US troops conduct op inside Syria?

[Entropy]

Hot from the presses (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031568.html):


U.S. military helicopters attacked an area along Syria's border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people, the Syrian government said, condemning what it called serious aggression.

A government statement carried by the official Syrian Arab News Agency said the attack occurred at the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles (eight kilometers) inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction, firing at the workers inside shortly before sundown, the statement said.


Edit: Now there appears to be anonymous confirmation (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942DS980&show_article=1):


DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - U.S. military helicopters attacked territory inside Syria close to its border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people in a strike the Syrian government condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq in an area where the Americans have been unable to shut it down because it was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

[Schmedlap]

Conducting operations near the Syrian - or any border - was always a pain. My suspicion was that this was either false -OR- that there was something really important that needed killing. This fits the bill: "the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq in an area where the Americans have been unable to shut it down because it was out of the military's reach."

Sweet. Foreign fighters make up the overwhelming majority of the suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do mass casualty attacks. Eight potential suicide bombers dead means possibly hundreds of lives saved. Syria is a little peeved? Oh well. Then again, Syria may just be feigning anger so as to appease the extremists within their borders. They've actually been somewhat helpful in stemming the flow of foreign nutbars into Iraq.

[dogtown]

I've read a wide variety of coverage on this event and there's quite a bit of misunderstanding and misconception. At one point it sounds like an air strike, especially when the Syrians talk about women and children being killed, then it sounds like a DA mission with the intent of site exploitation. Officially it appears .gov is claiming a SOF DA mission and not a Predator strike, though at one point an official is quoted as saying helicopters weren't involved.

It makes me wonder if we're seeing something similar to the raid in Pakistan, an escalation or the toning down of the risk-averse mindset?

[Schmedlap]

Just read this at LWJ (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_strike_in_syria_d.php): "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."

If correct, this is fricken awesome. We've been after that douche for a long time. And to get a bunch of his minions along with him? There are some things money can't buy.

[jmm99]

Bill Roggio's report is here - hat tip to the result if what is reported is true.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_strike_in_syria_d.php

Reactions and news reports have been generally predictable - e.g., see these LATimes Blogs.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/10/syria-whats-beh.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/10/syria-vows-to-r.html

My personal take on the Syrian diplomatic response was that it seemed restrained. Yup, the "round up the usual suspects" rhetoric, but also a "we want to iron out this wrinkle in the road" approach.

Might the raid have something to do with this (unrelated ??) news item from Syria:


SYRIA: Al Qaeda mastermind said to be captured

An intriguing morsel about the mysterious leader of a ferocious militant group has been floating around the Lebanese and Syrian media this weekend.

According to a report in the Arab-language Syrian newspaper Al Liwaa, Syrian officials captured the leader of the Al Qaeda-linked militant group Fatah al Islam two months ago in Syria.

The report, summarized in English here, says that Shaker Abssi, a former Libyan air force pilot turned radical Islamist, was captured in the poor Meliha district of southern Damascus and hauled off to prison. ...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/10/syria-al-qaeda.html

Perhaps, I am too influenced by Bob Baer's new book on Iran (which is a current read); but was there some Syrian back-channelling going on. After all, AQ-Iraq is scarcely a friend of things Shia and Iranian. Just a thought.

[Schmedlap]

Perhaps, I am too influenced by Bob Baer's new book on Iran (which is a current read); but was there some Syrian back-channelling going on. After all, AQ-Iraq is scarcely a friend of things Shia and Iranian. Just a thought.

I think that your hunch is probably a heck of a lot closer to the truth than the painfully ignorant rantings at the LA Times site.

This seems perfectly plausible to me: we become aware, possibly through assistance from Syria, of Ghadiya's whereabouts. Syria tacitly approves of our incursion. So as to save face among their neighbors and appear sufficiently peeved at US operations, they release the obligatory news claims of outrage. We either remain silent or respond with a very low-key, diplomatic talking point during a Friday afternoon press briefing. And Ghadiya remains dead, as he should be.

[Ken White]

in obtaining and posting many valuable and informative links on this board.

However, after viewing the appalling ignorance and crass stupidity displayed by many commenting at the LA Times links above, I've been forced to move my Acme Industries Portable Yardarm [® Tomsyl] to place it under the early morning Sun in order to take to the bottle at this hour...

Please, in future, have pity on the geriatric set. :o

[Steve Blair]

in obtaining and posting many valuable and informative links on this board.

However, after viewing the appalling ignorance and crass stupidity displayed by many commenting at the LA Times links above, I've been forced to move my Acme Industries Portable Yardarm [® Tomsyl] to place it under the early morning Sun in order to take to the bottle at this hour...

Please, in future, have pity on the geriatric set. :o

And that's why I don't read commentary on newspaper sites....:D

[Entropy]

And that's why I don't read commentary on newspaper sites....:D

Same here. Someone enterprising psychology PhD candidate should write his/her doctoral thesis on the mentality of those who troll newspaper comment sections.

[jmm99]

The Times article covers two aspects of the raid: background of the raid and the I Law issues.

Starting with the first aspect (after a somewhat inane headline):


Officials Say U.S. Killed an Iraqi in Raid in Syria
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
Published: October 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — A raid into Syria on Sunday was carried out by American Special Operations forces who killed an Iraqi militant responsible for running weapons, money and foreign fighters across the border into Iraq, American officials said Monday.....
.....
American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid said the mission had been mounted rapidly over the weekend on orders from the Central Intelligence Agency when the location of the man suspected of leading an insurgent cell, an Iraqi known as Abu Ghadiya, was confirmed. About two dozen American commandos in specially equipped Black Hawk helicopters swooped into the village of Sukkariyah, six miles from the Iraqi border, just before 5 p.m., and fought a brief gun battle with Abu Ghadiya and several members of his cell, the officials said. .....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/world/middleeast/28syria.html?_r=2&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

If we are to believe the "anonymous officials", the agency pulled the trigger on this one.

-------------------------------------------
The I Law aspect is summarized as follows:


(from above)
In seeking support in international law for its actions, the Bush administration is joining a list of nations that have cited Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which enshrines the right of individual or collective self-defense to all member states.

Over the years, a growing body of legal argument has made the case that this right of self-defense allows a nation to take military action on the territory of another sovereign nation that is unable or unwilling to take measures on its own to halt the threat.

The US position is an expanded version of the "Hot Pursuit Doctrine", as to which there is some discussion of legal points here at SWC.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5762

Note that the OP links to an article directly on point - crossing the Syrian border - still at

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13440/

There will be very divergent views expressed within the "I Law Community" about this raid.

[Schmedlap]

Maybe someone more knowledgable than me knows the answers to these questions. A few statements in the NY Times article don't sound right to me.

1) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why was it mounted "on orders from the Central Intelligence Agency"?

2) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why did they use "Black Hawk helicopters" whether "specially equipped" or not? Aren't MH-53's their vehicle of choice?

3) If those facts are wrong, then what else did the "American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid" say in a manner that was incorrectly conveyed or received?

[Entropy]

Maybe someone more knowledgable than me knows the answers to these questions. A few statements in the NY Times article don't sound right to me.

1) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why was it mounted "on orders from the Central Intelligence Agency"?


Dunno, doesn't make sense to me either.


2) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why did they use "Black Hawk helicopters" whether "specially equipped" or not? Aren't MH-53's their vehicle of choice?

The MH-53's were retired last month. From the cell phone video I saw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v0hbHYZLT8), I would guess these are MH-60's - they look and sound like 60's and it sure sounds like a minigun firing to me.


3) If those facts are wrong, then what else did the "American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid" say in a manner that was incorrectly conveyed or received?

I have a few thoughts on "American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid" but unfortunately I can't repeat them on a family-friendly site.

[Schmedlap]

I would guess these are MH-60's - they look and sound like 60's and it sure sounds like a minigun firing to me.

Ugh. I meant 60s. Good find regarding the video link - I didn't realize it was a daytime op.

[dogtown]

The daytime aspect of it is a surprise, which raises the questions: was it a hot pursuit situation or was it immediate actionable S2?

[DaveDoyle]

The Longwarjournal seems to be very well researched and written, and I can't believe I am writing this but the NYT piece seems pretty decent as well.

How about this as a thought in the next few months?

Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite “special groups” that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces. (from the NYT link from JMM99)

Anybody up for that one?

[Ken White]

Maybe someone more knowledgable than me knows the answers to these questions. A few statements in the NY Times article don't sound right to me.and I'm not any more knowledgeable but the Times article seems a typical blend of SO fact, fiction and disinfomation to me.
(1) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why was it mounted "on orders from the Central Intelligence Agency"?I doubt strongly that it was though the info on the site may have been provided by them -- not the same thing as 'ordered' but that is the not very swift media we're talking about...

Of course, we don't know who actually did the ground op, sounds like SOCOM in which case the agency didn't order it but it could've been some of the Agency's own DA types with some of their contract studs on the ground. Who knows. It got done, that's what counts.
(2) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why did they use "Black Hawk helicopters" whether "specially equipped" or not? Aren't MH-53's their vehicle of choice?-60s as noted above, I can't get Entropy's video to work for some reason so MH 60s probably but plain ol' UH 60s (several variants) or HH 60Gs were possible -- dunno. Either way, still no indication of who did the job.
(3) If those facts are wrong, then what else did the "American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid" say in a manner that was incorrectly conveyed or received?Probably a lot of things, mostly on purpose for obvious reasons. Why a DA hit instead of a Hellfire or two? Several reasons come to mind and it's no OpSec violation (and nothing I haven't seen elsewhere in open sources in the last day or two) to point out that everything from an agent drop or pickup to document or item (or DNA...) recovery and dozens of other reasons may have been the reason for a DA msn. The 'leaks' are the logical release of minimal -- and probably tailored -- information due to the fact that public knowledge of the strike was impending. Better to get ahead of the issue if possible. ;)

It wasn't the first and it won't be the last. This one made then news. Some earlier have and some have not... :cool:

[Ken White]

...
Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite “special groups” that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces. (from the NYT link from JMM99)doctrine is 'emerging' is correct. The Times is a bit behind the curve on that, that's been the doctrine for some time -- it's just rather selectively applied. Logically and correctly so. It's applied for very high value targets where a positive impact is probable, a specific and achievable outcome can be obtained or to place a little pressure on someone to clean up their act. Some make the news, some do not.

As for Iran, there are and have been rumors that's already occurring:
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. LINK (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh)Yeah, it's Seymour but he wasn't alone in spouting it -- so did the Cockburns and some others. True? Who knows. Possible? Sure. :cool:

[Schmedlap]

This seems perfectly plausible to me: we become aware, possibly through assistance from Syria, of Ghadiya's whereabouts. Syria tacitly approves of our incursion. So as to save face among their neighbors and appear sufficiently peeved at US operations, they release the obligatory news claims of outrage. We either remain silent or respond with a very low-key, diplomatic talking point during a Friday afternoon press briefing. And Ghadiya remains dead, as he should be.

Just came across this unconfirmed report: Syria 'Gave Green Light for Raid' (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Syria-Helicopter-Attack-Carried-Out-By-US-With-Knowledge-Of-Syrian-Intelligence-Says-Ronen-Bergman/Article/200810415130766?f=rss)

[Uboat509]

Maybe someone more knowledgable than me knows the answers to these questions. A few statements in the NY Times article don't sound right to me.

1) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why was it mounted "on orders from the Central Intelligence Agency"?

I doubt that the majority of Americans have any real idea what the the CIA actually does or how they do it. That's fine. They don't really need to know. One small consequence is that statements like that one seem plausible.


2) If the operation was conducted by "American Special Operations forces" then why did they use "Black Hawk helicopters" whether "specially equipped" or not? Aren't MH-53's their vehicle of choice?

There probably aren't many reporters out there who could tell you the difference between a Blackhawk and a Chinook, much less a Pave Hawk.


3) If those facts are wrong, then what else did the "American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid" say in a manner that was incorrectly conveyed or received?

Ken nailed this one. I would add that I have heard of incidences where reporters have overheard parts of other people's conversations and reported them using the "anonymous sources" line or have even reported heresay that they picked up from people who don't have any more real information than they do.

SFC W

[jmm99]

but tells a similar story as the NYT - instead of an unstated number of "anons", McC has three.


Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008
CIA led mystery Syria raid that killed terrorist leader
By Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A CIA-led raid on a compound in eastern Syria killed an al Qaida in Iraq commander who oversaw the smuggling into Iraq of foreign fighters whose attacks claimed thousands of Iraqi and American lives, three U.S. officials said Monday.

The body of Badran Turki Hishan al Mazidih, an Iraqi national who used the nom de guerre Abu Ghadiya, was flown out of Syria on a U.S. helicopter at the end of the operation Sunday by CIA paramilitary officers and special forces, one U.S. official said.

"It was a successful operation," a second U.S. official told McClatchy. "The bottom line: This was a significant blow to the foreign fighter pipeline between Syria and Iraq."

A senior U.S. military officer said the raid was launched after human and technical intelligence confirmed that al Mazidih was present at the compound close to Syria's border with Iraq. "The situation finally presented itself," he said.

The three U.S. officials, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because the operation was classified, declined to reveal other details of the raid. A CIA spokesman declined to comment. ....

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/54828.html

One cannot expect the exactitude of a military after-action report from the media. Eventually, the facts of this operation will come out of the woodwork - after someone retires and writes a book.

[jmm99]

except for the classified reports which are that for good reasons.

Anyway, here is some of Mr. Bergman's take on the background:


(from Schmedlap's url)
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".

Mr Bergman told Sky News the raid happened after America had lobbied Syria intensely to deal with an al Qaeda group conducting activity on the border.

The Syrians were unwilling to be seen publicly bowing to US pressure to tackle the group, he says, but in the end gave the Americans the green light to do so themselves.

He claims the Syrian government told the Americans: "If you want to do this, do it. We are going to give you a corridor and carte blanche. We will not harm your troops."

Mr Bergman maintains Syrian intelligence has been co-operating secretly with its US counterpart for some time in its war with al Qaeda. ....

We now have a Wiki page on the 2008 Abu Kamal raid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Abu_Kamal_raid

Be interesting to see where the Sky story goes - if anywhere (... to Anonland, where the Anons cavort among the unicorns ...). Seriously, the scenario is plausible, but that does not make it probable.

[jmm99]

Despite the diplomatic and PR flaps by Syria, the story of Syria's involvement in the raid does not go away. Perhaps, the story is too juicy to go away - and, perhaps, too good a story to be true, since it definitely is not confirmed by US sources on the record.

There are some facts from Syria in the Times article that are consistent with the story (earlier arrest of Fatah al–Islam leader & car bomb in Damascus near Syrian Intel HQs; eyewitnesses at scene of raid, etc.).


From The Sunday Times
November 2, 2008
Questions raised over Syrian complicity in US raid
Syria has denounced a US strike on its territory but sources say Damascus secretly backed the raid
by Marie Colvin and Uzi Mahnaimi

The 38-year-old farmer was watering his maize in the scrubby vastness of eastern Syria when four Black Hawk helicopters swooped in low over the palm trees, heading from the border with Iraq formed by the Euphrates River.

It was late afternoon. The light was fading and the chill of the desert winter night was setting in. The helicopters, following their leader in a disciplined arc, hovered just above the one-storey concrete and mud homes of the village of Sukariyeh before the attack began.

Two of them landed next to a ramshackle building site and uniformed men hit the ground firing. Two other helicopters gave aerial cover.

“To begin with I thought they were Syrian helicopters, but then I saw eight or nine soldiers armed to the teeth. They carried big black M16s,” said Mohammad al-Ali, the farmer. His land lies closest to the site where an American commando squad last week staged an unprecedented strike in Syrian territory. .....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece

A lengthy piece follows the lead quote above.

[Schmedlap]

... unprecedented strike in Syrian territory.

"Unprecedented" = not since 2003?

[Rex Brynen]

Be interesting to see where the Sky story goes - if anywhere (... to Anonland, where the Anons cavort among the unicorns ...). Seriously, the scenario is plausible, but that does not make it probable.

I can't think of any obvious circumstances under which the Syrians would want US forces doing snatch and grab ops inside Syrian territory, when the Syrians routinely detain/torture/kill jihadists all by themselves, and share information when they see fit.

Coming after the reactor bombing, the Mughniyya and Sulayman assassinations, and last month's car-bombing in Damascus, US operations on Syrian soil hardly buttress the domestic national security credentials of the Syrian regime in the key of their key constituencies.

Also, if US helicopters can't manage a 5km NOE penetration into Syrian airspace without alerting Syrian air defences (such as they are), someone ought to be fired...

[jmm99]

from the standpoint of motives (what a government or intelligence service "wants") seems to me a waste of time. We do not have enough facts (as opposed to speculation) to make even a probable link between the Syrian Intel guys and ours. Right now, there is a lot going on (which neither of us knows much about - unless you have inside info) with Iraq, Syria and Iran in regard to continued US presence and the extent thereof (e.g., Iraq SOFA and the results of our election, also a wait and see).

No complaints about your main points, but I imagine some explanation (plausible or implausible to such as Mr. Peake) could be made - but not by JJM. What intrigues me is that the story hasn't died - yet.

Don't know nothing about our insertion capabilities vs. Syrian defenses against same (and if all that is not locked tight in classification, "someone ought to be fired", for sure). But, assuming arguendo that (1) our insertion capability is infallable compared to Syrian counter-capabilities; and (2) the Syrians detected our insertion; about the only conclusion to be made is that they knew we were coming. And, apparently, the AQ-Iraq people also had enough warning for the firefight to ensue.

[jmm99]

but we run into such as this.


Iraq sends more police to Syrian border
Iraq sends police to Syrian border in wake of US raid last weekend
RYAN LUCAS
AP News
Nov 01, 2008 15:10 EST

Iraq sent police reinforcements Saturday to the Syrian border after last weekend's U.S. raid against an alleged al-Qaida hideout in Syria raised tension between the two countries, officials said.

Police Col. Jubair Rashid Naief said a police quick reaction force for Anbar province moved to the border town of Qaim, about 200 miles northwest of Baghdad, to prevent al-Qaida from moving into the area from Syria.

Al-Arabiya television quoted witnesses as saying scores of armored vehicles were seen moving from the Anbar provincial capital of Ramadi to Qaim, which had been a major al-Qaida stronghold until Anbar's Sunni tribes turned against al-Qaida.

The police moves follow last Sunday's bold U.S. raid on the Syrian border town of Abu Kamal, during which U.S. officials say they killed a top al-Qaida militant who operated a network of smuggling fighters into Iraq.
.....
.... Earlier this week, Syria also sent additional troops to the border following the raid, but has since withdrawn them.

The Iraqi government has rejected the attack, but has urged Syria to crack down on organizations on its territory that are trying to hurt Iraq.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari voiced confidence the raid would not damage long-term relations, saying there is "good understanding to overcome this crisis."

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=439506

Certainly, this is a factoid. What it means to us (US), or to the Syrians and Iraqis, I hazard not a guess - nor as to what a "good understanding" means between Iraq and Syria.

[Ken White]

"Unprecedented" = not since 2003?that made the papers anyhow... :D
Rex says:
I can't think of any obvious circumstances under which the Syrians would want US forces doing snatch and grab ops inside Syrian territory, when the Syrians routinely detain/torture/kill jihadists all by themselves, and share information when they see fit.Unless they really wanted someone gone for their own reasons but also for their own reasons, did not want to offend that someone's patrons...

Get some willing help from the guys everyones loves to hate. Happens a lot.
Coming after the reactor bombing, the Mughniyya and Sulayman assassinations, and last month's car-bombing in Damascus, US operations on Syrian soil hardly buttress the domestic national security credentials of the Syrian regime in the key of their key constituencies.Not sure they're all that concerned -- and they are whipping up popular hate and discontent at the incident. Though not to the extent I would have expected... :confused:
Also, if US helicopters can't manage a 5km NOE penetration into Syrian airspace without alerting Syrian air defences (such as they are), someone ought to be fired...Do we know they got detected? ;)

[Uboat509]

I can't think of any obvious circumstances under which the Syrians would want US forces doing snatch and grab ops inside Syrian territory, when the Syrians routinely detain/torture/kill jihadists all by themselves, and share information when they see fit.Not all Jihadists are created equal. I would not say that the Syrian government is free to act as it pleases against every organization operating within their borders. I am also not entirely sure that the central government has complete control over the intelligence apparatus a la Pakistan.


Do we know they got detected?

I was thinking the same thing. That cell video is hardly definitive proof of anything.

SFC W

[jmm99]

by confirmed information from a known source, that the US choppers were detected by Syrian air defenses - which is why I used "assuming arguendo".

The "detection" factoid is in the Sunday Times article.

Note this was a Sky scoop from an Israeli analyst - now running on Fox's ticker and the bottom of the hour news (22:30 EST) - so, one of Rupert's products, which does not necessarily damn it:


..... The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.

The operation should have been fast and bloodless. According to the sources, Syrian intelligence tipped off the Americans about Abu Ghadiya’s whereabouts. US electronic intelligence then tracked his exact location, possibly by tracing his satellite telephone, and the helicopters were directed to him. They were supposed to kidnap him and take him to Iraq for questioning.

According to defence sources [JMM: whose "defence sources" ?], when the four US helicopters approached the Syrian border, they were detected by Syrian radar. Air force headquarters in Damascus was asked for permission to intercept.

After an Israeli airstrike against a suspected nuclear reactor in the same region last year, Syrian air defence has been on high alert. The request was turned down by senior officers because the American operation was expected.

It is not clear what went wrong, but it is believed that the helicopters were spotted by the militants on their final approach and a gun battle broke out. That is supported by an account from a local tribal leader, who said a rocket-propelled grenade had been launched from the compound at the helicopter. The firefight blew the cover on a supposedly covert operation.

Ninety minutes after the raid, according to a local tribal leader, agents of the feared Mukhabarat, the Syrian intelligence service, flooded into the village. “They threatened us that if anyone said anything about what happened in this area, their family members would die,” he said.

The bolded lines had to have had an origin in Syrian defense communications (if they are true); but could have been intercepts, or whatever else you wish to imagine, as the chain of transmission.

There has been more (apparent) substance added to this story as it goes along.

The eyewitness testimony of the villager (again if true - I sure didn't interview him), as to Syrian Intel being on scene within 90 minutes, is also interesting.

[Ken White]

We do not know, even if we do know what some say occurred... ;)

That, too, happens a lot... :wry:

[jmm99]

I assume the MAJ mentioned in this article was authoirized to say what he said - about US-Syrian co-operation before the raid in the sector to the north - since the XO of 3ACR was also mentioned as a participant in the interview:


The National - Abu Dhabi
Syria stops insurgents on Iraq border
Phil Sands, Foreign Correspondent
Last Updated: November 02. 2008 11:52PM UAE / November 2. 2008 7:52PM GMT

MOSUL, IRAQ // Syria has been helping US and Iraqi troops catch extremists trying to cross the border, a US military intelligence official said in an interview with The National.

In addition to arresting insurgents on their side of the frontier, Syrian security services have passed information to US forces that is being used to target insurgents inside Iraq, according to Major Adam Boyd, the head intelligence officer with the third armoured cavalry regiment. His unit is responsible for Mosul, the Jazeera desert and policing a 380km stretch of the Iraqi-Syrian border in Nineveh province.

“We don’t deal directly with the Syrians, but I will tell you that they have been relatively good in the near recent past, arresting people on their side of the border,” he said in an interview at the regiment’s headquarters in Mosul, in northern Iraq.

“We are still working on some specific targets after individuals were arrested on the Syrian side and that information has been passed over and that has allowed us to target on this side of the border.”

Major Boyd said such intelligence sharing had not happened on a “regular basis”, however, and that foreign fighters were still infiltrating.
.....
Major Boyd declined to comment on the raid, which happened south of his area of operations. He also declined to talk about its possible effect on border security, saying that US and Iraqi forces would try to “kill or capture” foreign fighters as long as they continued to enter the country.
.....
Major Boyd said concerns about the effectiveness of Syrian frontier police remained, although he stressed that their failures might be a result of local corruption and tribal alliances – which also affect the Iraqi border force – rather than Syrian policy.

“For every example of co-operation from Syria, there are an equal number of incidents that are not helpful,” he said. “We just captured someone who was trying to escape into Syria and found out that he’d been arrested last November on the Syrian side after they caught him with a bunch of fake passports. But he bribed his way out and managed to get back in.

“But, again, I don’t know I necessarily attribute that to the government as to an individual Syrian border patrol unit.”

Illegal crossing between Syria and Iraq remains fairly commonplace, although most crossers are traders, smugglers and shepherds, not insurgents. “The Iraqi border forces themselves are mainly locally recruited and from the Shammar tribe,” Major Boyd said. “The Shammar also control trade routes through the western Jazeera and their people are on both sides of the border.

“The reason they can get across, aside from the Shammar helping them, is that the berm along the border is broken in many places, or worn down so you can back up two trucks and pass things back and forth.”

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081102/FOREIGN/253206390/1011/ART

[Schmedlap]

Get some willing help from the guys everyones loves to hate. Happens a lot.

My thoughts, exactly.


From the article quoted by JMM:
“They threatened us that if anyone said anything about what happened in this area, their family members would die,” he said.
Must have been a credible threat!:D

[Rex Brynen]

that made the papers anyhow... :D
Rex says:Unless they really wanted someone gone for their own reasons but also for their own reasons, did not want to offend that someone's patrons...

This simply doesn't reflect the way that the Syrian intelligence services operate with regard to Islamist cells, nor the structure of the relationship between jihadist facilitators and the regime. If the Syrians wanted this guy, they would have simply gone in and arrested him. They do it frequently, and it rarely makes the press.

On the other hand, US penetration of Syrian territory is embarrassing to the regime, and not something they would want to happen.

As for my comment on the US helicopters allegedly being detected by Syrian AD radars on ingress, it was meant to highlight that the story being reported makes little sense. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that a NOE helicopter penetration 5km into Syria in an area that is very poorly covered by Syrian AD to begin with (http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/09/syrian-sam-network.html) would be noticed by the Syrian AD command at all.

[Ken White]

because most are leaked or released filled with mis- and dis- information purposely and then the generally ignorant and incompetent news media garble them even more...

As for the rest, we can -- at this point and given as little as we really know -- not bother to disagree on who may have done what and why. Both your scenario and mine and a dozen or more others are totally possible; probability is not an issue in a daylight operation like this. I still posit that this line from my earler comment: ""Get some willing help from the guys everyones loves to hate. Happens a lot."" is a frequent occurrence and there are few nations -- very few -- that have not taken advantage of that. We're generally willing because we know the worst will be believed in any event. :D

Many intel operations initially appear to make little sense and cooperation between nations, particularly in the ME, as you well know, often takes strange turns. Actions and motives are seldom what they seem. Rarely is a better word. Almost never, in fact, is even better... :wry:

All idle speculation; we just do not and are not likely to know enough to really say anything definitive either way. ;)

[Schmedlap]

... we just do not and are not likely to know enough to really say anything definitive either way. ;)

And that's the best part, imo.:D

[Ken White]

One thing you can usually count on, if an op becomes public knowledge, it generally was designed to do so for one reason or another. Some do get leaked or blown -- but very few.

As the Actress said to the Bishop' "You don't need to know everything or even most things..." :wry: