Special Warfare, Special Operations and SOF (US) before Trump

[OUTLAW 09]

Concur, but for that to happen they need to believe they can win, and a demonstration of real political will (something airpower can never provide) on our part can provide significant motivation and hope in that regard. The impact of a raid, or any military operation, is rarely limited to its tactical effects in today's world. I haven't seen any evidence in the media of positive trends in Syria or Iraq. If you want to call a stalemate positive, then maybe an argument can be made that ISIL has lost its forward momentum in several locations.

I also agree that HVI targeting had limited impact in Afghanistan, but the fact of the matter was we confused anyone putting an IED next to the road as a HVI, so HVI in reality was just a term in vogue, it didn't actually mean the individuals were HVIs. In Iraq, they went after HVIs and just as importantly they killed a lot of foot soldiers, which greatly suppressed, not defeated, AQI. Any arguments to the contrary is simply twisting history around. It created so called political space to reach a more enduring solution, which we all know how that turned out.



Perhaps, but there are so many actors in Syria, both internal and external, I would be very hesitant to identify any particular actor the unsung group in the alleged sudden improvement. Sudden improvement of who exactly?



I think we have plenty of political will for dealing with Ukraine, Ukraine is Putin's biggest strategic mistake (it is our OIF) that has backfired in almost every conceivable way. We have no obligation to defend Ukraine, yet we are providing significant support throughout DIME, and Putin is not making progress. Furthermore, Putin exposed his hand, so a repeat of this strategic approach against an actual NATO country will be very difficult if not impossible.



From a policy perspective, I thought we dropped the idea of removing Assad? That is now a long term goal to be achieved through the political process, because we realize if it is done militarily it will look like Libya (not that it doesn't look that way already).

.

You hear this statement about every conflict in D.C. lately. As you point out, it is only a partial truth. In reality it all depends upon how you define winning. As you pointed out yourself, our military successes in Iraq didn't lead to the desired end beyond removing Saddam from power. Most countries struggle with how to translate military power into desired political effect. I think that has been true throughout time. If you extend the logic on this thinking, if war worked, it would seem we would get to a point where we didn't have wars anymore. That hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it will, so maybe we just need to accept the fact that war is a messy business that can achieve temporary aims, but it won't achieve an enduring utopia.

At the end of day, I still think this raid can signify a significant change in our approach to IS/ISIL, which in my view is a significant near term threat to our interests.

Bill--actually we did drop the get rid of Assad because the ground fighting was going nowhere and Hezbollah and the IRGC were so heavily involved the US never figured the ground fighting would reach a culminating tipping point which has now has been achieved and the Assad military is defacto now actually losing the fight all because someone is training and shipping a large number of TOWs into the fight--last rough count--there have been well over 300 fired with a high success rate--ie it has decimated the Assad armor and artillery and is being now used to crack open critical defensive Assad military positions.

Am a firm believer that the TOW is the great equalizer when armor is in play--even during the Cold War in Europe TOWs were mounted on just about anything that could shoot and scoot.With COIN it simply fell out of favor due to civilian loses when it was used.

The more interesting question--who are the trainers and who in the US is signing the purchase orders and more importantly who is flying them into country--SF or CIA??

Now that it appears Assad is actually losing the US feels they need Russia to figure out that he is losing and come up with an exit plan in order to save face basically for the Russians --while we seem to be so involved in "Russian face saving in Syria" we seem to be letting Putin continue along the lines of "let's let the Ukrainians fight 700 tanks even if the TOW is the critical weapon of choice" and can make a "non military win" or at least keep Russian troops and her mercenaries bottled up and allow no further territorial gains at the expense of the Ukraine--that is the least the US can do under the impression that the Budapest Memorandum really meant nothing even with a US signature.

I would argue that even Iran after watching the US basically run from their responsibilities on really what was a nuclear disarming memorandum fully understands they can violate the ongoing nuclear deal any time they want to with no back lash.

Just as long as we do not get involved and it does not cost us to much and it appears we really are involved in Europe--a kind of on the cheap approach that is basically not working after Sochi or why else is Nuland now in Moscow after Sochi?--did not Putin get the message the first time around in Sochi?

That is if we even provided a message--if we did then he did not understand it based on the massive shellings and ground attacks since Sochi costing the Ukrainians 17 KIA and 50 WIA in just this week alone.

BTW the supplier of choice for the more critical defensive systems ie night vision and counter battery radar/drones has been the Canadians----.

Just a second thought--WHAT the US is not noticing is in fact among the fighting groups and that includes FSA the US supported guys, moderate Islamists and al Nursa they recently held a joint planning council and have largely started taking on a form of council government without outside help--that has led to their suddenly attacking IS and basically pushing them out of previously held territory. After four years of fighting and largely losing and constant AF bombings they discovered the strength of a joint council---again who influenced that ---SF or CIA or actually the KSA? My tip is the KSA.

Something no one thought possible--defeating IS inside Syria his home turf.

Something missing from the conversation is the role of the young Saudi "hawks" ---Ft. Irwin trained officers now in the COL and early General ranks who feel that the KSA has to break out of the US shadow and formulate their own foreign policy and use force is necessary to back up that policy--really what we are seeing in the push back of Iran in Yemen and KSA support into Syria.

Next to Israel the KSA no longer trusts Obama to hold to anything he states--the Saudi snub to the Obama during the meeting he called for is a clear sign of the "hawks" taking control of Saudi FP--and the clear and distinct statements from them that we will go down the nuclear path as well simply because we do not trust the Iranians from our experiences to hold to the agreements. Notice that the Obama push to say the US will protect them in that event fell on deaf ears in the KSA--basically since the US has not backed up anything they have stated in the last six years the KSA simply no longer trusts them.

One cannot blame them.

[OUTLAW 09]

Bill--actually we did drop the get rid of Assad because the ground fighting was going nowhere and Hezbollah and the IRGC were so heavily involved the US never figured the ground fighting would reach a culminating tipping point which has now has been achieved and the Assad military is defacto now actually losing the fight all because someone is training and shipping a large number of TOWs into the fight--last rough count--there have been well over 300 fired with a high success rate--ie it has decimated the Assad armor and artillery and is being now used to crack open critical defensive Assad military positions.

Am a firm believer that the TOW is the great equalizer when armor is in play--even during the Cold War in Europe TOWs were mounted on just about anything that could shoot and scoot.With COIN it simply fell out of favor due to civilian loses when it was used.

The more interesting question--who are the trainers and who in the US is signing the purchase orders and more importantly who is flying them into country--SF or CIA??

Now that it appears Assad is actually losing the US feels they need Russia to figure out that he is losing and come up with an exit plan in order to save face basically for the Russians --while we seem to be so involved in "Russian face saving in Syria" we seem to be letting Putin continue along the lines of "let's let the Ukrainians fight 700 tanks even if the TOW is the critical weapon of choice" and can make a "non military win" or at least keep Russian troops and her mercenaries bottled up and allow no further territorial gains at the expense of the Ukraine--that is the least the US can do under the impression that the Budapest Memorandum really meant nothing even with a US signature.

I would argue that even Iran after watching the US basically run from their responsibilities on really what was a nuclear disarming memorandum fully understands they can violate the ongoing nuclear deal any time they want to with no back lash.

Just as long as we do not get involved and it does not cost us to much and it appears we really are involved in Europe--a kind of on the cheap approach that is basically not working after Sochi or why else is Nuland now in Moscow after Sochi?--did not Putin get the message the first time around in Sochi?

That is if we even provided a message--if we did then he did not understand it based on the massive shellings and ground attacks since Sochi costing the Ukrainians 17 KIA and 50 WIA in just this week alone.

BTW the supplier of choice for the more critical defensive systems ie night vision and counter battery radar/drones has been the Canadians----.

Just a second thought--WHAT the US is not noticing is in fact among the fighting groups and that includes FSA the US supported guys, moderate Islamists and al Nursa they recently held a joint planning council and have largely started taking on a form of council government without outside help--that has led to their suddenly attacking IS and basically pushing them out of previously held territory. After four years of fighting and largely losing and constant AF bombings they discovered the strength of a joint council---again who influenced that ---SF or CIA or actually the KSA? My tip is the KSA.

Something no one thought possible--defeating IS inside Syria his home turf.

Something missing from the conversation is the role of the young Saudi "hawks" ---Ft. Irwin trained officers now in the COL and early General ranks who feel that the KSA has to break out of the US shadow and formulate their own foreign policy and use force is necessary to back up that policy--really what we are seeing in the push back of Iran in Yemen and KSA support into Syria.

Next to Israel the KSA no longer trusts Obama to hold to anything he states--the Saudi snub to the Obama during the meeting he called for is a clear sign of the "hawks" taking control of Saudi FP--and the clear and distinct statements from them that we will go down the nuclear path as well simply because we do not trust the Iranians from our experiences to hold to the agreements. Notice that the Obama push to say the US will protect them in that event fell on deaf ears in the KSA--basically since the US has not backed up anything they have stated in the last six years the KSA simply no longer trusts them.

One cannot blame them.

Bill--these events today out of the Ukraine and one comment out of Syria from yesterday in fact shows an indication that the rag tag Ukrainian Army on their own are actually holding on well and are starting to use their version of our TOW--all without US assistance as we stand on the sidelines trying to "rescue Putin's image because we think it is the right thing to do"??

AND the comment out of Syria is indicating that the current fighting is decimating IRGC and Hezbollah--both incidents are getting absolutely no US news media coverage.

Photo-op with General Qasem #Soleimani shows four IRGC top commanders killed recently in #Syria.

[Bob's World]

Few US foreign relationships have been more dysfunctional and out of date/balance in recent years than those with Israel and the KSA. There will be a bit of back and forth until we find a new balance with these important partners, but change in general can only be a good thing in the long run.

As to the dramas in Syria and Iraq (or more accurately, "states formerly known as..."), we will get to a better perspective as to what we should do, and how we should do it once we are able to shift our focus from trying to preserve the Band-Aid of governance and security we slapped onto Iraq to give us time to withdraw and the naturally emerging threats to that poorly conceived solution; and focus more on what our truly vital interests in the region are, and how to guard against those things that are truly a threat to our interests, and to facilitate events gently toward a zone of self-determined solutions that are not likely to be too adverse.

Control is overstated and overvalued - we need to end up with influence with who and whatever emerges once the dust finally settles.

Oh, and SOF? General Votel is spot on when he is making the return to "Quiet Professionals" a central theme to his command of USSOCOM. We need to get our civilian officials on board with that as well. Stop bragging about big, tactical kills as if they were some game-changing strategic event. Bad form at a minimum, and historically these types of event shape, rather than define, outcomes.

[OUTLAW 09]

Ah......the speed of social media----one has to like it----wonder if the US IC is this fast--concerning Russian Spetnaz POWs and the Assad Army taking a beating. Wait long enough and social media will have their entire life histories if they placed it into the net.

On another battlefield, things are suddenly looking bad for Assad. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ing-gains.html …

[davidbfpo]

The Soufan Group's e-briefing on the raid has several good points, including just who exactly is the target and ends with:

As important as the killing of ‘Abu Sayyaf’ is, as long as the group’s foes remain incapable of defense and offense outside of their comfort zone, and the ground reality remains one of poor governance and persistent grievance, the group will remain a serious threat to the region and beyond.

Link:http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrie...ship-in-syria/

This short ISW briefing is harsh and ends with:

Partnership is also essential, because the U.S. is no longer a legitimate ally in the eyes of many populations in the regionPartnership is also essential, because the U.S. is no longer a legitimate ally in the eyes of many populations in the region.

Link:http://understandingwar.org/report/i...daptive-enemy?

[Bill Moore]

The Soufan Group's e-briefing on the raid has several good points, including just who exactly is the target and ends with:Link:http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrie...ship-in-syria/

This short ISW briefing is harsh and ends with:
Link:http://understandingwar.org/report/i...daptive-enemy?

Not overly helpful when the ISW report states this:

The only way to defeat ISIS, which is necessary for U.S. national security, is to guarantee a ground force that will occupy, secure, and rebuild Syria, and Iraq to a lesser extent. More limited solutions are insufficient to shape ground conditions that promote stability and reduce the opportunity for groups like ISIS to remain.

Then goes on to list all the countries that shouldn't be considered included Arab countries, Iran, and the U.S. Who then? Maybe Russia or China?

The TSG makes this no brainer comment:

While the killing of Abu Sayyaf is important, the group remains stubbornly lethal in both Syria and Iraq, having just taken over most of the important Iraqi city of Ramadi this weekend.

Followed by,

All of this high-level personnel loss comes amidst an undeniable push by the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria. The group has reportedly taken near complete control of the important city of Ramadi in al-Anbar Province, after threatening to do so for weeks. The collapse of the Iraqi security forces in the face of a determined extremist foe continues to be a problem, and U.S. airstrikes have begun in Ramadi to help drive off the Islamic State. As important as the killing of ‘Abu Sayyaf’ is, as long as the group’s foes remain incapable of defense and offense outside of their comfort zone, and the ground reality remains one of poor governance and persistent grievance, the group will remain a serious threat to the region and beyond.

I frequently wonder who funds these whiz kids/adults to develop these assessments. Did anyone in officialdom anywhere claim that the removal of Abu Sayyaf would cause ISIL to collapse? One would think that a think tank could consider the potential longer term consequences on the conflict's outcome if the West increasingly targets ISIL's leaders via SOF raids. Making an argument that it will have limited impact is fair, but so is the argument that this potential change in U.S. will could serve as a catalyst for resistance forces in the region against ISIL to act with greater confidence. Of course any analysis at this point is completely speculative, it will take weeks or longer for a trend to emerge that is worth discussing.