Snatch-and-grab in other countries is one of the most hazardous operations that SF does. In fact, it's one of the few operations where all of our advantages go out the window. You're fighting on their turf for a target they know you're after. What's more is that you have to fight them on their terms, as you can't just go in and kill everyone. So, imagine Mike Tyson, except he has one hand tied behind his back and one hand with a Sockin' Bopper. Sure, he'll probably still beat a lot of people, but it's likely that the other guy is going to give him a black eye.
Because of this, there are only a few times when they're willing to do snatch and grab:
1. When the person is especially vulnerable and easy to get. They might be in recently captured terrain, for example. All of his friends have run away, and he's stuck in a hideout. SF can then get a lot of support from other elements - they'll get a company from a nearby battalion, motor transport, medevac if needed, etc. The operation then becomes very lopsided, which is exactly how you want a smash-and-grab operation to go. You'll often get 20-30 people, not counting support, on an operation that takes 5 people. This is how a lot of al-Qaeda leaders got captured in Iraq.
2. When the person is so high-profile that he needs to be nailed and they need 100% confirmation that the guy is captured or dead. See Osama bin Laden.
Not only that, putting boots on the ground to grab people in other countries is a really sticky situation politically. You think the fallout from a drone strike is bad? Take a look at the fallout from SF doing hostage rescue. [1] Now, imagine us doing it all the time. People would be infuriated in a way that they aren't with drones. I don't know why; after all, the drones are the faceless annihilators, while a snatch team is trying to do the right thing. But the idea of 30 Americans flying into a city to grab someone is much more unpalatable than a drone.
Basically, I don't have a problem with SF doing it every once in a while when it's really, really important, but I wouldn't want them having to do it all the time. Better to have a process in place to use drones, one that we can all look at and vote on to decide whether we want it or not. Of course, if we want to vote for it, we could also dramatically ramp up SF involvement as well.
The first is that most people do not realize how long and difficult the modern training pipeline is for SOF. Operators are extremely valuable and hard to come by and you do not want to risk them unnecessarily when you have other legal means of accomplishing the mission. For example, it takes 12 months to even qualify as a Navy SEAL, and then another 12-18 months of platoon training before a deployment. Only a tiny fraction of those who start the SEAL pipeline actually make it through due to the difficulty of the training. It is for this reason that the Navy offers $40,000 to anyone who can make it through the training (http://navyseals.com/files/ChallengeSEAL.pdf) and reenlistment bonuses for operators can approach $100,000. And never-mind the cost of the equipment used during the operation. How much do you think the stealth helicopter that got destroyed during the Osama Bin Laden raid cost?
The second is that there is some serious armchair quarterbacking going on. I think its crazy to assert what our armed forces should and shouldn't do without a full understanding of what you are asking of them. The complexities of planning a SOF operation that goes deep into a place like Yemen are quite involved. For more on this, I suggest the book The Black Banners by Ali Soufan. It possible (and even likely) that a capture operation for Anwar al-Awlaki was either impossible, or possible but likely to end in the death of al-Awlaki anyway.
There are a lot of people out there who seem to feel pretty strongly about sending our armed forces in harms way in this type of situation. I can't help but wonder if any of those people stand to lose anything if such an operation were to go poorly. It just boggles my mind that we would risk American lives and millions of dollars of training and equipment when we have other legal options that are less risky.
>when we have other legal options that are less risky.
What other legal options are you talking about? What they are doing is 100% illegal, it goes directly against the 5th amendment. Straight from the article:
"The Bill of Rights is clear. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” as well as the right to be informed of all charges and have access to legal counsel."
I believe that the question is not one of capability, but of resources. We could do it, but the cost to do it is deemed too high -- especially when the gov't feels that they can just send in a missile.
First of all, I think you under-estimate the financial cost of highly trained military personnel.
Secondly, there's a metric ton of political capital at stake when the special forces are called in. The US may be more de-sensitized to loss of life than pre-911, but it's still a Big Deal(tm). The decision to send in warm bodies is not taken lightly, in large part because failures can be catastrophic and quite public.
I'm not disagreeing but killing American citizens without due process goes 100% against the fabric of our Constitution. Every special forces member I have met has a fervent desire to support and uphold the document that makes this country great. If we have enough intelligence to target this person with a drone, in my opinion, we probably have enough to send in a team to grab him.
> The decision to send in warm bodies is not taken lightly, in large part because failures can be catastrophic and quite public.
I think this statement holds true for both a drone assassination and sending in US personnel to capture an enemy combatant. Neither should be taken lightly.
I'm not disagreeing with what should be the case, but the current reality is that the decision to use drones in lethal strikes is taken far more lightly than any equivalent measure using conventional or special forces.
Granting the premise of your first sentence, you might want to talk to some Navy SEAL veterans (or Army Delta Force, or Marine Corps Force Recon) about the degree of difficulty and expense.
EDIT: And what @doktrin said below.