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

[braindrain]

If that were true, you could rebut the content.



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?



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.



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.



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?

He did rebut your claims. Those rebuttals were apparently simply above your ability to comprehend.


So do you have some evidence that Chad was providing UAV assets to the part of the country in question. Yeah I didn’t think so.


And no you have not stated what resources were lost when Chad left. All you keep saying is resources. There is a reason you can’t give any actual loss to the operations we are talkin that was created when they left. And it’s because you have no idea but simply can’t admit it.

Feel free to continue posting on a topic you are clearly clueless on. If nothing else it is good for a laugh.

 

[cpwill]

You still do not seem to understand my response.

No, your argument is simple enough to understand. It simply flows from flawed assumptions due to a lack of knowledge of both CT ops in the Sahel and USSOF missions and structure.

If your argument had any legitimacy, you would not need to assert alleged personal anecdotes as both an appeal to authority fallacy

You're the one who declared he didn't care about SOF lives. I point out the background of those you are arguing with because you are attempting to tell them that you know more about their jobs than they do.

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy when the Authority does not pertain to the topic. For example, "As a medical doctor, I can accurately declare that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the most delicious candy" is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. "As a structural engineer, I can tell you that the design you have submitted for this bridge is unsafe" is not.

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.

:facepalm:

Myopathy is a disease in which muscle fibers do not function properly, weakening the muscle. It does not have anything to do with the point that Chad's irritation over the travel restrictions did not impact our mission in West Niger, any more than it impacted our missions in Libya, or our missions in Syria, or our missions in Afghanistan.

An Argument from Ignorance is an attempt to say that something is true simply because it has not been disproven. Like Myopathy, it, too, has nothing to do with the fact that Chad's irritation over travel restrictions does not seem to have impacted our mission in West Niger any more than it impacted our missions in Libya, or our missions in Syria, or our missions in Afghanistan. All the resources that were available to the mission in West Niger before Chad shifted from Diffa back across the border were still available after they shifted from Diffa back across the border.

You have been asked to provide support for your assertion otherwise. Thus far, you have failed to provide any evidence backing your assertion.

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

:shrug: perhaps, but it remains irrelevant to this particular patrol, which was part of the FID mission in Western Niger.

I'm not criticizing the mission, i'm questioning whether our deployments/objectives are in line with our resources/budgets.

Well, SOF is often a pretty high-payoff low-cost means of achieving goals, as they are force multipliers.

My impression is that, for political reasons, President Trump has increased pressure on deployments/objectives, without balancing those pressures with resources/budgets.

Then your impression is incorrect. With the exception of a 4K plus-up in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is also unrelated to the FID mission in Western Niger), Trump has largely maintained our current pressure on deployments.

Managers who are given improper incentives.

Okay. Who do you think they were? At what level?

I know the answer to this question. But you are not going to like it (I don't like what it means, either, but you gotta be honest in an AAR).

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.

Trump isn't assessing anything, and he wouldn't have to assess himself in this, because President's aren't involved in this kind of tactical decisionmaking (nor should they be). The investigation will be in DOD, where it belongs, and will likely focus on SOCAF and the team.

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.

Actually we can know that right now. We can look to see if it required the shifting of any resources which would have otherwise been available to help the team.

(spoiler: it doesn't seem to have done so)

Dramatic shifts with important allies can have significant, unintended consequences.

This isn't a dramatic shift. It's an operational one.

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.

That would be..... extremely surprising.

I find that about as likely as the notion that the recent attacker in New York was tipped over the edge by rumors about the GOP reducing 401(k) inputs.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump, Niger, and Connecting the Dots

Doesn't sound promising on any level.

 

[Absentglare]

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.

I understood your explanation completely. You were arguing that our resources are trained for specific tasks. Then you were arguing that losing trucks doesn't change the number of UAVs that are available.

Neither one of those serves as a suitable counter argument to my claim that our goals need to be realigned with our resources, otherwise we have to strain the resources by spreading them too thin. Maybe this time you could give a rational explanation for how we could lose resources without being impacted on resources, good luck.

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.

Incorrect, i never claimed nor suggested that SOF should receive the exact same level of support as other units. However, you are correct that the truth is here.

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

Your argument that we can lose resources without affecting our distribution of resources is incoherent. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the possibility that pissing off Chad for no reason was a bad move.

 

[Absentglare]

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

I was responding to the dishonesty in your post, which i already explained to you.

 

[Absentglare]

He did rebut your claims. Those rebuttals were apparently simply above your ability to comprehend.


So do you have some evidence that Chad was providing UAV assets to the part of the country in question. Yeah I didn’t think so.


And no you have not stated what resources were lost when Chad left. All you keep saying is resources. There is a reason you can’t give any actual loss to the operations we are talkin that was created when they left. And it’s because you have no idea but simply can’t admit it.

Feel free to continue posting on a topic you are clearly clueless on. If nothing else it is good for a laugh.

Your argument is that we can lose military allies and the resources they provide without jeopardizing anyone, even if we keep the exact same level of military engagement and the exact same scope of objectives?

 

[cpwill]

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

I'd call Chad a Partner, not an Ally.

And generally, no. For example, when we shifted forces from Yemen to Djibouti, that did not force the French to change their posture in the Sahel.

If you are part of a Combined Campaign, then it can. However (and, we keep reiterating this point), the FID mission in Western Niger and the Chadian forces working against Boko Haram in Diffa were not part of the same effort.

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

To the USSOF FID mission in Western Niger?

Yeah, I feel pretty confident asserting that, given that we deploy with and/or procure our own vehicles.

That's not at all what the travel ban entailed

It is the same inasmuch as it requires one to be able to prove who they are before one is allowed to travel. Some countries cannot currently be relied on to do that.

It is not a presumption of guilt on all travelers.

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

And those who are not responsible for the safety of others.

 

[cpwill]

Your argument is that we can lose military allies and the resources they provide without jeopardizing anyone, even if we keep the exact same level of military engagement and the exact same scope of objectives?

Absentglare, how about we simplify this:


What resources were taken away from the FID mission in Niger due to the Chadian's pulling back from Diffa?


Just... name them. Describe them.

 

[Fledermaus]

I was responding to the dishonesty in your post, which i already explained to you.

By all means... Explain his "dishonesty" to me.

 

[Absentglare]

No, your argument is simple enough to understand. It simply flows from flawed assumptions due to a lack of knowledge of both CT ops in the Sahel and USSOF missions and structure.

If that were true, you could cite the flawed assumptions rather than alluding to them.

You're the one who declared he didn't care about SOF lives. I point out the background of those you are arguing with because you are attempting to tell them that you know more about their jobs than they do.

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy when the Authority does not pertain to the topic. For example, "As a medical doctor, I can accurately declare that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the most delicious candy" is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. "As a structural engineer, I can tell you that the design you have submitted for this bridge is unsafe" is not.

Correct, and since neither of you claim to be in charge of resource allocations in the African theater, your appeal to authority is a fallacy.

:facepalm:

Myopathy is a disease in which muscle fibers do not function properly, weakening the muscle. It does not have anything to do with the point that Chad's irritation over the travel restrictions did not impact our mission in West Niger, any more than it impacted our missions in Libya, or our missions in Syria, or our missions in Afghanistan.

An Argument from Ignorance is an attempt to say that something is true simply because it has not been disproven. Like Myopathy, it, too, has nothing to do with the fact that Chad's irritation over travel restrictions does not seem to have impacted our mission in West Niger any more than it impacted our missions in Libya, or our missions in Syria, or our missions in Afghanistan. All the resources that were available to the mission in West Niger before Chad shifted from Diffa back across the border were still available after they shifted from Diffa back across the border.

Ah, you're correct, i meant myopia, rather than myopathy.

You have been asked to provide support for your assertion otherwise. Thus far, you have failed to provide any evidence backing your assertion.

I was challenged to explain what decisions President Trump could have possibly done to influence this situation. I provided several avenues for his decisions to have potentially exacerbated the conditions of this situation. I did not intend to assert them unequivocally.

:shrug: perhaps, but it remains irrelevant to this particular patrol, which was part of the FID mission in Western Niger.

That sounds like your opinion. The president used the power of his office to attack a vital ally who disputed Exxon's tax obligation. That is a fact, and it is a fact that resulted in resources shifting away from our objectives.

Well, SOF is often a pretty high-payoff low-cost means of achieving goals, as they are force multipliers.



Then your impression is incorrect. With the exception of a 4K plus-up in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is also unrelated to the FID mission in Western Niger), Trump has largely maintained our current pressure on deployments.

How can you possibly claim to know that? We already know that he was pressuring ICE agents to manufacture claims, what makes you think he wouldn't push our forces too far to make progress on capturing or killing high value targets?

Okay. Who do you think they were? At what level?

I know the answer to this question. But you are not going to like it (I don't like what it means, either, but you gotta be honest in an AAR).

Do you think i need to know a middle managers name in order to identify mismanagement when i see it? I don't understand your case here, please explain.

Trump isn't assessing anything, and he wouldn't have to assess himself in this, because President's aren't involved in this kind of tactical decisionmaking (nor should they be). The investigation will be in DOD, where it belongs, and will likely focus on SOCAF and the team.

Don't you think there should be a degree of transparency of self-assessment in the wake of a tragedy?

 

[Absentglare]

Actually we can know that right now. We can look to see if it required the shifting of any resources which would have otherwise been available to help the team.

(spoiler: it doesn't seem to have done so)

Where can we look to see that?

This isn't a dramatic shift. It's an operational one.

Whether or not you find it operational, it is a dramatic shift in the climate of cooperation between our two countries.

That would be..... extremely surprising.

I find that about as likely as the notion that the recent attacker in New York was tipped over the edge by rumors about the GOP reducing 401(k) inputs.

Not as part of a greater system of hostility toward foreigners.

 

[Absentglare]

I'd call Chad a Partner, not an Ally.

And generally, no. For example, when we shifted forces from Yemen to Djibouti, that did not force the French to change their posture in the Sahel.

If you are part of a Combined Campaign, then it can. However (and, we keep reiterating this point), the FID mission in Western Niger and the Chadian forces working against Boko Haram in Diffa were not part of the same effort.

This isn't complicated.

If we have fewer resources to use, we have to dial back expectations, or we risk spreading those resources too thin. Do you honestly disagree with that?

To the USSOF FID mission in Western Niger?

Yeah, I feel pretty confident asserting that, given that we deploy with and/or procure our own vehicles.

Okay.

It is the same inasmuch as it requires one to be able to prove who they are before one is allowed to travel. Some countries cannot currently be relied on to do that.

It is not a presumption of guilt on all travelers.

The travel ban suspended the entry of nationals from countries that were on the list. It was a presumption of guilt against all travelers who did not meet the exception criteria.

And those who are not responsible for the safety of others.

Placing us in actual jeopardy with a faux security for political reasons is bad policy.

 

[Absentglare]

Absentglare, how about we simplify this:


What resources were taken away from the FID mission in Niger due to the Chadian's pulling back from Diffa?


Just... name them. Describe them.

Is that a yes- you think we can lose allies without any impact?

 

[Absentglare]

By all means... Explain his "dishonesty" to me.

I never suggested "thinking" this:

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.

 

[cpwill]

Where can we look to see that?

SOCOM, AFRICOM, and SOCAF operational footprint/laydowns, called COPS.

Whether or not you find it operational, it is a dramatic shift in the climate of cooperation between our two countries.

Eh. Chad worked with the French far more than us, and has played their own game to the detriment of our goals when it suited them. Their fighting Boko Haram from the Lake Chad Basin, vice Diffa area if hardly a dramatic loss of capability, even in that local fight.

Not as part of a greater system of hostility toward foreigners.

No, that would still be astonishing.

 

[cpwill]

Is that a yes- you think we can lose allies without any impact?

No, it's me asking you what resources would have been available to the team conducting FID in Western Niger that weren't because the Chadians decided to move back across their border.

 

[cpwill]

Is that a yes- you think we can lose allies without any impact?

No, it's me asking you what resources would have been available to the team conducting FID in Western Niger that weren't because the Chadians decided to move back across their border.

And, just so you're tracking, I'm going to keep asking you, until you admit you have no idea, and no supporting evidence whatsoever for your assertion... or you name something that was actually shifted in response to the Chadians moving from Diffa, which would have been helpful to the team.

 

[Absentglare]

SOCOM, AFRICOM, and SOCAF operational footprint/laydowns, called COPS.

Sorry, i must defer to your expertise. How would i peruse these documents so as to guarantee that Chad's departure could not have possibly had any impact on what resources were available for this particular mission?

Eh. Chad worked with the French far more than us, and has played their own game to the detriment of our goals when it suited them. Their fighting Boko Haram from the Lake Chad Basin, vice Diffa area if hardly a dramatic loss of capability, even in that local fight.

Ah, i see. That may very well be, but i meant "dramatic" in a different sense. I meant that the travel ban caused a dramatic shift in the nature of our relationship to Chad, and that type of dramatic shift could have serious consequences.

So what my criticism basically amounts to is that i consider President Trump's foreign policy to potentially prioritize political, domestic concerns over national security concerns. I generally don't trust him to exercise responsible judgement. I think it's important to learn from tragedies like this, and i feel like that can only happen if we apply pressure.

No, that would still be astonishing.

You think their impression of America isn't influenced by things we do like ban travel from certain countries? I'm inclined to disagree. I'll admit that it's very unlikely that the elder(s) who allegedly held up this patrol were influenced by the travel ban, but the pattern of US foreign policy has a strong influence on how people in other countries perceive us.

No, it's me asking you what resources would have been available to the team conducting FID in Western Niger that weren't because the Chadians decided to move back across their border.

I feel like we're talking past each other. This started from a Rachel Maddow story that cited a set of facts: Exxon (with a relationship to Secretary of State Tillerson) had a tax dispute with Chad, Chad was placed on the travel ban, Chad pulled troops, and then this tragedy occurred. I'm concerned about what could be going wrong, and i would ultimately like to believe that my suspicions are unfounded.

It's important to me that we don't continue to repeat whatever mistakes we might have had. Many have said "sometimes the bad guys win," which, while i'd like to accept, is difficult for my bleeding heart.

Actually a great deal of my frustration arises from the preventable US Navy crashes, where we have the numbers and know they're being stretched thin to the point of making mistakes. I'm probably deflecting some anger from that angle, upon reflection. I am sorry for coming on too strong.

 

[Absentglare]

And, just so you're tracking, I'm going to keep asking you, until you admit you have no idea, and no supporting evidence whatsoever for your assertion... or you name something that was actually shifted in response to the Chadians moving from Diffa, which would have been helpful to the team.

You're right that i don't know. I just don't see how you can claim to know it could not have had an impact. Maybe our leaders would have made different decisions with more intelligence available.

 

[Fledermaus]

I never suggested "thinking" this:

Your posts suggest otherwise.

 

[cpwill]

Sorry, i must defer to your expertise. How would i peruse these documents so as to guarantee that Chad's departure could not have possibly had any impact on what resources were available for this particular mission?

You can't unless they offer a declassified version.

Instead, you get to rely on

1. News Reports
2. Expert witness, such as those who are familiar with SOF and FID missions (such as braindrain), and those who have professionally worked this problem set (me).

Ah, i see. That may very well be, but i meant "dramatic" in a different sense. I meant that the travel ban caused a dramatic shift in the nature of our relationship to Chad, and that type of dramatic shift could have serious consequences.

It's possible - "could" covers a wide variety of likelihoods. I haven't seen such a dramatic change yet, though that would certainly be interesting.

So what my criticism basically amounts to is that i consider President Trump's foreign policy to potentially prioritize political, domestic concerns over national security concerns. I generally don't trust him to exercise responsible judgement. I think it's important to learn from tragedies like this, and i feel like that can only happen if we apply pressure.

I concur on all the bolded points, and don't concur with the underlined simply because I find it unlikely we will learn from applying pressure. This isn't because I think they will learn without pressure, but rather because I have very low faith in this administration as a learning enterprise. The notable exception to this is SECDEF, however (who is famously a lifelong student and encourager of learning in others) and so that is our best bet.

That being said, that's not really much of a criticism of this particular incident, because Trump was not involved in this particular incident.

I'll admit that it's very unlikely that the elder(s) who allegedly held up this patrol were influenced by the travel ban

Had I been on the ground, I would have been surprised had they even referenced it. Impoverished desert nomads in the Sahel rarely go to Disneyworld for vacation, and have little incentive (or ability) to track changes to their ability to do so.

but the pattern of US foreign policy has a strong influence on how people in other countries perceive us.

True. So does television, radio, a culture prone to conspiracy-mongering, desire to blame others for one's problems, and messaging by other entities.

For example, it is Very, Very, Very likely they were influenced by local ISGS elements, either willingly or through coercion.

I feel like we're talking past each other. This started from a Rachel Maddow story

Yeah. Maddow went a bit nuts on this. I would.... I would not recommend tying myself too firmly to her analysis.

that cited a set of facts: Exxon (with a relationship to Secretary of State Tillerson) had a tax dispute with Chad, Chad was placed on the travel ban, Chad pulled troops, and then this tragedy occurred.

Sure. The causal relationship between those last two events, however, is pretty much nonexistent. The case for it is about as strong as tying Chad's withdrawal to the terror attack in NYC yesterday.

I'm concerned about what could be going wrong, and i would ultimately like to believe that my suspicions are unfounded.

It's important to me that we don't continue to repeat whatever mistakes we might have had. Many have said "sometimes the bad guys win," which, while i'd like to accept, is difficult for my bleeding heart.

:shrug: it is true. especially when we make mistakes that enable their success.

Actually a great deal of my frustration arises from the preventable US Navy crashes, where we have the numbers and know they're being stretched thin to the point of making mistakes. I'm probably deflecting some anger from that angle, upon reflection. I am sorry for coming on too strong.

No worries.


I agree DOD (especially the Navy) is stretched too thin. That, however, is a problem that has been years in the making, and which DOD warned about; we discussed it here then. I'm glad Trump's budget proposal increases DOD spending - we'll see how it does in Congress.

 

[cpwill]

You're right that i don't know. I just don't see how you can claim to know it could not have had an impact

Putting aside your use of the word "know", it's because, as we have been telling you, this is our world.

 

[braindrain]

I understood your explanation completely. You were arguing that our resources are trained for specific tasks. Then you were arguing that losing trucks doesn't change the number of UAVs that are available.

Neither one of those serves as a suitable counter argument to my claim that our goals need to be realigned with our resources, otherwise we have to strain the resources by spreading them too thin. Maybe this time you could give a rational explanation for how we could lose resources without being impacted on resources, good luck.



Incorrect, i never claimed nor suggested that SOF should receive the exact same level of support as other units. However, you are correct that the truth is here.



Your argument that we can lose resources without affecting our distribution of resources is incoherent. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the possibility that pissing off Chad for no reason was a bad move.

And now you are trying to move the goalposts. Your original claim was that Chad pulling out of Niger resulted in less resources for this operation. Just because you have been proven to not know what you are talking about doesn’t mean you can try and pretend you didn’t say what you did.

What you don’t understand is that not all resources are equal. If we need 20 UAVs to accomplish a mission but lose 5 trucks from a different part of the country we have not lost anything of value when it comes to accomplishing that mission.

The more you post in this thread the more you prove that have no clue what you are talking about. And you know you are over your head. It’s why you avoid answering so many questions both from me and cpwill or when you do answer it’s with a vague non answer that really says nothing.

 

[Absentglare]

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Incorrect, i did not claim that SOF deserved exactly the same level of support as the rest of the armed forces in any meaningful capacity.

 

[Fledermaus]

Incorrect, i did not claim that SOF deserved exactly the same level of support as the rest of the armed forces in any meaningful capacity.

Did I say you CLAIMED it?