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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

COL Mikel J. Burroughs
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.

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

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.