Question for our Military/Ex-Military ATS members regarding the (ongoing) Algeria incident.

From the outside looking in (a civilian) - it seems like western hostage situations end with time given for negotiation. In this Algerian instance, It seems as though they just swarmed the place, with casualties taken. Was it the right thing to do?

-------
edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it's not looking good. Any non-laymen input into the situation would be interesting imo)

Originally posted by canucks555
From the outside looking in (a civilian) - it seems like western hostage situations end with time given for negotiation. In this Algerian instance, It seems as though they just swarmed the place, with casualties taken. Was it the right thing to do?

-------
edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it's not looking good. Any non-laymen input into the situation would be interesting imo)

edit on 18-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

Hi Canuck,

Check out the existing thread and my last comment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kindest regards

Rodinus

reply to post by canucks555


From what I understand they tried to talk, the kidnappers refused, and when they tried to leave in a convoy, the Algerians attacked them.

I think their best move would have been to accept the help offered by both the UK and US, but I suspect pride got in the way.

Well, I am no expert on millitary matters, but it would seem that the algerians have gone into the facility with all guns blazing and created a bloodbath. Our goverments share a portion of the blame for this massacre, and the situation in Mali, because they gave the islamists a power base in Libya...

I am not sure if they are playing to some long term plan, or if they realy are as stupid as they seem.

Unless one is actually there on the ground, it is really hard to say for sure.

They may use swarm tactics as a show of force, or because that is what they felt was the last best option.
If people are being killed, the only option is to get in and stop it if possible, and fast.

Circumstances dictate, METT-TC, mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time available, civil considerations. This is just from my perspective, but that is an impossible question, unless we have more info to work with.

There are always too many what ifs, the key is resolution.

Military intervention should always be the last port of call in a hostage situation. Too me, it looks like a rash decision by Algerian command to move in on the facility so soon, and to deny international assistance in the matter was a very poor decision. Algerian armed forces receive minimal training that does not suit counter-terror operations and that is reflected in the out come of the raid in the amount of civilian casualties and fatalities.

Did Algeria have the right to move in? Yes.
Was it the right decision? No.

International assistance should of been sought out, and in my personal opinion the command on the operation should of been given to military advisor from nations involved with more counter-terror experience. (I.E. France or the UK)

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Unless one is actually there on the ground, it is really hard to say for sure.

Unless they had information indicating that the hostages were or would be killed there is no reason to rush into a situation like that "guns-blazing".

I suspect, having been a member of US Special Forces that this event, much like the recent French Secret Service catastrophe are classic examples of pride and ego getting in the way of a deliberate decision making process. There is huge ego involved in these type units.

Developing a situation slowly is hard on the hostages of course but it allows for proper intelligence gathering and since the terrorists tend to be outnumbered greatly by the hostages they lose sleep, make mistakes etc.

A better intelligence picture always results in more live hostages rescued.

The decision point is always - Which is the greater risk taking action or taking no action?

While I think since Americans were involved we certainly most likely offered to handle it in some way. I wonder why they didn't accept. I am certain pride and ego were a big part of it.

However, there is also the possibility that the death of the hostages was imminent and taking action - even a poorly executed one resulted in saving some lives. We don't (probably won't know if the terrorists were ready to kill all the hostages anyway so the cost to benefit ratio was actually favorable to action.

There are several countries out there with premier hostage rescue organizations, Germany, UK, US etc. Algeria is not one of them - obviously. Neither is France.

reply to post by Golf66


Thanks for your input. Not striking right away would also wear the enemy down (one would presume) psychologically and physically. Lack of sleep effects the senses. It's tragic, for all those involved, Maybe the hostage takers gave the French no choice? Like used the I'm going to take one hostage down every three hours type stuff... And the layout of that place, holy crap... I'm sure there are many people asking the relevant questions..why did there loved ones die or be injured, but at the end of the day I have great respect for the men ordered to set things right none the less...True guts.
ps great name just got back from 18 (in canada/January lol)

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Golf66

 

Thanks for your input. Not striking right away would also wear the enemy down (one would presume) psychologically and physically. Lack of sleep effects the senses.

Indeed that is the strategy in missions of this nature to stall the process so that the people whose job it is to gather all the necessary information available on the location (plans, layouts down to door composition and wiring), individuals involved (motivation, intent and identities both friendly and enemy) can do so and finally to wear the hostage takers down and make them stressed so they make mistakes but not so stressed as to kill a hostage.

My personal expertise is in the preparation phase of these type operations also referred to as advance work. I don't have much experience other than the school house in door knocking. Well, some but it is very dated.

Originally posted by canucks555
It's tragic, for all those involved, Maybe the hostage takers gave the French no choice? Like used the I'm going to take one hostage down every three hours type stuff...

I really hope that is the case because I'd be a little peeved personally if they tried to pull this off for no other reason than sheer ego - not wanting to ask for help.

Originally posted by canucks555
And the layout of that place, holy crap... I'm sure there are many people asking the relevant questions..why did there loved ones die or be injured, but at the end of the day I have great respect for the men ordered to set things right none the less...True guts.

I'll give props to the Algerian operators for going in there and doing their best they are not the ones who made the decisions; however, I will say that their SF is probably equal to say a Tier 1 Nation's regular infantry.

I've trained the Afghani equivalent of SF - they got guts, I'll give em that but since most of them can't read it's really hard to get them proficient in the requisite skills necessary using any method other than wrote memory and repetition. It works to a certain extent as a training method the problem is that if not used skills learned that way go stale really quickly.

Originally posted by canucks555
ps great name just got back from 18 (in canada/January lol)

edit on 20-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

Burrrr.....

Originally posted by canucks555
From the outside looking in (a civilian) - it seems like western hostage situations end with time given for negotiation. In this Algerian instance, It seems as though they just swarmed the place, with casualties taken. Was it the right thing to do?

-------
edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it's not looking good. Any non-laymen input into the situation would be interesting imo)

There is no right thing... the terrorist are in it to the death. They were not planning to leave that place alive, so in the end everyone dies. As a vet and now a contractor at times, I'm not going to just sit there and let them cut my head off...lol

They demanded the release of the blind cleric, the answer was swift and simple.

NO!

As it should be in ANY case like this, especially when it involves Islamic terrorists. Negotiations are never productive, any appearance of consideration of demands, and/or a brokered deal/concession would only invite more hostage taking.

The message should be consistent, clear and unwavering. We do not negotiate with terrorists.

EVER!

IMO

reply to post by ausername


Agreed, But (imo) there's nothing wrong with giving terrorists a false sense of security, at least for a few hours, if that's what it entails to save lives.,,

Originally posted by canucks555
From the outside looking in (a civilian) - it seems like western hostage situations end with time given for negotiation. In this Algerian instance, It seems as though they just swarmed the place, with casualties taken. Was it the right thing to do?

-------
edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it's not looking good. Any non-laymen input into the situation would be interesting imo)

edit on 18-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

just going to quote doc on this..

i think the problem is this is one of those subjects that is not spoken freely on the internet, because some things need to disscussed word of mouth,

and anybody that try to get answers on this subject is looked at as a abc boy.

so you will continue to get nothing from these people because as dumb as Americans are portrayed in media, the rest of them know the correct way of discussing this subject. and that is face to face.

oh yeah and anyone that tells you there plans is just a keyboard warrior
edit on 14-1-2013 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)