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

[OUTLAW 09]

Too early to tell what the impact will be, but I tend to agree that it could be a game changer for the following reasons. These raids tend to provide a wealth of intelligence that enabler further targeting, often at a fast clip. More importantly perhaps, it now appears that the U.S. has the political will to publically put boots on the ground on a very high risk mission. If we let the network targeting machine loose again, it will significantly reduce IS's capacity to operate, and may lead to local uprising against IS as the tide begins to turn against them. It will take a few weeks to see if a positive trend emerges.

Of course this doesn't provide answers to the underlying issues, but it could significantly reduce IS's ability to terrorize other Muslims in the region and reduce their ability to continuing destroying historical sites. These items alone make it worth killing as many IS members as possible.

Most importantly for now, congratulations to the men who pulled this raid off.

Again proves the DA role of SF--BUT and there is always a but in anything--the common JSOC targeting cycle of 24 hours which is/was at the height of Iraq and to a degree also in AFG--may have had an impact on high value targets BUT it did nothing to change the flow of the Iraqi and AFG insurgencies.

With a breathing living ecosystem such as an insurgency-- when do you stop the kill or capture processes?--so you shot your way through the third generation leadership or through the fifth generation leadership --there is always a replacement leadership generation--AND here is the key they analyze like crazy to understand their previous failures and the OPSEC on the insurgent side just keeps getting tighter and tighter to the point that you have a Baghdadi in your midst that you never fully realized his position and you had him in Bucha for five years and still did not know his position in IS.

If JSOC is honest with itself as I had privy to their targeting even in AFG they were basically running out of HVTs and still it made no impact on the Haq or the Taliban. A second issue also starting showing up--targeting mistakes due to the speed and mis-targeting due to by target analysts usually by defense contractors who changed out frequently. Serious mistakes started showing up in the last phases of Iraq and actually the same failures were also being seen in AFG--so it was a systemic problem in the processes.

This raid if anything was a "political will" show of force--the question is--was it driven by DoD or CIA and did the "political will ie DC" just sign off on it?

I am suspecting DoD/CIA as events on the ground will be further reinforced by this raid.

What though is of more interest is if one has been following the Syrian fighting on a daily basis the last four months--there has been a sudden turn-a-round on the ground by the FSA supported by the US, moderate Islamists also supported by the US/Sunni states and potentially and I use the term potentially al Nursa who is receiving weapons and money from the Sunni states as well. There has been a rather interesting development that all resistance groups have formed a general working alliance regardless of religious or political views and have often taken on and beaten IS head to head and have driven them out of previously held territories.

That is the way IS will be beaten--by Sunni's themselves and no outsider can do that.

The resistance movement has suddenly acquired a more effective command and control, is more deliberate in their attacks and their follow through, AND more importantly TOWs and MILANs are literally flowing "at will" into Syria.

The battle videos coming from the various TOW and MILAN teams are impressive--the targets they select and actually hit are impressive and they are now even being used to attack and destroy fixed bunker fighting points of the Assad military and Assad's military, Iranian IRGC and Hezbollah have been taking massive losses both in manpower and territory--AND along the way they have been just as effective in attacking and taking territory from IS.

The combination of TOW attacks and ground attacks by well trained infantry have started an impressive string of ground successes. There is an apparent structure to them that was not there months ago.

The turning point in the war has been finally reached and Assad's military and Hezbollah are scrambling to just survive. Hezbollah is actually pulling out of the fighting and focusing more on Iraq and their loses as well as IRGC loses are climbing badly for them.

Here is my heartburn with DC--why run to Sochi to talk to the Russians because one wants a "legacy win" for the history books AND one assumes we need Russian assistance to get Assad out--right now Assad is barely surviving and some say his military will force him at some point to run to either Russia and or Iran.

Russia has "lived" off of Assad in order to have a Med. harbor port and Assad has paid Russia well via oil funds for years for Russian weapons which in the end has kept the Assad military in the field especially their AF which is bombing cities and towns into the ground--yes Russia claims to have helped with eliminating chemical weapons but their GRU knew for years about the capacity AND now the West never even utters a lost word when daily chorine bombs are still being dropped on civilians.

AND it has not been Russian TOWs that made the turn-a-round but IMO the CIA is the unsung group in the sudden improvement--so why does DC need Putin--can anyone explain that to me?

So while a great "demonstration of political will" do we see the same "political will" being "expressed" in the Ukraine-no.

Again my question why is that?--it is because someone wants a "legacy" and the Ukraine is being left for 2017 for the next "legacy".

So again is it really "political will" or really a military necessity to get a "military win on the ground and force out Assad"?

Brings me back to a statement often heard in DC--"you can't win militarily in the Ukraine"--actually right now even though it appears weird the Ukrainian military is actually "winning militarily" on the ground.

So much for the failed statement--"you can't win militarily in the Ukraine"--when you the weaker fighter can actually stymie a far strong fighter is that not in effect "winning"--Sun Tzu would agree it is "winning"--it is all about perceptions.

In a tank target rich environment of eastern Ukraine--what a field day TOW/MILAN teams would have with 700 targets if Syria is the example.