By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to family members and Syrian officials, a U.S. raid in October intended to capture an Islamic State group official resulted in the death of Khaled al-Masoud, an undercover operative gathering intelligence on extremists. Al-Masoud had been working for insurgents and later for the interim Syrian government in their fight against IS. The incident highlights the complex political landscape as the United States begins to cooperate with the interim Syrian government, with neither side commenting on al-Masoud’s death. The lack of coordination between the U.S.-led coalition and the Syrian government could have contributed to the tragic outcome, underscoring the need for improved communication to prevent such mistakes in the ongoing efforts to combat IS.
Read the original article here
US raid allegedly killed Syrian undercover agent instead of Islamic State group official. This is a story that, frankly, seems to be a tragically common occurrence in the murky world of international conflict and covert operations. The underlying issue is that locals have, for years, exploited the US’s military presence and targeting capabilities to settle personal scores, often by falsely identifying their enemies as members of extremist groups like ISIS.
In essence, it appears that this incident stems from a deeper web of local rivalries and grudges. The man killed in the raid had been a former rebel leader who, when ISIS took control of his town, had initially pledged allegiance to them, but later switched his loyalties to a different rebel group, HTS. The key is that HTS and ISIS were at war with each other. This creates a volatile situation where old allegiances, shifting loyalties, and personal animosities all play a role in who gets targeted.
Moreover, the fact that the deceased was formerly associated with ISIS, even if only nominally and briefly, provides a convenient justification for his targeting. This is precisely what happened in this case. The US, acting on information from a rival Syrian rebel group affiliated with the US, mistakenly targeted and killed the Syrian undercover agent. This speaks volumes about the complexity of the situation on the ground, the difficulty of verifying information, and the dangers of relying on local sources for intelligence without proper scrutiny.
It’s also worth highlighting the role that the chaotic circumstances of the Syrian civil war played in this tragedy. As ISIS took over areas, Syrian rebels often faced a stark choice: join ISIS or be killed. Many Syrians who were forced to align themselves with ISIS quickly abandoned them when the opportunity arose because ISIS was very unpopular. This means that a person’s prior association with ISIS, however brief or involuntary, could be used as a false justification for a lethal strike.
Furthermore, the story underscores the potential for misidentification and the devastating consequences that can arise from it. The US, in its efforts to combat ISIS, may be vulnerable to manipulation by local actors, especially if they are motivated by personal grudges or political agendas. The US’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is cited as an example of similar manipulation. Locals can abuse the situation and use US troops to eliminate their enemies.
This also brings up the issue of political blame. The argument is that this situation is a result of Trump’s deal with the Taliban. The blame for the debacle should be placed on the deal negotiated between Trump and the Taliban. This agreement, made in February 2020, set the stage for the withdrawal, and as a result, the subsequent chaos and potential for such miscalculations.
It seems that the US withdrawal was poorly planned and executed. Biden inherited the situation, but the initial agreement to leave was Trump’s decision. This lack of proper planning, and perhaps a rushed departure, contributed to the confusion and the potential for tragic errors. This highlights the importance of thorough planning and coordination during withdrawal operations.
More broadly, this case also illustrates the inherent difficulties of fighting “hearts and minds” campaigns in complex environments. It is extremely difficult to establish trust and gain reliable intelligence when local populations are divided by long-standing rivalries and shifting alliances. It is also challenging to operate in regions where different groups are constantly vying for control and where information is easily manipulated for political gain.
The lack of accountability and the possibility of war crimes, which are linked to the idea of a “double tap” drone strike. This highlights the importance of adhering to international law and ethical considerations, even in the context of armed conflict. The failure to do so can lead to a loss of legitimacy and ultimately undermine the long-term goals of any intervention.
It is a harsh reality that some of the equipment left behind was junk. The equipment wasn’t worth the cost of bringing it back, and it would have been sold for scrap even if it had been. Bush, Obama, and Trump all failed harder because they didn’t even get us out!