In spite of the author's cheering, the last thing this country needs is more military involvement with the world. How many disasters do we need before we realize what our capabilities really are? As for Mr. Moyar's statement that:
"George W. Bush became enmeshed in counterinsurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq despite a vow to keep the nation out of such quagmires."
Excuse me, you neglected to mention that our enmeshment happened only after our military invaded both countries, with the Iraq invasion, especially, based on fear-mongering and fraudulent claims. Whether or not we use more or fewer special operation troops is a sideline issue.
"George W. Bush became enmeshed in counterinsurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq despite a vow to keep the nation out of such quagmires."
Excuse me, you neglected to mention that our enmeshment happened only after our military invaded both countries, with the Iraq invasion, especially, based on fear-mongering and fraudulent claims. Whether or not we use more or fewer special operation troops is a sideline issue.
2
We continue our march of sterializing war for U.S. Citizens. We don't have a draft and we overuse Special Forces so not many Americans have meat in the war game. They don't see the horrors of those killed and maimed. They don't see our young men and women coming home in pine boxes. They can reduce the horrors to sensational sound bites like 'bomb them' without bothering to learn about the culture and question the legitimacy of our involvement. While simultaneously saying "oh no, those refugees aren't stepping on our lands."
So while our infrastructure continues to crumble and our safety nets are cut, the military budget grows exponentially under yet another American President. Peace, the ultimate goal, continues to be an elusive goal and our "flag decals won't get us into heaven anymore, for it's already overcrowded from our dirty little wars."
So while our infrastructure continues to crumble and our safety nets are cut, the military budget grows exponentially under yet another American President. Peace, the ultimate goal, continues to be an elusive goal and our "flag decals won't get us into heaven anymore, for it's already overcrowded from our dirty little wars."
1
Why don't we use Tactical Forces to eliminate Assad? His address and his addresses of the people he meets and visits are I presume, to have been confirmed. A mother bomb or cruise missile attack on a deserted airplane hanger does nothing except kill civilians and maybe a terrorist or two. If we can dig out Osama-bin-Laden and Saddam from their holes, then Assad should'nt be difficult to ferret out. He is the one most likely not to go hiding into hole. Russia? Maybe. Paris, most likely. Hope we have an extradition Treaty with France, though. Or maybe I am seeing too many Jason Bourne or James Bond movies!
Is there some thing you are really trying to say, Mr. Mark Moyar, in this meandering and desultory article of your's? I am a big critque of Mr. Obama but I give him credit and unquestionably support him for using the Special Forces EXTENSIVELY to keep those vermins under control who otherwise would have been able to sit comfortably protected in their nests in Pakistan, Afghnaistan and other countries who shelter them and come after us for another 9/11.
How would you suggest we handle them specially when these vermins are hiding in other soverign countries.
And, what is this Directorship of your's? Sounds very much like "The American Sleep Society" which the a man claims as it's source of expertise and is all and all in it and no one else ever heard of it.
How would you suggest we handle them specially when these vermins are hiding in other soverign countries.
And, what is this Directorship of your's? Sounds very much like "The American Sleep Society" which the a man claims as it's source of expertise and is all and all in it and no one else ever heard of it.
2
As a very old career military member, I say: "Go ahead, America" Invade, bomb and kill. We have by now become very good at those things........as long as they do not require the presence of our elected officials or their families. If we are judged sometime in the future, perhaps we will not be held accountable for all the deaths we have caused world-wide. On the other hand, perhaps we will have to defend what we have become - killers.............................
2
OK, did we not send our Marines to Beirut Lebanon in 1983? How well did that work? As for a large war, against who? Russia and its 3,000 nuclear weapons ready to go now? Iran who could resurrect its nuclear program if invaded? North Korea who could kill millions of our allies with artillery alone? It is time to let the ugly reality of our multipolar world to balance the beautiful alternate reality of the neo cons.
3
One of the reasons for their increase in numbers and popularity is the role of the media, especially embedded media, who start to see themselves as "special" warriors as well. They lose all objectivity. Lara Logan and Richard Engel come to mind immediately, among others.
It was a brilliant move by the Pentagon. There is rarely critical coverage of any American troops, particularly Special Forces, at all anymore. They are incapable of mistakes and all heroes.
If only it were true.
It was a brilliant move by the Pentagon. There is rarely critical coverage of any American troops, particularly Special Forces, at all anymore. They are incapable of mistakes and all heroes.
If only it were true.
3
I found the reference to "greenhorns" in the Obama administration interesting. Would Robert Gates have been on those "greenhorns"? Was James Mattis one? General McMaster? Both men served under Obama Part of the reason Obama relied on Special Ops was to avoid getting bogged down in a long term war fought with conventional troops, on the advice of Gates, advice I think was sound. Another reason, a more important one, was that Obama was seeking to wind down US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq--as the voting public elected him to do. There isn't much public support even now for sending large contingents of conventional troops to places like Syria and Afghanistan. If it's the "greenhorns", who ever they were, who kept us out of a major land war in the Mideast, then I'll take the greenhorns over Moyar's generals and veterans.
6
It is useful for us to have Moyar speak to the limits of special forces - from any branch of the military. He is right to differentiate between tactics and strategy. I wish he had spoken about another "special force," and its emotional appeal: the Air Force. It, too, is used tactically, but is too often marketed as a strategic strike force. As Moyar points outs, boots on the ground make up to real strategic achievement force.
Moyar implies the need for some level of national consideration of the use of military force. I suggest that part of that consideration is the draft. There. It's been said, and I hope that readers have their blood pressure medicine nearby. In fact, we have over-used not just the special forces troops, but all ground troops as well. How many stories have you read of some local service person returning from a third or even fourth tour in the Middle East or Afghanistan? The Army is thin. It is time for political and military leadership to consider reinstating the draft - with changes. If Moyar is serious, he will be one of those calling for the draft as part of a strategic use of the military.
By the way - I appreciate the humor of the last paragraph. Did you catch it?
Deftly satirical, Mr. Moyar.
Moyar implies the need for some level of national consideration of the use of military force. I suggest that part of that consideration is the draft. There. It's been said, and I hope that readers have their blood pressure medicine nearby. In fact, we have over-used not just the special forces troops, but all ground troops as well. How many stories have you read of some local service person returning from a third or even fourth tour in the Middle East or Afghanistan? The Army is thin. It is time for political and military leadership to consider reinstating the draft - with changes. If Moyar is serious, he will be one of those calling for the draft as part of a strategic use of the military.
By the way - I appreciate the humor of the last paragraph. Did you catch it?
Deftly satirical, Mr. Moyar.
2
Little choice about a major war? You are a crazy hawk! Johnson had a choice in Vietnam, and he made the wrong choice for POLITICAL REASONS. Why are these hawkish views dominating the pages of the Times as if they were normal? You can't even see history correctly as most Americans do.
6
“Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam in 1965 after campaigning as the peace candidate in 1964,” writes a contributor who bears the title of director of the Center for Military and Diplomatic History. As a professional historian myself, I find it depressing that this author could fail to make clear that Lyndon Johnson’s plans to escalate the Vietnam War were fully in place while, not after, he was campaigning on the promise not to do so. That was one of the most shocking revelations of the Pentagon Papers. Ironically, in the same edition of the Times, another article lauds Floyd Abrams as “the titan of free speech jurisprudence” for having defended The New York Times “against the Nixon administration’s attempts to stop it from printing the Pentagon Papers.” But the value of free speech is diminished if its contents can so quickly and easily be erased from collective memory.
5
Special Operations will be of marginal utility in a conventional land war in Asia where our enemy can field several million soldiers. The good news is, we have several million combat-hardened veterans. The Chinese and N.Korean soldiers have only experience as prison camp guards and pushing around unarmed civilians.
1
Springtime for Neo-cons. And just plain Cons.
5
A general's job is to run an army in a fight. They will choose the military answer every time, such as the missiles in Syria and mega-bomb in Afghanistan.
4
The use of U.S. special ops in missions run from the White House since George W. is a major reason America is so hated in the Muslim world.
No declaration of war (other than the never ending "war on terror") has justified the murder of a great number of civilians who just happen to get in the way in countries. Rather than touting the murder of Osama bin Laden by special ops, the U.S. should hear more the persecution that led to the radicalization of Anwar al Awlaki, his murder by special ops and then the subsequent murders of his infant son and then his infant daughter. See Scahill's Dirty Wars.
No declaration of war (other than the never ending "war on terror") has justified the murder of a great number of civilians who just happen to get in the way in countries. Rather than touting the murder of Osama bin Laden by special ops, the U.S. should hear more the persecution that led to the radicalization of Anwar al Awlaki, his murder by special ops and then the subsequent murders of his infant son and then his infant daughter. See Scahill's Dirty Wars.
1
Trump will sooner or later launch us into a major war because his ratings will continue to plummet, the economy will flounder, he'll keep embarrassing himself with tweets and idiotic blather, and so will have nothing to bolster his "popularity" but starting a war. It'll be easy for him to do, too, because his sons Usay and Quday will never have to leave their gilded penthouses to risk a single hair on their heads. He's never had any trouble sacrificing other people to satisfy his monstrous ego.
10
Americans love special forces because they're tied up in the idea of sending a precision team, dropping a precision bomb, killing only the bad guys while the innocent foreigners in the next building cheer. It would be great if it were true but it isn't. Unfortunately, it's what too many Americans believe about our military action. Better by far to accept that when we go to war lots of people will get killed, our enemies, innocent people, and our own soldiers.
32
Great points-we want to be all patriotic and full of valor-saving the innocents from the bad guys, but war is messy and since we are so risk adverse, our military actions consist of stand off weapons or special forces strikes, which are never going to defeat a home grown insurgency. Follow the $$$$.
They resemble the horse cavalry of the old days: glamorous, fast-moving, capable of spectacular behind-the-lines actions, but without much staying power. They have an important role in combination with the other branches of the military.
2
Some very good observations and distinctions on what an over emphasis on special forces and ops can and cannot deliver.
However, there are hints of larger, more conventional battles that are just around the corner. Which ones did you have in mind Mark Moyer? You seem to lean in their directions with a certain amount of relish. For another round in the Korean peninsula? It's likely to be more costly than the first? In and around the border of Russia and the new Cold War, where Russia, as a matter of pure military kinetics, is always likely to get there "firstest with the mostest" to borrow a crude expression from a Civil War tactician, of their advantages in interior lines and not to say anything positive about their leadership.
For myself, I turn to Colin Powell's advisor, Col. Larry Wilkerson, now teaching, and Andrew Bacevich - two former soldiers who seem to me to have the necessary reluctance to turn to force under contemporary conditions.
They're brakes upon the current American trajectory; unable to solve our economic problems and having raised a major one up ourselves - China - the temptation is to turn to bluster and illusionary displays of bravado to keep the national morale up - and dodge all the discussions we're not having about trade and the shortage of jobs.
And don't look now: we have our own Civil War - perhaps and hopefully not a shooting one - looming.
However, there are hints of larger, more conventional battles that are just around the corner. Which ones did you have in mind Mark Moyer? You seem to lean in their directions with a certain amount of relish. For another round in the Korean peninsula? It's likely to be more costly than the first? In and around the border of Russia and the new Cold War, where Russia, as a matter of pure military kinetics, is always likely to get there "firstest with the mostest" to borrow a crude expression from a Civil War tactician, of their advantages in interior lines and not to say anything positive about their leadership.
For myself, I turn to Colin Powell's advisor, Col. Larry Wilkerson, now teaching, and Andrew Bacevich - two former soldiers who seem to me to have the necessary reluctance to turn to force under contemporary conditions.
They're brakes upon the current American trajectory; unable to solve our economic problems and having raised a major one up ourselves - China - the temptation is to turn to bluster and illusionary displays of bravado to keep the national morale up - and dodge all the discussions we're not having about trade and the shortage of jobs.
And don't look now: we have our own Civil War - perhaps and hopefully not a shooting one - looming.
2
When war was brought to daily newscasts on TV during the Vietnam war, the average citizen could not ignore the real carnage of war. And they revolted. By sending hundreds of thousands of troops to engage in Syria, North Korea, Ukraine - take your pick - we will have to accept the casualties of our own troops as well as the "many times over" casualties on the other side. Human loss of extraordinary levels. Some of the new ingredients of war-making are drones, cyber, tech advances in weaponry , making them more deadly and powerful. Old ingredients include troops, nuclear weapons, ships, planes and guided missles. Special Forces are not a new ingredient, and Moyar makes the argument that they may not be enough, may not have the reach or power or impact needed for emerging and evolving crises. However, is it "prudent and sober" to revert to large numbers of troops on the ground as "the" solution, the counter, to the failed use of Special Forces? This may appeal to emotion and simplicity and a notion that wars have been won or lost in the past by the sheer numbers of troops that were engaged. Take a look at the size of North Korea's army. They are more than ready to engage on the human level. Are we? I think not. Pumping up the use of Special Forces will likely not accomplish "enough", I agree. But alternatives that guarantee the large loss of human life, not unlike we have seen in Syria, should not be our first choice. We need better thinking here.
2
We as a country do not know who is being killed by the 70K++ special ops forces. And I expect the Pentagon doesn't care, that their goal is also to create fear and to avoid taking prisoners. Just as any Vietnamese civilian killed during operations in the Vietnam War was called Vietcong, now any civilian killed is by definition a terrorist.
Finally, Google to find a map that shows the countries were our special ops forces are operating -- it is mind-boggling.
Finally, Google to find a map that shows the countries were our special ops forces are operating -- it is mind-boggling.
Marines in Syria, to replace Green Berets? You'd think Moyar would have read of Khe Sanh. No, simply having conventional forces like Marines, or aircraft carriers, or subs and nukes is not a good reason to employ them. "They can't destroy a Russian armored division or occupy a North Korean city". Great. Just the words Pyongyang wants to read. Think first, shoot later. Special Forces motto. Good grief, Dr. Moyar. Think first, type later.
2
So No Love for Special Ops but Mr. Moyar, who himself is an armchair military historian, seems to be encouraging America's Dangerous Love for endless occupations of foreign territories at the cost of more American kids.
No, no. Don't send less number of Americans to die in tactical operations. Send hundreds of thousands of American men and women( from the poor and middle class) to die for "our" strategic goals.
No, no. Don't send less number of Americans to die in tactical operations. Send hundreds of thousands of American men and women( from the poor and middle class) to die for "our" strategic goals.
2
Many of these comments reflect a pacifist philosophy. Certainly a respectable position, but this is an article concerning the composition of military forces.
Peddling pacifism here is much like bringing flowers to a gunfight.
Peddling pacifism here is much like bringing flowers to a gunfight.
3
It's because it involves guns, men in uniforms, and overwhelming force. What we forget is that the people we're fighting for may disagree with us or may turn against us if the operation goes awry, kills too many, or ruins their lives.
2
Everybody wants to "kick ass" and nobody actually wants to do the job. The solution following the elimination of the draft as a result of the Vietnam War debacle? A professional army and special ops.
Let the loud mouth "patriots" in Congress and the Oval Office put their lives on the line and you will have far fewer wars. And far fewer innocents being butchered.
Let the loud mouth "patriots" in Congress and the Oval Office put their lives on the line and you will have far fewer wars. And far fewer innocents being butchered.
4
Another example of the Times publishing an article written by someone who has absolutely no expertise or knowledge in the subject that is being written about yet feel;he is qualified to judge people who are believe are trained have experience and whose lives are at risk when they make mistakes.
Mark Moyar has an agenda that makes him the last person to go to get advice on the military.
He has shown he has very little regard for the facts.
I have no knowledge on the military so I will not make a claim I know Mark Moyar is wrong but I can not take him seriously when he contradict people who know more and can not see why the Times would have thios artyicl;e in their paper.
Mark Moyar has an agenda that makes him the last person to go to get advice on the military.
He has shown he has very little regard for the facts.
I have no knowledge on the military so I will not make a claim I know Mark Moyar is wrong but I can not take him seriously when he contradict people who know more and can not see why the Times would have thios artyicl;e in their paper.
3
We will never win any more wars unless we learn that they (the wars) are being supported by an irrational belief... i.e. a religion or a bias ..... and infrequently by a rational reason such as a deprivation foisted by another more powerful nation.
All wars are the result of usually one of only three things. Religion, Economics, or Dictatorial Egos. Many times the Egos use religious fanaticism as a means to recruit the army needed to fight the war. No country is or has been immune to any of this.
Our involvement in recent wars has been about economic advantage for corporations and not to prevent any invasion of our space... but has led to such incursions.
All wars are the result of usually one of only three things. Religion, Economics, or Dictatorial Egos. Many times the Egos use religious fanaticism as a means to recruit the army needed to fight the war. No country is or has been immune to any of this.
Our involvement in recent wars has been about economic advantage for corporations and not to prevent any invasion of our space... but has led to such incursions.
1
One of the many dangers of the Trump administration is the lack of experience in key governments seats and clearly the State Department is one of those lacking, not only in experience but leadership skills. War is a political act due to lack of diplomacy, and the use of force will only be ramped up due to those skills lacking at State. To paraphrase Abraham Maslow, "When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail".
3
The Islamic State represents an exception to the strategies espoused here. It has a small army that reached a plateau two years ago and is now dwindling. Its warriors are committed, but so are our special forces. While famous for delegation of authority to cadres, there is no doubt IS is vulnerable to decapitation.
Pin point attacks on the Islamic State are more productive than on other battle fields. The strategy applies to both drone strikes and US special force operations. As evidence, see how the tide has turned.
Filling the vacuum left as ISIS recedes is an issue that quite admittedly special forces cannot address, but Mark Moyar has not broached the political question here. Had he done so, the fault in his criticism of the outcome in Afghanistan would be revealed. Remember how Special Forces succeeded in galvanizing the Northern Alliance and ask, "What if?" with regard to the follow-up when the battleground shifted prematurely and unnecessarily to Iraq. The outcome was due to forces outside of this critique.
Pin point attacks on the Islamic State are more productive than on other battle fields. The strategy applies to both drone strikes and US special force operations. As evidence, see how the tide has turned.
Filling the vacuum left as ISIS recedes is an issue that quite admittedly special forces cannot address, but Mark Moyar has not broached the political question here. Had he done so, the fault in his criticism of the outcome in Afghanistan would be revealed. Remember how Special Forces succeeded in galvanizing the Northern Alliance and ask, "What if?" with regard to the follow-up when the battleground shifted prematurely and unnecessarily to Iraq. The outcome was due to forces outside of this critique.
2
Good article. The American public and many US politicians are militarily illiterate, and, whether they know it or not, heavily influenced by how war is represented in popular culture. Spies and special forces make for great movie characters, but never decide wars. In the end, it always comes down to numbers and logistics, which is why a major war - like the invasion of a country like Iraq - always requires a major national effort. If anything, special forces are the icing on the cake, who can prove decisive in a battle, but this battle has to be won by conventional forces.
4
We're engaged in a strange love affair with Special Ops. We now have 70,000 of them, roughly the equivalent of five (!) Army divisions. They've become an army within the Army, like the Jesuits to the Catholic church of the Counter-Reformation. And, in a way, they've come to be America's top diplomats, going everywhere, spreading the American way, which for them (and us?) means weapons and combat training and "kinetic" action, i.e. killing.
Well, as the Good Book says, as you sow, so shall you reap.
Well, as the Good Book says, as you sow, so shall you reap.
5
The desire behind the development of 'smart ' weapons and special forces is for the US to be involved in a conflict without any of the commitment and popular support required to actually 'win'. They also do not carry the requirement to 'fix' what's wrong with us or the adversary. Smart weapons and special forces can neither hold territory nor rebuild failed nations. They are wonderfully helpful to pave the way to 'victory', but cannot win by themselves. Our fascination with them will solve nothing and may make situations worse as we wrongfully think we can intervene at little moral, political, or economic cost to ourselves.
21
'nor rebuild failed nations' - note the author describes the one 'win' for Special Ops being the 'defeat of the Taliban'. After the 'defeat', there has been war with the Taliban for 15 years....well chosen example...
American special forces began with Rangers in the Revolution. They continued with Scouts in the Indian Wars. WW2 had several versions, from Merrill's Marauders in Burma to the Marine Raiders in the Pacific and the Army Rangers in Europe who assaulted the guns on D-Day.
There has always been a place for special missions and deep recon. There has always been a need to train and lead irregular forces.
None of that is the real reason that Special Forces are so popular right now. Now they are something else. They are war without war. They are soldiers sent in without "boots on the ground." They are deniable, covert, not-really-war even as they do war very effectively.
They are thus a convenient political lie, used and abused by policy makers who cannot figure out how to handle what they've gotten themselves into.
Our Special Forces are better than that, and deserve more.
There has always been a place for special missions and deep recon. There has always been a need to train and lead irregular forces.
None of that is the real reason that Special Forces are so popular right now. Now they are something else. They are war without war. They are soldiers sent in without "boots on the ground." They are deniable, covert, not-really-war even as they do war very effectively.
They are thus a convenient political lie, used and abused by policy makers who cannot figure out how to handle what they've gotten themselves into.
Our Special Forces are better than that, and deserve more.
10
Rogers Rangers in the 1700s. Correct, sir.
1
>> Although Mr. Trump may not be interested in fighting a major war, he may be left with little choice. Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam in 1965 after campaigning as the peace candidate in 1964. George W. Bush became enmeshed in counterinsurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq despite a vow to keep the nation out of such quagmires.
What a self-imploding paragraph. Mr Johnson and Mr Bush, after all, had choices. They made the wrong ones.
What a self-imploding paragraph. Mr Johnson and Mr Bush, after all, had choices. They made the wrong ones.
9
Yawn. Why did the NYT publish such a shallow and less than thoughtful article?
9
"They can take out terrorists and train armies. But they can’t win wars."
Gee I didn't know that. But you know how dumb conservatives are.
Gee I didn't know that. But you know how dumb conservatives are.
3
It is the same mentality as the NRA. Rough and tough, kill 'em all.
7
The first "Special Ops" were employed by the Jews enslaved in Egypt. Wanting freedom the Jews began their revolt with pin-prick attacks upon Egyptian infrastructure, institutions, the people of Egypt and the Throne. The so-called plagues were actually attacks by Jewish special forces who had learned to apply science of biology, medicine and physics. Frogs came from over reproduction by savy Jews who learned how to breed them, turning them loose in droves. Insects too and even boils from perhaps food or water poisoning. Hail came from balloons that released salt, seeding clouds and causing first rain, then hail. Darkness came from knowledge of orbits of the planets. And finally, the Jews, unable to move Pharo to relent, revolted slaying men, women and children of a major city. Politically unable to accept that a military defeat had taken place the Egyptian lords invented the 10 plagues. But the war wasn't over. The Jews left but the Egyptians missed their skilled artisans and slaves. The Egyptian forces pursued the Jews to the Red Sea where the Jews deployed special forces to their center, making it appear as though a great encampment was at the edge of sea with no escape possible. The Egyptians attacked the special forces at the center who held them long enough for the Jewish heavy divisions to encircle and force the Egyptians into the sea to drown.
The lessons then should be used today. Special ops forces can inflict pain but they only hardens resolve /hearts of the enemy.
The lessons then should be used today. Special ops forces can inflict pain but they only hardens resolve /hearts of the enemy.
1
How much of this is the Pentagon's desire that every body in country be a spec ops guy, and the special ops commands fighting for funding and influence?
But more importantly, there's a reason so many of our military leaders signed a letter begging for State Department funding not to be cut. Not having to send anyone is the best use of our military, period, end of sentence. Professional diplomats can be our most powerful weapon in many international conflicts.... at least if the people in charge know where State is and what they do well enough to use them properly, or at all.
But more importantly, there's a reason so many of our military leaders signed a letter begging for State Department funding not to be cut. Not having to send anyone is the best use of our military, period, end of sentence. Professional diplomats can be our most powerful weapon in many international conflicts.... at least if the people in charge know where State is and what they do well enough to use them properly, or at all.
4
> The country, and its presidents, have been enamored with special operations forces ever since Franklin Roosevelt created the first unit in 1942.
"The ranger units of Captain Thomas Willet and Captain Benjamin Church mark the beginning of elite or special operations forces in America....during the period of King Philip's [Wampanoag chief, Metacomet War [1664+]."
-Lance Q. Zedric and Michael Dilley, _Elite Warriors: 300 Years Of America's Best Fighting Troops_
"The ranger units of Captain Thomas Willet and Captain Benjamin Church mark the beginning of elite or special operations forces in America....during the period of King Philip's [Wampanoag chief, Metacomet War [1664+]."
-Lance Q. Zedric and Michael Dilley, _Elite Warriors: 300 Years Of America's Best Fighting Troops_
2
Isis, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are hardened ground fighters shaped by years of battle, limited access to modern weapons and no air support. So, they have improvised and when combined with their willingness to die, have become a formidable foe. For that we need a well trained arsenal of tactical teams and special forces. Deployment of special forces is just as careful a decision as use of a Tomahawk missile. The circumstances need to fit a certain criteria before we unleash hell. The are probably most effective against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Isis, on the other hand, is a sloppy, rag tag, group of zealots that are best taken out with a combination of conventional warfare and strategic strikes. Degrading them is the key. Reasoning with them is impossible. Best to retake a city, fortify it and hold it with conventional forces. Save the special op war fighters for pin point, surgical strikes.
11
Best to avoid them and stay home. It's obvious now. And don't train Islamic terrorists how to fly airliners
3
A more effective channel for combating Islamic terrorism would be to sponsor a national institute dedicated to Islamic theology. More liberal voices within Islamic theological debate might prove effective in challenging extremism. More effective than combat troops, anyway.
5
Talk about a waste of money.
One of the most charmingly naive myths among many Americans, from generals to presidents to local car mechanics, is what I call the "comic-book" approach to war and peace.
Surely it goes back farther than this, but I first became aware of the phenomena in the wake of 9/11, when media and political (and water cooler) talking heads began to talk about "bad guys" with a straight face, even as they blithely asserted that every American who served in the military is a "hero."
I have a former relative by marriage, a federal law enforcement officer who spent time in Iraq, who continually insisted that the roiling mess in Mesopotamia would be cleared up by the elimination of the "bad guy" du jour: Saddam Hussein, his sons, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden himself.
Of course each of these hyped-up supervillains came and went, and the situation on the ground did not change.
On the flipside: There is one demographic that vociferously opposes the notion that all who serve in the military are "heroes"—those who are serving or have served, who know this bit of reflexive, guilt-driven verbal flatulence.
Perhaps if, as a nation, we could re-embrace the idea that—to paraphrase a certain minority president*—the world is complicated, and that war is not a Manichean fantasy or television show. Indeed it is ugly, hard, dangerous, and as Hemingway said, always a crime, no matter how justified or necessary.
Surely it goes back farther than this, but I first became aware of the phenomena in the wake of 9/11, when media and political (and water cooler) talking heads began to talk about "bad guys" with a straight face, even as they blithely asserted that every American who served in the military is a "hero."
I have a former relative by marriage, a federal law enforcement officer who spent time in Iraq, who continually insisted that the roiling mess in Mesopotamia would be cleared up by the elimination of the "bad guy" du jour: Saddam Hussein, his sons, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden himself.
Of course each of these hyped-up supervillains came and went, and the situation on the ground did not change.
On the flipside: There is one demographic that vociferously opposes the notion that all who serve in the military are "heroes"—those who are serving or have served, who know this bit of reflexive, guilt-driven verbal flatulence.
Perhaps if, as a nation, we could re-embrace the idea that—to paraphrase a certain minority president*—the world is complicated, and that war is not a Manichean fantasy or television show. Indeed it is ugly, hard, dangerous, and as Hemingway said, always a crime, no matter how justified or necessary.
6
KSM was planning a second wave, Zawahiri and Bin Laden were looking at nuclear weapons and biological attacks, and you would just sing Kumbaya to the Supervillains? I don't think so. But you're right about war being a crime.
2
"Defeat of the Taliban in 2001." I hope that was an editing error, and not an intentional statement made by someone who wants us to trust his knowledge and wisdom in military matters.
2
It is a simple equation for those who are targeted by American forces, special or regular-"The Americans are rich and powerful, but they will not remain for long. We will be here when the Americans are a story told by old men."
\This is what both the North Vietnamese and Henry Kissinger knew when they cooked up the alleged "Paris peace accords". Kissinger got the US out of Vietnam and the North Vietnamese got Vietnam when the Americans were gone.
It works like this no matter how many troops of whatever quality you use-
\This is what both the North Vietnamese and Henry Kissinger knew when they cooked up the alleged "Paris peace accords". Kissinger got the US out of Vietnam and the North Vietnamese got Vietnam when the Americans were gone.
It works like this no matter how many troops of whatever quality you use-
2
Here's an idea - no war.
4
Our military might has been oversold to the American public since WW2, misrepresented as a singular American victory in legends, movies and U.S. history books. But it was the Russians who decimated the Nazis in the battle of Stalingrad, an event (not D-Day) that marked the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. For the Pacific, the decisive U.S. victory in the 1942 Battle of Midway destroyed most of Japan's fleet and air forces, though the fighting continued until 1945.
Following WW2, our military successes have been pretty much limited to tactical achievements offset by strategic failures in places like Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and Central America.
To even hint at our capability of "destroying a Russian armored division or occupying a North Korean city" is to invite yet another military disaster, probably on a global scale.
Following WW2, our military successes have been pretty much limited to tactical achievements offset by strategic failures in places like Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and Central America.
To even hint at our capability of "destroying a Russian armored division or occupying a North Korean city" is to invite yet another military disaster, probably on a global scale.
3
This article is full of factual errors and myths. I don't understand how a person with Dr. Moyar's credentials could have authored such a poor article. I suspect the American people will remain in the dark about this important subject. Luckily, as reflected in some of the posts here, lack of insight about special operations forces does not prevent Americans from recognizing the much broader problem, namely, America's love affair with policing the world. I recommend Charlmers Johnson's series of books: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, and Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope.
1
I see any number of articles, from persons who have 'diplomacy' in their creds, saying what we can't do
Clausewitz of course said, depending on the translation, he is described as unreadable, and he rewrote his stuff, that "war is diplomacy by other means," projecting national interests...
I hear endlessly of " can't do this and can't do that can't can't do this can't can't do that,
so much can't that can't becomes cant,
and thus theology of defeat and defeatism
thus crawl home and hide your head under a pillow
=
WHEN one of these 'diplo' guys said HERE IS A MILITARY solution, with its diplomatic components, come back to me
until then go decant yourself, or cantilever yourself into a canton of cantness
=
spec war is a variant of irregular warfare or guerilla warfare or behind the enemy lines warfare , or hit and run raiding, all of which have eternal military applications
Our own revolutionary war had such against the British, although hereabouts, it was the French that defeated the Brit, and the difficulty of distance and terrain that made a Brit victory impossible, even with local "Tories for the King' fighting a variant of a US pre-1776 civil war,
in WW2 Churchill was a great fan of irregular warfare, having witnessed some variants of it as a young man in the Boer wars,
and our OSS was in the tradition
All wars have irregular or small unit interventions and applications
=
meaningless article of defeatism
Clausewitz of course said, depending on the translation, he is described as unreadable, and he rewrote his stuff, that "war is diplomacy by other means," projecting national interests...
I hear endlessly of " can't do this and can't do that can't can't do this can't can't do that,
so much can't that can't becomes cant,
and thus theology of defeat and defeatism
thus crawl home and hide your head under a pillow
=
WHEN one of these 'diplo' guys said HERE IS A MILITARY solution, with its diplomatic components, come back to me
until then go decant yourself, or cantilever yourself into a canton of cantness
=
spec war is a variant of irregular warfare or guerilla warfare or behind the enemy lines warfare , or hit and run raiding, all of which have eternal military applications
Our own revolutionary war had such against the British, although hereabouts, it was the French that defeated the Brit, and the difficulty of distance and terrain that made a Brit victory impossible, even with local "Tories for the King' fighting a variant of a US pre-1776 civil war,
in WW2 Churchill was a great fan of irregular warfare, having witnessed some variants of it as a young man in the Boer wars,
and our OSS was in the tradition
All wars have irregular or small unit interventions and applications
=
meaningless article of defeatism
True that Special Ops won't win wars. That's why we have MoaBs and Nukes.
1
pro Trump nonsense. bush sent regulars to Iraq, remember? trump's announced pinpricks in Syria accomplished much less than all the chemical weapons Obama had destroyed without republican support. the author's puffing for Trump is ahistorical agitprop
3
Dr Moyar is a neo-con with a long record of tendentious manipulation of history. So readers of this article must ask themselves what its author's real agenda might be.
" if Mr. Trump pays heed......". THATS the problem. Now and forever.
2
Is it year 12 in AfPakIraqistan...I lost count?
4
Dude, it's year 16 in the Hundred Year War according to Riyadh's man, John Brennan.
1
Wars are not designed to be won, but designed to sell weaponry and create the next generation of terror to sell more weapons. Therefore we get inundated with deluded leadership across the board from journalism through governance with truth left as the real victim of all these needless wars.
This reminds me of the dashing cavalryman fetish so common among American Civil War historians, both professional and amateur. Cavalry was an important part of the Civil War military, though not even fractionally as important as the quartermaster and supply units, yet a few self-aggrandizing cavalry officers received -- and continue to receive -- historians' coverage far, far out of proportion to their relatively minor accomplishments. And this fetishization of modern special ops units feels like more of the same.
What's missing from this piece is the use of the "D" word - as in The Draft. This Op-Ed avoids the historical context of "America's Dangerous Love for Special Ops".
The military in the United States is not a citizen army. Given the social upheaval related to the War in Vietnam the concept and practice of a citizen army was completely abandoned based on that experience. It was, indeed, already severely compromised at that time. With exception of someone who was too young to have been called up (Obama), most recent presidents took measures to sidestep the draft.
I do not count the easy time spent by GW Bush in the Texas Air National Guard as anything but a rich boy's way of avoiding the dangers of being sent to Vietnam. Clinton had his student deferments and Trump had the "bone spurs" (which heel he can't remember!) that have not prevented him from becoming a very fine golfer. None of these "fearless leaders" ever confronted the Agent Orange, punji stakes, or fire fights that took the lives of 58,000+ young men.
The polar opposite of the citizen army is the the professional army. With an approach of fewer but better to serve America's military needs the proverbial spear tip of that solution is special ops.
The obvious solution to the anti-democratic direction America's military has gone in is the reinstatement of the draft with no deferments, at all, outside of bona fide medical deferments. Is that going to happen? Unlikely.
The military in the United States is not a citizen army. Given the social upheaval related to the War in Vietnam the concept and practice of a citizen army was completely abandoned based on that experience. It was, indeed, already severely compromised at that time. With exception of someone who was too young to have been called up (Obama), most recent presidents took measures to sidestep the draft.
I do not count the easy time spent by GW Bush in the Texas Air National Guard as anything but a rich boy's way of avoiding the dangers of being sent to Vietnam. Clinton had his student deferments and Trump had the "bone spurs" (which heel he can't remember!) that have not prevented him from becoming a very fine golfer. None of these "fearless leaders" ever confronted the Agent Orange, punji stakes, or fire fights that took the lives of 58,000+ young men.
The polar opposite of the citizen army is the the professional army. With an approach of fewer but better to serve America's military needs the proverbial spear tip of that solution is special ops.
The obvious solution to the anti-democratic direction America's military has gone in is the reinstatement of the draft with no deferments, at all, outside of bona fide medical deferments. Is that going to happen? Unlikely.
4
Totally agree. We need to remember that these terrorist groups aren't existentialist threats. Special Operations forces have become much too large. We need to keep our military focused on main battle forces. As soon as we say "that will never happen again" we'll be involved in a large scale conventional war. I also think we've become far too focused on technological marvels. If you have an enemy willing to accept losses, as long are their equipment is "good enough" then the big battalions will win. For those who think "miracle weapons" can win modern wars of attrition, I invite them to read up on World War II and the "V Weapons" of Germany. Our equipment is too expensive and takes too long to produce. We need equipment that is simple to make and operate.
1
You might read COL David Hackworth's "About Face" latter parts wrt Vietnam and conventional fighting.
For much of the Cold War, Presidents regardless of party, when faced with intractable problems overseas, called for CIA covert action The CIA sought to oblige, not always wisely (e.g., the Bay of Pigs, Guatemala and Iran, the last two initially touted as successes, though later judged to have been failures).
Now, Special Forces haver replaced the CIA in that role, with Presidents asking more of them than they can deliver strategically or politically. The notion that a President can send them anywhere, without permission, is a landmine which could easily blow up relations with allied or friendly countries or get us in deeper trouble in hostile regions.
Now, Special Forces haver replaced the CIA in that role, with Presidents asking more of them than they can deliver strategically or politically. The notion that a President can send them anywhere, without permission, is a landmine which could easily blow up relations with allied or friendly countries or get us in deeper trouble in hostile regions.
1
Not exactly.... It's the Special Activities Division that is responsible for the worst screw-ups in Libya and Syria. They were the ones running guns in Benghazi and are the most in bed with the Gulf Arabs and have shanghaied some Green Berets to use in Jordan, but those guys know they are training terrorists and they don't like it.
1
There are simply some tasks that conventional forces cannot do and the SF are outstanding at. Then again, there are some tasks that even the combination of forces won't win. Perhaps Afghanistan, where "Empires go to die" is an example. We have the best troops in the world, but they must be committed only where there is an opportunity to win.
1
I cannot imagine where we would be trying to "destroy a Russian armored division or occupy a North Korean city." No nation is going to put an army in the field against the US. Iraq's army showed that to be suicidal. Drones make opposition armored divisions almost obsolete. We will be fighting snipers, suicidal warriors and IEDs in mountains and cities forever, unless North Korea loses its mind. Hopefully we can convince China to stop propping up North Korea.
2
Our military services are a vital part of our country but they are being misused. Increasingly, we call on the military to do things they are ill suited to perform. There is even a military acronym for this: MOOTW, Military Operations Other Than War.
How about this: let's invest in creating elite units in the CDC to respond to epidemics, USAID to address famine, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to see crack negotiators parachuting into evolving hot spots to defuse them? I know this is more a fantasy than reality with this administration (see CBS's Scorpion) but I would love to dream we could support investing in purely helping others on the planet and not just killing them or blowing things up.
How about this: let's invest in creating elite units in the CDC to respond to epidemics, USAID to address famine, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to see crack negotiators parachuting into evolving hot spots to defuse them? I know this is more a fantasy than reality with this administration (see CBS's Scorpion) but I would love to dream we could support investing in purely helping others on the planet and not just killing them or blowing things up.
Mark Moyar is in the War is Grand business so he commentary on the subject is unidirectional with embellishments we await his next book.
The interesting question is what has America to show for its obsession with military force other than using what has so dearly been bought. Is there an end in sight or do we have to wait for that point when the public is exhausted from war weariness and POTUS realizes the game is over. Unfortunately with a voluntary military that day may never come and Trump’s missiles made him shine and he knows it, why stop now. The Special Ops get little coverage, they will likely get some rest and endless war marches on.
The interesting question is what has America to show for its obsession with military force other than using what has so dearly been bought. Is there an end in sight or do we have to wait for that point when the public is exhausted from war weariness and POTUS realizes the game is over. Unfortunately with a voluntary military that day may never come and Trump’s missiles made him shine and he knows it, why stop now. The Special Ops get little coverage, they will likely get some rest and endless war marches on.
2
Winning wars is not about regular troops vs. special operations. It is about having enough NATIVE fighters on your side. If there were enough native fighters in Syria, either regular troops or special ops would work just fine. Neither will work without the native fighters. I hope we learned this lesson in Vietnam, where the native fighters did not really care enough to defeat Hanoi.
2
So the north won because of so much white southern support? And the Germans lost cuz so many supported the allies you say? Um no
1
Unfortunately, this Opinion Piece seems to have remarkable (and suspicious) timing. The reference to "American occupation" of a North Korean city is particularly discouraging. It hearkens to the old days of the memory of the mechanized ground military. (It most likely will never return.) Large deployment of conventional ground military is used for invasion, pacification, resettlement and reconstruction. Its implementation on the Asian Western Pacific Rim will never be used again. Again, South Korea has twice the population and 50 times the GDP of its contiguous northern neighbor-North Korea. It has ALL conventional military assets needed for an Occupation. In Western Europe, the same is equally true for European NATO nations in internal and external security for any threat to their region, or one contiguous. (500M+ people and a combined GDP equivalent to the USA. Financial resources are available.)
1
About 2/3 of our military is now outsourced to private contractors. Many former military included former special ops fighters are part of these private contracted armies that fight for pay many hired by the US and many working for foreign governments.
Far more dangerous than fighting with special forces is the idea that the US military is fighting wars with government troops loyal to the chain of command and ultimately our elected officials. How many ex-special ops forces are part of these private contractors? How many of these private contractors are fighting for foreign governments?
US drones and air pilots are bombing civilians based on targeting from foreign fighters right now. How many former US soldiers are fighting and flying foreign missions? The wars are very much looking like black ops without civilian control. We have created a mercenary army of highly skilled killers since the draft was ended and I wonder just how much of it is under our civilian control.
Far more dangerous than fighting with special forces is the idea that the US military is fighting wars with government troops loyal to the chain of command and ultimately our elected officials. How many ex-special ops forces are part of these private contractors? How many of these private contractors are fighting for foreign governments?
US drones and air pilots are bombing civilians based on targeting from foreign fighters right now. How many former US soldiers are fighting and flying foreign missions? The wars are very much looking like black ops without civilian control. We have created a mercenary army of highly skilled killers since the draft was ended and I wonder just how much of it is under our civilian control.
5
Good points. The SpecOps explosion has led to the contractor issue. There are almost twice as many contractors serving in Afghanistan today as US military personnel. Not only do contractors not answer to the chain of command but they will also kill on command anyone they are paid to kill. How do they know they are not just being used to settle scores, of which there are scores of in any conflict zone?
Hopefully, this country never has to fight a "Russian armored division" nor "occupy a North Korean city" both of which would require more than "Special Ops." Both scenarios would also signify the escalation of the conflict to the brink of another World War which would certainly curtail the use of "Special Forces" as such a conflict would probably bring the demise of the opponents standing armies in very short order.
"Asymmetrical Warfare", such as fighting terrorists, rescuing hostages, etc. requires small units familiar with the countryside completing specific tasks. In the areas we find ourselves embroiled, "victory" is a chimera. You mention defeating the Taliban in 2001 yet here, in 2017, they are back and as strong as ever.
The conflicts world wide are still "brush fires" compared to both World Wars of the 20th Century. Like the "War on Crime', these conflicts are anything but "traditional" wars. There will be no peace signing ceremonies, just never ending actions trying to curtail whoever the "War" is against. Training a standing army to conduct such warfare would be cost prohibitive. The specially trained units of both the United States and Russia are the "go to" bunch for these conflicts and, most likely, will be the route chosen for combat in the immediate future.
Using them wisely? That is a question for another column.
"Asymmetrical Warfare", such as fighting terrorists, rescuing hostages, etc. requires small units familiar with the countryside completing specific tasks. In the areas we find ourselves embroiled, "victory" is a chimera. You mention defeating the Taliban in 2001 yet here, in 2017, they are back and as strong as ever.
The conflicts world wide are still "brush fires" compared to both World Wars of the 20th Century. Like the "War on Crime', these conflicts are anything but "traditional" wars. There will be no peace signing ceremonies, just never ending actions trying to curtail whoever the "War" is against. Training a standing army to conduct such warfare would be cost prohibitive. The specially trained units of both the United States and Russia are the "go to" bunch for these conflicts and, most likely, will be the route chosen for combat in the immediate future.
Using them wisely? That is a question for another column.
1
But, say we do have to fight a "Russian armored division" or "occupy a North Korean city", we will have special forces recon and spotters in place to facilitate the job.
The lack of military knowledge in this article is amazing.
The lack of military knowledge in this article is amazing.
1
We live in a 'Call of Duty' generation. People think waging war is as easy and inconsequential as turning the Xbox on and off.
2
>>>The deployment of Marines to Syria last month is an encouraging sign<<<
I'm sorry, but the deployment of any of our military in Syria is not an encouraging sign of anything other than another intractable guerrilla war with no realistic, identifiable objective and no end in sight.
I'm sorry, but the deployment of any of our military in Syria is not an encouraging sign of anything other than another intractable guerrilla war with no realistic, identifiable objective and no end in sight.
4
Special Forces are themselves terrorists as well. The military personnel assigned to these "dirty operations" have to carry these experiences with them the rest of their lives. These illegal raids and summary executions only reduce the United States to the terrorist level of the people we supposedly have to oppose.
5
The 60s are over my man.
It wasn't just Obama who over-rated the effectiveness of various military units. Let us not forget that the Army Chief of Staff, Erik Shinseki, advised the Bush administration that they would need at least 250,000 troops in the invasion of Iraq, not the 150,000 they used. Because Shinseki understood what Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush didn't: You can't just win the war, you must also win the peace, and for that they needed far more troops than they utilized. Shinseki's reward for his sound advice was a pink slip...and Iraq STILL is a huge problem, where ISIS was conceived and born. (No, it wasn't Obama and HRC who brought ISIS into being, it was the Bush team's botched Iraq invasion).
When you've got big muscles, a black belt, and not enough sense to find alternative solutions, you're more likely to act rashly. We've seen that from American Presidents, from Russia's Putin, but, wisely (surprisingly) not from the Chinese leaders. Instead, they figured out that money, investment and building projects are a far, FAR better way to project power and influence than military jingoism.
When you've got big muscles, a black belt, and not enough sense to find alternative solutions, you're more likely to act rashly. We've seen that from American Presidents, from Russia's Putin, but, wisely (surprisingly) not from the Chinese leaders. Instead, they figured out that money, investment and building projects are a far, FAR better way to project power and influence than military jingoism.
3
"Will President Trump follow suit" He did almost immediately with an ill advised decision to go ahead with an operation in Yemen that had been passed on. One Seal was KIA. I wonder how the investigation of that is going? Finished and hushed? Or finished and the results told to the Congress and family? Hopefully there was a lesson learned on the proper way to decide if an operation should move ahead or not.
1
Better to spend our treasure on peace building than war. Defense is important, but the US has never been invaded. Developing better relations with other countries, while building our economy is a strategy, as opposed to training troops for war they will hopefully never fight. We need to keep our military strong, but strength is relative, and we are by far already the biggest kid on the block.
2
Special forces are a victim of their own success. To start with, they're just too darn sexy and cool-looking. All the best movies and book deals go to SEALs and Rangers and Delta. They're also just too good at their jobs, being over-achievers by nature and having no quit in 'em to speak of. Well, other the odd hiccup which, as anyone in the military can tell you, can happen to ANY mission, no matter how well planned and executed. Murphy's Law, they call it.
But the gist of the article is correct. The 'commandos' as they were originally conceived are meant by their very nature to be specialists. Mostly at hostage rescue, taking down specific high risk/high value targets and deep recon. They weren't meant to do all the grunt work.
I believe this problem began with Iraq II. Rumsfeld was very keen on a lean, mean fighting machine. He thought the Rangers et al could do it all. Maybe they can, but they're also just human beings after all, prone to all the same frailties as regular people (after the bullets stop flying) and they can break when over-taxed just like anyone. The generals would do well to remember that.
But the gist of the article is correct. The 'commandos' as they were originally conceived are meant by their very nature to be specialists. Mostly at hostage rescue, taking down specific high risk/high value targets and deep recon. They weren't meant to do all the grunt work.
I believe this problem began with Iraq II. Rumsfeld was very keen on a lean, mean fighting machine. He thought the Rangers et al could do it all. Maybe they can, but they're also just human beings after all, prone to all the same frailties as regular people (after the bullets stop flying) and they can break when over-taxed just like anyone. The generals would do well to remember that.
While on active duty the United States soldier receives free health care, subsidized food and housing, increased pay for dangerous deployments, free education, a pension opportunity, a private banking system and after 20 years service- cradle to grave entitlements all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. It's the greatest display of socialism within our country and for the most part it works! I wonder if the GOP is aware of this?
3
The one thing Trump doesn't exhibit is a lack of restraint. He continues to provoke countries all around the world. Is this piece a joke?
The special forces are really providing a level of motivation that all our troops should have.
Apart from a misplaced and ill-intentioned ad hominem attack, this piece misses or misstates: 1. the history of U.S. Army Rangers (https://www.army.mil/ranger/heritage.html); 2. the targeted and appropriate use of U.S. Special Operations Forces to address situations that more frequently evidenced themselves in past decades and continue to date; and 3. the still valid total force structure of which Special Operations Forces are a valid and valuable component. Moyar's credentials and voice are clear and deserved, but his ambition for relevance needs a tad more apolitical objectivity and humility.
Special Ops have their place, Bombs, Missiles, Artillery and Tanks, in sufficient quantities and properly placed, should be able to win our Wars.
America's obsession with killing enemies is the worst form of short-termism. How many times do we hear that certain terrorists have been killed, or someone "close" to al Bagdadi, or a "senior figure" or whoever? And what difference does it make? The guys who step up are usually even more determined to hit back.
This obsession with killing is so last war. Asymmetric warfare is not about killing per se but about stopping recruitment and credibility. Killing people just doesn't cut it and makes the American approach look stupid and counter-productive. This isn't Hollywood and it isn't the Wild West. Sixteen years after 9/11 things are much worse than they were then despite the best the US military has been able to do. Who are the real dummies here?
This obsession with killing is so last war. Asymmetric warfare is not about killing per se but about stopping recruitment and credibility. Killing people just doesn't cut it and makes the American approach look stupid and counter-productive. This isn't Hollywood and it isn't the Wild West. Sixteen years after 9/11 things are much worse than they were then despite the best the US military has been able to do. Who are the real dummies here?
2
One way to tip the balance, in North Korea, is to feed the people the regime will not. But that's really a moot point, as any war on the Korean peninsula would devastate the population on both sides of the DMZ. In addition, we forget the vulnerability of our own electrical grid. When we consider sabotage, we must also consider the consequences of the United States (whole swaths of it) being without electricity for up to a year. We are not the only ones with special operations units. A Green Beret is a highly trained operative, but not a miracle worker. I always laugh at the silly Green Beret movie, starring a bloated and overweight John Wayne, carrying his weapon in like a casual baton. The Duke would have had a heart attack and croaked on the very first day of the Special Forces Q course. Americans love fiction. They're not so enamored with reality.
3
And what happens, when these highly trained expert killers come home.
Who will be their prey? Who will be their targets?
Is the civilian population in the US even safe anymore with these types of people living among us?
Who will be their prey? Who will be their targets?
Is the civilian population in the US even safe anymore with these types of people living among us?
Whatever the military decision, the Unites States outcome has remain unchanged in the battle to defeat terrorism. Terrorism is supported, fully, by many regimes in the world, and we are wrong to keep deployments alive, but not well, in the name of deterrence. Generations of the same families of Armed Services are serving and dying in the same war, no matter which division, or special unit is used. Is my 7 year old nephew going to die in these same wars? And, worse, American diversity in these units is under attack from their own government. Soldiers today, never get a break. Their deaths are an enriching, bloodless, commodity on Wall Street.
1
If only special ops could save nations from wars, perhaps one could say they are worth the loss of their members in operations. It would certainly minimize the bloodshed. The premise is kind of like "I will send my envoy to battle your envoy" and some will die....but thousands would be saved. Now let's face facts.
My WWII vet dad came home from the Korean conflict of the 50s shell-shocked and with mustard gas scars. He also served in Vietnam
Fact: Almost 35 thousand Americans died in the Korean War -- there are more than 7,800 still unaccounted for.
Fact: Almost 60,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam...over 300,000 seriously wounded.
Fact: As of 2014, almost 5000 Americans died in Iraq, and almost 2500 in Afghanistan with 1 million wounded in both wars, and a cost of near $6 trillion.
Fact: The day after Trump's 59 missile attack in Syria responded to 25 people dying in Assad's chemical attack, planes taking off from the same airfield attacked the same target again, killing 15 civilians and wounding unknown others.
This is what war is. It is not a game. It is not a boast over chocolate cake at an obscenely decorated resort. It is not a toy to be mishandled by someone who does not understand the consequences or has "no skin in the game". Neither Trump nor any member of Congress will see their children killed or maimed in conflicts they have created.
Stop this man NOW! War is not a game. People Die. Children die. It is not a hero movie.
My WWII vet dad came home from the Korean conflict of the 50s shell-shocked and with mustard gas scars. He also served in Vietnam
Fact: Almost 35 thousand Americans died in the Korean War -- there are more than 7,800 still unaccounted for.
Fact: Almost 60,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam...over 300,000 seriously wounded.
Fact: As of 2014, almost 5000 Americans died in Iraq, and almost 2500 in Afghanistan with 1 million wounded in both wars, and a cost of near $6 trillion.
Fact: The day after Trump's 59 missile attack in Syria responded to 25 people dying in Assad's chemical attack, planes taking off from the same airfield attacked the same target again, killing 15 civilians and wounding unknown others.
This is what war is. It is not a game. It is not a boast over chocolate cake at an obscenely decorated resort. It is not a toy to be mishandled by someone who does not understand the consequences or has "no skin in the game". Neither Trump nor any member of Congress will see their children killed or maimed in conflicts they have created.
Stop this man NOW! War is not a game. People Die. Children die. It is not a hero movie.
1
Great comment. I risked my life after 9/11 trying to stop terrorists only to see John Brennan and his Merry Gang of Saudi-lovers train thousands of jihadis to use as proxy warriors against an Ally of Russia's and an Enemy of Israel's. No core US interest involved whatsoever. John Brennan and the Deep State (I like to call him their Dark Prince) gave us a Hundred Year War with CIA at the Center of It. The best SpecOps go SAD and become hired killers for Gulf Arabs.
Seems like 21st century war might be in for disruption by artificial intelligence. Up to this point, special ops have been almost a strategy ( though not a good one). While drones have been part of this strategy, full usage of a range of AI for everything from overwhelming propaganda to shutting off electrical, safety, comma etc as a central strategy might be the future.
Consider how this might work in North Korea... in a week or so, the electricity goes off, people's phones are all locked and the only thing they can see is differing messages telling them to go to places, do things. Some messages seem to be from the government, some from allies. No electrical system functions with any expectation of success and reactions from individuals are measured with future actions targeted to scare. Then a swarm of drones descends on all of the possible locations where Kim Jung Un might be. They examine faces and kill all people above a certain rank... Then special forces (augmented by false flags, weird news and bombings with no news arrive. Then the ground forces hit or not... scary? Yes. Likely? Yes. Russia seems to be strongly considering this type of strategy and we would do well to follow.
Consider how this might work in North Korea... in a week or so, the electricity goes off, people's phones are all locked and the only thing they can see is differing messages telling them to go to places, do things. Some messages seem to be from the government, some from allies. No electrical system functions with any expectation of success and reactions from individuals are measured with future actions targeted to scare. Then a swarm of drones descends on all of the possible locations where Kim Jung Un might be. They examine faces and kill all people above a certain rank... Then special forces (augmented by false flags, weird news and bombings with no news arrive. Then the ground forces hit or not... scary? Yes. Likely? Yes. Russia seems to be strongly considering this type of strategy and we would do well to follow.
Although Mr. Trump may not be interested in fighting a major war, he may be left with little choice.
With his numbers Trump will need a major war to rally Americans or risk going down as the biggest loser ever to occupy the Oval Office. We can already see him sizing up dance partners - Iran could be good for Ayatollah laughs. NK? The prospect of a nuclear strike on San Francisco will keep the critics at bay. With Australia the thunder of war could be kept mostly down under. Of course, Canada already showed America in 1812 to 14 so once bitten twice shy really ought to apply. If not and America should come for more, she shouldn't expect to hear sorry friend as we again throw her out the door.
With his numbers Trump will need a major war to rally Americans or risk going down as the biggest loser ever to occupy the Oval Office. We can already see him sizing up dance partners - Iran could be good for Ayatollah laughs. NK? The prospect of a nuclear strike on San Francisco will keep the critics at bay. With Australia the thunder of war could be kept mostly down under. Of course, Canada already showed America in 1812 to 14 so once bitten twice shy really ought to apply. If not and America should come for more, she shouldn't expect to hear sorry friend as we again throw her out the door.
The very notion of using "Special Ops" units permits us to sustain the fiction that we are not really putting "boots on the ground" in any given geopolitical conflagration hot spot du jour. The truth is that we have a bloated, greedy Defense Department larded with all sorts of unnecessary pet projects for our equally greedy members of Congress, while there is rampant, almost untraceable duplication of effort, pork, waste, and nothing tangible as true victories in this squalid mess. In the meantime, our actual troops are underpaid, their families languish on dwindling SNAP support (courtesy of our "patriotic" GOTP), the VA healthcare system still needs massive improvement, and we haven't had a credible or sustainable military mission in years. Perhaps it is time to resurrect the draft with no exemptions other than independently verifiable physical or mental disabilities; streamline our military into one service with capabilities on land, sea, in the air, and most important, in cyberspace, and stop fleecing American taxpayers for all of these branches and their labyrinth of murky bureaucracies. Just say "NO!" 4/23, 8:40 AM
4
Similar to how Rumsfeld and the right promote the idea that "smart bombs" only kill bad guys. Pro-war Americans like to believe there is no collateral damage when they start dropping bombs and sending in troops.
2
America's dangerous love for special ops does not make me as sick to the stomach as the war in Afghanistan with no end. We dropped the mother of all bombs to destroy the tunnels across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan where ISIS supposedly was taking control. How did Karzai former president of Afghanistan installed by the USA respond? He called it an attack on the sovereignty of Afghanistan. How did the Taliban respond? They launched the mother of all attacks on an army base killing close to 150 US trained Afghan soldiers while leaving a mosque at the base after Friday prayers. How deadly serious is this? The Afghan defense minister and the army chief of staff who were to meet with mad dog Mattis, the US defense secretary have resigned. How many times do I have to keep repeating my statement "THERE IS NO FINAL MILITARY SOLUTION TO END AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. Armies of Alexander the great, the mighty British empire and the nuclear armed USSR have all been defeated by the hardy, courageous, fearless Afghans. The Taliban are Afghan tribal army, in case there is a doubt about who they are. Of course they have foreign fighter in the Taliban and earlier they were aligned to the Al Qaeda and now maybe collaborating with ISIS. Pres. Trump has an opportunity to break away from the failed ZERO diplomacy Afghan policies of Bush and Obama. If Trump thinks that leaving it to the generals to resolve the Afghanistan war, he is going down the same path to disaster.
1
Some decent points but author is lost in his love for the military option. As far as I see it, Trump's generals and admirals are spinning circles, overreacting to false flags, bombing empty tunnels, and provoking a nuclear power we have no idea how to fight without frying up a million South Koreans. Some "virtuous military vets." -Former 11-B (not proud)
3
Hopeful yet ultimately disingenuous attempt at deflection, or at best, a desperate and barely camouflaged attempt at providing unsolicited advice to an administration famously insular to fact and reason.
After the Yemen debacle, shooting from the hip in Syria, and an "armada" lost at sea because the top brass couldn't bear to contradict the commander in chief, where's the beef to support this wishful thinking?
After the Yemen debacle, shooting from the hip in Syria, and an "armada" lost at sea because the top brass couldn't bear to contradict the commander in chief, where's the beef to support this wishful thinking?
You stopped me cold with that comment “Obama-era greenhorns”. Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, and Leon Panetta all Secretaries of Defense under President Obama. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry Secretaries of State under President Obama. All five of them with distinguished careers in the government, and solid resumes for their positions. Four of the five served in the military, two are war heroes.
Having served in the military (Navy) it seems to me that there are two strategic plans that are warranted and a need of readiness for. The Terrorist Organizations throughout the world-Special Ops. And all out aggression by another country i.e. Russia, North Korea-Conventional Armed Forces-Army, Navy, Air Force.
Oh, and no one should love Special-Ops. And no one should love the Military. And no one should love War. It may be necessary but we don’t have to love it.
Having served in the military (Navy) it seems to me that there are two strategic plans that are warranted and a need of readiness for. The Terrorist Organizations throughout the world-Special Ops. And all out aggression by another country i.e. Russia, North Korea-Conventional Armed Forces-Army, Navy, Air Force.
Oh, and no one should love Special-Ops. And no one should love the Military. And no one should love War. It may be necessary but we don’t have to love it.
1
Considering Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the wars against drug lords, Syria, Libya and various uses of CIA special operatives in Central and South America is there a war that American forces have won since WWII? I can think only of the US war against Granada. How can the greatest fighting force in the history of warfare lose or fight to a draw every war it enters?
1
True. Special forces around the world rely on a very high degree of training, carefully researching each mission, a high degree of surprise and overwhelming fire power and back up forces to stack the deck against their opposition.
This means their fatal weakness is the complete lack of staying power - they simply cannot hold ground and don't even try to do that. Any decent opposing force will simply use time to whittle down the edge of a special force.
History actually shows us how difficult it is to defeat a highly motivated enemy such as the ones the US encountered in Vietnam and Korea who were not looking to invade outside their home turf and used their native knowledge of the land to outfox a better equiped American force. They simply attacked in waves and withdrew to blend in before US power could be concentrated on them.
In such a war of attrition with a highly motivated enemy defending its home turf no amount of US power can succeed in the long run.
Unfortunately it is a lesson the Pentagon has yet to learn, they decided to build up the special forces and rely more on standoff weapons so it is less likely to sustain heavy US casualties but this simply creates a mirage of victory; and unfortunately does nothing to solve the problem.
This means their fatal weakness is the complete lack of staying power - they simply cannot hold ground and don't even try to do that. Any decent opposing force will simply use time to whittle down the edge of a special force.
History actually shows us how difficult it is to defeat a highly motivated enemy such as the ones the US encountered in Vietnam and Korea who were not looking to invade outside their home turf and used their native knowledge of the land to outfox a better equiped American force. They simply attacked in waves and withdrew to blend in before US power could be concentrated on them.
In such a war of attrition with a highly motivated enemy defending its home turf no amount of US power can succeed in the long run.
Unfortunately it is a lesson the Pentagon has yet to learn, they decided to build up the special forces and rely more on standoff weapons so it is less likely to sustain heavy US casualties but this simply creates a mirage of victory; and unfortunately does nothing to solve the problem.
20
The author and commenters make many good points; however, the elephant in the war room has been ignored - the military-industrial complex.
War is a very lucrative activity for share holders, corporate CEO/executives, state and federal politicians, lobbyist, workers in the defense industry, etc. Also, war is a life ending or life changing activity for those who serve in the military.
War, declared and undeclared, is one of the biggest engines that drives the US economy. Follow the expenditures, for weapons, military research, national security, healthcare for vets and their families, logistics, legalized bribes (kicked backed expenditures), etc. The war machine touches on a very large part of the American economy in one way or another.
Eisenhower warned Americans about the dangers of the military-industrial complex; however, on almost all levels, and for a host of reasons, the American people have failed to keep the military profiteers and power seekers in check.
Unfortunately, most politicians shout their support for military personnel and veterans, and then, behind the scenes, take actions that redirects money that supports active duty personnel and veterans.
For example, when preparing for war after 9/11 the majority of politicians approved a bill that denies VA Health Services to middle class veterans and military retires who's family income exceeds the national family income - in many cases this is a marriage penalty.
And so it goes.
War is a very lucrative activity for share holders, corporate CEO/executives, state and federal politicians, lobbyist, workers in the defense industry, etc. Also, war is a life ending or life changing activity for those who serve in the military.
War, declared and undeclared, is one of the biggest engines that drives the US economy. Follow the expenditures, for weapons, military research, national security, healthcare for vets and their families, logistics, legalized bribes (kicked backed expenditures), etc. The war machine touches on a very large part of the American economy in one way or another.
Eisenhower warned Americans about the dangers of the military-industrial complex; however, on almost all levels, and for a host of reasons, the American people have failed to keep the military profiteers and power seekers in check.
Unfortunately, most politicians shout their support for military personnel and veterans, and then, behind the scenes, take actions that redirects money that supports active duty personnel and veterans.
For example, when preparing for war after 9/11 the majority of politicians approved a bill that denies VA Health Services to middle class veterans and military retires who's family income exceeds the national family income - in many cases this is a marriage penalty.
And so it goes.
41
Special Forces gets all the glamorous headlines, particularly after their successful mission to get Bin Laden. They hit all the right marketing points: highly trained, intelligent, heavily armed, operating often in isolation on dangerous and important missions. Bucket loads of books, video games, and movies showcase their deadly skills and "coolness" factor.
Yet we must remember that Special Forces are just one tool in a toolbox of options to conduct military operations and national security. There's also different types of special forces rather than just the popularized SEAL or Delta Force. Green Berets were originally conceived in the Vietnam War to train indigenous forces (Montagnards). These Green Beret were not just efficient killers, but they were highly trained and intelligent military personnel that knew the local language and learned local culture to nurture a good relationship and train locals to combat the united enemy. Some may look on this as a bit of propaganda or having someone else fight to help fight the enemy, and in many respects it is, but Green Berets were not just a blunt force instrument to wage unlimited destruction.
While the example of the Green Berets as a training tool (now expanded to conventional forces training and operating national Iraqi and Afghan forces) is helpful, I do agree that such usage (along with the pinpoint strike operators like SEALs and Delta) cannot be a war winning strategy. Neither is just launching cruise missiles.
Yet we must remember that Special Forces are just one tool in a toolbox of options to conduct military operations and national security. There's also different types of special forces rather than just the popularized SEAL or Delta Force. Green Berets were originally conceived in the Vietnam War to train indigenous forces (Montagnards). These Green Beret were not just efficient killers, but they were highly trained and intelligent military personnel that knew the local language and learned local culture to nurture a good relationship and train locals to combat the united enemy. Some may look on this as a bit of propaganda or having someone else fight to help fight the enemy, and in many respects it is, but Green Berets were not just a blunt force instrument to wage unlimited destruction.
While the example of the Green Berets as a training tool (now expanded to conventional forces training and operating national Iraqi and Afghan forces) is helpful, I do agree that such usage (along with the pinpoint strike operators like SEALs and Delta) cannot be a war winning strategy. Neither is just launching cruise missiles.
21
In the modern era of warfare, Vietnam to the present, special forces and the use of them make it seem like the use of secretive, highly trained, self-sacrificing troops add a degree of morality and revenge. Special forces avenge the deaths of those slaughtered by Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and the special army groups of Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan and more. Evil is overcome by good. The special forces make the evil forces pay a steep price. Or so we're told.
In World War II peace came because the enemy in its entirety was totally vanquished. There was no doubt in the minds of the Germans or Japanese that they had been totally defeated and were on the verge of annihilation. Germany ceased to exist as functioning society as Allied troops overwhelmed German forces and took over and occupied all of Germany. Japan, after the atomic bombs knew that it faced total annihilation of what was left of Japanese civilization. So horrific was the atomic destruction that Japan surrendered more than a million well armed troops and submitted to complete occupation and rule mostly by the United States.
Special forces cannot completely defeat a nation. While there is a temporary surge of pride knowing that some bad guys paid the ultimate price war continues unabated. And that is the point. "Some forces" pay the price. But not the nation, or the political parties, or the armed forces.
The object of war is destruction of the enemy to prevent slaughter. Not prolong it.
In World War II peace came because the enemy in its entirety was totally vanquished. There was no doubt in the minds of the Germans or Japanese that they had been totally defeated and were on the verge of annihilation. Germany ceased to exist as functioning society as Allied troops overwhelmed German forces and took over and occupied all of Germany. Japan, after the atomic bombs knew that it faced total annihilation of what was left of Japanese civilization. So horrific was the atomic destruction that Japan surrendered more than a million well armed troops and submitted to complete occupation and rule mostly by the United States.
Special forces cannot completely defeat a nation. While there is a temporary surge of pride knowing that some bad guys paid the ultimate price war continues unabated. And that is the point. "Some forces" pay the price. But not the nation, or the political parties, or the armed forces.
The object of war is destruction of the enemy to prevent slaughter. Not prolong it.
24
The only thing special in Special Forces is that it allows us to deploy American troops into unpopular conflicts without us admitting we are still fighting wars that are not approved by Congress. Special Forces gives military the sweet smell of a limited a "policing action" and not the acrid stench of waging war.
55
Our military is already so overgrown and bloated that it can "win" a face to face confrontation with any other military on the planet. But it cannot win peace, as that is not its goal. How do we change the goal?
How many humanitarian missions have been performed lately? How much food, medicine, drinkable water, shelter, and clothing have been deployed to places where it is desperately needed? The only way to win the peace is to provide for those who desperately need assistance.
Sure, there will likely be some tin-horn despots who want to take advantage of largesse and deny their citizens the right to humanity; if denied the access to weapons and the means to use them, those warlords will usually be overthrown. Trouble is, there are too many weapons of destruction (is that an oxymoron?) distributed across this planet. The world needs a massive disarmament. Will the military industrial complex allow it while we have our own wannabe despot in the White House?
Let's start using our "special forces" to feed, clothe, and heal. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the population can we ever win the peace - which should be the objective of any military.
How many humanitarian missions have been performed lately? How much food, medicine, drinkable water, shelter, and clothing have been deployed to places where it is desperately needed? The only way to win the peace is to provide for those who desperately need assistance.
Sure, there will likely be some tin-horn despots who want to take advantage of largesse and deny their citizens the right to humanity; if denied the access to weapons and the means to use them, those warlords will usually be overthrown. Trouble is, there are too many weapons of destruction (is that an oxymoron?) distributed across this planet. The world needs a massive disarmament. Will the military industrial complex allow it while we have our own wannabe despot in the White House?
Let's start using our "special forces" to feed, clothe, and heal. Only by winning the hearts and minds of the population can we ever win the peace - which should be the objective of any military.
32
You want to go feed, clothe and heal Ayman Al Zawahiri, be my guest. I'd rather Find, Fix and Finish him.
Sounds good, but very naive.
We keep forgetting that all of these elite forces, which goes for the Green Berets in Vietnam, are operating in countries with very different cultures than where these young men and women come from. No matter how skillful you maybe at capturing or eliminating targets, you still confront populations whose hearts and minds are not with their mission. And the more you capture, kill or blow up the more you alienate cultures who will always view these elite forces as invaders.
54
Trump and Pence put on their leather bomber jackets, and now fancy themselves as warriors. Trump "found his groove" launching missiles.
The reality TV POTUS believes the war movies he sees. Navy seals will swoop in. The Air Force is Top Gun. The Army is filled with G.I. Joes.
It's not their children Trump and Pence will be marching off to fight. It's ours.
And it won't be make-believe where the U.S. hero wins every time.
The bullets and blood will be real.
The reality TV POTUS believes the war movies he sees. Navy seals will swoop in. The Air Force is Top Gun. The Army is filled with G.I. Joes.
It's not their children Trump and Pence will be marching off to fight. It's ours.
And it won't be make-believe where the U.S. hero wins every time.
The bullets and blood will be real.
86
Mark Moyar wrote a book on why the U.S. should and could have won the war in Viet-Nam. No university would hire him. He praises the fact that military veterans are now in charge of military and foreign policy instead of "Obama-era greenhorns." This of course goes against the long-standing norm that civilians should be in charge of soldiers in this country. His by-line states that he is "the director of the Center for Military and Diplomatic History." Is that a think tank funded by the Olin Foundation or some other right-wing organization or billionaire?
21
ah but of course no university hiring him is proof of the great liberal conspiracy to suppress free speech. just like putting all those women in the sight lines of ailes, Trump and oreilly
Thank you.
Well....are we sure we know all the successes of Special forces? Is it possible we hear more about the failures than the covert victories? Who knows how many quiet accomplishments have stymied unfavorable situations?
6
Well... we know we're still fighting ISIS and the Taliban in Syria, Iraq, etc. No matter how many small accomplishments or "stymied unfavorable situations," special operations forces are not a substitute for conventional forces for strategic victory.
"America’s special operations troops can hunt down a terrorist or train an elite unit better than anyone. But they can’t destroy a Russian armored division or occupy a North Korean city. If the military continues to shift talent from conventional to special units through expansion of the latter, the conventional forces required in a large war will suffer."
It seems to me the U.S. military in its organization is vastly more advanced than civilian society in the U.S. The military by recognizing the value of special ops--of separating the best soldiers from the rest--has taken the essential step toward organizing the military as a whole. After the will toward pure meritocracy is established--as it is with special ops--it should be possible to work backward and have such forces train the entire military, and if in dire emergency, to do as the Romans did: Place the weaker troops in position, surrounded by, the better troops so they cannot run and have to face the enemy. Essentially, if you can separate the better men from the rest, it should be possible to whip the rest up as best as they can be elevated.
The military is vastly more advanced in organization than civilian society because there is no special ops of caliber humans--those gifted in intellect and discipline--in civilian society by which society as a whole can be elevated, and to whom society can point as ideal in intellect, courage, discipline. We have corps of true leaders in military but not civilian life.
It seems to me the U.S. military in its organization is vastly more advanced than civilian society in the U.S. The military by recognizing the value of special ops--of separating the best soldiers from the rest--has taken the essential step toward organizing the military as a whole. After the will toward pure meritocracy is established--as it is with special ops--it should be possible to work backward and have such forces train the entire military, and if in dire emergency, to do as the Romans did: Place the weaker troops in position, surrounded by, the better troops so they cannot run and have to face the enemy. Essentially, if you can separate the better men from the rest, it should be possible to whip the rest up as best as they can be elevated.
The military is vastly more advanced in organization than civilian society because there is no special ops of caliber humans--those gifted in intellect and discipline--in civilian society by which society as a whole can be elevated, and to whom society can point as ideal in intellect, courage, discipline. We have corps of true leaders in military but not civilian life.
1
Actually, we do: artists, teachers, mathematicians, inventors, sculptors, philosophers, business visionaries, and so forth, but it's a lot easier to fetishize the man in uniform.
2
A well-intentioned critique that ultimately misses. Not all special forces are ill-equipped for sustained conventional or unconventional ground combat. The Green Berets are the right force for the right job in the swirl of today's complex conflicts. They are trained to act tactically as well as strategically, invest the time to learn local cultures and languages in their areas of operation, and they are not only about hit and run. Unlike SEALs, Green Berets often hunker down for the long haul and embed with indigenous forces for years at a time. The SEALs, by contrast, can be a mismatch. They are underwater demolition experts awkwardly re-tasked since 9/11 with commando-style, kill-everyone raids on land. They have done admirably, but unsurprisingly it doesn't always work. Similarly, the Marines, our elite conventional fighting force, are meant to be an ocean-bound, amphibious attack element. They are not supposed to be in the slog of desert or mountain warfare for years - that's why we have an Army.
25
Quite correct... but an Army requires a Draft for such operations .... a very unpopular idea.
The full conventional might of the United States and Great Britain did not pacify Iraq and (in fact) largely served to embolden Iran. In fact, many military operations, special forces or not have failed - since time immemorial, but certainly since the WW I. Cherry-picked failures of special ops, therefore, need a clear comparison with the equally shocking failures of conventional forces.
3
Has there ever been a time in human history when we didn't need heroes?
Along with their courage and strength, the Special Ops forces come with mystery. We know they walk among us, like Superman, but who are they? The mystique adds to our fascination. Big bombs cause a lot more destruction, but I think we all save our respect for real human beings.
There will always be war. It's part of our nature. But hopefully the Specials Ops can help keep the damage to a minimum.
Along with their courage and strength, the Special Ops forces come with mystery. We know they walk among us, like Superman, but who are they? The mystique adds to our fascination. Big bombs cause a lot more destruction, but I think we all save our respect for real human beings.
There will always be war. It's part of our nature. But hopefully the Specials Ops can help keep the damage to a minimum.
3
C'mon, man. 18-Deltas don't walk on water. Yuck.
They are lifers who like to fight. Plenty like them in the Marines and Big Army.
War is NOT part of our Nature. People can learn to be peaceful.
They are lifers who like to fight. Plenty like them in the Marines and Big Army.
War is NOT part of our Nature. People can learn to be peaceful.
1
Your opinion of humanity as a whole is utopian. Take a look at history. Even pacifists will fight if their families are in danger.
Mr. Moyer may have the military part of this equation right, but he's left out the most important part, diplomacy.
Several presidents have campaigned pledging peace, but no sooner in office did the give the orders to go to war. We didn't become "enmeshed" in these conflicts. Nor did we simply become "involved" in counter insurgency in Afghanistan. These were strategic choices that have survived from one party to the other and to successive presidents.
They have all failed to be honest with the American people. None of our recent wars were necessary to the defense of the country. The issue isn't what kinds of units are deployed, but why any are deployed in the first place.
The debate today shouldn't be over to do, or not do special opps. It should be how do we de-escate tensions that run the very real risk of becoming a nuclear exchange? This is not an academic debate. The very future of the world hangs on its outcome.
Several presidents have campaigned pledging peace, but no sooner in office did the give the orders to go to war. We didn't become "enmeshed" in these conflicts. Nor did we simply become "involved" in counter insurgency in Afghanistan. These were strategic choices that have survived from one party to the other and to successive presidents.
They have all failed to be honest with the American people. None of our recent wars were necessary to the defense of the country. The issue isn't what kinds of units are deployed, but why any are deployed in the first place.
The debate today shouldn't be over to do, or not do special opps. It should be how do we de-escate tensions that run the very real risk of becoming a nuclear exchange? This is not an academic debate. The very future of the world hangs on its outcome.
13
“I would start with the State Department budget. Frankly, they need to be as fully funded as Congress believes appropriate, because if you don’t fund the State Department fully then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
Gen. James Mattis, USMC
U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services hearing, March 5, 2013
Gen. James Mattis, USMC
U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services hearing, March 5, 2013
1
Agree that a thorough, hard-eyed reexamination of the U.S. military is
long overdue, not only to assure that it anticipates a range of potential
conflicts but to get serious about financial accountability.
My understanding is that the DOD has not passed a budget audit for
some six years. Yet there is talk about greatly expanding an already
huge defense budget before Congress understands where the money
from past fiscal years has gone. With no fiscal accountability there is no
incentive to clear thinking about real priorities that the military actually
needs. No one doubts there is waste and worse in the present system.
There should be no increase in the defense budget until Congress and
U.S. taxpayers see the DOD pass a comprehensive audit.
long overdue, not only to assure that it anticipates a range of potential
conflicts but to get serious about financial accountability.
My understanding is that the DOD has not passed a budget audit for
some six years. Yet there is talk about greatly expanding an already
huge defense budget before Congress understands where the money
from past fiscal years has gone. With no fiscal accountability there is no
incentive to clear thinking about real priorities that the military actually
needs. No one doubts there is waste and worse in the present system.
There should be no increase in the defense budget until Congress and
U.S. taxpayers see the DOD pass a comprehensive audit.
6
Yes!! That and scrap the two additional carriers and the B-61 upgrade. You don't even need an audit to see how counterproductive that spending is. If we have too many carriers and dial-a-yield nukes and we will find a reason to use them on someone.
Special Ops - at 70K still just over 5% of the total active force. This reflects the exigencies and imperatives of the ubiquitous and interminable War on Terrorism.
The US is still out spending the next 7 to 10 largest military nations combined on its massive military establishment.
No wonder it is our first and persistent choice in dealing with the rest of the world.
None of this is due to change in any appreciable way until our military-industial-political complex undergoes seminal change. That will not happen as long as it remains the biggest for profit business on the planet.
The US is still out spending the next 7 to 10 largest military nations combined on its massive military establishment.
No wonder it is our first and persistent choice in dealing with the rest of the world.
None of this is due to change in any appreciable way until our military-industial-political complex undergoes seminal change. That will not happen as long as it remains the biggest for profit business on the planet.
4
Great comment. War has become as American as Apple Pie. And that's a War Crime!
1
Special Ops are beloved by politicians who don't know the difference between tactical and strategic objectives. The Trump Administration is at least full of military people who understand that difference.
2
Armored divisions are obsolete, as is a surface navy. Unmanned fighters will be able to outperform any manned aircraft, and manned bombers were obsolete after the Germans unleashed the V1.
Yet we continue to spend huge sums on these throwback systems.
War is obsolete. What is left is best handled by Special Forces- as in the Army version- small teams that can go in and organize people to provide for their own safety and stability.
This author is correct- we've grown the capacity, but what we haven't learned is how to effectively use these forces as a tool of real diplomacy.
War is always the marker of failed statesmanship.
What we truly need is better diplomacy and less "defense."
Yet we continue to spend huge sums on these throwback systems.
War is obsolete. What is left is best handled by Special Forces- as in the Army version- small teams that can go in and organize people to provide for their own safety and stability.
This author is correct- we've grown the capacity, but what we haven't learned is how to effectively use these forces as a tool of real diplomacy.
War is always the marker of failed statesmanship.
What we truly need is better diplomacy and less "defense."
26
Special forces have been elevated by the media and movies to a military version of Olympic sports. This is dangerous and sad. It reminds me of British literature from World War I equating soldiers as sportsman.
In his book, On Strategy, A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Col. Harry Summers recall an encounter with a North Vietnamese officer. Summers told him that we beat them decisively in almost every battle. The North Vietnamese officer responded that the observation was true, however it was also irrelevant because the North Vietnamese had the political will to win.
Harry Summers left us too early.
In his book, On Strategy, A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Col. Harry Summers recall an encounter with a North Vietnamese officer. Summers told him that we beat them decisively in almost every battle. The North Vietnamese officer responded that the observation was true, however it was also irrelevant because the North Vietnamese had the political will to win.
Harry Summers left us too early.
9
Vietnam is not a democracy, then or now. They wouldnt entertain anti-war protests of the like being seen in the US at that time. The Vietnam war had to end prematurely because it lost popular support at home. That's been the case with every war since WWII. People think Obama made the decision to pull troops out of Iraq and Vietnam. He only made those promises because the wars had become so unpopular. Always the case when the dead bodies start coming home in volumes.
Thank goodness civilians are starting to realize that special ops isn't a panacea. The SEAL mystique has been monetized by Hollywood and politicized with SEAL candidates, SEAL university presidents, SEAL investment bankers--and sometimes they are successful in expanded strategic roles. But they are, fundamentally, admirable patriots and tactical fighters, great for our country in that role, but their over use or misuse will not take us where we need to go.
8
Ever since the Phoenix program was begun in Vietnam in 1964 Special Ops forces have produced at best mixed results in counterinsurgency operations. Phoenix missions did kill a number of Viet Cong local leaders, but not enough to avert Tet in 1968. One could devote a great deal of time and study the details of Special Ops missions and perhaps produce a more nuanced critique of why Special Ops forces, alone, are not sufficient to defeat an insurgency, but one fact seems to stand out. Insurgencies are founded on political grievances. Insurgents are inspired by those grievances. And military action against insurgents cannot resolve those political grievances.
Even military occupation is not sufficient to defeat insurgency as long as the insurgent movement is supplied by external supporters.
Even military occupation is not sufficient to defeat insurgency as long as the insurgent movement is supplied by external supporters.
20
The implication of this argument is that funding for conventional forces is being redirected toward special operations. What the argument does not note, however, is that funding for both kinds of forces since 2001 is much higher than it has ever been. The continued insistence that we maintain our spending levels on the military, despite our decision to slash federal spending in nearly every other area, is simply unsustainable.
The budget for our military is needlessly bloated, excessive, and inefficient. The current conversation should concern how we might enable the Pentagon to better manage its reduction across the board.
The budget for our military is needlessly bloated, excessive, and inefficient. The current conversation should concern how we might enable the Pentagon to better manage its reduction across the board.
7
Winning wars is not nearly as profitable as prolonging undeclared conflicts and instigating new ones, or joining those already in progress, or just selling weaponry to combatants world-wide. The US has been at war or involved in military conflicts almost incessantly since 1941, and the military-industrial-security-munitions-mercenary complex has been making money hand over fist the entire time. Don't look for things to change any time soon.
40
@another expat
Chris Hedges in Death of the Liberal Class takes it back to Woodrow Wilson and he is convincing.
Chris Hedges in Death of the Liberal Class takes it back to Woodrow Wilson and he is convincing.
We need to learn from our success - the IRA movement. We eventually engineered peace by stopping the flow of funds, engaging the Principals with principles and never using force even though the threat was unspoken. Specials forces control terrorism but do not bring peace.
10
The Military Industrial Complex and financial services run America now, and they will likely ruin our country through endless wars and endless scams. How the US has been at war since 1991 without a fiscal collapse is a miracle to me. Imagine where our country would be if we had spent all that money on health care, infrastructure, education and STEM.
50
We did have a fiscal collapse in 2008. While we were in a big Fiscal Deficit from the Iraq War.
Much of what you say is accurate. If we had a Congress that was looking out to check a President's motives when undertaking military operations we would be much better off. That's not what happens.
Much of what you say is accurate. If we had a Congress that was looking out to check a President's motives when undertaking military operations we would be much better off. That's not what happens.
The US has been engaged in futile and pointless Asian wars since 1950!
3
American generals used to be wary of creating elite units, mostly because of the reasons the author mentions. They saw what it did to the Germans during WW2, when SS units had priority for being maintained at 100% strength, with all the best troops, equipment, fuel, and other supplies. It meant the generals weren't free to rationalize priorities within their own theaters of operation. It's politicians who like the idea of being able to dip their toes in the water instead of jumping in the deep end. Better to roll the dice and hope you get lucky with a nickel bet instead of a $1,000 minimum.
2
Those harping on the "US not winning armed conflicts" since WWII are not understanding the nature of armed conflict post WWII-- winning is not possible since all out war with a major power is not possible or acceptable to anyone (as that would end the human race). So limited, proxy wars are fought to send game theory messages between major powers and shift assets. The only real, larger wars against the Soviets and the terrorists have been mostly successful. A few battles have been lost along the way (Vietnam being one) but extracting huge losses from your enemy's allies along the is, sadly, part of winning the larger war and it does work. It changes the game theory calculus for your adversary in the next round of play.
The problem with special forces is that they tend to not send clear enough messages due to their intentionally small footprint. Perhaps if they were used more boldly a la the Bin Laden victory, say against Kim Jung Un, the messages would be received more clearly by our true adversaries.
The problem with special forces is that they tend to not send clear enough messages due to their intentionally small footprint. Perhaps if they were used more boldly a la the Bin Laden victory, say against Kim Jung Un, the messages would be received more clearly by our true adversaries.
9
"A few battles have been lost along the way (Vietnam being one) ..." Nothing major here; 55,000 Americans dead and how many Vietnamese? Millions?
Game theory is a mathematical construct that can handle a very few variables at a time. It's useless in foreign affairs calculations. Irony: The height of State and Defense Dept confidence in game theory was during the Kennedy/Johnson era that gave the US the Vietnam debacle.
Game theory is a mathematical construct that can handle a very few variables at a time. It's useless in foreign affairs calculations. Irony: The height of State and Defense Dept confidence in game theory was during the Kennedy/Johnson era that gave the US the Vietnam debacle.
3
What happens to the special ops people once their tour of duty is over? Can they return to a "normal" life, or will they continue their operations on peace loving civilians? Serious discussion is needed for post-special operations forces.
5
Right...no one has left "special ops"....ever. There are no known facts, no studies, no information.....
1
Contractors. Blackwater, etc
1
I'm not sure the author is breathing enough oxygen. Special Forces are by definition more capable than conventional troops. They are specially selected and well trained soldiers. They are more elite soldiers who arrive on the cutting edge of battle, by land sea or air. They will never leave a fallen comrade and will never embarrass their country.
So what's not to love?
So what's the suggestion? That we regress to the dismal draft Army?
If the author meant we've become to reliant on Special Operations and expect too much of them, well that's a different column, one that would rightly blame the media, the movie industry and pundits like this one for creating an unrealistic and unsustainable images of the greatest Americans on our the planet. But love SF too much? Not possible.
So what's not to love?
So what's the suggestion? That we regress to the dismal draft Army?
If the author meant we've become to reliant on Special Operations and expect too much of them, well that's a different column, one that would rightly blame the media, the movie industry and pundits like this one for creating an unrealistic and unsustainable images of the greatest Americans on our the planet. But love SF too much? Not possible.
5
You just recited a portion of the Ranger Creed when talking about SF. Thought I'd point that out.
Unlike the claims of the headline, Special Ops apparently CANNOT train armies. After billions of dollars spent on training the Afghan and Iraqi armies over many years, it is astounding to watch how their "untrained" and vastly outnumbered opponents make short work of those whom we have trained.
12
"Although Mr. Trump may not be interested in fighting a major war, he may be left with little choice."
Did I miss something? Are we on the brink of a "major war?" If so, why? Which nation poses a credible threat to the US? Maybe I'm just incredibly naive.
I suspect the reason presidents like using special forces is that they can operate in secret, and the president can apparently do just about anything he or she wants with them with little or no oversight.
Did I miss something? Are we on the brink of a "major war?" If so, why? Which nation poses a credible threat to the US? Maybe I'm just incredibly naive.
I suspect the reason presidents like using special forces is that they can operate in secret, and the president can apparently do just about anything he or she wants with them with little or no oversight.
8
Yes...you have apparently not been reading the news. There is a country called North Korea that is run by a totalitarian dictator who, in an attempt to preserve his rule, has developed nuclear weapons and the ability to put those weapons on target in South Korean, Japan, Taiwan...and wait for it...the United States. That means, on any given day, perhaps after a night of drinking or binge watching "Transformers" or "Iron Man" movies....he may wake up and order an ICBM launch before he orders breakfast.
If that happens, hundreds of thousand of civilians, somewhere, will die. War will break out on the Korean Peninsula and Seoul will be destroyed. Many American service members will be killed or injured in battle or by nuclear radiation. Global commodity and stock markets will crash. The US and China may come to blows. Russia may take advantage of our preoccupation and invade/annex the Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia. Who knows what evil ISIS and Iran can dream up. Expect to lose your savings and to pay more, a lot more, for everything....for at least the duration of the conflict and a period thereafter. I would hate to guess as to how our current Administration would use this as an opportunity to do many things on their wish list.
All of this may be a walk in the park for you, but all the rest of us news readers are going with "major".
If that happens, hundreds of thousand of civilians, somewhere, will die. War will break out on the Korean Peninsula and Seoul will be destroyed. Many American service members will be killed or injured in battle or by nuclear radiation. Global commodity and stock markets will crash. The US and China may come to blows. Russia may take advantage of our preoccupation and invade/annex the Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia. Who knows what evil ISIS and Iran can dream up. Expect to lose your savings and to pay more, a lot more, for everything....for at least the duration of the conflict and a period thereafter. I would hate to guess as to how our current Administration would use this as an opportunity to do many things on their wish list.
All of this may be a walk in the park for you, but all the rest of us news readers are going with "major".
1
For a threat you are looking in all the wrong places. When everyone agrees that Trump is an extreme failure at his day job, there will be a Tonkin Gulf type incident spun up to start a war and divert the Nation's attention. At 100 days? Could still be.
I don't see how you can characterize the current situation as one where "sobriety and prudence" is being exercised. Unlike a carrier task force, it is unlikely that special forces will be used in a way that results a full scale armed conflict that could possibly involve the world's biggest militaries and even go nuclear. The use of military force has not resulted in the US winning any armed conflict since WWII and our efforts at regime change have done no more than destabilize entire regions of the world and turn millions against us while violent regimes like Cambodia and Syria murder hundreds of thousands. We need to accept the fact that our military might does not give us any advantage in most situations beyond our own defense and change our mindset that somehow it does.
94
Ahem.
Korea.
Grenada.
Panama.
Gulf War 1.
All conflicts won by the US through military force after WW2. Man the whole anti-US thing runs really deep.
Korea.
Grenada.
Panama.
Gulf War 1.
All conflicts won by the US through military force after WW2. Man the whole anti-US thing runs really deep.
Whoa. Let's hope we aren't planning for this.
"But they can’t destroy a Russian armored division or occupy a North Korean city."
"But they can’t destroy a Russian armored division or occupy a North Korean city."
44
No, we are not planning for this. Those plans were finalized years ago.
1
Putting "sobriety" and "prudence" in the same glowing sentence with "Mr Trump" at the end of the essay called the premise and argument of the author into serious question: "paying heed to generals" etc. So, it is the "military novices" in the Obama administration that promoted special operations over the the objections of the generals? Did the generals also recommend restoring the draft in order to put "conventional" forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia (did I leave someplace out?)? I believe the US voters get a say in this too? Or should they just hand over our economy and the lives of our citizens to the generals, since they too are military novices?
48
The world is not a Tom Clancy (RIP) novel.
61
You'd be surprised.
I have a better idea. Let's stop intervening, bombing and overthrowing regimes in foreign countries we don't like. It won't make for good Hollywood movies but the world would be a far better place.
165
Historically, the United States has enjoyed a better reputation among other countries when not interfering, even better than when we were helping them (compare during and after the Marshall plan).
That's extremely reasonable, and when the Syrians government keeps using chemical weapons on it's civilian populace you wont ask our military to do anything about it, right?
Wars happen, and when they do, the effects squish out in all directions.
The Middle East war has sent a million+ migrants on the road.
Wars interfere with trade in vital resources, E.G, petroleum.
Consider the attack upon the USS Cole in the Aden harbor, in Yemen. It was unprovoked, at least by most people's reckoning.
Countries, the world around form alliances to support defense and trade. Sometimes alliances lead to military conflict, however unwelcome.
The Middle East war has sent a million+ migrants on the road.
Wars interfere with trade in vital resources, E.G, petroleum.
Consider the attack upon the USS Cole in the Aden harbor, in Yemen. It was unprovoked, at least by most people's reckoning.
Countries, the world around form alliances to support defense and trade. Sometimes alliances lead to military conflict, however unwelcome.
1
You might as well include drone warfare with special forces tactics. They bite away at an enemy. The author seems to prefer conventional warfare strategies. Even a military "hammer solution" fails to win modern conflicts which require negotiated peace with long-term economic, political and social support.
23
" Even a military "hammer solution" fails to win modern conflicts which require negotiated peace with long-term economic, political and social support." That sentence is the definition of peace. It is not the definition of defeat. In order to win to enforce peace and long-term economic, political and social support first you must totally defeat the enemy. What is needed is a definition of defeat and a plan to wage war strongly enough to bring total defeat upon the enemy. In the beginning of the take over by ISIS in Iraq, the Pentagon requested 3 heavy armored brigades to destroy the ISIS forces. Obama hesitated and decided that only moderate support of the Iraqi forces would be enough and that special forces to advise the Iraqis could accomplish the mission. Obama failed to grasp the meaning of defeat and the necessity of total defeat of an enemy. Special forces training and advising does not bring defeat or peace. Instead we have 15 years of war and an enemy that still believes it can win because the heavy combat forces will never engage them. Assad believes the same. One strike does not a war win. To win a war and bring peace first you must totally destroy the enemy. World War II was won with overwhelming victories on the battlefield and annihilation of German and Japanese forces. The defeat of Fascism and National Socialism was total. Two entire nations surrendered and accepted their defeat and occupation. Define defeat, then win, then impose peace. And keep it.
3
Right you are. Most "modern" wars are not national wars. They are "people" wars.
In a people's war victory belongs to those who can endure the most -- not to those who can inflict the most.
In a people's war victory belongs to those who can endure the most -- not to those who can inflict the most.
1
And right you are too Hal. In Vietnam we inflicted the most pain, death and slaughter but it was the North who endured it. We engaged in a Vietnamese civil war and picked the wrong side. You may not know but Ho Chi Minh once entreated the United States to support Vietnam in its effort to defeat the French occupiers. The United States, fearful of communism, refused assistance to both the French and the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese endured the colonialism of the French, and the war of the Americans. They also endured when China invaded to punish Vietnam. Don't forget too how the Vietnamese defeated the forces of Pol Pot. Again, the Americans, even though they knew of the slaughter by Pol Pot refused to support the Vietnamese. Vietnam endured almost 30 years of war after World War II. And they won!
1
A rrecurring set of problems through our history has been our tendency to always be prepared to fight the last war and our continued inability to understand our military failures- which are many.
Our Defense Department was created to rationalize our military forces but what has happened is quite the opposite. The Marines- originally Naval Infantry- have morphed into a second Army complete with it's own Air Force. The Navy SEALS are soldiers- not Sailor Frogmen as the Navy seems to want to have an Army of it's own. Each branch also has it's own Air Force despite there being a service charged with that very role.
This has all happened with the consent and under the command of civilian leadership incapable or unwilling to put the services and their rivalries on a leash. It has happened over decades and under Presidents and Congresses controlled by both parties.
We need to invest more in our 'regular' troops rather than create essentially a parallel military of supposedly elite troops. Our services are small enough relative to our population that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines should be very selective for all positions. If we have 70,000 Special Ops troops they are no longer 'elite'.
One Army one Navy and one Air Force should be more than enough and the Marine Corps needs to turn in their tanks and airplanes. Sailors should be Frogmen but not Soldiers. A house cleaning is in order.
Our Defense Department was created to rationalize our military forces but what has happened is quite the opposite. The Marines- originally Naval Infantry- have morphed into a second Army complete with it's own Air Force. The Navy SEALS are soldiers- not Sailor Frogmen as the Navy seems to want to have an Army of it's own. Each branch also has it's own Air Force despite there being a service charged with that very role.
This has all happened with the consent and under the command of civilian leadership incapable or unwilling to put the services and their rivalries on a leash. It has happened over decades and under Presidents and Congresses controlled by both parties.
We need to invest more in our 'regular' troops rather than create essentially a parallel military of supposedly elite troops. Our services are small enough relative to our population that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines should be very selective for all positions. If we have 70,000 Special Ops troops they are no longer 'elite'.
One Army one Navy and one Air Force should be more than enough and the Marine Corps needs to turn in their tanks and airplanes. Sailors should be Frogmen but not Soldiers. A house cleaning is in order.
78
A known defect in expanding "Special Forces" is their members are drawn away from the "non-special" forces, leaving those units with a diminished proportion of soldiers who are interested in fighting.
So, should military planners be "imagineering" future wars against all likely opponents, then procuring and training for all these situations, all within a peacetime budget.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
1
We lost Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, definitely Afghanistan, failing at Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Nigeria. It's amazing how we can look on our military as anything but impotent and incompetent. All related to failed leadership. The equipment and men and woman have the potential. It is the government and the generals who fail repeatedly.
99
Tullymd, what you are describing is what inevitably will happen when our armed forces are sent to fight the wrong wars in the wrong places. Their job is to defend America, not to conquer and rule Asia and Africa.
5
Our situation merely proves that overreach is possible, no matter how much resources are poured into the military machine.
Korea was more of a draw as less than a decade after WW II, we lacked both the will and the manpower to fight the Chinese Army's seemingly unlimited number of troops; we lost Vietnam because afraid of Communism, we reflexively backed the wrong side when the French departed; Iraq because Bush 43 failed to heed the wisdom of Bush 41; Afghanistan has always been the place empires and their legions go to die; and we have never bothered to understand Africa. In short, our political leadership, with Bush 43 excepted, often appreciates the nuances but in these matters is out of sync with public opinion which demands definitive results. War brings definitive results, good or bad, while diplomacy often seems a muddle which is hardly surprising as human affairs are a muddle. Generals rarely figure out how to fight until about 3/4 of the way through a war not because they are all preening and incompetent (George McClellan excepted) but because they have to engage an enemy to see how it fights and adjust. And that is why war is a blunt tool, though it is often America's first option - for the reason that we citizens demand it -- until tired of the carnage, we grudgingly give peace a chance. War by special forces allows us to avoid seeing mass carnage, only it cannot bring definitive results as much as temporary tactical advantage. We have met the enemy and unfortunately it is us.
Terrorism is a "generational" war, to fight this our special ops have the asymmetrical abilities to keep terrorist organizations off balance. Until the regular military can manage this asymmetry, the special ops are the tip of the spear.
10
It's all a matter of using the right tool for the job. Special operations troops can't counter conventional forces, but conventional forces can't effectively fight terrorists. Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of how conventional forces can defeat a standing army but can't defeat an insurgency.
1
This very true. The same holds true for education. The US education system, home of the world's best universities, does not manage to produce a sufficient supply of engineers, programmers and technical experts. This is owed to the inadequacy of average schools, with high school football coaches often being the top earners of the teaching body. Time to start working towards winning the 21st century!
134
The small-town high school I attended many decades ago, in west Texas, currently has 9 football coaches. I wonder how many English teachers, or math teachers, are helping the 600 or so students enrolled there?
7
Would you suppose that the cost of 4-5 years at a university has something to do with the lack of STEM students?
1
At what point do we stop policing the world and pull back on our military engagements abroad. Military engagement as a joint United Nations or NATO operation is one thing but our current go it alone philosophy just isn't economically sustainable.
68
One factor that militates against this is the unwillingness of the US to put its forces under command of anyone but an American general or admiral. This means that the operation no longer serves an overall purpose, but a distinct American one. This in turns reduces the willingness of the others to participate and brings into play the particularly American desire to achieve 'victory', even where a judiciously maintained stalemate may be the better option.
I'm sure that this fact in itself enhances the preference for using Special Operation Forces. Full control and ostensible or plausible deniability offer a very enticing cocktail.
I'm sure that this fact in itself enhances the preference for using Special Operation Forces. Full control and ostensible or plausible deniability offer a very enticing cocktail.
3
@Ami
Except it is the gravel the economy runs on with sources in ever possible congressional district, and the politicians know it – the money will be found!
Except it is the gravel the economy runs on with sources in ever possible congressional district, and the politicians know it – the money will be found!
1
There is no historical example where such conflicts have been settled before all sides have become exhausted in battle and stand down from a sense of futility. Examples abound in the centuries of European struggle between Catholics and Protestants.
Special forces can save today's hostages or assassinate the leader-for-the-moment of some faction. They cannot expedite reconciliation.