Posted on Jun 11, 2018
To Ambush and Kill American Green Berets, Al Shabaab Diverted a River
6.28K
22
8
9
9
0
I usually stay away from posting up Daily Beast items. This one was different and an item think many will want a read on. Its not just that an ambush took place - but how we underestimated an enemy that has grown smarter in the years of war that have been waged. To plan such an operation on there part is not something most would have thought they were capable of.. this is perhaps more like a Jedburgh operation in occupied Yugoslavia.. not only in flooding the area - but driving out the local support in doing so - and forcing the US allied forces to chose a place that had already been chosen for them by the enemy.
To Ambush and Kill American Green Berets, Al Shabaab Diverted a River
Posted from thedailybeast.com
War on Terror
Terrorism
Tactics
Special Operations
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
This isn't surprising. It seems we're still looking for this "noble and valiant" battle that never comes our way. We want to be these "heroes with technology" and forgot the basic principle that made the US in the first place. Everyone seems to be willing to use guerrilla warfare on us at will to get a means to an end, while we run around toting new gear, technology, and projected projects as the "latest and greatest". Looking back at recent battles we "lost", it wasn't due to will on our part, but by our enemies realization that we're stuck in a mode where uniforms are the norm, large massed armies will come and fight, and the "lighter" we get, the more crap we carry to offset things. Funny how 242yrs ago we were able to be a larger, more agile, and technological force using methods that are currently used by folks we call "terrorists". Maybe after 17yrs in the ME, the student is teaching the teacher, but the teacher isn't listening?
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
GySgt John Olson When are we going to relearn what we already know how to do, and do well? We’ve never lost, but this set of wars is showing we don’t want to win
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
GySgt John Olson - We've never lost. Now politically in wartime yes, but that is a far cry from the services themselves loosing in battle.
War of 1812? I'm not sure how to classify that as a loss in any sense outside the WH burning down to the ground....again. We maintained our independence and that was the goal.....right?
Civil War. We didn't loose there either. The nation was maintained intact....which was another goal. Now the CSA "lost" if one counts them as an actual government, country, sovereign anything which depending on viewpoint they never were. Really hard for me to have any sympathy for them. Might just be me.
Korea...I'll side with you on that one.
Nam. That to me was another Korea. The military itself won, had the war won, and the drive to literally drive out the NVA. Now Washington has a nasty habit of armchair QB'ing from the situation room with Generals who are political minded dunces who cave to those in that room rather than just lay it on the line or walk away with their chin held high. Westmoreland had the ability, the US had the power, we lacked the political leadership at the time, and the public will (kinda how things are going now. Deja vu?)
Did we really pull the plug too soon in Desert Storm? Bush met his and the UN's objectives, so what other reason was there to stay? He truly could say "read my lips MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and be done with it.
Now onto todays wars. Once again we have the ability, the drive, the technology, and even senior leaders who in some cases aren't political dunces. What we still don't have is unadulterated public support, legislators who are committed beyond a check or vote, a president who (not a slap on Trump, but the last three), who can see a bigger picture even when it goes against what they think is right or is morally right. It's all about a check, vote, making some rich fool feel good, or pandering to the defense industry. The Stan has beaten a lot of folks who were superior in every way imaginable, and it's breaking us, but not beating us if that makes sense. We played a proxy war there when the USSR was mired in it, and now the favor is being returned in spades. By the same assholes we did it too. This war should be fought in the same manner we used to beat the British 242 years ago. We're slogging along using tactics that are guessed, coded, reused and renamed from 242yrs ago, and that book has been written, rewritten, and studied by everyone and their great grand mother. We're not breaking new ground in our tactics (COIN anyone), just the same shit different day.
We as a military have not lost. We as a country has not lost. We as a people.....TBD but not looking good. Our "perfect leaders".....just give them a check, a tab, a Bud, a command in the 82nd, a law degree and reserve JAG time, Call of Duty, anything but actual time in the trenches, or the chance that one of their own could be lost in those trenches. I can guarantee we'd find new political "vigor" if someone other than Gen Kelly lost a direct family member in the ME conflict. We'd win across the board next week if the shit the common SM has to deal with hit a legislator of either party directly. We wouldn't have tweets or BS meetings on how to win. We'd have the world announce we won for us. I'm PCS'ing to Mars. Heard it's pretty safe there, and very low on crime.
War of 1812? I'm not sure how to classify that as a loss in any sense outside the WH burning down to the ground....again. We maintained our independence and that was the goal.....right?
Civil War. We didn't loose there either. The nation was maintained intact....which was another goal. Now the CSA "lost" if one counts them as an actual government, country, sovereign anything which depending on viewpoint they never were. Really hard for me to have any sympathy for them. Might just be me.
Korea...I'll side with you on that one.
Nam. That to me was another Korea. The military itself won, had the war won, and the drive to literally drive out the NVA. Now Washington has a nasty habit of armchair QB'ing from the situation room with Generals who are political minded dunces who cave to those in that room rather than just lay it on the line or walk away with their chin held high. Westmoreland had the ability, the US had the power, we lacked the political leadership at the time, and the public will (kinda how things are going now. Deja vu?)
Did we really pull the plug too soon in Desert Storm? Bush met his and the UN's objectives, so what other reason was there to stay? He truly could say "read my lips MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and be done with it.
Now onto todays wars. Once again we have the ability, the drive, the technology, and even senior leaders who in some cases aren't political dunces. What we still don't have is unadulterated public support, legislators who are committed beyond a check or vote, a president who (not a slap on Trump, but the last three), who can see a bigger picture even when it goes against what they think is right or is morally right. It's all about a check, vote, making some rich fool feel good, or pandering to the defense industry. The Stan has beaten a lot of folks who were superior in every way imaginable, and it's breaking us, but not beating us if that makes sense. We played a proxy war there when the USSR was mired in it, and now the favor is being returned in spades. By the same assholes we did it too. This war should be fought in the same manner we used to beat the British 242 years ago. We're slogging along using tactics that are guessed, coded, reused and renamed from 242yrs ago, and that book has been written, rewritten, and studied by everyone and their great grand mother. We're not breaking new ground in our tactics (COIN anyone), just the same shit different day.
We as a military have not lost. We as a country has not lost. We as a people.....TBD but not looking good. Our "perfect leaders".....just give them a check, a tab, a Bud, a command in the 82nd, a law degree and reserve JAG time, Call of Duty, anything but actual time in the trenches, or the chance that one of their own could be lost in those trenches. I can guarantee we'd find new political "vigor" if someone other than Gen Kelly lost a direct family member in the ME conflict. We'd win across the board next week if the shit the common SM has to deal with hit a legislator of either party directly. We wouldn't have tweets or BS meetings on how to win. We'd have the world announce we won for us. I'm PCS'ing to Mars. Heard it's pretty safe there, and very low on crime.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Before going to Afghanistan, I studied the British failures there almost as much as the more recent Soviet disasters. While in country, I tried very hard not to look at the Afghans as "less capable"...though I'll admit that was often challenging (especially during morning PT).
I remember one time, while leading ANA up the side of a mountain, they started "racing" us...I didn't speak fluent Pasto, but understood fairly clearly that for them, it was a chance to "show us up", having grown up raising "geep" on those bluffs all their lives. I saw the same fire behind the eyes there I did at any point in my training...and never forgot it.
Not being a special operations person, I'm always very cautious in my appraisals. However, I do sense that at a higher level (I presume those on the ground indeed know better), we've continued to underestimate the power of massed forces, even when individually "inferior".
I once heard a wiser man state it like this, "If a ninja armed with nothing fought a thousand children armed with stones...he'd eventually lose".
Perhaps we've become too reliant on technology and too confident in our targeted use of elite forces...as opposed to masses of regular forces. The enemy is willing to lose many more lives to achieve an objective. Also, I doubt they do us the service of reciprocating the favor...and NEVER underestimate our forces. This may also aide them in garnering local support and fueling their "martyr" image...as opposed to the "bogeyman" we fear.
I remember one time, while leading ANA up the side of a mountain, they started "racing" us...I didn't speak fluent Pasto, but understood fairly clearly that for them, it was a chance to "show us up", having grown up raising "geep" on those bluffs all their lives. I saw the same fire behind the eyes there I did at any point in my training...and never forgot it.
Not being a special operations person, I'm always very cautious in my appraisals. However, I do sense that at a higher level (I presume those on the ground indeed know better), we've continued to underestimate the power of massed forces, even when individually "inferior".
I once heard a wiser man state it like this, "If a ninja armed with nothing fought a thousand children armed with stones...he'd eventually lose".
Perhaps we've become too reliant on technology and too confident in our targeted use of elite forces...as opposed to masses of regular forces. The enemy is willing to lose many more lives to achieve an objective. Also, I doubt they do us the service of reciprocating the favor...and NEVER underestimate our forces. This may also aide them in garnering local support and fueling their "martyr" image...as opposed to the "bogeyman" we fear.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google