U.S. to Deploy Special Operations Forces in Syria: Official
43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;49015832]Well that's the thing with Special Forces.
These guys don't necessarily [b]NEED[/b] such support or at least that is what my preconception of ours can do.[/QUOTE]
Somewhat untrue, but it depends a lot on context. "Support" is critical in military operations. A couple of guys with rifles are always going to be a couple of guys with rifles no matter how well-trained they are. It's how they're used that matters. In a typical firefight, they'd be more proficient than standard US Army grunts but it would be wasteful and they would sustain unacceptably high casualties in the long run.
Special forces do not usually "require" much support because they play to their strengths, for instance using night raids and surprise, striking at times and places that are vulnerable, having knowledge of specialized skills like long-range shooting or demolitions, ect. In a straightforward battle they'd need as much artillery, CAS and logistics backup as anyone else.
Welp, boots on the ground, dicks in the air. Here we go [I]again[/I].
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;49015254]Got to keep that war machine turnin.
This whole world is in a whole stage of fuck. Thankfully we got Elon who is trying to get us off of it.
[editline]30th October 2015[/editline]
Everything that fucking happened in the Middle East is because of our goddamn CIA operations back during the 60s and 70s.[/QUOTE]
I hope you're not being serious about that last part. Really, everything is our fault?
[QUOTE=Angus725;49015842]Syria is going to end up like the Koreas as this rate, with an American backed rebel government and Russian backed Assad govt.[/QUOTE]
Like the UK with a North/South divide.
Nothing good will come from this Syria situation regardless.
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;49035051]Welp, boots on the ground, dicks in the air. Here we go [I]again[/I].[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, that also means lax recruiting standards again for people who want to serve in the armed forces.
I think the US wants to avoid this becoming a proxy war as evident that they're sending less than 50 people. That's hardly a commitment.
[QUOTE=Jammymanrock;49035410]I think the US wants to avoid this becoming a proxy war as evident that they're sending less than 50 people. That's hardly a commitment.[/QUOTE]
Keep watching.
[QUOTE=Jammymanrock;49035410]I think the US wants to avoid this becoming a proxy war as evident that they're sending less than 50 people. That's hardly a commitment.[/QUOTE]
I'd take this whole story with a grain of salt. Most likely we already had guys operating in the area for a long while before they admitted it. 50 is probably just a number they threw together for the press.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49034532]I saw that when it was new, almost a decade ago now. This kind of thinking is extraordinarily simplistic, and the populist uprisings that comprised the Arab Spring show that there's more to the Middle East than tribalism.
You know, tribalism is just as much a motivator in sub-Saharan Africa as well, but I've yet to see much popular support for the idea that we should just let things like the Rwandan Genocide happen because Hutus and Tutsis want to fight it out. To hear some folks talk, you'd think we're talking about an alien species, not just a different sociological system. Functional democratic states have been constructed from disparate ethnic groups in a number of African countries. You might hear saber-rattling about the election of a Kikuyu president in Kenya, but the fact that people associate with a tribal identity (even tribal identities that have historically warred with one another) hasn't caused complete societal implosion.
Even [i]Somalia[/i] is on its way to becoming a functional state.
Pressfield wasn't even advocating for abandoning the Middle East. He advocated understanding how tribal politics played into regional politics and religious politics, and to avoid pitfalls like assuming that every member of a given ethnic and religious affiliation would be willing to cooperate. He argued against propping up a democracy and leaving it without the proper cultural integration (see: Iraq), not that we ought to throw our hands up and abandon the whole idea and let the repression and genocide continue. And that goes doubly when the alternative is letting ISIS expand unchecked.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes the best move is not to play.
Why is Africa doing better in some places and not the middle East? No idea. Might be a good idea to figure out why before just throwing boots on the ground.
The difference still would be cultural. I have no idea what role religion plays in a nation like Kenya, but it definitely plays a role in the middle east.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49040052]Sometimes the best move is not to play.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that's not the default go-to 'oh man I guess they're different from us so we shouldn't try' response, especially when something like ISIS is involved.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49040052]Why is Africa doing better in some places and not the middle East? No idea. Might be a good idea to figure out why before just throwing boots on the ground.[/QUOTE]
We already know why, it's because Africa is receiving aid, both civil and military, from Western powers, in particular the colonial nations whose policies led to the current issues, with direct intervention when aid proves insufficient.
Somalia went from a military coup to an all-out civil war in the early 90s, and the economy tanked. It was UN intervention (including American boots on the ground) that put an end to the sectarian violence and started to rebuild, and UN humanitarian aid that's made it something of a functional country, even damaging the piracy industry that has now been on decline for a decade. Been following Mali at all? They had an ethnically-motivated insurgency spring up back in 2012, and the French intervened. The rebellion was put down and now France wants the UN to take over again. And then, again there's the matter of the Rwandan Genocide. We didn't intervene, we advocated for the UN to pull out, and somewhere up to a million people died. Clinton considered it a serious foreign policy mistake, most analysts agree.
Iraq was in the process of rebuilding and actually forming a functional government, then we slapped ourselves on the back, said 'JOB'S DONE', pulled out, and then when we're somehow surprised at the outcome blame the act of intervening to begin with and not the ham-handed withdrawal at the behest of public sentiment. I can give you plenty of examples of African nations that followed a similar pattern, Zimbabwe for starters. In almost every case a total withdrawal of foreign support has proven far more disastrous than actually staying the course.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49040052]The difference still would be cultural. I have no idea what role religion plays in a nation like Kenya, but it definitely plays a role in the middle east.[/QUOTE]
No kidding it plays a huge role, and leaving a Sunni minority to be lorded over by a Shiite government was a boneheaded move and a big part of why Iraq is so dysfunctional right now. But you know, religion is a big deal most places you go, it's tribalism that you cited as some impossible obstacle to an effective transition to democracy.
In Kenya you have a mix of Protestants and Catholics plus a sizable Muslim community. There's also Bantu, Cushitic, and Nilotic tribal groups, each comprised of dozens of tribes, plus an Arab population and some Europeans and Indians. You don't see Kikuyus and Masaai suicide bombing one another. You don't see Arabic businessmen getting shot at by Luos with RPGs. In fact, there actually was a significant conflict in 2008 over the results of the 2007 elections, which included widespread sectarian violence, and you know what happened? The two lead presidential candidates reached a political agreement that created a new Prime Minister position and allowed them to both have power. Ethnic and tribal tension was resolved through the democratic process.
Iraq and Syria aren't Kenya, but the idea that tribalism presents an insurmountable barrier to democracy and we ought to just give up and go home is completely ignorant of history.
[QUOTE]Yeah, but that's not the default go-to 'oh man I guess they're different from us so we shouldn't try' response, especially when something like ISIS is involved.[/QUOTE]
War is a game for those who want to win. America has won two world wars by staying out until everyone else exhausts themselves. When America goes in first, (Korea, Vietnam, The Second Gulf War) it tends to lose. I say stick to a pattern that works. Also America is a mess. Can't go in messed up. Fix our problems first before focusing on others.
Another problem is ISIS wants The West to attack. Bad idea to do what your opponent wants to do.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49040302]War is a game for those who want to win. America has won two world wars by staying out until everyone else exhausts themselves. When America goes in first, (Korea, Vietnam, The Second Gulf War) it tends to lose. I say stick to a pattern that works. Also America is a mess. Can't go in messed up. Fix our problems first before focusing on others. [/QUOTE]
Glib one-sentence ideals do not constitute a viable foreign policy.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49040302]Another problem is ISIS wants The West to attack. Bad idea to do what your opponent wants to do.[/QUOTE]
ISIS religious ideology may ostensibly want the West to attack to fulfill their thinly stretched prophecy of invasion by the armies of the Vatican, but anyone in ISIS who represents the competence underlying their regime certainly doesn't because they've gotten absolutely fucked every time coalition forces have engaged them.
If I told you how I would think America should win, I would be called heartless and calling for genocide. If I were to say to stay away, I am being called heartless and just want the problem to fester. So I am sticking to a glib answer.
Edit:
However if progress is being made in the surrounding areas by western powers, then building them up to contain ISIS might be the answer.
Send in the special forces!
[t]http://images.f169bbs.com/content/2015-04/joined-the-military-do-i-look-intimidating-in-my-uniform-15389.jpg[/t]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.