Jump to content
Baseops Forums
brickhistory

Saddle up for Syria? Or Op Deny Christmas '13

Recommended Posts



That’s unfortunate not suddenly news. Been going on for a while now.

Between this and Ukraine though it’s nice of Russia to give us lots of stuff to study/compile intel on for a change. Only fair since we’ve given them nearly 2 decades to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First time I’ve seen it open source.

 

I think it’s just the first time it’s been run as a headline story on one of the Big3 cable news networks stateside. I know a lot of smaller news groups out there have been doing reports on “what the Russians are up to” for the last couple years and their EW activities have definitely come up often. Stuff like them harassing NATO members along the border.

 

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15194/russia-jammed-phones-and-gps-in-northern-europe-during-massive-military-drills

 

Just one example.

 

But yeah, definitely some purpose built needling going on between them and us. Not unlike the sudden jump in tech and weapons we are seeing show up in certain theaters like the Stan. Cold War never really ended, it just got ignored for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How a 4-Hour Battle Between Russian Mercenaries and U.S. Commandos Unfolded in Syria

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senators in testimony last month. He said he directed Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “for the force, then, to be annihilated.”

“And it was.”

Signed "Bad Ass - Mad Dog Mattis"

Edited by HarleyQuinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we are taking advantage of our special relationship with Israel to get the After Action Reports on all these strikes. The Israelis have more and more current real-world SEAD experience than just about anyone around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. Those are absolutely questions we need as a country to better address.

I would add we need to rethink how we will handle terrorist and terrorism operations in the future. Specifically in regards to combatant status determination and operational approach.

The most recent academic studies are showing the strategy of HVI wack-a-mole, shows little evidence to effectiveness. The most glaring evidence, that we've been doing it for 18 years and nothing  has changed. Civil policing models have proved far more effective at routing non-state terror groups in other countries though. There's often that idea that the military is a political tool. It might be a hammer, and we are flattening nails when we need a crow bar to pull them out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 4:40 AM, FLEA said:

Good article. Those are absolutely questions we need as a country to better address.

I would add we need to rethink how we will handle terrorist and terrorism operations in the future. Specifically in regards to combatant status determination and operational approach.

The most recent academic studies are showing the strategy of HVI wack-a-mole, shows little evidence to effectiveness. The most glaring evidence, that we've been doing it for 18 years and nothing  has changed. Civil policing models have proved far more effective at routing non-state terror groups in other countries though. There's often that idea that the military is a political tool. It might be a hammer, and we are flattening nails when we need a crow bar to pull them out. 

Agreed.  

I'm not sure we have the paitience for the way we decide, plan, execute and sustain our engagements in these conflicts to a satisfactory resolution to keep doing them but if we are going to continue to engage in sustained efforts in these failed states, ungoverned areas, insurgencies, etc... we have to do it differently.  

The modern American military / Federal government is not built to do this: persevere & sustain a long-term foreign policy involving a WOG effort (military, diplomatic, informational, cultural and developmental efforts) that will stretch over many election cycles, at best will take 20+ years to conclude to a state where withdraw can happen without immediate collapse after something better has been won in thousands of TICs, HVI capture/kills, clearing operations, etc...

It (the American Military) was built to deter and if necessary win quickly in a X number of major conventional fights with its active forces and generated reserves (if required).  We do not have the depth to constantly sustain thru rotation a long-term counter-insurgency, stabilization, rebuild and assistance mission(s) without eroding our force thru repetitive deployments, use of conventional systems ill-suited for low intensity conflicts and with nebulous mission objectives.  

I've had a similar debate going with a friend who retired recently and we've been arguing over the points made in this article on NR:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/the-frustrating-necessity-of-staying-in-syria-and-afghanistan-explained/

If you accept what the author (David French) proposes in his article, that leaving only allows for the worst elements to return and plot to attack us again and that long-term engagement at whatever level is required (albeit done well) is better than disengagement then we must accomplish these national efforts differently IMHO.  As they are not conventional military conflicts / foreign policy challenges they must be planned, resourced, sustained and executed differently than a force-on-force deterrence/contingency scenario.

My suggestions would be:

- Public agreements made between the major political parties that objectives, strategy and resourcing will span election cycles, regardless of changes in political majorities.  The OODA loop at anyone time in these marathons is longer than a Presidential Term and a helluva lot longer than the 2 year House cycle, allow for reassessment at 6 year cycles with the Senate mainly keeping watch and adjusting as required.  Not perfect but without some new legal structure/entity at the Federal level, I think it is best we can do.

- Make appropriations for these conflicts separate from the NDAA and have a dedicated funding vehicle (tax).  It is a particular foreign policy effort of the USA, not the general defense of our sovereignty, interests and allies and should be created, debated and passed/vetoed as such.  Multi-year with specific sunset date(s) with an exit plan, policy decisions and resources set aside to allow for withdrawal if not renewed.  The funding vehicle is key, the American people should know what the cost monetarily is explicitly and if I were king for a day, I would require the Executive Branch to justify and report on the operation ala the "Why we Fight" movies of WWII at least every year coincidental with the State of the Union address.

- Apply legal restrictions on utilization of military members in these operations to prevent abusive over-utilization unless that member requests specifically to return to the operation.  This could require the resurrection of the draft, force the creation of bonuses for deployment above the normal limit or some other manpower solution.  So be it.  If the nation wants a win / better end state in this effort, pay for it in conscripted national service, money for the warfighters or don't do it.  This limit would be different for different AFSCs or MOSs and where you actually deploy too, but everyone would be protected ultimately by a limit to spread the effort. 

- Allow for acquisitions to be performed outside of the regular DoD / Service Component structure and allow the UCC to legally acquire and own systems during these named operations.  If CENTCOM wants the LAAR for example but Big Blue doesn't, CENTCOM has its own resources and legal authority to acquire, operate and sustain.  This is not to open the floodgates for X number of specialized systems only suitable for X operation, common sense is to be applied but there must be a method better than what we have now (excluding Big Safari) to allow the UCCs to bypass Force Providers if they are intransigent in the face of real operational requirements.

Well, I think I'm rant complete with that.  Just my hope we do things differently if we want to keep trying to fix likely un-fixable problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×