US troops conduct op inside Syria?

[Entropy]

Hot from the presses:

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:

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: "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/archiv...in_syria_d.php

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

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/baby...whats-beh.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/baby...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/baby...-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.

[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.

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

[Entropy]

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

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/wo...in&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/...ead.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, 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...

[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

Yeah, it's Seymour but he wasn't alone in spouting it -- so did the Cockburns and some others. True? Who knows. Possible? Sure.

[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'

[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.