Fun With Digg - October Surprise : Bush Attacks Syria

"U.S. military helicopters attacked an area along Syria's border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people, the Syrian government said."

http://digg.com/world_news/October_Surprise_Bush_Attacks_Syria

I usually don't do this, but this particular story more then anything else is highly important for people to notice. I did something with this story that was very exhausting - I broke down the scenario, analyzed it, and expressed my heartfelt opinions about it. I responded to almost everyone who responded to me. Why? Because this matters.

People need to remember that there are real reasons and motivations behind a military operation such as this one. Ignore the current political atmosphere - that could be a factor, but a very minor one, especially considering the circumstances. Some people insisted that this operation was done to get national security back on the agenda. That could be true - but if I was willing to accept that, I would have to assume that those pulling the puppet strings are exceptionally short sighted. If they wanted to win points on National Security, why on earth wouldn't they conduct an operation that captured an Al Qaeda commander? Blew up some bomb factories? Destroyed some training facilities? That would have far more PR benefit then a surgical strike producing classified gains and disputed reports of civilian casualties.

Now, lets take a moment to look at this situation with a strategic lens. A lot of folks assumed that we just want to kill civilians. Alright, lets say we do. Why, then, would we take the time and effort to risk a very valuable, hard to train commando team, and 4 helicopters, just to kill some civilians - and only 8 at that! Why not just lob a cruise missile, or better yet, a huge bomb? That would kill way more people, and show those hippies a thing or two!

No. There was a very deliberate reason the military is declining to state. Consider the circumstances - the Iraqi Syrian border has been a hot-bed of instability ever since the occupation, and maybe even longer. US forces posted there have always been undermanned, and only now has securing that border started to become a possibility, thanks to the greater man-power, flexibility, and stability granted by the surge. Since Syria has been very half hearted about clearing militants from their border, for a number of reasons, and they have ignored our requests, we decided to break the mold, and make a move to show Syria we mean business.We showed incredible restraint and caution with this raid. Rather then sending out a predator drone, or an artillery raid - we used the safest possible option - a commando raid. Commandos are highly trained, professional, and efficient.They have brains, and fight so that they complete the operation as soon as possible, with as little disruption as possible. They also gather intelligence - any time we risk human assets in a raid, we are almost always seeking intelligence.

It could've been a non lethal raid. But let me re-post my comment breaking down the two scenarios, a lethal raid vs a non lethal one:

---

In ideal situations, they totally are. But, look at it from a military perspective.

You need to take out a safe-house under construction in hostile territory (The Syrian border is full of insurgent safe havens, we know that for a fact). The target is a farm, with other farms nearby, and an unknown amount of insurgents or insurgent sympathizers. You have strong reason to believe all 8 targets are either involved with the insurgency or shelter them.

Your first priority is the safety of your men.

You have two options:

Take your approach. Tear gas the area, and the workers flee. No one gets killed - but wait. Your men move in to seal off the area and set up a perimeter. The fleeing workers raise the alarm, and hearing that a small, vulnerable task force is in the area, a strong insurgent force starts to rise up, and converge on your position. You have roughly 10 - 20 minutes before they arrive. Your helicopter is orbiting in the distance, and is now at major risk for stingers. You hurry and search the house, going door to door, clearing, looking for evidence. By the time your men call for an extraction, and have set the charges to blow, the small army has arrived and is seeking to capture as many of your men alive as possible. You are forced to call for reinforcements, a rapid response group moves out to safe your asses, since helicopter extraction would be impossible. The force has to move immediately, and there's no time to inform Syrian high command before they get in the area. Syrian border troops spot the massive surge of troops towards the farm-house, and assume it's an invasion, and open fire. Bingo - international incident.
Casualties: Massive

OR

You can insert your men with a very quiet helicopter, and move in to the farm. You wait to inform Syrian high command because there are suspicions that corrupt officials in their military will warn the insurgent elements ahead of time. Since the 8 targets are highly suspected to be the enemy, they are neutralized silently and the house is searched. Upon clearing the house, all discovered threats are neutralized. All your men are accounted for, you call for extraction, and your helicopter is able to pick you up because the alarm has not been raised. You leave the area, inform mission accomplished THEN inform Syria.
Casualties: 8 Suspected enemy KIA

I highly prefer scenario 2 over scenario 1. Taking the non lethal approach is ideal - we want to save as many lives as we can. The general bent of the US military is to minimize civilian impact, more so then most other countries. We use surgical strikes, highly precise weapons, and have highly strict rules of engagement. But sometimes, under certain conditions, you are forced to take the lethal route to minimize the impact of your actions. That's how war goes, I'm afraid.

---

Lastly, it is important to remember who we specifically attacked. We did not attack Syria the country, or Syria the people. Our military conducted a surgical raid against an insurgent safe-house under construction. This is our way of saying - Hey, Syria, pay attention. This is important to us. But, it also comes with a caveat - We have done this far, far too late. I also posted this comment, which sums things up nicely:

---

The situation along the Iraqi Syrian border has been an issue for nearly half a decade - this whole time we've been in Iraq we haven't taken it that seriously, even though the flow of armaments and enemy manpower comes from the Syrian (and iranian) borders.

This first started becoming an issue roughly 6 months to a year after invasion. The single, biggest reason, I am ticked off at Bush, is his lack of action. If he had directly talked to Iran, and Syria, right when the material began to flow - we would have had the direct moral standing and authority to say 'hey, watch your borders'. But no. Shape charges began to show up, powerful, sophisticated explosive devices that could not be assembled by make-shift bomb factories. They needed better facilities, that had been around longer, Hence, cells in Syria and Iran.

I am not saying the governments of Syria and Iran directly support Terrorism (Though Iran does have worrying ties.) Syria doesn't like the cells in their country, but haven't made any aggressive attempts to flush them out for fear of inflaming their populace. Syria's problem is that it's neglected the issue, and let them spread like a cancer. Moderates living along the border have been kicked out, replaced with insurgents, and their homes become safe houses. (From the BBC roughly a year ago)

Bush has waited nearly 4 years to act on this. My point is that the action is justified - but it has come FAR too late. It should've been an aggressive partnership to flush out the insurgents with Syria, and maybe Iran - but no. I feel that a severe amount of war profiteering has gone on in Iraq, and that bush is responsible for enabling it. So there you go.

---

That is where I stand. Please, comment - engage me in a little discussion. I am very well read on these matters and I welcome the chance to share opinions. SMART opinions. I am not going to censor people - but folks being hateful or stupid will not be tolerated.

read more | digg story