An Inappropriate Use of Special Forces
An Inappropriate Use of Special Forces by Congressman Tom Cole, The Ada News
Warfare has evolved again, and today, terrorism has become an intrinsic part of the world order. This type of conflict is ambiguous, spills across borders and is not subject to the lessons learned from history’s book on warfare. However, President Barack Obama has decidedly attempted to convince the American people otherwise, particularly in the War on Terror and in confronting ISIS.
Time and again, President Obama has made clear his objective to bring troops home, and in areas of ongoing conflict, he has authorized a minimal and limited “boots on the ground” presence. Now given the troubling violence instigated by ISIS and spreading across Iraq and Syria, even the president undoubtedly realizes that keeping “boots on the ground” in some capacity is unavoidable. It remains to be seen if Obama’s policies can be effective in stabilizing regions where civil society and governance have struggled to take root…
Since the Obama administration announced plans to bolster special operations forces in the Middle East, under the guise of assisting local military efforts, recent events suggest engagement has grown beyond its intended role. Earlier this month, a U.S. Navy SEAL, Charles Keating IV, was killed during a firefight with ISIS militants in northern Iraq.
I am troubled by what appears to be a growing primary reliance on special operations in lieu of a more comprehensive strategy from the Administration to defeat ISIS. It is evident that President Obama believes we need boots on the ground…
The money quote:
QUOTE Warfare has evolved again, and today, terrorism has become an intrinsic part of the world order. END QUOTE
Of course the fundamental question that needs to be asked here is: Are we at war?
QUOTE Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley has no qualms speaking about the falsehoods and myths of warfare, one of which is that, “America only needs an elite, rapid-reaction force to win wars of the future.” He explained, “While America’s special operations are the best in the world, their success at killing high-value targets is a necessary tactical strategy, but not sufficient. To prevail in war, [it] takes so much more than killing high-value terrorists with drone strikes and small-unit raids.” END QUOTE
Here is a truism I would apply based on this conclusion: You do not employ special operations forces in lieu of a strategy. Special operations may be part of the way of strategy but it is no substitute for strategy.
QUOTE I am troubled by what appears to be a growing primary reliance on special operations in lieu of a more comprehensive strategy from the Administration to defeat ISIS. It is evident that President Obama believes we need boots on the ground. But not involving Congress in a broader discussion about the authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) and what is needed in the future makes the fight against our enemy more difficult — not easier. Until the president and Congress engage on the issue, America’s success in this long fight will remain elusive. END QUOTE
I am amazed that it is taking the US military senior leaders over three years to come to finally the conclusion that this Obama WH has absolutely not a single national strategic strategy for anything to include stopping mice from crossing the Canadian border without a valid animal passport.
QUOTE:
I am troubled by what appears to be a growing primary reliance on special operations in lieu of a more comprehensive strategy from the Administration to defeat ISIS.
What troubles me is the simple fact that since eastern Ukraine I have been beating a solid drum about the failure of the Obama WH to have anything remotely close to being a strategy.
BUT now the circle is closing in on the Obama WH…..after the Obama Doctrine Goldberg interview and the following interview with his assistant director of national security responsible for strategic communications WE have learned the Obama WH has been “spinning us for years”…..
How many red lines have been crossed and re-crossed and yet nothing…how many press conferences/MSM articles talking about successfully working strategies in Syria and against IS and yet crickets from the ground…how many “Plan Bs” and yet there is no “Plan B” to be seen anywhere…how many press conferences talking about the necessity of humanitarian aid convoys in Syria yet nothing……let’s not even get into the Russian armed military invasion of eastern Ukraine and the constant Russian nuclear war threats issued against the US and other NATO partners over the last two full years with not a single response by this WH…..
AND especially the famous statement repeated constantly to cover anything the Obama WH states they are doing….”it cannot be won militarily”….BUT believe me…when military pressure suddenly appears…negotiations suddenly do occur and move forward…what a strange relationship that this WH refuses to share…..
Yet I take a beating in SWJ for constantly pointing this out and now finally maybe the US military senior leadership is awakening to the fact they have been “spun” as well……and “spun” for nearly 16 long years at a great cost.
This is brutal to say …but there has never been such a major disconnect between the NCA and the US military in over 70 odd years…and that is simply dangerous….
Tell me if I have it right here:
In the Old Cold War of yesterday, when communism was on the march and the Soviets/the communists were promoting same, the Soviets/the communists ultimately determined that unconventional warfare (this, rather than conventional warfare) was:
a. The best way to go. And
b. The best way to deal with those “resistance elements” that would stand against the communists re: their “world revolution”/”revolutionary warfare” objectives (destroy the existing society and its institutions and replace these with one’s own such models/structures.)
In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, when market-democracy is on the march and the U.S./the West is promoting same, we, likewise, have finally determined that unconventional warfare (this, rather than conventional warfare) is:
a. The best way to go. And
b. The best way to deal with those “resistance” elements that would stand against our “world revolution”/”revolutionary warfare” objectives (destroy the existing society and its institutions and replace these with our own such models/structures.)
This being the case (then as now), then:
a. Should we say that the Soviets/the communists use of their special forces, in support of their UW decision made above, was “inappropriate” back then?
Likewise,
b. Should we say that the U.S./the West’s current use of our special forces today, in support of our UW determination outlined above; that this such use of our special forces is “inappropriate” today?
Bottom Line:
If we have, like the Soviets/the communists before us, ultimately determined that unconventional warfare (this, rather than conventional warfare) is the better way to (a) work toward achieving our “world revolution” political objectives, and the better way to (b) deal with those “resistance elements” that would stand in our way,
Then would not our use of our special forces — in the “UW-dominant” setting outlined above — be entirely appropriate; this, rather than be inappropriate, as is suggested?
(Or should we understand that the Soviets/the communists also were prepared to, and actually did on occasion when things got bad enough, saddle-up their conventional forces; this, so as to get things back under control? This, in fact, being the proper/correct comparison/analogy re: the U.S./the West’s similar problems of today?)