Final Battle for Damascus? Bashar has fled to the Alawite Mountains.

reply to post by michaelbrux


That kid is no where near 17.

To answer someone above. The rebels put the gun in the kids hands. In the lesser evil game the Syrian army is actually probably the lesser evil in this battle. Though Assad is a pretty terrible guy.

There is no bright side in this one.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I'm not quite catching what you're saying, I think. Are you saying that a CIA Analyst got your friend's kid killed in Afghanistan because someone up the ladder decided to house him in an Afghan village? Honestly, that sounds more like a piss-poor policy decision by military brass than it sounds like an analysts appearing on Meet The Press.

In all honesty I've never heard of housing a sniper in a ville. They usually roost on a base when they're not in the weeds. Usually if anyone has to sit in a mud hut with the natives, that's generally the Sneaky Petes. It makes no sense at all to house a sniper there for "Hearts and Minds" - they're not going to be running any civic projects, medical projects, or militia organization and training missions. Putting one in a village makes no sense at all, but then again, the brass is not overly well known for making sensible decisions any how.

You might want to track that back up the chain of command to find the bonehead, and put some of the mojo on him.

reply to post by nenothtu

The program that got him killed was mostly political but the STUDIES that were used to develop this program were NOT COMPANY ANALYSTS....F'n...NSA! OR...NO SENSE at ALL!
Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


But Analysts - whether they're CIA, NSA, DIA, or any of the other 20 or so government intel agencies - don't make policy, or even policy recommendations. they're tasked with collating, correlating, and analyzing intel gathered by various organs and agencies from various sources, and pulling patterned information out of the puzzle they put together out of those disparate pieces. They put together the puzzle pieces that are gathered up by others (the collection folks), then look for the picture in the more or less completed puzzle. they don't make policy or recommendations, they just turn over the intel analysis, and then other folks in other cubicles decide what to do with that information policy and planning wise.

You may be surprised to learn (or you may not) that there are "civilian" agencies that do the same things, in the same ways, who aren't under the control of Uncle Charlie. They've got their own collection networks, analysts, and executives who suggest policies and actions.

This action really sounds like a recommendation promoted by some military head shrinker with no field experience, who thought it would be a good idea to rub elbows, then got implemented by another brass laden dweeb with no field experience, either. There's no payoff to housing a sniper or sniper team with villagers, although there is the occasional one who will "go native" and house himself there.

"Hearts and Minds" campaigns are generally for civic actions, medical missions, and organizational and training missions for local "home Guards" and are owned and operated by Special Forces. The whole idea is to make the locals friendly, and to do that you help them build bridges, houses, and goat-pens, you treat their sick and injured, and you help them to be able to defend themselves from "the bad guys", whoever the bad guys may be in any given theater. In that way, you make friends out of them. You don't make friends by forcing them to house a sniper who has no intrinsic value to them, and nothing to provide them to form a bond - that only makes them resentful.

Now, any newly minted graduate of SF training will know that to his very core by the time he gets through the Robin Sage exercises, but the guys in the brass beanies can't seem to figure it out. They think they are ALL Special Forces, and some jackass in an office somewhere makes a dumbassed decision like that, to house a useless (to the locals, for their purposes) grunt among the locals, and if no one jerks him up short, you build more animosity than you do friendship.

Hell, even the Knuckle Draggers (I'm assuming you know who I'm speaking of - DA/SAD) know better than to inflict themselves on villagers without bringing something the villagers value to the table to trade. Especially in Afghanistan, the villagers are NOT going to value a sniper - every man jack of them fancies himself to already BE a sniper, and you can't teach them anything at all. That's something some of us ran into long ago - Afghans fancy themselves the Meanest Mothers on Earth, and don't take instruction very well at all. It wounds their pride if not correctly delivered.

Leave it to a dumb-assed Conventional Officer to not be able to figure that out, and try to push it through any how. Even a half-assed Intel Analyst from ANY branch - assuming he had in-theater knowledge to make an analysis at all - would have blown the whistle on any dork misusing his information so badly.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame it on an analyst, whether CIA, NSA, DIA, or whoever is dealing with it.

reply to post by nenothtu

I can't say I blame the analyst...other than to say...even though decisions of this nature are ALWAYS POLITICALLY DRIVEN...they still are driven by what some idiot who is making a recommendation based upon the information given to them from....Analysts who are not in the field.

It is like making the same mistake over and over again. I have a hard time with this reality as I do not salute...I have the ability to point out stupidity...which they may or may not listen to.
Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I think some parallels and some contrasts can be drawn between Afghanistan and the current Syrian situation.

As you say, the actual decisions here are almost always politically driven - but it may not be the politics that one first assumes. In Afghanistan, the political decision that led to the situation you describe started off with conventional generals who wanted more fruit salad for their chests - not to do the actual work to get it, but to be the ones to send the boys who DO do the work in. Up to the point they started sending conventional troops to take over the fight, it was a winning war. We had Special Forces and a few other SpecOps on the ground doing what they do best, and it was rolling right along. When Kabul fell and the Taliban fell, we had about 100 US troops on the ground, and we were skating right along.

Then some conventional generals got jealous, wanted their "fair share" of pretty ribbons, and they flooded the place with the wrong folks, It was the politics of jealousy, and I don't believe those decisions in Afghanistan had anything at all to do with the intelligence community. They were all doing fine until jealousy reared it's ugly green head. 25 years or so ago we routed a superpower of the day from Afghanistan using the SF techniques for running a guerrilla war. a few SF types, a few CIA knuckle draggers, and a few "independent contractors" in country, and some of the men in the Gray Flannel Cammies across the fence in Pakistan, and we routed them by Feb, 1989. Now, in contrast, we send in our OWN mega forces, and can't seem to eliminate the Taliban. It's in reverse, any analyst worth his salt ought to be able to see that and correct it, and the fact that it's going the way it is I chalk up to jealousy, rather than an intel failure.

Iraq was a bit different. It looks to me like the intel there was skewed to pursue an agenda. A genuine "political agenda", rather than the military professional jealousy. this is why the war in Afghanistan languished for so long, being placed on the back burner in favor of a side adventure into Iraq. Now whether that was the fault of the intel providers, or the fault of the actual decision makers, is an arguable thing. From all appearances, the intel was correct at the time it was provided, but was misused and abused by the decision makers, twisted out of shape to promote their own agenda. They used it as an excuse to prop up a pre-determined agenda, rather than pursue the avenues the intelligence actually indicated should be pursued. We see what the result was, and that game ain't over yet.

The Iraq "intelligence failure", which was in all reality a policy failure instead, feeds directly into the Syrian situation right now. The "WMDs" WERE in Iraq - we know this in part because we supplied some of them ourselves, we know some were used by Hussein against the Kurds and the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war - and then suddenly they weren't, and the buzzword became "where ARE those WMDs?" All we found there were a few items, a shell here and a shell there. the rest were nowhere to be found, I know of one case where a VX shell was rigged into an IED in a roadway median, but was found and disarmed before it was detonated. There were other cases of finds like that, but not many at all, and all of those were kept under wraps for some unfathomable reason.

Now that war drums are beating in Syria, we're hearing the same thing - for what appears to be the same reason. I've no doubt that those WMD's made it into Syria. I equally have no doubt that they will be used as a prop for a pre-determined agenda. They don't give a rats ass about the "WMDs" in Syria, either - they're just a means to an end to scare folks into towing the line for the agenda. "We've GOT to go neutralize those WMDs! Oh, and by the way, lets just scramble internal Syrian affairs while we're there, and then forget all about the WMDs in the process".

After all, we may need them to show up in Lebanon soon. Then we'll find that some of them made it into Jordan as well, and when the unrest boils over there, why, we can use those same old WMDs to give the Muslim Brotherhood the keys to THAT kingdom, too!

It's the same old song and dance. it's not an intelligence failure, it's a policy failure, and the intel agencies will just take the fall for "providing bad intel". Wash, rinse, repeat, and take the road show on to the next stopoff point.

Instead, I think we ought to use the intelligence and analysis as provided, rather than as a convenient prop for bad decisions by the simple expedient of reading more into it than is actually there.

reply to post by nenothtu

I have THREE JOBS. One is Helping to Run several Successful Family Owned Companies. The Second is I am a Celebrity is the Music Business...I play and Tour in Internationally Known Rock Band. My THIRD JOB is tied to my second as I have said...I am a "CIVILIAN" in a manner the quotes denote and although I work with a team that is comprised of the Brightest and the Best of a group of Military 20 Somethings can be...I have been doing this for a LONG TIME as I was a COLD WARRIOR and I now have to admit...I am too old to keep doing this even if it is very far and few between.

If I am called in...and I can say no...but the two times I did...I was nervous the whole time the Guy's were gone and could not sleep or eat and was generally MISERABLE! Plus...since I am very good at what I do and the young Guy's know I am getting OLD...I get the look and this face of a Bunch of Highly Trained Men looking at me like a bunch of Golden Retriever Puppies with their heads turned ever so slightly to one side as they ask...ARE YOU...going?....?.....and I swear I have lipped read the word PLEASE on a few.

I am a PROBLEM SOLVER...and if I am asked to go in...and I have to keep in top shape to move over difficult terrain as I HUFF AND PUFF and the Kids are just MOVING like it is nothing...if I am asked...then there is a REAL PROBLEM that MUST be solved one way or another. The Team likes me because...# 1. I Salute NO ONE! # 2. I have no problem telling even a 4 Star that a plan is F@$&%$@ STUPID! # 3. I have been SHOT doing this and although that gives a person like myself credibility...to me...It just means I was STUPID and made a mistake...which I did! Thank GOD...I was the only one of my Team Shot...and I asked for my Rifle Lying on my side and SOLVED THE PROBLEM...using a team mates limb to balance the weapon. # 4. I am not prone to be reckless with others lives and a GOOD JOB is when we all go home safe. # 5. I am tasked with trying to cut a deal my several means...but what I am especially good at is FINDING THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH. If they are all smiling and seem to eager...a BOMB IS ABOUT TO GO OFF! If I am looking into the eyes of a Man who is not flustered but excretes PURE HATE...I know I have found the RIGHT GUY!

The Trick is to get them to take the cash and keep their promise and perform their job that they are being paid to do. How do you get someone like a person I have described to do this? By COMMUNICATING that if they take the money and don't do what is agreed upon...I WILL BE BACK! AND THEY WILL NEVER SEE ME COMING!

I know...to some..BARBARIC INTIMIDATION. To my guy's...being FEARED is tantamount to COMING HOME! Being FEARED AND BEING RESPECTED...is tantamount to GETTING THE PROBLEM SOLVED! If that doesn't work...that's what BULLETS ARE FOR! Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

The Trick is to get them to take the cash and keep their promise and perform their job that they are being paid to do. How do you get someone like a person I have described to do this? By COMMUNICATING that if they take the money and don't do what is agreed upon...I WILL BE BACK! AND THEY WILL NEVER SEE ME COMING!

Well, that seems a bit harsh, but to each his own. if I didn't trust the guy, I always said "here's a stipend - you get paid when we get back. If I get killed or you back out, you're screwed and gonna die poor."

It seemed to work for me.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

The Trick is to get them to take the cash and keep their promise and perform their job that they are being paid to do. How do you get someone like a person I have described to do this? By COMMUNICATING that if they take the money and don't do what is agreed upon...I WILL BE BACK! AND THEY WILL NEVER SEE ME COMING!

Well, that seems a bit harsh, but to each his own. if I didn't trust the guy, I always said "here's a stipend - you get paid when we get back. If I get killed or you back out, you're screwed and gonna die poor."

It seemed to work for me.

That used to work in the Good Old Days when a WAD of U.S. $100 Bills could be used as a Down Payment and perhaps a Car Stereo that played Cassettes...NOT CD's as it was tough for anyone behind the Iron Curtain to get CD's as they drove this East German Cardboard...REALLY...made out of something very similar to CARDBOARD CAR...called a TRABANT....and a few pairs of BLUE JEANS...especially LEVI's....and a DEAL WAS A DEAL!

Now Day's...we are dealing with IGNORANT...UNEDUCATED....NO SENSE OF CODE OR CRAFT ETIQUETTE...as well as not distinguishing between Civy's and Pro's...and back then...unless you REALLY PISSED OFF THE OTHER SIDE...you eventually were traded back for one or more of their guy's depending on your value. NOW...if I were to be cornered without an exit plan...AND THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN...I would first...KILL AS MANY AS THE SOB'S AS I COULD...play dead with a Grenade...or something we call a Chopper Hopper! You play dead or set it even if they shoot you....it can be detonated by another Team Mates Remote Cell or I can time set it or place it in my front jacket Com Link holder and lay on it face down. It has a Mercury Switch that can be activated for detonation. So even if you are Killed while lying on this thing....they ALWAYS WANT THE GOLD WE CARRY for use in emergency cases for Bribing...so they would roll me over and the CHOPPER HOPPER detonates and releases Sub-Munitions which are covered under the New International Cluster Bomb Ban as the Bomblets become inert after a time...so this thing detonates and the Sub-Munitions HOP or BOUNCE like a Rubber Super Ball at NECK LEVEL and split in two for each of 20 Bomblets and only detonate at NECK LEVEL....thus THEY CHOP AS THEY HOP! These are not standard issue and can be set to detonate like a Crazy Claymore....BUT...MAN! They do the JOB! Split Infinity