US troops met with 'overwhelming force' in Niger ambush, official says [W:14]

[cpwill]

You're saying that a loss of resources in the region didn't reduce our resources?

Given that they weren't our resources, they weren't dedicated to the fight in Western Niger...

But alright. Tell me what resources would have been available in to the team, had the Chadians remained in Diffa.

Foolishly? Are you happy that our military resources are spread so thin for political reasons that we endanger those who serve?

This is what SOF does. It's not a conventional mission, with conventional forces, with a daggum battalion of infantry, tanks, and Arty. We're doing it all over the world, and have been for a decade or more.

That doesn't matter. The move that pissed off Chad for no reason was a terrible move. We shouldn't just shrug off when President Trump carelessly hurts a relationship with an ally, it has real world consequences.

Do you think an attack in CONUS isn't real world consequences?

 

[Absentglare]

Given that they weren't our resources, they weren't dedicated to the fight in Western Niger...

But alright. Tell me what resources would have been available in to the team, had the Chadians remained in Diffa.

You aren't following exactly what i'm trying to say.

We have resources and we have objectives. When the resources are reduced, but the objectives are unchanged, the result is that we become less prepared. When they are less prepared, more incidents will result.

This is what SOF does. It's not a conventional mission, with conventional forces, with a daggum battalion of infantry, tanks, and Arty. We're doing it all over the world, and have been for a decade or more.

So your argument seems to be that the problem predates President Trump.

Do you think an attack in CONUS isn't real world consequences?

What gave you that impression?

 

[cpwill]

You aren't following exactly what i'm trying to say.

We have resources and we have objectives. When the resources are reduced, but the objectives are unchanged, the result is that we become less prepared. When they are less prepared, more incidents will result.

I'm following. You are simply disconnected from reality. The Chadians' shifting from Diffa back across the border did not, as far as I am aware, reduce the resources that WE (you will notice that we are an entirely different nation than Chad, just as Chad is different from Niger, and that their resources are therefore not "ours").

If you can describe how their movement reduced our readiness in an entirely different area, them I'm game to hear, but it seems you have no supporting evidence.

So your argument seems to be that the problem predates President Trump.

It's not a problem. It's a mission.

What gave you that impression?

You seemed to suggest that real world consequences aren't what drove the desire to maintain awareness of who is coming into our country.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm following. You are simply disconnected from reality. The Chadians' shifting from Diffa back across the border did not, as far as I am aware, reduce the resources that WE (you will notice that we are an entirely different nation than Chad, just as Chad is different from Niger, and that their resources are therefore not "ours").

If you can describe how their movement reduced our readiness in an entirely different area, them I'm game to hear, but it seems you have no supporting evidence.

This isn't about "supporting evidence". If you have ten apples, and i take two, you have fewer apples than you had before.

If you had ten hungry mouths to feed, you would have had one apple per person, but instead you have 0.8 apples per person.

I don't need supporting evidence to explain that if we have fewer resources, we need to dial back operations or risk spreading ourselves too thin. Pissing off allies gives us fewer resources. Do you contest any of that?

It's not a problem. It's a mission.

You said that this is being politicized foolishly. I countered with:

Foolishly? Are you happy that our military resources are spread so thin for political reasons that we endanger those who serve?

The politics are irrelevant if we can recognize a shared goal to respect our obligations to those who serve. Those obligations require that we have reasonable expectations and contingencies. While we certainly cannot guarantee their safety, we owe them reasonable diligence. Do you agree with that common goal in general, without relating to this specific instance?

You seemed to suggest that real world consequences aren't what drove the desire to maintain awareness of who is coming into our country.

Like what? The zero terrorist attacks from people who came from the countries listed on the ban?

 

[braindrain]

You aren't following exactly what i'm trying to say.

We have resources and we have objectives. When the resources are reduced, but the objectives are unchanged, the result is that we become less prepared. When they are less prepared, more incidents will result.



So your argument seems to be that the problem predates President Trump.



What gave you that impression?

And this is the part you don’t seem to be able to understand. When the resources that are lost were never being used to meet those objectives then their loss doesn’t matter.

You thinking that the fact that SOF operates with a different level of assets available is a problem is simply another good indicator that you really don’t know what you are talking about here.

It appears that the only thing that matters that you is that you attack Trump. Facts are the real world need not apply.

 

[braindrain]

This isn't about "supporting evidence". If you have ten apples, and i take two, you have fewer apples than you had before.

If you had ten hungry mouths to feed, you would have had one apple per person, but instead you have 0.8 apples per person.

I don't need supporting evidence to explain that if we have fewer resources, we need to dial back operations or risk spreading ourselves too thin. Pissing off allies gives us fewer resources. Do you contest any of that?



You said that this is being politicized foolishly. I countered with:



The politics are irrelevant if we can recognize a shared goal to respect our obligations to those who serve. Those obligations require that we have reasonable expectations and contingencies. While we certainly cannot guarantee their safety, we owe them reasonable diligence. Do you agree with that common goal in general, without relating to this specific instance?



Like what? The zero terrorist attacks from people who came from the countries listed on the ban?

Again this is you simply demonstrating that you don’t really understand the reality of the situation. Losing a truck driver from one part of a country does not affect the UAV coverage from a different part of the country. Military resources are not like some mass pot that commanders draw from. Units are specifically trained and equipped to to do a specific job. That is why your little apples analogy fails miserably.

 

[Absentglare]

And this is the part you don’t seem to be able to understand. When the resources that are lost were never being used to meet those objectives then their loss doesn’t matter.

Are you under the provably false impression that the military budget is unlimited?

You thinking that the fact that SOF operates with a different level of assets available is a problem is simply another good indicator that you really don’t know what you are talking about here.

You thinking that SOF should not operate with drones or contingency plans is a good indicator that you really don't care about the lives of those who serve in SOF. Or we could drop the ad hom and discuss the actual merits here. What do you think?

It appears that the only thing that matters that you is that you attack Trump. Facts are the real world need not apply.

It appears that the only thing that matters that you is that you defend Trump. Facts are the real world need not apply. Or we could discuss the specific actions related to this failure as learning opportunities. What do you think?

 

[cpwill]

This isn't about "supporting evidence". If you have ten apples, and i take two, you have fewer apples than you had before.

Okay. If I have 10 apples, and you take two from a guy in the next state over, and all the apples that I have remain with me, how many apples do I have?

I don't need supporting evidence to explain that if we have fewer resources, we need to dial back operations or risk spreading ourselves too thin. Pissing off allies gives us fewer resources. Do you contest any of that?

These weren't our resources. They weren't involved in the fight to the west.

The politics are irrelevant if we can recognize a shared goal to respect our obligations to those who serve. Those obligations require that we have reasonable expectations and contingencies. While we certainly cannot guarantee their safety, we owe them reasonable diligence. Do you agree with that common goal in general, without relating to this specific instance?

Certainly I agree with due dilligence and contingency planning. The idea of guaranteeing safety, however, is ludicrous. The world isn't safe. We train and equip SOF to handle higher-risk missions, as well as a variety of Foreign Internal Defense and Security Force Assistance missions. Complaining that an SF team was conducting FID is like complaining that a submarine was under the water. It's what they do.

Like what? The zero terrorist attacks from people who came from the countries listed on the ban?

Ah yes. Good point. There are no terrorists in Libya, Syria or Yemen. No terrorists transit Sudan, or have ties to Iran. Well Done.

The Obama administration identified a list of countries as those which 1) had a strong VEO presence and 2) couldn't guarantee the identities of people leaving their country for ours. That is, indeed, a real world concern.

 

[cpwill]

You thinking that SOF should not operate with drones or contingency plans is a good indicator that you really don't care about the lives of those who serve in SOF.

....do you have any idea how foolish this makes you look?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Saw some video today from the village (Tongo Tongo). This damn place is remote. Once you leave the main hwy, it's a slow 4 hour slog by foot/technical on dusty dirt roads. You come across patchy heavily wooded areas with tall brush, the perfect topography for setting an ambush. Just outside the village (~300 yards) is a recently burned out one-room schoolhouse (still smoldering). Everything is tan and dusty. Scattered everywhere on the ground are .50 cal casings. Something definitely bad happened here. Either the beginning or the end.

 

[braindrain]

Are you under the provably false impression that the military budget is unlimited?



You thinking that SOF should not operate with drones or contingency plans is a good indicator that you really don't care about the lives of those who serve in SOF. Or we could drop the ad hom and discuss the actual merits here. What do you think?



It appears that the only thing that matters that you is that you defend Trump. Facts are the real world need not apply. Or we could discuss the specific actions related to this failure as learning opportunities. What do you think?

I would be willing to bet I understand the limitations of the military a whole lot more then you. If those resources were not being used or even the type needed for the operation that is the topic of this thread then nothing of value to that operation was lost.

Please quote me where I stated that SOF should operate without drones or contingency plans. Furthermore you trying to put words in my mouth only further demonstrates how facts don’t matter only what you can use to attack the people you disagree with does. For your information I am a currently serving member of the SOF community and have been for over a decade. So tell me again how I don’t care about about the lives of SOF personnel.

The merits are that there was zero effect to this mission by the loss of the troops from Chad. All you are doing is proving why you have the reputation you do on this site.

I am not defending trump at all. In fact I think he is a horrible president. The difference between you and me is that facts and reality actually matter to me while they quite clearly don’t to you. All that matters to you is trying to blame this on Trump.

 

[Absentglare]

Okay. If I have 10 apples, and you take two from a guy in the next state over, and all the apples that I have remain with me, how many apples do I have?

Okay, you obviously misunderstood the explanation. We have only so many resources in the African theater. When our allies contribute less support, we have to either reduce our objectives or spread our resources thinner. This isn't about what's in Niger because the resource distribution is flexible while the total resource allocation is not on the short term.

So, unless President Trump added a "cover pissing off Chad" item on the military budget i never heard of, or reduced the scope of worldwide military objectives, he would have to spread the existing resources even thinner.

These weren't our resources. They weren't involved in the fight to the west.

Which would only make a difference if Chad wasn't supporting our objectives.

Certainly I agree with due dilligence and contingency planning. The idea of guaranteeing safety, however, is ludicrous. The world isn't safe. We train and equip SOF to handle higher-risk missions, as well as a variety of Foreign Internal Defense and Security Force Assistance missions. Complaining that an SF team was conducting FID is like complaining that a submarine was under the water. It's what they do.

I didn't mention guaranteeing safety.

Ah yes. Good point. There are no terrorists in Libya, Syria or Yemen. No terrorists transit Sudan, or have ties to Iran. Well Done.

The Obama administration identified a list of countries as those which 1) had a strong VEO presence and 2) couldn't guarantee the identities of people leaving their country for ours. That is, indeed, a real world concern.

I'm sure that is a really satisfying explanation for people who support a presumption of guilt in the absence of information.

And i'm sure the prejudiced, blanket treatment against refugees fleeing the violence in these countries really helps the cause of those who hate the US.

 

[Absentglare]

....do you have any idea how foolish this makes you look?

Do you think asserting your alleged experience somehow substitutes for a rebuttal?

 

[Absentglare]

I would be willing to bet I understand the limitations of the military a whole lot more then you. If those resources were not being used or even the type needed for the operation that is the topic of this thread then nothing of value to that operation was lost.

Let's try again, you are aware that the military budget is not unlimited, correct?

Please quote me where I stated that SOF should operate without drones or contingency plans. Furthermore you trying to put words in my mouth only further demonstrates how facts don’t matter only what you can use to attack the people you disagree with does. For your information I am a currently serving member of the SOF community and have been for over a decade. So tell me again how I don’t care about about the lives of SOF personnel.

Great, now you can quote me where i said that the SOF doesn't operate with a different level of resources. And if that doesn't make sense to you, please re-read our conversation.

The merits are that there was zero effect to this mission by the loss of the troops from Chad. All you are doing is proving why you have the reputation you do on this site.

How could you possibly claim to know that our relationship with Chad had zero impact on all resource allocation decisions in the surrounding arena?

I am not defending trump at all. In fact I think he is a horrible president. The difference between you and me is that facts and reality actually matter to me while they quite clearly don’t to you. All that matters to you is trying to blame this on Trump.

I'm not "trying to blame" President Trump. I'm happy for him to address these issues and use this as a learning experience. I figured it'd be common ground, but CLEARLY i was wrong.

 

[braindrain]

Let's try again, you are aware that the military budget is not unlimited, correct?



Great, now you can quote me where i said that the SOF doesn't operate with a different level of resources. And if that doesn't make sense to you, please re-read our conversation.



How could you possibly claim to know that our relationship with Chad had zero impact on all resource allocation decisions in the surrounding arena?



I'm not "trying to blame" President Trump. I'm happy for him to address these issues and use this as a learning experience. I figured it'd be common ground, but CLEARLY i was wrong.

Yes I am very aware that the military. I deal with it on virtually a daily basis. What you don’t seem to understand is that simply having resources of any type doesn’t matter. If you need 10 UAV operators and you loose 10 ten truck drivers that has zero effect on the number of UAV operators you need.

When it is brought to your attention that SOF don’t operate with the same resources as conventional units and your reply is that it means that we have been overstretched for a long time it demonstrates rather clearly that this is not something you knew or understand.

I am not the one claiming that the loss of the troops from Chad had an affect on this operation. You are the one that’s claiming it so you need to provide the evidence that this had some effect. I have no need or desire to try and prove a negative to you. That’s not how debates work.

All you have been doing in this thread is proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about and doing your best to attack Trump no matter what. It is painfully obvious that that is all you’re doing

 

[cpwill]

Do you think asserting your alleged experience somehow substitutes for a rebuttal?

Dude. You were accusing actual SOF of not caring about the lives of SOF, as a response to them pointing out that your descriptions do not match reality.


So, do you have any idea how foolish this is making you look? Or do you intend to double-down on it?

 

[cpwill]

Okay, you obviously misunderstood the explanation.

No, I get what you are trying to say. It is simply incorrect.

We have only so many resources in the African theater. When our allies contribute less support, we have to either reduce our objectives or spread our resources thinner.

:shrug: not necessarily. For example, when the Chadians' moved from Diffa back to Chad, I can't think of anything that got spread thinner, nor can I think of any of our Objectives which fell off the list.

And even if that had been a risk (and, again, as far as I can tell, it wasn't, since we did not need to flow in any capability to replace them as a result of their movement), it would have been mooted because (and, this detail is rather significant) Chadian forces on the Chad side of the Lake Chad Basin are still taking part in the counter-Boko-Haram campaign.

This isn't about what's in Niger because the resource distribution is flexible while the total resource allocation is not on the short term.

So, unless President Trump added a "cover pissing off Chad" item on the military budget i never heard of, or reduced the scope of worldwide military objectives, he would have to spread the existing resources even thinner.

Yeesh. This is like arguing that Wal-Mart selling more t-shirts means that McDonalds is selling fewer burgers.

I've repeatedly asked you to name the resources that were "spread thinner". You continue to refuse - because you cannot. Because A) you have no idea what SOCAF's laydown is, B) you didn't even bother to try to find out before you made the assertion, and C) you bizarrely refuse to learn.

Which would only make a difference if Chad wasn't supporting our objectives.

That is incorrect. And, again, this is demonstrated by your inability to name even a single resource which would have been available in Western Niger which had to get retasked due to the Chadian movement.

I'm sure that is a really satisfying explanation for people who support a presumption of guilt in the absence of information.

And i'm sure the prejudiced, blanket treatment against refugees fleeing the violence in these countries really helps the cause of those who hate the US.

:shrug: it's hardly a presumption of guilt to put people through a vetting process prior to letting them enter out country. Letting folks through when they A) come from areas with a heavy VEO presence and B) can't be reliably identified at their point of origin, then it would be rather foolish to simply let them in nilly willy.

Regardless, however, it is certainly a decision driven by real world consequences.

Unlike the claim that the Chadian shift from Diffa somehow impacted this patrol, which is an imaginary world consequence, without real world supporting evidence.

 

[Absentglare]

Yes I am very aware that the military. I deal with it on virtually a daily basis. What you don’t seem to understand is that simply having resources of any type doesn’t matter. If you need 10 UAV operators and you loose 10 ten truck drivers that has zero effect on the number of UAV operators you need.

When it is brought to your attention that SOF don’t operate with the same resources as conventional units and your reply is that it means that we have been overstretched for a long time it demonstrates rather clearly that this is not something you knew or understand.

I am not the one claiming that the loss of the troops from Chad had an affect on this operation. You are the one that’s claiming it so you need to provide the evidence that this had some effect. I have no need or desire to try and prove a negative to you. That’s not how debates work.

All you have been doing in this thread is proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about and doing your best to attack Trump no matter what. It is painfully obvious that that is all you’re doing

Ah, okay, so you have no argument other than appealing to your alleged personal experiences.

I never claimed SOF has the same level of support as other units.

I am the one claiming that a loss of resources requires that we either dial back our objectives or place our troops in greater risk by spreading them thinner. You seem to have trouble admitting this obvious fact.

 

[Absentglare]

Dude. You were accusing actual SOF of not caring about the lives of SOF, as a response to them pointing out that your descriptions do not match reality.


So, do you have any idea how foolish this is making you look? Or do you intend to double-down on it?

You didn't follow how i countered his fallacy. Look again:

You thinking that the fact that SOF operates with a different level of assets available is a problem is simply another good indicator that you really don’t know what you are talking about here.

You thinking that SOF should not operate with drones or contingency plans is a good indicator that you really don't care about the lives of those who serve in SOF. Or we could drop the ad hom and discuss the actual merits here. What do you think?

Perhaps we can get back to the topic and stop speculating about my life experience, of which i offer no knowledge here?

 

[Absentglare]

No, I get what you are trying to say. It is simply incorrect.

If that were true, you could rebut the content.

:shrug: not necessarily. For example, when the Chadians' moved from Diffa back to Chad, I can't think of anything that got spread thinner, nor can I think of any of our Objectives which fell off the list.

And even if that had been a risk (and, again, as far as I can tell, it wasn't, since we did not need to flow in any capability to replace them as a result of their movement), it would have been mooted because (and, this detail is rather significant) Chadian forces on the Chad side of the Lake Chad Basin are still taking part in the counter-Boko-Haram campaign.

Do you support the move to piss off Chad? Can you guarantee to me that there were no political motives relating to the $57b tax dispute with Exxon that influenced their decision?

It was really just an example of what i see as careless mismanagement, like the ramping up of civilian casualties, and like the authorization of the raid on Yemen.

I already cited that where the leadership criticized how ISR is only at 20-30% of the resources AFRICOM needs, back in March. Do you think pissing Chad off would help that issue?

Yeesh. This is like arguing that Wal-Mart selling more t-shirts means that McDonalds is selling fewer burgers.

I've repeatedly asked you to name the resources that were "spread thinner". You continue to refuse - because you cannot. Because A) you have no idea what SOCAF's laydown is, B) you didn't even bother to try to find out before you made the assertion, and C) you bizarrely refuse to learn.

I already did, you're just refusing to listen. Perhaps you are ignorant on the details of this particular mission.

When the incentives from upper management are unrealistic, middle management makes mistakes. Like telling a reconnaissance advise and assist to move into a village on bad intel in the hopes of making progress on kill-or-capture of a high value target, which then sets them up to be ambushed.

That is incorrect. And, again, this is demonstrated by your inability to name even a single resource which would have been available in Western Niger which had to get retasked due to the Chadian movement.

I named several. They could have had better intel, more surveillance capabilities, they could have had more troops, they could have had better vehicles, etc.

:shrug: it's hardly a presumption of guilt to put people through a vetting process prior to letting them enter out country. Letting folks through when they A) come from areas with a heavy VEO presence and B) can't be reliably identified at their point of origin, then it would be rather foolish to simply let them in nilly willy.

Regardless, however, it is certainly a decision driven by real world consequences.

Unlike the claim that the Chadian shift from Diffa somehow impacted this patrol, which is an imaginary world consequence, without real world supporting evidence.

You are admitting that we have a lack of information, therefore we should presume guilt. Look at B) above, you're saying it's foolish to give people the benefit of the doubt.

And i don't suppose that it's foolish to incentivize recruitment by showcasing our prejudice against people in those countries?

 

[cpwill]

You didn't follow how i countered his fallacy. Look again:

You didn't counter it at all. You accused a member of the SOF community of not knowing what was going on, or caring about the lives of those in the SOF community, because he was trying to point out to you how you were incorrect about something.

Perhaps we can get back to the topic and stop speculating about my life experience, of which i offer no knowledge here?

You are at the point in 40 Year Old Virgin where Steve Carell describes a breast as feeling like a bag of sand, and then angrily insists he knows what he's talking about. It's pretty blatantly obvious to anyone with experience in this thread that you lack it.

And that's fine. The vast majority of American citizens lack experience in this. But maybe you shouldn't try to explain it to those who don't.

If that were true, you could rebut the content.

:shrug: and have. I've given you opportunities to provide evidence. Thus far you have not managed to accomplish this.

Do you support the move to piss off Chad?

I find Chad's irritation at the travel restrictions completely unrelated to the event which occurred in Western Niger.

Can you guarantee to me that there were no political motives relating to the $57b tax dispute with Exxon that influenced their decision?

How is that related to the events which occurred in Western Niger?

It was really just an example of what i see as careless mismanagement

FID in Niger was a good mission, and SOCAF was correct to support it. Mismanagement occurred in the context of this, but you don't seem to know where, as you suggest that...

When the incentives from upper management are unrealistic, middle management makes mistakes. Like telling a reconnaissance advise and assist to move into a village on bad intel in the hopes of making progress on kill-or-capture of a high value target, which then sets them up to be ambushed.

Who do you think came up with the CONOP for this patrol, Absent? Who do you think made the decision to go back to the first village, or to stay there and be delayed, or to return along the same route by which they had come?

I already cited that where the leadership criticized how ISR is only at 20-30% of the resources AFRICOM needs

Yup. Post 96:

We absolutely have an ISR shortage in AFRICOM. This is partly because CENTCOM (understandably) takes precedence when it comes to asset allocation, and partly because AFRICOM is just so freaking big. If there is bad weather over a target in Syria, it's a small matter to shift the bird to Iraq. A bird supposed to fly over Libya can't support Niger like that. It has, as near as I am aware, approximately nothing to do with Chadian ground forces...
​

So if you are looking to increase the DOD budget so we can invest in more ISR assets, I am 100% in favor. If, however, you are going to try to claim that the Chadian's shifting of ground troops from Diffa back across the border somehow means we had less ISR in Western Niger during this particular mission..... :shrug:

Do you think pissing Chad off would help that issue?

I think it appears to have had zero impact on that issue.

They could have had better intel

Ok. How would having Chadian troops in Diffa countering Boko Haram there have meant better intel on ISGS in Western Niger?

they could have had more troops

This is where the whole knowing-what-you're-talking-about thing comes into play. This is a classic SF mission, meant for an A-Team, which we do with A-Teams and comparable sized echelons of other SOF units (MARSOC, NAVSPECWARCOM) all over the globe.

But we'll put that aside. How would having the Chadians on the Nigerien side of the border countering Boko Haram in the Diffa region, have meant more troops available to conduct the FID mission in Western Niger?

they could have had better vehicles,

How would having the Chadians on the Nigerien side of the border countering Boko Haram in Diffa have meant better vehicles for a FID mission in Western Niger?

You are admitting that we have a lack of information, therefore we should presume guilt

No more than the requirement to show your ID to board a plane here in the US is the presumption that one is a terrorist.

you're saying it's foolish to give people the benefit of the doubt

When those people are coming from areas with a heavy VEO presence and we cannot reliably identify them, that certainly can be foolish.

 

[Absentglare]

You didn't counter it at all. You accused a member of the SOF community of not knowing what was going on, or caring about the lives of those in the SOF community, because he was trying to point out to you how you were incorrect about something.

You still do not seem to understand my response. Actually, in no way did he point out how i was incorrect about anything, which is why his argument was a strawman. I responded with a strawman in the same format, to make it obvious that his strawman was not fair.

You are at the point in 40 Year Old Virgin where Steve Carell describes a breast as feeling like a bag of sand, and then angrily insists he knows what he's talking about. It's pretty blatantly obvious to anyone with experience in this thread that you lack it.

And that's fine. The vast majority of American citizens lack experience in this. But maybe you shouldn't try to explain it to those who don't.

If your argument had any legitimacy, you would not need to assert alleged personal anecdotes as both an appeal to authority fallacy in support of yourself and an ad hominem fallacy against me.

:shrug: and have. I've given you opportunities to provide evidence. Thus far you have not managed to accomplish this.

Okay.

I find Chad's irritation at the travel restrictions completely unrelated to the event which occurred in Western Niger.

I do not share your myopathy, nor do i recognize an argument from ignorance.

How is that related to the events which occurred in Western Niger?

It could be related to the motivations for listing Chad on the travel ban.

FID in Niger was a good mission, and SOCAF was correct to support it. Mismanagement occurred in the context of this, but you don't seem to know where, as you suggest that...

I'm not criticizing the mission, i'm questioning whether our deployments/objectives are in line with our resources/budgets. My impression is that, for political reasons, President Trump has increased pressure on deployments/objectives, without balancing those pressures with resources/budgets.

Who do you think came up with the CONOP for this patrol, Absent? Who do you think made the decision to go back to the first village, or to stay there and be delayed, or to return along the same route by which they had come?

Managers who are given improper incentives.

Yup. Post 96:

We absolutely have an ISR shortage in AFRICOM. This is partly because CENTCOM (understandably) takes precedence when it comes to asset allocation, and partly because AFRICOM is just so freaking big. If there is bad weather over a target in Syria, it's a small matter to shift the bird to Iraq. A bird supposed to fly over Libya can't support Niger like that. It has, as near as I am aware, approximately nothing to do with Chadian ground forces...
​

So if you are looking to increase the DOD budget so we can invest in more ISR assets, I am 100% in favor. If, however, you are going to try to claim that the Chadian's shifting of ground troops from Diffa back across the border somehow means we had less ISR in Western Niger during this particular mission..... :shrug:

I think we should have more ISR investment in this area in particular. There's no loathing of President Trump in there, i'm actually hoping he does that, and i'm glad we agree on this.

I have issues with the Chad travel ban that go beyond this specific case. In my mind, it was misguided policy meant to make good on the "Muslim ban" rhetoric.

I think it appears to have had zero impact on that issue.

Fair enough. I hope congress shines a light on this situation and gets to the bottom of it, because i have little or no faith in President Trump's ability to assess himself.

Ok. How would having Chadian troops in Diffa countering Boko Haram there have meant better intel on ISGS in Western Niger?

I don't have a firm answer. We may never know if the US pissing off Chad and then Chad pulling resources out of Niger could have had any impact on this operation. Dramatic shifts with important allies can have significant, unintended consequences.

For all i know, the US' advertised anti-Muslim prejudice is what tipped the scales for the local's decision to set up the ambush.

 

[Absentglare]

This is where the whole knowing-what-you're-talking-about thing comes into play. This is a classic SF mission, meant for an A-Team, which we do with A-Teams and comparable sized echelons of other SOF units (MARSOC, NAVSPECWARCOM) all over the globe.

But we'll put that aside. How would having the Chadians on the Nigerien side of the border countering Boko Haram in the Diffa region, have meant more troops available to conduct the FID mission in Western Niger?

Your argument is that our allies troop commitments have no impact on our own?

How would having the Chadians on the Nigerien side of the border countering Boko Haram in Diffa have meant better vehicles for a FID mission in Western Niger?

Your argument is that Chad never contributed any vehicular resources? It's certainly possible, i suppose...

No more than the requirement to show your ID to board a plane here in the US is the presumption that one is a terrorist.

That's not at all what the travel ban entailed:

The new restrictions on Chad and North Korea are a broad ban on nationals from those countries entering the States.

Why Is Chad On Trump's Travel Ban List? : The Two-Way : NPR

This isn't asking them to show their ID, it is declaring that all their IDs are invalid because they ran out of passport paper.

But at least Exxon settled their tax dispute, right?

When those people are coming from areas with a heavy VEO presence and we cannot reliably identify them, that certainly can be foolish.

Like i said, i believe in the presumption of innocence in the absence of information. The strong can afford such risks.

 

[braindrain]

Ah, okay, so you have no argument other than appealing to your alleged personal experiences.

I never claimed SOF has the same level of support as other units.

I am the one claiming that a loss of resources requires that we either dial back our objectives or place our troops in greater risk by spreading them thinner. You seem to have trouble admitting this obvious fact.

I explained to you why your ideas on resources don’t hold up to reality it’s not my fault you don’t understand the explanation but to pretend that I was only using my experience is nothing more then you being dishonest. Well done.

We have already gone over this. While you are right that you didn’t say those exact words you very much have demonstrated that it is what you thought. The truth is here for all to see.

But you have yet to provide even one tiny bit of evidence to indicate that the resources that were loss were being utilized in any way shape or for by the folks on the ground in that part of the country where the attack took place.

Really the only thing you have done in this thread is further demonstrate exactly why you have the reputation that you do and to throw a little dishonesty in to the mix as well.

Well done

 

[braindrain]

You didn't follow how i countered his fallacy. Look again:




Perhaps we can get back to the topic and stop speculating about my life experience, of which i offer no knowledge here?

You countered absolutely nothing. All you did was demonstrate your dishonesty. That is unless you can quote me stating that I think SOF should operate without drones or contingency plans. Which we both know you can’t.
Nice try though