Is Obama’s Special Operations Policy: Useless and Dangerous?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:30:03 -0500

Is Obama’s Special Operations Policy: Useless and Dangerous?

RP Members what do you think about POTUS and his use of the Special Forces

The Man Behind the Curtain

Perhaps someday, when administration insiders pen their memoirs and historians get to cull Obama’s emails, more definitive judgments can be made about the rationale behind the president’s calls as commander-in-chief. Until then, it’s worth musing on his motivations—if only to suggest dark paths that the next president would do well to avoid.

No respectable historian will find much to admire in the president’s legacy as foreign policy and national security leader. Still, they may well bicker for many years over why he does what he does.

The White House recently announced that special operations forces are going into harm’s way in Syria. That choice may be one of the defining moments historians seize on to understand the Obama way of war.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/obamas-special-operations-policy-useless-and-dangerous/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXI2pmpbH_k

What to make of this decision? For starters, dispatching a small number of special operations forces into Syria to help handle ISIS is hardly a game changer.

Special operations forces are called “special” for a reason. In part, the handle reflects that these troops have special training and equipment, and conduct unique military missions. Their impact, however, is also considered “special.” They deliver a unique “temporary” advantage, whether it’s rescuing hostages, hunting SCUDs, training a freedom fighter, or taking down a terrorist. A special-ops “mission accomplished” delivers either a quick and passing win (like getting bin Laden) or an essential preparatory act for a larger campaign (such as harassing Japanese supply lines in Burma during World War II before the Allied counteroffensive).

Obama's Special Operations Policy: Useless and Dangerous

The White House recently announced that special operations forces are going into harm's way in Syria.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 8:51 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:51:55 -0500

From my experience, most in the democratic party are clueless when it comes to military capabilities and functions.

Great post COL Mikel J. Burroughs thanks for posting.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 9:11 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 09:11:25 -0500

I think that the POTUS and Congress have no idea of how to use our Special OPS teams to their capacity. I think that since most of these officials have never served in our military, they have no idea at all.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 8 at 2015 9:15 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 09:15:19 -0500

He's putting our special forces troops in jeopardy for not giving them adequate support. The rules of engagement are either muddy or tie the hands Of our brave special operators

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Nov 8 at 2015 9:28 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 09:28:59 -0500

We often jump to conclusions with situations we might not fully understand - because we do not have all the information, while I am guilty of this at times as well....I challenge you to consider a different perspective. Try this on and see if it fits: what if, just if, our POTUS made the decision under the guise of train and advise but (without telling the world) he is really putting eyes on the target of Russia moving Iranian weaponry/nuclear materials to Syria....what if? So, while we might not be "read in", we often lend our opinions to things we might not really know much about....do I want our operators out there in harms way, hell no - it could be my son out there, and I do not want him exposed to unnecessary threat.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 8 at 2015 9:48 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 09:48:01 -0500

We've seen ample evidence that sending in our regular light infantry forces into areas where they don't know the customs or languages is just a really good way to get many of them killed and wounded without advancing vital U.S. Interests.

I just put the bottom line first.

it is a difficult problem for the United States. It is a mess made by the Bush Administration. They threw their hands up in 2007, remaining bereft of ideas then as they had been throughout their ill-conceived adventure in Mesopotamia.

The mess we have now was predicted by such disparate prophets as Dick Cheney (in 1994) and Jim Webb.

Cheney for some reason changed his mind. It is instructive to quote Senator Webb.

This is from 2002:

"Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.

The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is. Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival. Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II. Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's imperial family. Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's. The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.

In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2006/09/jim-webbs-2002-op-ed-against-invading-iraq

"Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay."

It is not necessarily a thing that President Obama, or anyone, can fix.

Put our regular infantry units in Syria or back in what used to be Iraq and they will just be targets again. President Obama deserves a lot of credit for avoiding an avalanche of bad advice so far.

Walt

Jim Webb's 2002 Op-Ed Against Invading Iraq

Jim Webb isn't by any means perfect, as Tim Russert revealed in his interview with Webb and George "Macaca" Allen...

Response by LTC John Shaw made Nov 8 at 2015 1:00 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 13:00:54 -0500

Can't we find something between invading and displacing a government and complete omission of action? 50 SOF is a demonstration, not a military action.
The refugee crisis is caused by the collapse of the Libya & Syria caused by the Obama administration, welcome to foreign policy Democratic style. So much for 'nuance', let just abdicate responsibility, only good things will happen right, the world knows we mean well.
The Obama administration wants to act like they are fighting ISIL, this continues the last seven years of omission. The left is unwilling to see the 100,000s of people killed and millions of refugees can be placed squarely on President Obama's lack of leadership. The last 14 months will show this administration is not willing to provide an amount of manning and resources necessary to suppress or destroy ISIL.
Perhaps when attacks are wide spread in America and Europe only then will this Administration's fallacy be demonstrated.
Let's hope that people remember these policies during the next election.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 8 at 2015 2:17 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 14:17:37 -0500

Advertising the movement of secret units is counterproductive.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 8 at 2015 2:55 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 14:55:36 -0500

I would not say Obama’s Special Operations Policy: Useless and Dangerous COL Mikel J. Burroughs. For one thing a USMA classmate of mine is the Commander of SOCOM and he is somebody I completely trust to do his best for the nation and those who serve in his command.
Much of what Special Operations will not be revealed to the public ever because of national security requirements and common sense.
I hope that the current administrations "policy" of releasing information about special operations will be retired and won't be resurrected.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 5:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:31:04 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs, I do not have any faith in Obama's knowledge, or lack there of, in military matters. Does he do it because he's the POTUS and its his way or the highway? No, I don't think so. Does he listen to ill advice from his staff? I would like to say no, but I don't know. I do know, he knows nothing about military tactics except for what he's been told. If it were me, I would do what Patton did. He studied the enemy and their tactics. He made plans to not do what had been done before that cost American lives. When he gave a suggestion to his CO, he knew what he was talking about. The advice given to Obama is the same thing over and over, send in troops to work with the Iraqi military and get them up to speed so they can fight their own war, and defend Iraq from ISIS. I don't blame him because he doesn't know what he's doing. He takes advice and believes in his staff to give him the correct answers. He does not know what to do. We need someone who understands military tactics and what to do when a suggestion is given to him. We need someone who will ask to be shown how the suggested plan would work without losing too many of our militaries lives. IMO