American citizen dead in missile strike in Yemen

Great Debates
41

Jonpluc,

<<it was my understanding that the missle attack was near the Saudi border >>

Saudi Arabia’s a big place. Most U.S. troop deployments are around Riyadh and King Khalid Military City, hundreds of miles to the north.

Your argument also flatly ignores the question of time. Battlefield intelligence is extremely perishable. If the U.S. gets information that an Al Qaeda leader is traveling north on a certain highway at a certain hour, obviously, that can change at any moment. Every minute counts.

It’s easy for you to sit in an armchair and say how easy it would have been to load and launch helicopters rather than a predator. But allowing for planning and rehearsal time, it would take hours just to assemble a force on the PZ and get them into the helos. It’s much easier and quicker to launch a predator. And puts fewer servicemen at risk (remember Desert One?) http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone_print.html

Also, with a typical cruising speed of 200 knots, the Predator would cover the distance to the target nearly twice as fast as the Black Hawk (cruising airspeed of about 120 knots.)

Again, remember, speed is of the essence. The vehicle could pull off the road or go into hiding at any time, or drop off some of its passengers. If the range to the target is 200 miles (the max a Black Hawk can go and still make it back even without a cargo of troops and combat gear, since their range is 400 miles), the faster vehicle saves you hours.

If any of our troops get hit, they could be hours away from a hospital. (There would probably not be time for prior coordination with a Yemeni hospital to take casualties. If there were, it would risk compromising the operation, thereby further endangering the lives of U.S. servicemen.)

The Predator is also less vulnerable to hostile action (i.e. ground fire.)

Operationally, the decision to launch the predator rather than a ground force was a no-brainer.

<<Hickory6 and lets be honest, the reason they wernt captured is because the U.S. didnt WANT them captured…not that they didnt have the capability.>>

Well, that’s a pretty foolish statement. Captured people yield more intel than dead ones. I don’t think you have any rational basis at all for making that statement. Occam’s razor favors my argument–trying to launch a ground op risks US troops and it risks losing the trail, while providing no guarantee that the targets wouldn’t end up killed anyway. It requires no nefarious bloodlust or a ‘no prisoners’ policy which you can’t prove anyway, and which can be easily disproven by the pointing out the existence of hundreds of Al Qaeda prisoners.

<<Let’s be honest.>>

Well, let’s be honest about your fund of information here, which is sorely lacking. You should make fewer WAGs and do a bit more mission analysis.

<< I resent your implication that im “casual” with troops lives. >>

The best way to avoid the implication would be to not be so casual about advocating the deployment of troops far from reinforcement, fire support, and medical facilities without first going through the steps of a mission analysis.

<<Im simply fairly confident that an army that was capable of killing 100,000 Iraqis and taking tens of thousands more prisoner, while only taking about 100 losses, should be able to handle 6 yahoos in a Ford Taurus or whatever without having our military collapse around us. >>

One of the reasons we were so successful is because US military leaders know how to plan for a mission, because US military leaders are meticulous about rehearsing it, because US military leaders are skilled at employing fire support, because US military leaders leverage superior US logistics and intelligence technology, and because US military leaders employ their units in accordance with their capabilities and limitations.

Your proposal would require the commitment of US troops without adequat planning time, without adequate rehearsal time, far from any indirect fire support, little or no logistical support, and would risk losing the valuable and imminently expiring military intelligence. The mission was not within the reasonable capability of ground troops stationed hundreds of miles away to plan, rehearse, and execute within the amount of time available.

42

May I point out that sending soldiers to conduct a military operation in the territory of a foreign state, without this state government approval is usually not very well perceived? Some posters seem to have overlooked this fact…

43

And sending CIA wetboys is the height of statecraft?

I’m beginning to feel like chopped liver, here. If this is intentional, would someone take the time to confirm that?

44

Henery B excellent point there are troops in Yemen as well. I mean come on guys this is basically a super dangerous traffic stop. A car full of possibly armed/possibly not nuts is the kinda stuff your large city police officers can handle. There are highly trained US troops already in Yemen as noted that im sure could handle a dangerous traffic stop even without prior practice. Im a trained firefighter and i practice but does that mean i cant fight a fire in a particular building because ive never practised in that one before? These are trained troops in one of the hottest spots on the planet right now for US troops. You can be sure that assets are everywhere and more are being added daily. If the US wanted them captured im sure they could have. As for risk to troops its no greater in this case than any police officer in LoAAs Angeles if these guys were breezing down the LA freeway. Id expect them to be arrested and if they refused to be shot. No different than if it happened in L.A. or Yemen or anywhere else where arrest is possible over execution

45

EO 11905 is less relevant here than EO 12333, Reagan’s 1981 order detailing the function of US intelligence agencies, and prohibiting assassinations by those agencies.

I’m with Kayla’sDad. I find the idea of the CIA knocking off these folks to be distasteful, and entirely against the spirit of 12333, if not the letter.

46

Just a short clarification- I didn’t edit the quote from the CNN article in any fashion. The article has changed since I linked to it, which is why I did a direct cut-and-paste of the article’s contents. You might as well say “why was the text in the OP different from the article??? oh it wasn’t - lno snuck that in”.

To add to the discussion on Predator vs Blackhawk, the Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle designed to loiter over an area for hours. It’s possible that it was in the area already rather than launched from an American military installation for the purpose of destroying this car. This seems to have been a target of opportunity.

47

jonpluc,

You may be a trained firefighter. But if you’re in Pittsburgh, they don’t call you to fight a fire in Chicago and only give you 60 minutes to get there, with all your gear. The intelligence would have had to have been acted upon NOW. What part of “NOW” is unclear to you?

<<Henery B excellent point there are troops in Yemen as well.>>

What troops? What unit? How many? What MOS? News flash: Special Forces A Teams, if they were in the AO, operate in teams of 12. Insufficient force to set up two roadblocks and an ambush, with security teams in place, even if they could get there in time.

Were they all in one place? Were they involved in missions of their own they could just drop at a moment’s notice? Where were the air assets? Were they in the same place?

You STILL completely ignore the issue of planning and rehearsal time. And no, you don’t send US troops to conduct an ambush without rehearsing the operation. And you damn sure don’t commit US troops without having taken the time to plan out the operation, in detail. If you do, then you’re damn sure being casual about their lives.

48

That would be my thought, and would indicate that the CIA guy or whoever flys it has authority to attack targets on his own judgement.

49

Hickory6
U.S. Army Special Forces troops got to Yemen in March, this year, in order “to train Yemen’s military to combat terrorists”.
Do You really mean that the Special Forces that are training the army there, needs training???
WOW!

Or would it not be a good training, after 6 months of training, for the Yemen army to arrest a car?

OK, Predator is an unmanned vehicle. But I am sure it did not know who drow the car. It does not read register-plates either? Or how?
So a human gave the information. Cell-phone? The Yemenian Security who did not want to call the Yemenian army?

Or is it like in this story, from last January; the guys seemed to have endlessly of time: http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/01/29/yemen.htm

So this was before USA begun to train (officially) the army.

So the Yemenian army is ready.

Halleluja for that!

It is also hinted in the article, by the foreign minister, that Yemenian army can not go everywhere, because of different tribes etc. I would say that that is a clear signal: “If I can’t go - You go, OK?”
So I think US had an silent OK from the Yemenian government. But I am not saying that I know so.

50

I did not see this while I was writing my earlier post:

Hickory6 from Fort Lauderdale wrote:

What kind of questions are these. Read Your papers or ask Pentagon. :wink:
I can not here from Russia begin to ask Pentagon Your questions. Who are You working for anyhow? :wink: If I posted those questions, how would You react? Who would I work for?

If You are a solidier, do You have video-games in Your unit?
Which countries can be bombed in Your video-game?
If the information is not classified, of course.

Maybe You can ask my questions in my first post on page 1 in this thread?
I would be happy.

Have a nice day.

51

Sorry Ino for assuming you took it upon yourself to add the quotes. This sounds like something an unsavory journalist would do to point out perceived irony and sneak in his or her anti-war sentiment.

52

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=20261

This link would indicate that Saudi Arabia arrests, on average, 11,600 “infiltrators” per DAY coming across its border, mainly Yemenis. I still think the US is heading down a slippery slope, but you gotta sympathize with the border guards.

53

Damn! That would be 1,160 infiltrators per day. Still a massive number, if correct.

54

Geez, I can’t believe you guys are belaboring the argument.

Ok. So there are U.S. Special Forces teams in Yemen. Doesn’t surprise me.

1.) I already mentioned that there are only 12 people in an SF A-Team. I already said that’s not enough to put out two roadblocks and an ambush–an op that would take a platoon strength, minimum. You might do it with three A-Teams. But they probably wouldn’t all be in the same place. They don’t operate that way. So you’d have to get them all together, somehow, then brief them, then allow them to go through their troop leading procedures and rehearse the operation.

2.) Special Forces teams do NOT have organic aviation assets. The birds will still have to come from somewhere. And again, we’re back to staging and planning time.

3.) It’s pretty clear you guys don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

55

Henry B.,

<<Do You really mean that the Special Forces that are training the army there, needs training??? WOW>>

Oh, any A-Team would have the skill sets. But they would still have to rehearse the operation. They rehearse BECAUSE they are well-trained.

<<Or would it not be a good training, after 6 months of training, for the Yemen army to arrest a car? >>

IF they could get there in time. Obviously, the people on the ground, knowing the tactical situation and the assets and time available (unlike you) made a different decision.

Oh, and by the way, this is from the article you cited, Henry:

<<Government forces, [Yemeni foreign minister] Al-Qirbi said, could not just storm into tribal areas to apprehend suspects for fear of turning the powerful tribes against the government.>>

That alone would be a powerful reason not to send US or Yemeni ground troops to attempt a capture, when the vehicle could easily be taken out by a Predator.

Your article also says that the Yemeni government knew where they were in January. That does NOT mean they knew where they were SINCE January. Your article says the Yemeni government was “negotiating their surrender.” Obviously, negotiations failed. (Although if they were operating in tribal areas the Yemeni government could not operate in, why they’d surrender in the first place is beyond me.)

But, ok. You advocate throwing US troops into tribal areas of Yemen, beyond reinforcement from Yemeni troops, and in close proximity to an unkown number of potentially hostile tribesmen. You would do it without adequate planning time. You would do it without rehearsal time. You would do it out of range of fire support. You would do it at risk of pissing off the locals and creating a problem for an ostensibly cooperative Yemeni government.

Now I understand why the Russian army embarrassed itself in Grozny.

Sorry, but the decision to take these guys out with a simple predator strike was about a big a no-brainer slam dunk as they come.

56

I agree with the ‘target of opportunity crowd’. I think some of you overestimate how good intelligence is. We don’t have satellites that can follow moving cars. We can’t be guaranteed to find someone 8 hours after he’s spotted moving somewhere on some road.

These predators are just loitering around, gathering intelligence. There are hundreds of them flying around the middle east, from what I understant. The CIA was approved to arm them with the Hellfire last year in Afghanistan.

This thing was probably just cruising in an area of reported activity, spotted the car, and the operator called it in and got a positive identification on the car. The order was given to destroy it before they lost contact with it.

That’s my perception, anyway.

57

And now the CIA has been approved to arm them over Yemen? Sam Any info on where they have been approved? Over DC, looking for terrorist yet??

That’s the second time you’ve called the decision a no-brainer. At least you got that right. :rolleyes:

58

Hickory6…ok lets approach this from another angle. ASSUMING hypothetically , the training, military resources etc were nearby and ready and the risk as minimized as it possibly could be, would you encourage arrest over assasination? And do you consider any of the international laws against this sort of thing to apply? Or is the “message” sent to the terrorists the most important issue here?

59

<<Hickory6…ok lets approach this from another angle. ASSUMING hypothetically , the training, military resources etc were nearby and ready and the risk as minimized as it possibly could be, would you encourage arrest over assasination? >>

Well, that’s a meaningless assumption. Why would Al Qaeda operate openly in such a place?

Besides–Al Qaeda has declared war on the United States.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/strikes980821.html

Therefore, this was an attack on a military objective, on a military leader of an organization that has demonstrated itself to be willing to murder Americans by the thousands.

This was not a political assassination. How could it be? Al Qaeda isn’t a political entity. Al Qaeda does not represent a state. The use of the term “assassination” to describe eliminating a C3 node is, quite simply, asinine (and the kind of moral equivalency you draw here is emblematic of why Democrats got so roundly trounced on Tuesday.)

Live prisoners generate more intel than dead ones do, yes. But capture, in this instance, was simply not a realistic alternative.

So why make stupid assumptions?

The U.S. has already demonstrated itself willing to take Al Qaeda alive who surrender. We’ve got hundreds of them sitting in Gitmo. I’ve got friends guarding them right now.

But in order to be taken prisoner, you have to, you know, surrender.

These guys already had a chance to surrender to Yemeni authorities. They didn’t.

Fuck 'em.

60

Democrat or not, one must admit a certain efficient simplicity to your logic.