"Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 want these new weapons" Topic

"Long range precision machine guns.

Nearly silent carbine uppers.

A new sniper rifle that can change between three calibers at the twist of a barrel.

These are just a few of the new technologies America's top special operators are looking for to help them go after the bad guys of the future.

According to an announcement released last month, the Joint Special Operations Command — the folks in charge of so-called "Tier 1" commandos, including SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force — is asking industry for help developing several new weapons technologies to help them do their job in a variety of battlefields…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Not sure about the sniper rifle requirement, as you'd have to attach the scope to the barrel to maintain zero.

But the others are totally doable. Hell, there's already a Lightweight Medium Machine Gun chambered in .338 Norma Magnum: link So it sounds like JSOC wants to buy a few.

Yea, who wants to lug three barrels around, when one will do?

No better place to "field test" new tech in real world "Live Fire" exercises. A little "Wet Work" tends to work the some of the bugs out I'm told.

Money spent to better outfit spies, assassins, snipers and covert saboteurs when the republic is eye-ball deep in debt and becoming insolvent. Yup, solid priorities on display here. Special forces are a tool of aggression and not a tool of defence. Thier use destabilises situations far more than stabilising them. Starve them and down-size them and spend the money else where if you want peace. Feed the beast if you want perpetual Forever-war and Never-peace. How deluded are we when war becomes peace and we knowingly celebrate when noble and proud soldiers and sailors are turned into stealthy assassins and agents provocateurs operating in contravention of domestic law abroad, when the Department of War is renamed the Defence Department and spreads war around the world? This is a topsy-turvy world view and a most expensive pathology.

Rod Robertson.

Yup, solid priorities on display here. Special forces are a tool of aggression and not a tool of defence.

Disagree … offensive assets have be well armed, well trained and readily available. If you have to defend along your borders or beaches … it may already be too late.

Thier use destabilises situations far more than stabilising them. Starve them and down-size them and spend the money else where if you want peace. Feed the beast if you want perpetual Forever-war and Never-peace. How deluded are we when war becomes peace and we knowingly celebrate when noble and proud soldiers and sailors are turned into stealthy assassins and agents provocateurs operating in contravention of domestic law abroad,

Legion 4:

You disagree when I say special forces are primarily a tool of aggression but then you say that "offensive assets " have [to] be well armed, well trained and readily available. If they are offensive assets then they are designed to be used offensively for the most part. Thus they are tools of offence/aggression as I said. Thus through your argument of disagreement you prove my point, so thank you for that.,

There is a difference between meeting a real and manifest threat on foreign shores/soil in overt but proactive defence and on the other hand invading or infiltrating foreign states with covert special forces during peace time. The Navy and Marines, the Army and the Air Force can do the former. Special forces allow states to wage covert warfare, often illegally and to hide that fact from their own citizens and electorate. They undermine the rule of law by enabling illegal military activity and hiding it from judicial challenge and thus effective judicial review. They are corrosive to transparency and thus to responsible governance and therefore to responsible government. They are a tool for enforcing special interests which may be antithetical to the interests of the citizenry. If war is a racket as Marine General Butler coined, then special forces are the bully-boys and enforcers of the racketeers. Their repeated and widening use encourages duplicity and deception between a special force's parent state and its own citizens. They are used to destabilise states by tipping the balance of power in such foreign states thus upsetting an equilibrium which such states have reached. As they can be used to do this abroad, so can they be used to do this domestically. Thus they are a clear and present danger to real and effective democracy and to the homeland, to its citizens and to liberty. It can therefore be argued that they are ultimately a tool of totalitarianism and fascism, especially when combined with a rising surveillance society.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Special Forces also allow action when the other alternative is to commit an act of war and invade a country, say, to stop a certain dictator from possessing or using chemical weapons…

LIon in the Stars:

That is a decision for the Congress to make openly and after public debate. The War Powers Act of 1973 allows for sub-declaration-of-war-hostilities if they are done openly and with the overt affirmative consent of the peoples' representatives in Congress. The President is not a divine monarch and is answerable to the law, the people and their legally elected representatives. So I reject this argument for covert special forces. Special forces just make it easier for the powers that be to skirt or break the law and also to proliferate war.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Special forces are also (primarily, even?) used in support of allies on their permission. I think treating a subset of elite light innfantrt and advisors as uniquely totalitarian is somewhat silly. It's how you use it, so they say.

Boys and their toys. One day after asking for more and more high tech toys. They'll find themselves obsolete.

Why send in squishy meat bags when you can send in T-1000s

"Hello is this Hereford 4291?" "Oh good, there's a Canadian bloke saying you and Delta are tools of fascism" "what's that? If he doesn't want to live under the protection of western special forces he can go and live in Russia. I'll pass it on,cheers"

Foxweasel:

How charming. I will meet your thinly veiled message of exclusion/expulsion with a message of compassion and cooperation. Foxy my lad, it's time to leave the darkness and see that we're here to help each other, not hurt one another.

youtu.be/QJGvFBC4BZc

Be safe in Nigeria.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod -1

Foxweasel +1

Legion 4:

Well, at least I got more stickers than Foxweasel did!

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod,
A little early to be drinking the cool aid. I will, and have fought for your right to say uninformed things. However I will also exercise my right to politely correct you.

There are real live human beings who have evil intent, they would far rather we not stop them in their land but rather have us try to stop them in our land. (Yes I know you are Canadian, just not being the first target doesn't make you safe) All nations should have more than one tool in their foreign policy box because if all you have is a hammer then everything else looks like a nail. Special Operations is just one of many tools including Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic (it may be a hammer but it is a smaller one).

To borrow a quote from John Le Carrι:
"Thus we do disagreeable things, but we are defensive. That, I think, is still fair. We do disagreeable things so that ordinary people here and elsewhere can sleep safely in their beds at night."

Rod I will agree with you that governmental use of military force on it's citizens is abhorrent. In the US it is a violation of law, but the threat is still there, and a major reason officers in the U.S. Military do not swear obedience to the president but rather to the Constitution.

I think tactically offensive operations can be a defensive strategy.

Special forces are a useful defensive option.
Especially against the sort of terrorist/insurgencies we see so often in recent years.
Any western government would be wise to avoid putting regular boots on the ground in the likes of Syria.
I also see the necessity for operators capable of doing disagreeable (and sometimes deniable) things.

I'm a bit confused why SF might want a sniper rifle that can fire 3 different calibres.

COL Scott ret +1

Well, at least I got more stickers than Foxweasel did!

Yeah but you got a minus 1 … -1 …

So Rod … your updated score = -2

I'm a bit confused why SF might want a sniper rifle that can fire 3 different calibres.

Well, one caliber is the same as typical MGs, good to about 1200m. The biggest is your big .338, good to almost 1700m. Not sure why you'd bother with one in the middle. Or even bother with the MG caliber, to tell you the truth!

COL Scott ret:

A little early to be drinking the cool aid. I will, and have fought for your right to say uninformed things. However I will also exercise my right to politely correct you.

Thank you for your past words of defence on my behalf. I encourage all to exercise their right to correct me. If my position is uninformed, that should speak volumes to one of the major problems with the proliferation of special forces and their operations today. As their actions are almost always covert and thus kept secret from the public (even well after the operations have been completed) there is no way that the average citizen can be properly informed in order to responsibly exercise their franchise and to act as a watch-dog on those to whom they have delegated power. So, I agree with you that I am uninformed about what is going on with regards to special forces operations, despite my best efforts to become informed, because the powers that be have designed it that way.

War is a serious business and the decision to bring a nation to war is a grave decision requiring clear and sober thought and a strong sense of purpose and resolve in the state, the military and most importantly the citizenry. The executive and the military are not powers unto themselves, they are agents with constitutionally mandated powers and responsibilities. Thanks to the separation of powers, neither the executive branch nor the military have the mandate to declare war and thus, except in the case of a real and immediate threat to the territorial USA, neither the executive nor the military have the power to prosecute war or military operations without explicit congressional authorisation and oversight. That is the law based on the constitution of the United States which military personnel swear an oath to uphold. That is checks and balances.

I agree that the world has significant numbers of bad people in it. What some folk tend to forget is that the USA (or Canada or France, etc.) being a subset of that greater world, also has a significant number bad people in it. These bad people being unshackled by the morality which restrains the hands of the common men and women of the land, tend to rise to positions of power within businesses, organisations, crime syndicates, street gangs and regrettably also the state. Transparency is the only way to monitor the behaviour of such ambitious and morally ambivalent folk. Transparency is essential to the operation of checks and balances. Secrecy and especially long-term institutional secrecy hides the decisions and actions of those who have risen to power and thus can hide the depredations and transgressions of those in power. Secrecy undercuts checks and balances. Soon a sense of power-entitlement and a culture of secrecy to protect that entitlement is born and grows rapidly more powerful. At some point the entitlement and the secrecy reaches a critical mass and then a shadow state emerges which is no longer responsible to the citizenry and indeed scorns their interference in its exercise of power. The shadow state, being selfish and believing itself to be liberated from common moral constraints begins to operate in its own interests. When those interests diverge from the interests of the people, as they eventually will, there will be a tendency for the shadow state to want to hide its actions from the public rather than not taking those actions which will promote its interests.

The shadow state needs tools to do this, pillars to support its structure and to give it strength. One pillar is a large and well developed security apparatus which provides an effective pool of covert agents to operate in the shadows by barely legal or extralegal means. The US has had this this ability formally institutionalised since 1947 and informally since the Pinkerton's era. Now commercially based private sector security operations are beginning to surpass the state organs of security and such private structures are no longer answerable and beholden to the citizenry; rather only to their shareholders.

The second pillar of the shadow state is a surveillance capacity to monitor threats to its entitlement to power and to protect its secrecy. Mr. Snowden has been the latest person to make us aware of the power of that branch of the shadow state, both the government arms like the NSA in America or GCHQ in the UK and the commercial arms of the surveillance state which are growing rapidly in size, monitoring capacity and effect; but this explosion of capability is being deliberately hidden from the citizenry. Why? Because the shadow state wants to cloak its activities and remain unseen. A more alarming development of this pillar is the accelerating tendency to skirt or overtly break the laws of the land to further the surveillance capacity of the surveillance apparatus. But perhaps the most alarming development is the forging of a growing transnational surveillance apparatus which collects, analyses and disseminates information to many parochial shadow states at once. The Five Eyes was the first version of this spread which has accelerated greatly in the last quarter century. Many are aware of the controversy over the actions of the NSA but few Americans are aware of the roles of the UAE, Israel, Canada, the U.K. and New Zealand in the monitoring of the American public on behalf of the American state and shadow state.

The third pillar of the shadow state is the one which provides coercive force to enforce the directives of the shadow state. The instruments which make up this pillar are a large, full-time professional armed forces, police and law enforcement organisations, mercenary (commercial military and security) forces and now rapidly emerging special forces. Those special forces used to be exclusively very much under the control of the armed forces of their parent true states but now traditional special forces are being mimicked and paralleled by privately controlled special forces too. That is why I have classified them as separate from their parent armed forces. Because special forces are the easiest to operate covertly, they are rapidly becoming the most valued and most frequently used tool of both true states and the shadow states which exist in parallel to the true states. This has brought about an accelerating tendency to abuse special forces and to use them illegally with greater freedom.

Just as the security and surveillance pillars of many states and shadow states are cooperating and thus becoming entangled and interdependent upon each other, so is the military pillar being integrated into a transnational cooperative of coercion. The Lybian Intervention is the best recent case to illustrate this. Few people in the USA are aware that in order to skirt the War Powers Act of 1973, American pilots were covertly flying French combat aircraft to hide the level of commitment that the US had to the operation from the US public, media and Congress. This was because the US executive branch argued the the War Powers Act did not apply since the US role in the Lybian Intervention was primarily a support one rather than a combat role.

link

This integration across state frontiers is especially true of special forces where there is a vigorous programme for the well developed special forces of first tier military states to train and more importantly indoctrinate the special forces of lower tier states and their shadow states. When the integration is complete, these lower tier special forces become convenient proxies for higher tier shadow states seeking anonymity and deniability for coercive actions abroad.

The final evolution will be the transnationalisation of the many parochial shadow states themselves into a hidden but very potent transnational oligarchy which rivals and surpasses the parent true states in both hard power and influence. When this happens the shadow state(s) will no longer be constrained by the laws and traditions of their parent true states. National sovereignty will buckle and those in power will no longer be answerable to the people who originally gave them their mandate to rule and delegated to them the power to do so. That process is going on right now. Soon we will reach a tipping point where it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to put the shadow states and their pillars back under the citizens' control.

That is why it is critical to immediately limit the size, power and use of covert special forces in today's world.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Surely a machine gun is an area denial weapon? If you want something accurate with a long range, then a sniper rifle is what you need.

One of the big problems with the Bren was its accuracy.

Or am I wrong?

Legion 4:

I'm still ahead of Foxweasel because we're headed in opposite directions. My -2 is better than his +1 because my values in this instance are diametrically opposed to his and yours. Thus by giving me a -2 you are letting me know that I am doing a good job of pissing-off power and its cronies (and as a bonus, you two!). ;-) So thank you sir, for your most generous reviews! I am humbled and honoured. I wear your contempt with pride and glee.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

COL Scott ret:

Speaking of John Le Carre, the deep state (his term for the shadow state IIRC) is well described and analysed by Bill Moyers and a guest in this video:

youtu.be/EYS647HTgks

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Or am I wrong?

You have it about right stu, generally, IMO …

So thank you sir, for your most generous reviews! I am humbled and honoured. I wear your contempt with pride and glee.

You know like in the Olympics of the 60's. The Eastern European, Russian and Chinese judges ratings were always biased. And low …

And Rod, note … COL Scott was a US Army Officer of over 20 years service. If my math is correct ? You're not having a conversation/debate with me. A RIF'd ROTC Officer with just over 10 years on active duty. He's much more capable of giving you some very good responses. As is Foxweasel, he served over 20 years on active service in the UK Army.

They both dwarf my time in the Army. They know of what they speak.

Legion I am honored by your Gold Star, not sure but it might be my first here. Likewise your service is worthy of respect it still puts you as a 1%er.

Looking back at my career I often wonder that I stayed in for those 30 years. I did spend some portion in Special Ops (but slipped away before I got stuck there), and held jobs from basic platoon Leader to Operations officer (G3) at Division and Army level. None of which makes me always right, ask my wife.

That being said I often find myself of two minds when dealing with the political military establishment. I want the absolute best available and I know it takes a long time and lots of money to train them, however I want them all to have as thorough an understanding of their role in supporting and defending "The Constitution" rather than just obeying orders.

One thing I will say is that most Special Operators are fairly smart and also understand that while a tool must be fit for the job it is designed for the tool should not be used for another purpose. They know they are a tool of national policy, most know they are not supposed to be a tool of domestic policy. Most know and understand Posse Comitus and the limits that law puts on military forces.

Rod, the number Federal Agencies with armed agents exceed 70 with the total numbers in the thousands, they are not bound by the same regulations that the Military is. If you were to want to wear your tinfoil hat that is where I would be more worried than with a new sniper rifle for a SEAL team.

Thank you very much COL Scott. Those words coming from you mean a lot. I too am honored.

And I agree with your recent post. On all points. Of course no one it 100% correct. But your time in service and experiences makes your posts very valid, etc., IMO. As you did serve for a long time and in many positions. So that certainly gives your words a lot of heavy weight on military topics, etc., …

I had a number of friends that went to SF after their time in the 101. And yes, SF/SpecOps troops are very well trained, knowledgeable, etc., etc. as I'm sure you know. They are not what some see a lot of times in movies, TV, or video games, etc., …

Some who post here, those that don't have the experiences, etc,., served, etc. Sometimes don't really understand the way Vets see things. As you know it is very different in some cases and sometimes does not reflect reality of the situation. As Vets would see it.

Legion 4, COL Scott ret, and if he's available foxweasel:

Might I suggest you make a case for the expansion of special forces in the service of foreign policy? You tinfoil-hat me and dismiss my ill-informed arguments but at least I have presented some. Make the case for the other side of this debate.

I do believe there is a role for special forces as an instrument of state policy. That is why I believe they should be just down-sized and not eliminated. The problems which arise from using and in my opinion abusing special forces, often out weigh their utility. It is their proliferation and increasing frequency of use which I strongly object to.

As explained above their covert use is very problematic, undermining transparency, accountability and responsible government.

Their use proliferates military conflict.

Their use can trigger geopolitical blowback which can undo whatever advantage their use might have offered.

The violation of the sovereignty of states with which you are not at war is very problematic and sets a dangerous precedent which may later be used against the special forces' parent state. How would the US react if another nuclear armed nation's special forces successfully violated US orbthird party state sovereignty to seize, arrest, extract and put on trial prominent Americans who broke their laws (perhaps a former National Security Advisor or even a former president)? If you practice trespassing you cannot claim its protection from others who do likewise in response to your trespass – hot pursuit and all that. That leaves only an economic or military response to such foreign actions.

The use of covert special forces endangers American lives who don't know that they are in or traveling to a place of conflict where US forces are active.

If covert special forces camouflage themselves in local civilian garb and do not wear clearly marked uniforms they sacfice their legal protections as combatants in war. If they do this in peace time then they have no legal standing and are just well armed and well trained criminals in the eyes of most legal systems. That is certainly a problem for the operatives themselves but also brings legal jeopardy to the whole state and all of its citizens abroad.

The use of special forces and I will include here drones as part of my argument, has enraged targeted populations and has enhanced the ability of extremists to recruit and radicalise people all over the globe (including Americans) to oppose and attack American interests and American civilians. The perceived arrogance of violating other's homes and arbitrarily killing their families and neighbours is a powerful propaganda tool for your geo-political foes. The collateral damage/killing of innocents from drone strikes and special forces targeted air strikes has poisoned the respect that many in the post WWII era had for the USA.

To local warrior cultures, the use of special forces is cowardly and their frequent use by the US makes diplomacy and negotiation that much harder because of the stigma associated with their use. This may have minimal impact when dealing with more worldly national governments but makes it far more difficult to work with clan and tribal leaders who are on the sharp edge of their local warrior ethos.

As to the threat posed by special forces to the US citizenry, we should all know that that the Posse Comitatus Act is at best a thin veil of protection unless it is backed up by the power of the state. If the state itself or the shadow state decides to violate it or to set it aside it can do so easily and without the consent of the military personnel who serve it. The Continuence of Government policies and procedures for controlling instability in provisions of military law which allow for the use of regular non-National Guard forces in the event of natural disasters, infrastructure disasters, economic disasters, domestic political insurrection against a US state's authority and other contingencies are large loopholes driven through the Posse Comitatus Act's integrity and effectiveness. The recent use of special forces to train local sherriff and police forces in the USA is a very worrying development as is the militarisation which is spreading through municipal, state and federal law enforcement organisations. There are now reports of even cooperative-training for joint action between special forces and local law enforcement organisations in the territorial USA.

Thus Posse Comitatus may be less an effective profalactic against a military role in domestic policing and more a convenient, sugar-coated placebo to assure the American public until it is too late to enforce the separation of the military and law enforcement. You already have a military-style-armed police apparatus. How long before it mutates into first a gendemerie and then into an internal security army? Special forces are playing a real role (maybe a peripheral role but do we really know?) in this evolution of law enforcement and policing in modern America.

So these and my arguments above are my case against the proliferation and over-use of special forces as a tool of US policy. What are your counter arguments? Do the benefits out way the risks and the moral hazard?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

To all:

Evidence of the proliferation of special forces and their penetration of domestic institutions in the USA.

Special Ops – the future of the military

This is part of the vision of USSOCOM chief Admiral William McRaven, who last year presented his new plan: "Special Operations Forces 2020: The Global SOF Network." Not only does USSOCOM include components in all four branches of the US military – it is also embedded in the intelligence community. According to McRaven himself, speaking at a panel discussion at Washington's Wilson Center in 2013: "I have folks in every agency here in Washington, DC – from the CIA, to the FBI, to the National Security Agency, to the National Geospatial Agency, to the Defense Intelligence Agency."
As a result, writes Turse, "SOCOM is weaving a complex web of alliances with government agencies at home and militaries abroad to ensure that it's at the center of every conceivable global hotspot and power center. In fact, Special Operations Command has turned the planet into a giant battlefield, divided into many discrete fronts."

and about secrecy:

Under the radar

The ultimate effect of all the proliferation of Special Forces is that most of the wars currently being carried out are secret. "We know very little about all the night raids that went on in Afghanistan, for example," points out Rogers. "It is very much behind the scenes, and that can allow governments of any hue to get away with things that would not be allowed if they were open for fuller inspection."
"I think there has to be a lot more openness, because otherwise things are being done in the name of countries without the full information being known, and that's the way you get things like Abu Ghraib."

From:

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

To all:

Another interesting read which stresses the global integration of special forces with domestic institutions and foreign states/partners.

PDF link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

My bottom line … In today's current geopolitical situations. SF/SpecOps are very much needed and as useful as ever. Especially in their seminal mission. Training locals to act as a combat multiplier, etc., …

Using local forces not more US forces. And as I have said before, the military does not make policy. The elected civilian leadership does. Hopefully with, if need be, some military input. As COL Scott pointed out …

I want them all to have as thorough an understanding of their role in supporting and defending "The Constitution" rather than just obeying orders.

The military, as I have said before, only has to follow "legal" and "lawful" orders. The oath we took, said we'd support the POTUS, etc.
But we all knew … if those orders were to commit war crimes, etc., we would not follow those orders.

And generally that has been the overwhelming situation 99.9% of the time. Yes, a few US personnel may have committed war crimes, etc., … But that was not US policy, it was done by a very, very, few, tiny, tiny minority of US personnel. We all know that … I hope !

In the WoT, by it's very nature requires all parts of LEOs, Intel and military personnel/organizations to work together. That is the only way to defeat terrorist attacks on US, European, etc., civilians, etc. … That IMO opinion is very important. The #1 mission …

Without Special Forces we would be forced to invade countries like Pakistan to kill men like Osama Bin Laden. I would rather have the scalpel instead of the chainsaw to remove a tumor.

Dragon Gunner:

Good point. How often does the US need to go after such targets? Is the creation of a vast force of special forces operatives and support personnel warranted by such rare needs? The size of the special forces of the USA is about 70,000 – 75,000 personnel with 11,000 -12,500 military operatives stationed around the globe. How many Bin Ladens are there out there? Is the maintenance of such a large and expensive force justified for the few times it is the only option able to execute US policy? You say the US needs a scalpel and I agree. But does it need so many scalpels operating covertly all around the world and due to its covert nature, without the knowledge or consent of the citizen-taxpayers in whose names it operates. It is the size and scope of the special forces complex that is a source of alarm to me, not its existence on a moderate scale for solving difficult situations internationally.

But thank you (and Lion in the Stars, RTJEBADIA, and Andy ONeill)
for making some of the first persuasive points supporting the value of a special forces option in this thread.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

How often does the US need to go after such targets?

Since the end of the Cold War? At least once a year that have been publicly admitted. So probably closer to once a month once you add in the classified missions.

Plus the various hostage rescue missions like the Maersk Alabama.

This is not counting the cross-training missions between allies or training Kurds/Montagnards/whoever.

How often does the US need to go after such targets?

As often as the situation requires.

But does it need so many scalpels operating covertly all around the world and due to its covert nature, without the knowledge or consent of the citizen-taxpayers in whose names it operates.

Write your Congressman … I know, I know … you can't …

It is the size and scope of the special forces complex that is a source of alarm to me, not its existence on a moderate scale for solving difficult situations internationally.

The US elected leadership and high ranking military officers think otherwise, it seems …

Document detailing US special forces training and training with local law enforcement in South Carolina:

link

I think Jade Helm is well known enough that I need not site it here.

More generally:

link

and:

PDF link

and:

link

So the separation of law enforcement from military involvement is deteriorating and Posse Comitatus is being systematically eroded and pushed aside.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Now, I will agree that the continuing militarization of the police is not a good thing.

The military and police have very different training for use of force, for very good reason, but when under stress, people revert to the first training they got on use of force. So you have all the combat veterans defaulting to their military training, which makes them much more likely to shoot.

IMO, the only military veterans that should be considered for employment in the police forces are the Military Police troops.

"How often does the US need to go after such targets?"-Rod

I honestly don't know but I would be willing to bet for every Osama Bin Laden operation that was made public for political reasons there are hundreds or thousands of operations that will remain classified.

"Is the creation of a vast force of special forces operatives and support personnel warranted by such rare needs?"-Rod

I think the key word here is support personnel. I am willing to bet the bulk of the 70,000-75,0000 are not all highly trained commandos and assassins.

"Is the maintenance of such a large and expensive force justified for the few times it is the only option able to execute US policy?"-Rod

I am by no means an expert but my understanding is the vast majority of the special forces are engaged in training not direct hands on killing. This is an ongoing daily situation where we are attempting to aid allies to fight their own domestic terrorists and foreign aggressors. As far as expensive I would be willing to bet they are more cost effective than deploying conventional units. (I.E. they are asking for some small arms upgrades not Abrahams tanks with depleted uranium armor)

"But does it need so many scalpels operating covertly all around the world and due to its covert nature, without the knowledge or consent of the citizen-taxpayers in whose names it operates"-Rod

This is where you and I and MANY TMP members will have a point of contention. No I don't believe every military operation should have to meet with the approval of some dingbat soccer mom just because she pays taxes. Your average citizen does not understand the issues and couldn't be bothered to become educated about them to have an informed opinion. The average American citizen enjoys their way of life because rough men stand ready in the night to dish out violence to our enemies. If covert operations had to undergo some kind of democratic process to justify them they could not exist and we would be forced to use conventional means to resolve problems (i.e. the chainsaw)

@Rod

We agree on one point I am concerned about the growing militarization of law enforcement. There needs to be a division between the two and no overlapping. SWAT teams yes but the officer on the beat is not a soldier. I am sensing a growing hostility of law enforcement and more importantly our judicial system towards its citizens.

This is where you and I and MANY TMP members will have a point of contention. No I don't believe every military operation should have to meet with the approval of some dingbat soccer mom just because she pays taxes. Your average citizen does not understand the issues and couldn't be bothered to become educated about them to have an informed opinion. The average American citizen enjoys their way of life because rough men stand ready in the night to dish out violence to our enemies. If covert operations had to undergo some kind of democratic process to justify them they could not exist and we would be forced to use conventional means to resolve problems (i.e. the chainsaw)

Amen …

Dragon Gunner and Legion 4:

There are estimated to be 11,000 – 12,500 combat operatives in the 70,000 – 75,000 US military special forces operating globally. When one adds in private sector special forces contractors and law enforcement special forces operating with the military under the command of USSOCOM that makes a force approaching 100,000 personnel, which is bigger than the entire UK armed forces! Does any state need that many special forces operators working covertly around the globe? That's not a scalpel, that's a great bulging bag of scalpels which are being used to bludgeon and indoctrinate the unwilling around the globe into letting US foreign policy go forward at the point of the assassins' knives/guns/gunships/CAS/drones/etc.

How many dingbat soccer moms have been voted into Congress? How many dingbat soccer moms regularly protest the proliferation and the secrecy of special forces, write editorials, file freedom of information requests, engage lawyers to force the legally mandated reportage of the state and try to the best of their ability to make those other disengaged dingbat soccer moms aware of the abuses of power and law which are going on by special operations forces globally. I would wager none to infinitesimally few dingbat soccer moms are leading this charge, al least none since Sarah Palin stepped out of the limelight. The dingbat soccer mom is a clumsy rhetorical mechanism to devalue the capability and to proscribe the right of American citizens to know what THEIR elected representative are doing in their names with the power which THEY delegated to such representatives.

The only dingbats are the fools who let hard won rights and freedoms slip from their hands while covert arms of the state silently coil and choke liberty to a lifeless abstract principle. The moment a soccer mom becomes engaged and informed she ceases to be a dingbat, even if you profoundly disagree with her demands and her priorities.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Two interesting articles:

link

and:

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

"There are estimated to be 11,000 – 12,500 combat operatives in the 70,000 – 75,000 US military special forces operating globally. When one adds in private sector special forces contractors and law enforcement special forces operating with the military under the command of USSOCOM that makes a force approaching 100,000"-Rod

I don't see the problem you created in your mind. Warfare has changed and we need to evolve. The numbers you see are probably proportional to the combined number of Jihadis and other assorted off the grid types we are now facing.

" which is bigger than the entire UK armed forces!"-Rod

I am not here to bash our allies or engage in a display of arrogance. The truth is the UK is roughly the size of Texas so its contribution and overall military are going to be smaller than the USA. Many of our allies contribute very little to the alliance yet they benefit a great deal from the relationship. They would rather spend money on their domestic issues instead of their own militaries. I wish they would just be grateful and stop bashing the USA.

"The dingbat soccer mom is a clumsy rhetorical mechanism to devalue the capability and to proscribe the right of American citizens to know what THEIR elected representative are doing in their names with the power which THEY delegated to such representatives."-Rod

Rod you completely missed the point! If we have to consult some soccer mom about over whether or not we should conduct a covert operation it will be all over CNN and FOX news. It will no longer be covert. The only thing left at that point is to let the democratic process decide if we should wage conventional war with a country like Pakistan to get a guy like Osama Bin Laden.

"The only dingbats are the fools who let hard won rights and freedoms slip from their hands while covert arms of the state silently coil and choke liberty to a lifeless abstract principle. The moment a soccer mom becomes engaged and informed she ceases to be a dingbat, even if you profoundly disagree with her demands and her priorities."-Rod

No one is preventing the dingbat soccer mom from becoming informed. The vast majority just don't care until it directly impacts their lives. As far as her demands and priorities that seems to be reality TV, shopping and the little league soccer game. If she becomes more informed I would take her input seriously.

Now Rod stay on subject and please no more self righteous caterwauling…

Dragon Gunner:

You wrote:

I don't see the problem you created in your mind. Warfare has changed and we need to evolve. The numbers you see are probably proportional to the combined number of Jihadis and other assorted off the grid types we are now facing.

The problem is that you have a force of 70,000+ military personnel operating covertly around the globe and doing so in other peoples' countries with virtually no oversight from US civilian authorities or the public. The nature of the work these special forces do can lead them into moral hazard as it did at Nama with the interrogation of prisoners or with drone related killings of innocents. Remember this 70,000+ is in addition to the 2 million+ strong regular armed forces of the USA who generally operate in the clear light of public scrutiny.

Rod you completely missed the point! If we have to consult some soccer mom about over whether or not we should conduct a covert operation it will be all over CNN and FOX news. It will no longer be covert.

Operational security is one thing, long term secrecy is another quite different matter. There is no problem in my mind for protecting operational security for a short time until the operation is over. That does not apply to long term operations like covert training of military proxies in foreign lands. If the USSOCOM was required to report openly about operations after the fact, that would be enough for oversight, albeit delayed oversight. The key would not be to allow the delay time to stretch too long, by giving a maximum period which could only be extended by an explicit and affirmative act of Congress.

The second reason for thorough and timely oversight is the mutation of some special force operatives into defacto intelligence operatives. That is not their purpose and oversight could be used to stem or stop that drift in their brief. Intelligence collating and analysis by the military is fine but running agents and networks to collect intelligence is outside of the military's mandate. There is a difference between reconnaissance or long range reconnaissance on the one hand and intelligence gathering or spy-craft on the other. The latter is for the CIA abroad and the FBI domestically.

No one is preventing the dingbat soccer mom from becoming informed. The vast majority just don't care until it directly impacts their lives.

Actually, there are many barriers to becoming informed about special forces information. First and foremost is secrecy. So thorough and effective public oversight, disseminated quickly after the fact, through an open and non-biased press/media would go a long way to improve matters. The use of disinformation aimed not at enemies but at the public is another barrier to Mrs. Soccer Mom or anybody else wishing to learn objectively about special forces operations and mandates. Intimidation is often used to scare off inquiry and only approved reportage is permitted in these matters. As with embedded reporters in regularl military units, reporters who can get some limited access to special forces data are picked and groomed by the military hierarchy they are supposed to be reporting on. Other reporters are just frozen out and if one of the chosen few reports too critically then he/she is frozen out too.

The funding of these operations is either hidden in the weeds of purposely complex and arcane military budgets or is explicitly hidden by black-funding. So auditors and forensic accountants can't uncover how much public money is being directed to these operations. The use of what I shall charitably call 'non-governmental and covertly sourced' revenue streams is also stopping the soccer moms from learning the full story. With the growing role of private sector special forces, comes the additional complication of the veil of proprietory knowledge to stop our intrepid soccer moms from learning more about this issue.

If the soccer mom is as tough and determined as Ripley in Alien and pursues the hunt, despite these obstacles placed in front of her, then her library reading, her internet searches, her cell phone data, etc. are red-flagged and she becomes a target of hostile scrutiny from the intelligence and law enforcement organisations which run interference for the covert special forces and for the shadow state they serve. That is exactly what happened here in Quebec when reporters and citizens began to investigate government and police corruption in this part of Canada and nationals our CSEC the equivalent of your NSA has just been forced to admit that it has been spying on Canadians of interest (reporters, analysts and academics among other average citizens) illegally with the full knowledge that the CSEC was breaking the law and illegally archiving the data for a decade. This kind of intimidation against those wanting to learn more of the truth is made abundantly clear to the public as the state or its institutions use fear as a profilactic against public scrutiny in matters of state.

So the soccer moms will never know that this proliferation is impacting their lives because that fact is been purposefully and actively kept from them. The argument that the soccer moms don't know and don't care is externally imposed and enforced by the powers that be, preventing the moms from learning and knowing more and intimidating them if they try to find out too much.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

link

Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move. Sun Tzu

Legion 4:

Yes, operational secrecy is of paramount importance during an operation but after the operation is finished that military need for secrecy ends and the facts must come out. Long-term institutional secrecy is as dangerous as security leaks because it protects incompetent or over-reaching officers and politicians from having to take responsibility for the decisions they have made. Protecting incompetent or over-reaching leadership, be it military or political, is dangerous to military success and to the lives and health of military personnel. Public disclosure stops bad decision makers from clinging on to command or power and thus protects those on the front lines.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

You are familiar with the Principles of War :

Security

Surprise

Protecting incompetent or over-reaching leadership, be it military or political, is dangerous to military success and to the lives and health of military personnel.

I doubt you will find too many military personnel at the COL/0-5+ Level that you could label "incompetent". Many elected and/or appointed officials, it appears, can't be labelled anything but incompetent. Or worse. I'm sure you see the daily US News feeds.

Legion 4:

Surprise applies to before and during an operation and not after it has concluded. Security to protect an operation from the enemy is fine but again security after the operation only protects the interests and careers of decision makers and covers up errors or crimes from the military's own citizens. Security applies to the future and to the present. Transparency applies to the past.

PDF link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

As I said on another thread. In many situations classified Spec Ops missions remain in the dark. So as not to compromise personnel, equipment, tactics and techniques, etc., … And the average American has no need to know anyway. Or would entirely understand regardless. The people speak thru their elected officials. If the people are not pleased with those said officials. Then the don't reelect them. Or elect them in the first place.

And Surprise is in effect before, during and after for the reasons I mentioned above.

Security applies to the future and to the present.

Security applies as Surprise does.

Again, in many situations classified Spec Ops missions remain in the dark. So as not to compromise personnel, equipment, tactics and techniques, etc., …

The less the enemy or potential enemies know the better. Referred generally as OPSEC …

Transparency applies to the past.

Not always as I said above, twice …

Some things you are saying could get operators, etc., killed …

@ Rod

I give up we are talking about essentially two different topics. I see a clear need for special forces and their need to keep their operations covert. You see them as a threat and a tool to take away our freedom and liberty. No matter what is said you will keep steering the conversation back to your agenda. You are welcome to keep your opinion and I will keep mine.