Yemen

[Beeazlebub]

Interested in what the military folks think of this

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-commando-idINKBN15G5RV

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Interested in what the military folks think of this

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-commando-idINKBN15G5RV

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

ya trump oversaw planning for the operation...lol cmon. I suppose obama crashed the TS helicopter in the bin laden raid too? If there were truly planning failures in any of those areas, it's all on the uniformed guys, but it's pretty clear they knew this was a danger close situation. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command had been planning the mission for months, according to three senior American officials. Obama administration aides had deliberated extensively over the proposed operation, weighing the value of any information that might be recovered against the risk to the Special Operations forces plunging into hostile territory. But administration officials ultimately opted to hand the decision on the mission to their successors.

We gonna blame obama too?

 

[32zone]

Interested in what the military folks think of this

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-commando-idINKBN15G5RV

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

Something tells me this thread is not going to go the way you had hoped.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Something tells me this thread is not going to go the way you had hoped.

"Hoped"? I asked a question, provided a quote from Reuters, and added a link to the article. You know, in hopes of facilitating DISCUSSION (the name of the forum).

Wtf is wrong with you?

I'm sure Faux and Friends would be just as understanding had President Clinton issued the order to proceed.

 

[32zone]

...in hopes of facilitating DISCUSSION

Riiiiiight.

 

[TheCainer]

ya trump oversaw planning for the operation...lol cmon. I suppose obama crashed the TS helicopter in the bin laden raid too? If there were truly planning failures in any of those areas, it's all on the uniformed guys, but it's pretty clear they knew this was a danger close situation. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command had been planning the mission for months, according to three senior American officials. Obama administration aides had deliberated extensively over the proposed operation, weighing the value of any information that might be recovered against the risk to the Special Operations forces plunging into hostile territory. But administration officials ultimately opted to hand the decision on the mission to their successors.

We gonna blame obama too?

I guess that's why Jimmy Carter got off without any grief after the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I guess that's why Jimmy Carter got off without any grief after the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission?

Great apples to apples comparison there. he probably would have gotten less grief if they actually rescued the hostages. One casualty is bad, but at least they completed the mission. 8 casualties and total failure with your Secretary of State resigning over the stupidity of the mission is a slightly different problem. And are we blaming obama or not? I'm confused.

 

[Purdue97]

Interested in what the military folks think of this

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-commando-idINKBN15G5RV

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

JMO-

-Because/when a President, SoS, SecDef, or JCOS approves a plan or mission, does not mean they give the order to conduct it. That is usually left to the commanders on the ground and the Command the location is in-this case Central Command. Usually means the ok was given to operate in a country or conduct a mission in a country we are not technically at war with.

That would be up to the Command on the ground to make sure elements were correct for the operation(Right unit, the operation order, right variables(this case weather), intel, support, etc)

-One of the main factors for success in these types of missions is using the right team or force for the job. JMO, this sounds like it would have been a job for a Ranger Battalion, or at least a few Ranger Companies(FYI-4 rifle companies and 1 support company in a Battalion). The main reason being the reported fortification/size of the area. Just a much larger unit typically would be needed. Much of the time who gets the mission has to do with politics within JSOC and the Pentagon.

-For a while, just due to differences in culture between the services, SEAL Teams had been operating with an Army infantry company, Ranger company, Marine Infantry either close by or along side them. Reason being the latter units are much more adept and responding to ambush. Not sure when this changed or when/why there did not seem to be closer cohesion this time around. Article is vague but sounds like ground support was fairly far off.

I will say I was interested in hearing more about this as well. Some questions thoughts I had were-
Do the words 'he approved' get changed to 'he ordered' in future reporting?
-Did command on the ground give order to go due to intel that someone may be there that they wanted?
-Could have just been a recon that was spotted and not meant as a mission, etc.
-Or as what happens fairly often with these types of operations, they are high risk, and with that unfortunately comes casualties and much second guessing when they go wrong.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Most likely this is what happened:

- CIA or other intelligence service identified this as a high-value camp.
- It, along with a lot of other targets, are on the SOCOM "target list" and missions are planned well in advance so that they can be selected when the timing is right.
- SOCOM and Intel saw a window of opportunity and didn't want to lose it, so they asked up the chain to get approval for the mission.
- It was approved by Trump.
- The attack happened.

It's possible, if not likely, that SOCOM and intel folks were looking to hit this camp for a while, but couldn't/didn't get blessing from the previous administration for whatever reason.

In other words, Trump is not out there picking targets out, they're proposed up by the military folks and he gives go-no-go. There was a good reason they wanted to hit that camp. You, me, the media, etc., will probably never know what that was... at least not for a decade or so when it's declassified.

Generally, SOCOM and intel don't want to make incursions like this "just because." There was something or someone important there.

 

[lbodel]

Interested in what the military folks think of this

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-commando-idINKBN15G5RV

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

I think more will come of this, but I think my concern doesn't rest with a single incidence, but Trump's unwillingness to learn.

During the transition, Fox News brought it up to him that he only wanted one national security briefing a week instead of the traditional daily - and Trump's response was that he was smart and "I get it when I need it."

Just recently, it was reported he wants briefings to be only one page and in bullet point form.

Then on top of this, you have the immigration ordeal which apparently involved hardly anyone outside of the President's circle, and no one from DHS or State knew about it in advance. Hell the head of the Department of Homeland Security learned of it being signed - on TV.

So going back to the original question, it doesn't seem the President is trying to learn a lot and he doesn't ask a lot of questions because he's not reading. So then he's apparently leaning on others to help him make the calls - but in other situations he's not calling on people that should be involved. Seems logical.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think more will come of this, but I think my concern doesn't rest with a single incidence, but Trump's unwillingness to learn.

During the transition, Fox News brought it up to him that he only wanted one national security briefing a week instead of the traditional daily - and Trump's response was that he was smart and "I get it when I need it."

Just recently, it was reported he wants briefings to be only one page and in bullet point form.

Then on top of this, you have the immigration ordeal which apparently involved hardly anyone outside of the President's circle, and no one from DHS or State knew about it in advance. Hell the head of the Department of Homeland Security learned of it being signed - on TV.

So going back to the original question, it doesn't seem the President is trying to learn a lot and he doesn't ask a lot of questions because he's not reading. So then he's apparently leaning on others to help him make the calls - but in other situations he's not calling on people that should be involved. Seems logical.

What a bunch of gobbledygook to say nothing. You're basically being critical just to be critical. Don't think you have the first clue how this or these types of things go down.

Trump didn't dream this up, and I doubt the SOCOM folks came up with this mission lightly. There was a reason it was heavily defended.

 

[lbodel]

What a bunch of gobbledygook to say nothing. You're basically being critical just to be critical. Don't think you have the first clue how this or these types of things go down.

Trump didn't dream this up, and I doubt the SOCOM folks came up with this mission lightly. There was a reason it was heavily defended.

Maybe he forgot to read the "risks" bullet points?

 

[ecouch]

What a bunch of gobbledygook to say nothing. You're basically being critical just to be critical. Don't think you have the first clue how this or these types of things go down.

Trump didn't dream this up, and I doubt the SOCOM folks came up with this mission lightly. There was a reason it was heavily defended.

Thanks for the input on this. I think that the news coverage of this event has been very slanted. The most recent criticism that is making the rounds is that Trump wasn't in the situation room during this raid and that is somehow a major transgression. I don't know if it is protocol for a president to be in the situation room during every one of these intelligence gathering raids. My gut tells me no and that the media is simply flinging crap against the wall and trying to get something to stick. It is even being called a botched raid that killed 30 civilians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-navy-seal-dead-first-military-a7561596.html

But if you look into the facts the civilians were women who were running to defensive positions with weapons and for some reason kids were in a heavily armed terrorist stronghold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Are these accusations just ax grinding and being overly critical? Like you said, these guys are super-elite operators, I don't think they take chances. If they saw a window and recommended go-time, Its sort of hard to put that on Trump. One of the big criticisms of Trump was that he wasn't going to listen to intelligence and his generals...it seems the media has put him in a damned if you do/don't scenario on this one.

 

[ecouch]

For those interested in more military acronyms...SOCOM.

United States Special Operations Command.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Special_Operations_Command

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Maybe he forgot to read the "risks" bullet points?

If SOCOM thought it was too risky, I doubt they would've proposed it.

Were you ever this up in arms when a service member died under Obama? Or did you just now start giving a shit because it suits your political beliefs? Yeah, you can go **** yourself, pal.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Thanks for the input on this. I think that the news coverage of this event has been very impartial. The most recent criticism that is making the rounds is that Trump wasn't in the situation room during this raid and that is somehow a major transgression. I don't know if it is protocol for a president to be in the situation room during every one of these intelligence gathering raids. My gut tells me no and that the media is simply flinging crap against the wall and trying to get something to stick. It is even being called a botched raid that killed 30 civilians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-navy-seal-dead-first-military-a7561596.html

But if you look into the facts the civilians were women who were running to defensive positions with weapons and for some reason kids were in a heavily armed terrorist stronghold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Are these accusations just ax grinding and being overly critical? Like you said, these guys are super-elite operators, I don't think they take chances. If they saw a window and recommended go-time, Its sort of hard to put that on Trump. One of the big criticisms of Trump was that he wasn't going to listen to intelligence and his generals...it seems the media has put him in a damned if you do/don't scenario on this one.

Presidents rarely are in situation rooms for this stuff. The fact that Obama was for the Bin Laden raid was a noted aberration given the magnitude of the raid.

We killed hundreds of civilians including US citizens under Obama. This politization of military action costing the lives of service members is reprehensible bullshit.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

What a bunch of gobbledygook to say nothing. You're basically being critical just to be critical. Don't think you have the first clue how this or these types of things go down.

Trump didn't dream this up, and I doubt the SOCOM folks came up with this mission lightly. There was a reason it was heavily defended.

I read somewhere (I can't recall where, so it might have been a disreputable source) that they think Al Qaeda was "tipped off" on the raid and that was why it was so heavily defended.

For me, I think the part of this that is getting overlooked is the civilian casualties. Now, I am not a soldier, and I have not been in combat, so I don't presume to say with certainty that all (or even some) civilian casualties can be prevented. Sometimes innocents die in combat. That said, the number being reported (upwards of a dozen), if accurate, is a bit troubling - especially since they appear to have been women and children. Incidents like that are easily turned into recruiting tools for groups like Al Qaeda, no?

That, on top of the suggestion that Trump approved this without having all the details, is what concerns me.

Having said all of that, I'm not going to be overly critical of Trump on this one. Lord knows, I think the man is unstable and dangerous, but there's no point to criticizing him over everything - especially given how you described these things generally working. I hated it when conservatives armchair QB-ed Obama on everything, so it seems like it's worth my effort to try to be different.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Thanks for the input on this. I think that the news coverage of this event has been very slanted. The most recent criticism that is making the rounds is that Trump wasn't in the situation room during this raid and that is somehow a major transgression. I don't know if it is protocol for a president to be in the situation room during every one of these intelligence gathering raids. My gut tells me no and that the media is simply flinging crap against the wall and trying to get something to stick. It is even being called a botched raid that killed 30 civilians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-navy-seal-dead-first-military-a7561596.html

But if you look into the facts the civilians were women who were running to defensive positions with weapons and for some reason kids were in a heavily armed terrorist stronghold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Are these accusations just ax grinding and being overly critical? Like you said, these guys are super-elite operators, I don't think they take chances. If they saw a window and recommended go-time, Its sort of hard to put that on Trump. One of the big criticisms of Trump was that he wasn't going to listen to intelligence and his generals...it seems the media has put him in a damned if you do/don't scenario on this one.

It's SOP for these guys to keep "civilians" as close as possible. Look at the bin laden raid. He was holding his wives in front of him as shields. These ****ers are insipid little cowards. They will sacrifice women and children and anyone for that matter to advance their means or even just to make the US look bad. On top of that I don't think it's fair to label women shooting at you with kalashnikovs as "civilians".

 

[Purdue97]

Thanks for the input on this. I think that the news coverage of this event has been very slanted. The most recent criticism that is making the rounds is that Trump wasn't in the situation room during this raid and that is somehow a major transgression. I don't know if it is protocol for a president to be in the situation room during every one of these intelligence gathering raids. My gut tells me no and that the media is simply flinging crap against the wall and trying to get something to stick. It is even being called a botched raid that killed 30 civilians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-navy-seal-dead-first-military-a7561596.html

But if you look into the facts the civilians were women who were running to defensive positions with weapons and for some reason kids were in a heavily armed terrorist stronghold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Are these accusations just ax grinding and being overly critical? Like you said, these guys are super-elite operators, I don't think they take chances. If they saw a window and recommended go-time, Its sort of hard to put that on Trump. One of the big criticisms of Trump was that he wasn't going to listen to intelligence and his generals...it seems the media has put him in a damned if you do/don't scenario on this one.

I heard some of the news critiques this weekend about the President not being in the situation room during the mission as well.

All I will say is if the President is in the situation room every time a SEAL Team, DELTA Force, an ODA (green Beret A Team), Marine Scouts or Marine Special Operations team, a team from the Ranger Recon Company, or infantry scouts are conducting surveillance or on a mission, he would never leave the room. I can guarantee you that right now, more than one team from more than one unit, are on missions in Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.

There is a small chance that this was a recon mission that went bad. Also a chance that someone in the UAE tipped people off as I think their soldiers were involved-so they would have known of mission. That said, with as heavily fortified as this area is being made out to be, the reason it was heavily fortified is all but guaranteed to be the reason the US showed up there. in other words a high value target, person, intel or something was there the USA wanted, and Al-Qaeda smart enough to defend it.

 

[Purdue97]

For those interested in more military acronyms...SOCOM.

United States Special Operations Command.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Special_Operations_Command

If this was Seal Team 6, they are under JSOC. Or Joint Special Operations Command.

 

[Purdue97]

I read somewhere (I can't recall where, so it might have been a disreputable source) that they think Al Qaeda was "tipped off" on the raid and that was why it was so heavily defended.

For me, I think the part of this that is getting overlooked is the civilian casualties. Now, I am not a soldier, and I have not been in combat, so I don't presume to say with certainty that all (or even some) civilian casualties can be prevented. Sometimes innocents die in combat. That said, the number being reported (upwards of a dozen), if accurate, is a bit troubling - especially since they appear to have been women and children. Incidents like that are easily turned into recruiting tools for groups like Al Qaeda, no?

That, on top of the suggestion that Trump approved this without having all the details, is what concerns me.

Having said all of that, I'm not going to be overly critical of Trump on this one. Lord knows, I think the man is unstable and dangerous, but there's no point to criticizing him over everything - especially given how you described these things generally working. I hated it when conservatives armchair QB-ed Obama on everything, so it seems like it's worth my effort to try to be different.

Events like this can be tried as recruiting tools for radicals. Issue is, many people in ME/Africa/Afghanistan understand that these radicals kill civilians as part of their strategy, and most people over there realize this and just want to be left alone by either side. IMO

Define civilian though. Qaz and I think think another JAG lawyer that used to be KHC do not seem to be around anymore. They could write books on this topic. But all of this is covered in ROE or rules of Engagement. The special operations units typically get a ton more leeway with these actions then regular troops do. ROE can also change based on leadership. Hard to call someone a civilian that is locating themselves in an Al Qaeda headquarters. Or when they are located at or near an Al-Qaeda fighting position while armed.

As far as the building that was hit, where 'civilians' were allegedly at, with the amount of gunfire the unit(s) were reportedly receiving from that building, as well as the general defenses of the building(mines/wire/fighting positions/etc) hitting it with an airstrike is fair game. Not saying there were not civilians or kids in there, I am just saying I have never been aware of hitting that type of target as being an issue.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

If this was Seal Team 6, they are under JSOC. Or Joint Special Operations Command.

Probably was 6. At least it was an east coast Team that went.

 

[lbodel]

Thanks for the input on this. I think that the news coverage of this event has been very slanted. The most recent criticism that is making the rounds is that Trump wasn't in the situation room during this raid and that is somehow a major transgression. I don't know if it is protocol for a president to be in the situation room during every one of these intelligence gathering raids. My gut tells me no and that the media is simply flinging crap against the wall and trying to get something to stick. It is even being called a botched raid that killed 30 civilians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-navy-seal-dead-first-military-a7561596.html

But if you look into the facts the civilians were women who were running to defensive positions with weapons and for some reason kids were in a heavily armed terrorist stronghold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Are these accusations just ax grinding and being overly critical? Like you said, these guys are super-elite operators, I don't think they take chances. If they saw a window and recommended go-time, Its sort of hard to put that on Trump. One of the big criticisms of Trump was that he wasn't going to listen to intelligence and his generals...it seems the media has put him in a damned if you do/don't scenario on this one.

Again to my point, which is a more overarching comment than specific to this incident.

How is Trump educating himself on the decisions he makes?

It's now coming out that he did not know everything in the EO he signed that put Bannon on the NSC and removed other people like the CIA director. He was pissed after - but he didn't bother reading it before he signed it.

You know what he is doing?

He's watching cable news and literally keeping track of negative coverage of him. He watches the press secretary give the full daily briefing daily, then comments on it with him after.

He seems a bit too concerned about his image and not with knowing what he's doing.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Interested in what the military folks think of this

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-commando-idINKBN15G5RV

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

This was planned and approved by the Obama admin back in November. They had to wait until the light was right and that's true.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

If this was Seal Team 6, they are under JSOC. Or Joint Special Operations Command.

yep...as noted in post 2.