http://patriotsbillboard.org/pentagon-official-isis-executioners-had-no-idea-special-forces-chasing-them-until-obama-told-them/





PENTAGON OFFICIAL: ISIS EXECUTIONERS HAD NO IDEA SPECIAL FORCES CHASING
THEM — UNTIL OBAMA TOLD THEM



Daily Caller 8-24-14 – On Wednesday, the White House leaked a classified
special forces operation to rescue American hostages in Syria. The reason:
political cover. The cost: so far, unknown.



But this much, we know: The politicized leak of this operation cut through
the fog of war to let our enemies know exactly what happened that day in
the desert, and because of that, future attempts to free American hostages
will be more difficult to plan, farther between, and more dangerous to
carry out.



On Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby confirmed reports
of the U.S. military’s failed clandestine hostage rescue operation in
Syria. The operation was designed to rescue a number of Western hostages,
including American journalist James Foley, that were being held by Islamic
State terrorists in Syria. Details of the failed raid were leaked by senior
White House officials earlier that day after the Obama administration came
under intense scrutiny about what actions it had taken to free Foley
following, who was beheaded . The leak was designed to provide political
cover for President Barack Obama, who has been taking fire from the press
for failing to take more decisive action against the Islamic State in
either Iraq or Syria.



The operation involved an extremely large number of U.S. special operations
forces moving over long distances. It has been described as the largest
U.S. hostage rescue operation undertaken since the famed raid on the Son
Tay prison camp in Vietnam – meaning it was larger in scope than the
mission to free the U.S. hostages being held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
in 1980.



Unfortunately, the parallels between this operation and the Son Tay raid
did not stop at the size and scope of the mission: Just as in Son Tay, the
hostage rescue force arrived only to find that the hostages were not there.





When the hostage rescue force arrived at the target location in Syria, they
encountered a handful of fighters on the ground, which they quickly
neutralized. As has been previously reported, one U.S. helicopter pilot
transporting the rescue force suffered a gunshot wound during the
operation. He completed the entire mission before informing anyone that he
had been shot. It was an act of heroism that would have gone unknown before
yesterday’s leak.



Following the mission, it was determined that the Islamic State did not
know that it was the United States that had conducted the raid. This was
confirmed Wednesday by media outlets, who quoted the leaker saying the
“[Islamic State] did not know who they were fighting that night, and we
assess Syria did not know.”



As such, the decision was made to maintain absolute secrecy in the event
that hostages could be located again, and another rescue operation could be
undertaken. After Wednesday’s leak by the White House, this seems highly
unlikely. The Islamic State is now aware that the United States is tracking
the whereabouts of the Western hostages, and that the U.S. has shown a
willingness to take military action to free them. They will likely increase
their operational and communication security postures in order to prevent a
repeat operation.



Wednesday’s selfish, politically motivated leak has reduced the chances for
a successful second rescue attempt, and has likely increased the risk to
the lives of the hostages still in the Islamic State’s possession. For
that, someone should be fired.



I wish I was surprised by the decision to leak information that would
endanger the lives of additional hostages in order to provide the
administration with a few political points, but I am not. This is par for
the course for an administration that is more concerned with domestic
politics and opinion polling than they are with taking the actions
necessary to safeguard American national security.



As I have predicted for several months in pieces published here at The
Daily Caller, the Islamic State has grown in size and strength, and has
declared the creation of an Islamic caliphate under the governance of the
group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — who now goes by the name Caliph
Ibrahim. The area currently under the control of the Islamic State includes
large sections of territory in Iraq and Syria. It is the largest territory
ever to be controlled by a terrorist organization. Every day, the area
under the control of the Islamic State more closely resembles pre-9/11
Afghanistan. Every day the U.S. waits, the larger the commitment to destroy
the Islamic State will be. The threat to the United States is real, as the
Islamic State has both the intent and the capabilities to attack the U.S.
homeland.



For three years, the Obama administration has sat idly by while the Islamic
State grew in size and strength across the Iraqi border in neighboring
Syria. In that time, Syria has become a failed state, which has allowed the
Islamic State to thrive while 160,000 Syrians have been killed. Syria
remains the heart of the problem. Iraq is just one of its symptoms.



But it was not until the Islamic State began to overrun Kurdish Peshmerga
fighters in northern Iraq, and began the systematic genocide of Yazidi
tribesmen, women, and children, that the Obama administration became
concerned enough to take action. Obama first ordered the U.S. military to
drop humanitarian relief supplies on top of Mount Sinjar in Northern Iraq,
where thousands of Yazidis were seeking refuge from Islamic State
militants. Then, the mission was expanded to include U.S. airstrikes to
defend the Kurdish City of Irbil and U.S. personnel stationed there.



The objective of the overall U.S. mission remains unclear. U.S. military
commanders recognize the threat posed by the Islamic State, and have
requested permission to target the group more broadly, but the
administration is wavering.



When White House national security staffers do see a proposal that they
like from either the U.S. military or intelligence community to take
action, they will take it to the president or the responsible authority for
action. Normally, concepts of operations are designed to achieve policy
goals stipulated by the White House. What we have here is the opposite:
something we call “policy by concept of operations.” Indeed, White House
staffers cherry picking individual courses of action devoid of a strategy
evoke images of President Lyndon Johnson selecting bombing targets in
Vietnam.



In the absence of any discernible policy, commanders and intelligence
community executives are coming up with concepts that they think should be
executed based on their professional experience and judgment — they can
only hope that the political operatives at the White House concur. This is
not how national security decision-making should be conducted, and it is
how we ended up with the current mission in Iraq: limited airstrikes and
humanitarian air drops in a localized area, with no connection to a larger
strategy or goal because for the White House, it does not matter. For them,
it’s politics. As long as they are doing something, that’s all that
matters.  (MILLER: Special Forces, Not #Hashtags, Mr. President)



During the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain charged
that then-Sen. Barack Obama “didn’t know the difference between a tactic
and a strategy.” The current U.S. military mission in Iraq is evidence that
McCain was right. Airstrikes by themselves without a larger goal or
objective are a tactic, not a strategy. What are we trying to achieve? The
threat posed by the Islamic State far exceeds the localized conflict taking
place in northern Iraq, on which the administration has been hyper focused.
But few in the administration seems to either understand or care. It’s a
reflection of the lack of experience, over-politicization of national
security matters, and trying to control everything at the White House.



At this time, the Obama administration still has no workable strategy or
policy for the Syrian civil war or for the growing threat posed by the
Islamic State. The White House is in strategic paralysis and seems unable
to make a decision as to what the U.S. should do. Obama has publicly stated
his reluctance to take on a more expansive U.S. military operation for
political and economic reasons, but the current problem is not entirely of
his making: Obama is only able to make the decisions that his staff bring
to him for consideration. From dangerous leaks to failed policies in the
Middle East, the White House is a mess from the bottom, all the way to the
top.



Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official
with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq
and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.










__._,_.___
 ------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


 Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYzI0ZXNpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MDk4Njg2NDA->


 [image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWFsMnNxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQwOTg2ODY0MA-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to