Thread: UK officer calls for US special forces to quit Afghan hotspot

Originally Posted by Ray

I understand what you are trying to say. That some sort of team is given some real sensitive tasks in conjunction with the Aim of the Operation, but independent of other organisations so that they are not tied down. If such a situation does arises then a separate command and control and support would have to be established and boundaries earmarked so that there is no overlap in the operations.

Yes, that is precisely what I was trying to say. In case of the US, it has been more or less "permanently earmarked" in the form of USSOCOM by the Congress. It does have a separately established command, control and support system. The central theme of this debate is in marking those boundaries.

With qualitatively similar units, you can neatly divide and bound areas proportional to unit sizes; with qualitatively dissimilar units, there is no way to avoid overlap. A high quality unit can handle much larger areas than its equivalent number regular unit for some missions, but for other missions (especially involving fatigue or simply presence) numbers have their own quality, don't you agree? Because of this variability, you must agree to the overlap of boundaries... and smooth the conflicts to the greatest extent possible (i.e. not call one of the parties "insensitive, aggressive jerks").

Originally Posted by Ray

We have what is known as the "authorised OP" who has overriding authority in obtaining fire support.

FOO/FAO/etc don't so much have overriding authority for obtaining fire-support as much as play a target-acquisition and fire-correction role. Because they operate so close to the frontlines (often across), they are younger/junior officers; and because they can call upon such heavy fire they must have prior knowledge of their own troop distributions - hence high security clearence. All in all, sounds a lot of fun.

Our authorised OP is a senior officer and has the authority.

Your special ops can possibly operate without any control and must be great.

However, a James Bond concept would not work in India.

We somehow fight shy of having footloose gung ho guys going all over the place and of course, doing a great job.

Our Special Forces/Commandos operate as per the Plan.

Originally Posted by Ray

Your special ops can possibly operate without any control and must be great.

However, a James Bond concept would not work in India.

We somehow fight shy of having footloose gung ho guys going all over the place and of course, doing a great job.

Our Special Forces/Commandos operate as per the Plan.

Did you miss the point of them having their own command, control and support system? How then do they "operate without any control"? How are they footloose when their very nature of responsibilities call for mobility and they are assign far larger AORs than conventional counterparts?

"Special Forces" operating under regulation command are light infantry, commandos at the very best, no? What makes them special if you don't give them extra initiative and demand extra responsibility?

If anything I would have thought India/Pakistan region would be where the shadow wars legacy of Clive and Lawrence brothers would have been kept alive while others only fantasized about it with Kim O'Hara and James Bond, but I could be wrong!

Well, to be frank I don't know the concept that is used for US Special Forces and so forgive me if I appear off beat.

Notwithstanding the popular concept that India and Pakistan are wild Joes going for the jugular, we are very careful that things don't go out of hand and hence such operations are not to our psyche.

Musharraf tried it in Kargil (in a rather poor form) and see the consequences!

Originally Posted by Ray

Well, to be frank I don't know the concept that is used for US Special Forces and so forgive me if I appear off beat.

Notwithstanding the popular concept that India and Pakistan are wild Joes going for the jugular, we are very careful that things don't go out of hand and hence such operations are not to our psyche.

Musharraf tried it in Kargil (in a rather poor form) and see the consequences!

You don't need to know the specific concept behind the development of a specific country's specific unit (as in US Special Forces), you just need to apply the generally accepted criteria. You have already brought up a couple of necessary points - ex. Special Ops = Trans Border Ops - but just need to generalize those points (ex. change Trans Border Ops to "Behind Enemy Lines", where ever those lines maybe). If you recognize and understand the criteria, you will be able to appreciate the quality - same as anything else in life.

Note: The reference to India/Pakistan region was not a dig at your respective armies at all, but a tribute to two possible forefathers of modern special operators. You are aware of how Clive used unconventional warfare and force multipliers to defeat much more powerful Bengal and French forces, no doubt? The Lawrence brothers were instrumental in setting up the Corps of Guides, whose exploits inspired both British (directly) and later US special operations community (via British), fancy that!

Cactus,


Special Ops is no easy task.

It is like a spy who operates and does not get caught.

And a group of men doing so, is a tough call.

Therefore, one cannot comment at all.

Clive used bribery against Siraj ud Dullah!

Mir Jaffar was a traitor and Mir Jaffar is the term we use to indicate a traitor in coloquial discussions!

Originally Posted by Ray

Cactus,

Special Ops is no easy task.

Yes, it probably is. But you can make your life easier, even the odds, if you will:

Clive used bribery against Siraj ud Dullah!

You never heard of the $100-a-cup of Kurdish tea?

No.

The only curd I know of is Yoghurt!

Originally Posted by Ray

No.

Look it up, you will reinforce the eternal maxim "more things change, more they remain the same"!