http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397559/

can't believe this hasn't been posted here already

10/27/2008 7:34:18 PM

yeah, i was just reading about this on the bbc. busting into Syria like this doesn't seem like a good move by the US.

10/27/2008 7:48:02 PM

what are they going to do about it? (the government)

assuming we got our men, sounds like our military actually pulled of a successful operation

Quote :

"The startling U.S. commando attack inside Syrian territory appears to amplify an emerging message to countries giving safe passage to terrorists: Take action, or else the U.S. will."

that's not necessarily a bad thing so long as the raids don't blow up into full scale invasion/occupation...you know, like iraq....

[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2008 7:51:40 PM

If the US does this a few more times I predict that Hezbollah will start launching some more rockets into Israel.

10/27/2008 8:04:40 PM

Can someone remind me again why we went into Iraq when raids like this work?

10/27/2008 8:06:50 PM

^oil, bush, oil, bush.

10/27/2008 10:19:03 PM

Quote :

"Can someone remind me again why we went into Iraq when raids like this work?"

So saving a few POWs covertly is the same thing as toppling an evil dictator?

(disclaimer: not saying Saddam was worth it, just stating why it was done)

10/27/2008 10:26:01 PM

Quote :

"If the US does this a few more times I predict that Hezbollah will start launching some more rockets into Israel."

Doesn't Obama support going after terrorists no matter what country they are operating in?

10/27/2008 10:29:02 PM

How can the Muslim terrorists be upset if the new leader of the US is himself Muslim?

10/27/2008 10:31:03 PM

Quote :

"just stating why it was done"

Yes, toppling Saddam was the reason to attack Iraq, like the 9th reason out of a list of 10 reasons.

10/28/2008 7:47:49 AM

Quote :

"So saving a few POWs covertly is the same thing as toppling an evil dictator?"

wait wait, I thought it was about being in danger of WMD attack.. no no, then it was that they possessed WMDs.. no no, that's not it. Oh, it was because we wanted to topple an evil dictator. That's it.

I'm also surprised why this story hasn't gotten alot of coverage.

10/28/2008 8:56:09 AM

Quote :

"Yes, toppling Saddam was the reason to attack Iraq, like the 9th reason out of a list of 10 reasons."

It was between #8: They've been stockpiling illegal jelly beans and #10: It's the best beach in the world!

10/28/2008 9:08:45 AM

I assure you, it is not the best beach in the world.

10/28/2008 9:27:53 AM

Whether it is true or not, this smacks of Bush flailing about out of frustration and a desire to protect his legacy.

10/28/2008 10:21:22 AM

Quote :

"So saving a few POWs covertly is the same thing as toppling an evil dictator?"

If you've ever wondered why people don't take you seriously, it's because you apparently don't feel compelled to read anything before you start posting. That link has nothing to do with POWs.

Try reading it, then we can discuss whatever brain dead comparison you want to make to Iraq and the war on terror.

10/28/2008 10:25:02 AM

this doesnt really sound anything like bush.

this sounds like senior strategic commanders, albeit with bush's approval.

regardless...


THIS IS THE WAY WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH TERRORISTS THE ENTIRE TIME.

not breaking and occupying a sovereign nation that (until our arrival) had nothing much to do with terrorists, and certainly not al-qaeda.

10/28/2008 1:32:14 PM

Would've been way more effective. Never knowing when a an Army Ranger's gonna come flying through a window to cap your ass no matter where on the globe you are makes people think.

[Edited on October 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : and shit, when it happens.]

10/28/2008 1:48:44 PM

Quote :

"Army Ranger's gonna come flying through a window to cap your ass "

10/28/2008 2:21:10 PM

Cruise missile? Hellfire from a Predator? Seals? Force Recon? Snipings?

What, man? What? They'll all make people think.

10/28/2008 2:31:40 PM

Quote :

"THIS IS THE WAY WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH TERRORISTS THE ENTIRE TIME."

How do you figure we could've done it?

We've gotten caught doing it once in Syria and they're pissed off. How many of these little raids do you think we can pull before it starts a war? Sure, Syria can't exactly attack us and we don't have to invade/occupy them, but having a smattering of countries in an active state of war against us isn't good.

And, of course, this particular raid was just over a border we controlled. Pretty easy target compared to those who are in the interior of their respective countries. If we'd flown in to do this from, say, Turkey, don't you think our aircraft would've been shot at?

Of course, you're right. In terms of dealing with terrorists invading Iraq wasn't the way to go about it. But raids like this are a tool in our terrorist-hunting kit. Like a screwdriver, it's good for some things, not for others.

10/28/2008 3:46:33 PM

Quote :

"How do you figure we could've done it?"

I think you answered your own question.

Quote :

"Sure, Syria can't exactly attack us and we don't have to invade/occupy them"

Besides, I would argue that if we weren't presently occupying Iraq that the negative sentiment against us among the neighbors wouldn't be as strong or as widespread.

10/28/2008 4:03:52 PM

Quote :

"I think you answered your own question."

Aside from purely logistical questions like, "Where could we launch a successful raid from?" I also pointed out that having a number of nations in a state of war against us, no matter how impotent they are, is not a good thing. It gives them a lot of cover to do shady shit.

Let's say we'd never invaded Iraq. The sentiment was still there -- you'll recall 9/11 happening before the invasion rather than after it. We had terrorists and material supporters of the same in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines, and other nations, all in significant enough numbers. Do we raid all of those countries? OK, maybe Afghanistan could've gone the same as it did, even better. But do you really think that our relationship with Pakistan ends up any different than it is now? It was a nexus of anti-American sentiment for a long time before we went after Saddam. So do we start doing raids on it when Musharraf steps down and less friendly people take over?

And since they can't retaliate against us effectively, what do we do when Syria, tired of our raids, goes after Lebanon or Israel? When Iran and Pakistan get pissed and start throwing attacks at Afghanistan?

These raids are great when used sparingly. That's all I'm saying.

10/28/2008 4:24:55 PM

Quote :

"These raids are great when used sparingly. That's all I'm saying."

And I would agree with you there. I think very surgical and well planned attacks on terrorist leaders and camps would have been the perfect response to 9/11.

10/28/2008 4:31:17 PM

Grumpy, surely you're familiar with the general concept of "covert operations"

look... when we invaded iraq, we violated every international law, thumbed our nose to the UN, told all our allies to take a hike, and went and did what the fuck we were planning to do all along.

Did we get "punished" by the world? no.... the only thing that went wrong is now WE'RE paying for the mess.

and it's a hell of a mess.

now if we staged surgical strikes and covert operations, in conjunction with standard diplomatic practices and intelligence gathering... what the fuck would anyone do about it?

once again, they would do NOTHING.

the only difference is we wouldnt be bogged down as an occupying force with our entire military tied up in a desert, pushing 5000 dead, 25000 wounded, thousands of broken families, all the while hemorrhaging $10 BILLION PER MONTH, EVERY MONTH, FOR 5 FUCKING YEARS.





[Edited on October 28, 2008 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ]

10/28/2008 7:43:49 PM

Quote :

"Grumpy, surely you're familiar with the general concept of "covert operations" "

I don't seem to recall covert operations being some of our more successful military endeavors. Now this may be because you only hear about the failures, but it seems our covert operations in recent history have, if not outright failed, backfired on us in some way.

10/28/2008 8:05:43 PM

aha.

because all the successful ones were *covert*

10/28/2008 8:37:52 PM

^^Afghanistan back during the Soviet invasion is a good example of a huge success AND an even bigger failure. But I suppose the 'covert' part of it wasn't really to blame for the epic fail.

10/28/2008 8:44:27 PM

Quote :

"because all the successful ones were *covert* "

This is, I think, one of the myths about our covert actions that is least correct and most damaging to our ability to evaluate it. The idea that successful missions are ones we never hear about is consistently refuted by the history and also by plain common sense.

A successful covert action does something. Now, it might be difficult to tell what happened, who did it, or prove that the suspect carried it out, but something happened. And the simple fact is that we don't see a lot of "somethings happening" that don't quickly get tied to us.

Part of that is because we have an active covert operations service and a history of using it, so whenever something seems to conveniently go our way it's easy to become immediatley suspicious. And part of that is because we have failed, badly, over and over again at accomplishing our objective and/or keeping our involvement covert.

Weapons smuggling into the USSR and China: large scale operations carried out over years with virtually zero success because those countries turned all our agents and knew what we were doing before we did it. Coups in Iran, Chile, and a number of other places: successful, but always with our involvement well-known to just about everybody. Iran-Contra: ditto, and even covert for a while, but ultimately a clusterfuck. Covert operations inside Iraq before the war: apalling failures. Weapons and training for Afghan fighters in the 80's: yeah, we beat the Soviets, but everyone and his brother knew we were behind it in a short period of time.

Even when we succeed in our primary objective, the secrecy is either immediately nonexistant or short-lived.

Quote :

"look... when we invaded iraq, we violated every international law, thumbed our nose to the UN, told all our allies to take a hike, and went and did what the fuck we were planning to do all along."

Which is exactly what covert operations would accomplish, except instead of talking about it for months in advance we'd be talking about it for months after we got busted. And successful covert operations often require violating a whole different set of laws of war.

Quote :

"once again, they would do NOTHING."

Well, in Iran they took a bunch of hostages for a while and now they hate us and want the bomb. The USSR and China got to blast us in the court of public opinion because of all the shit we kept trying to pull, in addition to all the free weapons we handed them. Osama bin Laden blew up some buildings. Hezbollah destroyed an entire Middle Eastern spy network and took a bunch more hostages with help from Iran, who was pissed off, again, in large part because of our "successful" covert operation.

10/28/2008 9:01:42 PM

As everyone thinks this tactic is so great, I figure I should put my opposition to it on record. Sloppy assassinations aren't quality foreign policy.

10/29/2008 1:05:40 AM

but clean assassinations ROCK

10/29/2008 1:40:04 AM

is it just me, or is syria really taking it up the ass lately to elect barack obama?

10/29/2008 1:43:45 AM

I have no moral issue with the successful executions of small-scale military operations.

Just my two cents.

10/29/2008 1:44:30 AM

Quote :

"but clean assassinations ROCK"

I wouldn't support those either, but I'd have somewhat less to complain about. Currently, though, we tend kill the target and assorted nearby humans. That's sloppy.

10/29/2008 10:11:03 AM

I see no issue with using terrorist tactics against terrorist, especially when we can do it a whole lot better. Negative sentiment among a populace in which the terrorist reside can also be mitigated through wise planning. Plans involving set ups such as making the bad guy look worse in the eyes of the populace, create chaos within the terrorist cell through mistrust, throw money and incentives toward the ruling governing body. I scratch your back you scratch mine, things of that nature.

This is also the main reason I'm voting for Mccain since, contrary to war-mongering republic stereotypes, he knows when to shut up and not telegraph our punches which obama certainly shows ignorance to during the second debate.

10/29/2008 12:11:13 PM