carried out with the knowledge and co-operation of Syrian intelligence.

Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War with Iran, makes the claim in the Yediot Ahronoth newspaper, based on briefings with two senior American officials, one of whom he says until recently "held a very high ranking in the Pentagon".

________

Or this could simply be a planted story on our end. Psyops of our own causing division within Syria's intelligence community.....

Regardless to me, this kinetic solution for this HVT was certainly worth it...(with or without the Syrians playing ball).....if our guys at CENTCOM felt it was worth it......I'll trust their judgement. It is more than clear these type Ops are intelligence driven.....and that our OODA loop is becoming too small for AQ and their mimics to operate within (even within a growing number of countries outside of Stan and Iraq)...

[Bigduke6]

I'll note here that yesterday I suggested meade95's touching confidence in Centcom's judgement was misplaced. I suggested then, that Centcom argueably was incapable of making a balanced judgement on whether or not, big picture, raiding Syria was good foreign policy.

Instead of responding to my comment, he has simply repeated his opinion: "if our guys at CENTCOM felt it was worth it......I'll trust their judgement."

So I will repeat my comment: Confidence in Centcom like that, without reasonable grounds, is faith-based foreign policy and silly.

I think a discussion of Centcom's capacity for intelligence collection capacity and analysis is pretty germane to this topic. I'll be glad to expand on the arguement, but in my opinion Centcom is so wrapped up in the details of fighting an insurgency that it pretty much systematically forgets small tactical actions not thought through can indeed carry unpleasant strategic implications.

As regards what US officials are saying off the record, I say this: "If a public official wants to say something, he is either on the record or he is selling a load of horse hockey. Off the record a US official could recount Alice in Wonderland, that would not make it factual nor would the public official carry any responsibility for floating a fairy tale as fact."

A US public official wanting to justify a special forces raid into Syria, were he inclined to lie to the media, would be hard put to find a better cover story than "Well, the Syrians secretly invited us, but don't mention my name."

As to the Bergman story, so far there's nothing out there to back it up, which gives it the smell of government manipulation. The story itself as written is at least questionable, any one wanting a lesson in careful journalism need but ask and I'll show you the holes.

As regards the US Department of State and Turkey, let me get this straight, do you actually believe the US Department of State is in a position to dictate the terms of Turkish national sovereignty issues, to Turkey?

[Battlefront.com]

meade95,

Nothing concrete and I'm sure none of us will know for cretain for quite some time anyhow......however...

Well, that's too ambiguous to be trusted at this time. I still think its unlikely that the Syrians knowingly allowed the strike to happen, though of course the possibility is there. We might not ever know the real story behind this operation, but I suspect in time we will know most of it. That time certainly isn't right now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

As regards the US Department of State and Turkey, let me get this straight, do you actually believe the US Department of State is in a position to dictate the terms of Turkish national sovereignty issues, to Turkey?

I hope not, because there is that tiny issue with 4th ID having to leave Turkey and go around the long way to get into Iraq. That was not done by choice from the US side, therefore it's plainly evident that Turkey calls the shots. Just like Turkey conducted (and will likely continue to conduct) cross border raids into Iraq despite the US' objections. Their answer to our demands that they stay out of it? "Hey, you Yanks attack across borders when you feel its in your interests, so why shouldn't we?". Which is the whole problem with breaking international law. An exception for one is arguably an exception for everyone. I'm keeping my eye on Canada from now on. They already do too many cross border raids for cigarettes and gas as it is

Steve

[dima]

I'm keeping my eye on Canada from now on. They already do too many cross border raids for cigarettes and gas as it is

Steve

And I am afraid this is about to end, with US dollar getting a lot stronger

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not against international law to attack cross border if the country does not control its own territory, or allows hostilities to be carried out from its territory.

[Darkmage]

It's not against international law to attack cross border if the country does not control its own territory, or allows hostilities to be carried out from its territory.

well surely it is...? and who's definition of 'not controlling' do we use?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Having armed groups operating out of your territory is a pretty good definition.

[meade95]

Having armed groups operating out of your territory is a pretty good definition.

+1 - Sounds like a reasonable definition to me.....

[Bigduke6]

Having armed groups operating out of your territory is a pretty good definition.

Maybe not as good as you think.

How many people in a group? What does "armed" mean? What group behavior is ok, and what isn't? What is "operating?" What is "control", for instance, is it reasonable to expect a developed world standard of border control in a country where incomes are about 1/100th of the rich country? What is absence of control? Who gets to decide? Even if there is agreement international law has been broken, what sort of action is appropriate? Who gets to decide that?

Unfortunately cross-border raiding for all its cool factor is like most other aspects of inter-state relations: simple provided you don't know the details, but of course if you make policy without finding out the details then you are pretty much guaranteed sooner or later to step on a rake.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Maybe not as good as you think.

, is it reasonable to expect a developed world standard of border control in a country where incomes are about 1/100th of the rich country?

If they're unable or unwilling to stop their territory from being used as a base of attacks, you bet.

[Battlefront.com]

Wrath of Dagon,

Having armed groups operating out of your territory is a pretty good definition.

Well, by that definition the US should be able to conduct operations within pretty much every European country since they all have armed groups within them that are trying to attack the US and/or its interests. Some of the most significant aspects of the 9/11 attacks happened within Germany, for example. There was also foiled attempt to blow up several airliners over the US coming over from the UK. Then there is that bastion of terrorists... Canada to think about!

This is the inherent problem with borders... to a terrorist they mean nothing, but to governments they mean everything. Trying to come up with a definition that allows unilateral action against a sovereign, or even failed, state is just not going to work. Well, not in any legal sense of the word.

In theory what should happen is the US complains to the UN that Syria isn't controlling its borders. The UN looks into the issue and tries to mediate a solution that is acceptable to the US, if the charges are proven true (which in this case is a no brainer). If Syria doesn't agree to a reasonable solution, or doesn't carry it out in one way or another, then the UN would grant the US the right to act within specific parameters (i.e. carpet bombing a city to get a terrorist cell would not be OK).

What I just described is a standard way to mediate a dispute, be it legal or inter personal. It's a proven formula that works far better than vigilante justice. The problem is it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of working

The problem with the theory is that the UN is a hopeless organization and the US (along with most countries) will never submit itself to the same standards being applied to it or having its options left in the hands of a 3rd party. So what we're left with is the imperfect situation we have now.

That situation is that when a country feels the rewards of a cross border attack justify the risks of international problems that result from it, then it will go in and attack. Just like the US did into Syria, just like Russia did into Georgia, just like Turkey did into Iraq, just like many other places around the world (South American and Kashmir come to mind). There's no other alternative as far as I can tell.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, Wrath of Dagon is correct that a nation state has the right to defend itself against attacks from across its border. However, as far as I know that right is only legally recognized when there there is a declaration of war AND the premise for it is not substantially in dispute. But declarations of war are out of fashion now and probably will be forever more. And I think that's a good thing because a declaration of war against Syria is a whole different thing than a single Special Ops raid 5 miles within Syria's border. For the sake of general global stability and peace, raids allow steam to be let off without a full blown war. At least usually.

Steve

[meade95]

Wrath of Dagon,

Well, by that definition the US should be able to conduct operations within pretty much every European country since they all have armed groups within them that are trying to attack the US and/or its interests. Some of the most significant aspects of the 9/11 attacks happened within Germany, for example. There was also foiled attempt to blow up several airliners over the US coming over from the UK. Then there is that bastion of terrorists... Canada to think about!

Steve

But these countries by and large are directly trying to stop such from happening / and or trying to stop such people from openly operating...... Nor are these people directly attacking U.S. based troops and entering another ally Country to do so.

There really is no serious comparison between the border regions of Pakistan (and what is happening there...what the history is there) as compared to other nations.

[meade95]

BTW, And I think that's a good thing because a declaration of war against Syria is a whole different thing than a single Special Ops raid 5 miles within Syria's border. For the sake of general global stability and peace, raids allow steam to be let off without a full blown war. At least usually.

Steve

Exactly right - And why / where from such kinetic solutions / operations can be very valuable......While much of the other non-kinetic options go on both overtly and covertly...

[Dogface]

There really is no serious comparison between the border regions of Pakistan (and what is happening there...what the history is there) as compared to other nations.

I could think of some, Chad/Sudan, in fact how about whole Chad, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo area. Then there is most, if not all of the countries bordering Russia. I mention those countries and regions in particular because I have some knowledge of the histories there. I am sure that I could find some in Asia if I could give a crap to look. Needless to say I would rather drink a beer.