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

Sir,
Recently I read an article(Im having difficulty finding it again to post) about a change in mindset in US Special Forces while Rumsfeld was the boss. The gist of the article was that during Rumsfeld's tenure as Sec Def Specal Forces started to place emphasis on the direct action role to the detriment of their other traditional roles. Could this be a result of that change? The comment made by one British Officer that, "sensitivity is not their strong suit" is especially disturbing. As Special Forces sensitivity should be exactly their strong suit.

The NZSAS expressed dissatisfaction with working with them as well, something to do with prisoner treatment.

I wonder if the US should take a hard looks at its capabilities in Civil Affairs. This seems to be an area that they are really struggling with in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I may not be accurate in my opinion, but I have the feeling that the units in Iraq that have done the best work in this regard have not been Special Forces. Off the top of my head the work of the 3rd ACR in Tal Afar comes to mind, and that seemed to be more the work of an exceptionally talented commanding officer as opposed to anything else.

If the Special Forces are going to spend most of their time looking for fights, should the Army consider expanding its Civil Affairs units instead of the expansion that is going on in Special Forces?

Originally Posted by Ray

These things will occur when a mix of different types of troops are employed because of the differing mindset that is singular to each country.

Ray,

Is it a question of difference arising from nationality, or is it one arising from differing commands?

Out of curiosiy, does Indian Army have specialized scout-sniper teams? Are they deployed in COIN role in Kashmir? How do regular infantry feel if (lets say you have such teams)/when such teams disrupt the normal tempo of operations? What do batt commanders says when such teams report directly to a higher chain of command?

You can also answer similar questions regarding your 50th Indpendent Brigade, often listed under Army HQ Reserves - do they report to their immediate superiors wherever they are deployed? Are they always subject to the local commander's COIN plans? Or is there more to their missions?

Here are some links that would indicate the psyche:

Strong support for torture among US military in Iraq: A corollary of occupation

Take No Casualties
PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Summer 1996

The transformation of the US Military psyche is possibly the resultant of SLA Marshall's book Men Against Fire, wherein he claims that in WWII no more than one soldier actually fired their weapons, while in contact with the enemy and based on his findings the US Army changed its training procedures to ensure that more fire was brought on the enemy and the troops more aggressive in intent.

He also studied the Korean War and claim to the conclusion that the ration of fire had more than doubled.

It must be added that SLA Marshall also had critics, who debunked his theories and the veracity of his statistics!

The mindset is highly aggressive and it sanitises the mind from thinking anything beyond the mission or beyond the safety of own soldiers. The human element apparently is not there, which is good to fight a regular conventional battle, but not for Insurgencies, where the population has to be weaned away from the influence of the terrorists, if the battle is to be won.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Cactus

Ray,

Is it a question of difference arising from nationality, or is it one arising from differing commands?

Different mindset and hence also different views at the command level of how to apply the troops to the Operation in hand.

Out of curiosiy, does Indian Army have specialized scout-sniper teams? Are they deployed in COIN role in Kashmir? How do regular infantry feel if (lets say you have such teams)/when such teams disrupt the normal tempo of operations? What do batt commanders says when such teams report directly to a higher chain of command?

No, there is no scout sniper team per se. Standard CASO tactics is applied.

You can also answer similar questions regarding your 50th Indpendent Brigade, often listed under Army HQ Reserves - do they report to their immediate superiors wherever they are deployed? Are they always subject to the local commander's COIN plans? Or is there more to their missions?

All troops and units, specialised or standard when placed under command of any commander operate as per the direction and plans of that Commander.

The overall strategy of COIN cannot be undertaken in penny packets and in isolation.

It requires coordinated effort with no overlapping and with sensitiveness. Even so, the Security Forces have to be ready to face flak from the population. The aim is to minimises such flak.

Originally Posted by Ray

The mindset is highly aggressive and it sanitises the mind from thinking anything beyond the mission or beyond the safety of own soldiers. The human element apparently is not there, which is good to fight a regular conventional battle, but not for Insurgencies, where the population has to be weaned away from the influence of the terrorists, if the battle is to be won.

Ray,

If you look at it from the top-down view, you will find the Human Element as priority #2 - "safety of own soldiers" (ic): A far higher ranking in the doctrinal setup than any traditional or 95% of contemporary doctrines. In fact the popular opinion held that it was a particularly bad liability in winning the conventional battle, but that is a different story. As I see it, the trick to defeating insurgencies would be to first raise "safety of the neutral population" to priority #3, and then to include it in a redefined/expanded priority #2 "safety of own side". That too is tangential to the discussion at hand.

Limit ourselves to: What is the nature of special operations? Does it supercede the COIN concerns?

Originally Posted by Ray

All troops and units, specialised or standard when placed under command of any commander operate as per the direction and plans of that Commander.

What does it mean to keep a brigade under Army HQ Reserves? I am trying to figure out whether there are any Indian troops who act as strategic assets, thus bypassing the local commanders in whose area of operations they may be located in. If there are no such troops in Indian Army, then it is hard to explain with an anology how US command is structured wrt special operations. You have to forgive me of ignorance.

Originally Posted by Cactus

What does it mean to keep a brigade under Army HQ Reserves? I am trying to figure out whether there are any Indian troops who act as strategic assets, thus bypassing the local commanders in whose area of operations they may be located in. If there are no such troops in Indian Army, then it is hard to explain with an anology how US command is structured wrt special operations. You have to forgive me of ignorance.

Special Ops would be trans border.

No. No can bypass the command and control of the commander conducting the ops.

The example of use of strategic reserves would be something like the Tangail Ops in 1971.

America, stop waving the nuclear threat at potential adversaries

The US should use its nuclear arsenal for deterrence only and preserve the 'taboo' on nuclear weapons use.
By Jack Mendelsohn

from the August 10, 2007 edition

Washington - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were asked in a recent presidential debate whether they would meet with such controversial foreign leaders as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Despite the sparring between the two over the timing and pre-conditions for such a meeting, they both essentially said they would engage international reprobates – something this administration has repeatedly balked at doing. Remember, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "We don't negotiate with evil. We destroy it."

A tougher question is whether the next president would threaten to use nuclear weapons against a foreign enemy. Four Republican candidates – Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore, and Rudy Giuliani – have already expressed their willingness to use "tactical" nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. Again, this tracks with the vice president who is reportedly urging an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure by next year at the latest.

Mr. Obama recently told the Associated Press that he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" involving civilians. Mrs. Clinton once again criticized his foreign policy position saying that she didn't believe that "any president should make any blanket statements."

If the Democrat candidates want to distinguish themselves from their opponents, and if the Republicans want to recover from the disastrous foreign policy of this administration, the candidates should commit to delegitimizing – not stressing – nuclear weapons. Every time the United States threatens a potential adversary with nuclear weapons it tells the world that these weapons are acceptable instruments of modern warfare and that there are no political or moral constraints on US behavior.

It is overwhelmingly in the US national interest to preserve the "taboo" on nuclear weapons use and to seek to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in US security policy. To achieve this, the candidates should address four issues:

First, announce that they reject nuclear intimidation and the current policy of preventive war. In the future, and under their leadership, the United States will retain its nuclear arsenal for deterrence only and will not employ nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear attack.

Second, commit to the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. Even President Reagan sought a nuclear-free world and a number of senior US statesmen, from the late Paul Nitze (Democrat) to George Schultz and Henry Kissinger (both Republicans), agree that the US would be much safer in a world without nuclear weapons.

Third, declare that they plan to withdraw all US nuclear weapons from Europe during their term in office. These weapons are relics of the cold war: There is no strategic requirement for them, and no military mission that cannot be carried out by conventional weapons.

Finally, make it clear that the United States will not resume nuclear testing. A reaffirmation of the decade-old moratorium on nuclear tests (or ratification by the next Congress of the treaty banning such tests) would strengthen US efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations.

In the run-up to the presidential election, the candidates of both parties have a chance to indicate to the world that the next administration will forgo the policy of nuclear intimidation and actively strive to delegitimize nuclear weapons. This nation cannot become more secure by reserving for itself the right to use nuclear weapons while preaching nuclear abstinence for the rest of world.

• Jack Mendelsohn was a US State Department official, a member of the US SALT and START delegations and deputy director of the Arms Control Association. He is presently an adjunct professor at George Washington University and American University.

Cactus,

Here is an article from the CSM, which is a balanced newspaper, and which indicates the American mindset.

Cheney epitomises it with:

"We don't negotiate with evil. We destroy it."

But the moral question is who is to decide what is 'evil'.

If one goes by Cheney's style of thinking, I reckon it would mean anyone/ any country that does not toe the US line!

Before one is judgemental, one has to see the US history. It is full of evil vs good. The Indian Wars, Go West by the Pioneers, the Wild West and its Justice by the Gun and lynchings, the Civil War, the World Wars, Iraq War and so on.

It is full of violent answers to what one thought and justified as conflicts of good vs evil.

And no holds barred!

Oh, for Gawd's sake.

some problem?

If the articles are worng or my comments are wrong, then please Spell it out.

I sure would like to learn of a contrary view and would be delighted.

'O God' does not state much!

Originally Posted by Ray

No. No can bypass the command and control of the commander conducting the ops.

Okay, then there may be no equivalency in Indian military to illustrate what is the role of US special operations command. If Indian artillery uses forward observation officers (FOO) - you know, relatively junior officers who have high security clearence and report directly to much higher commands - you may have something vaguely resembling the special operations command structure? (I have just about exhausted my list of independent roles with this one!). If there is absolutely no such equivalent setup, you would have to use your imagination on this one to understand its significantly different role.

PS: Also its not a matter of "bypass" (apologize to having introduced that misleading word), but of being under a different command in the same area if I understand the article correctly.

Originally Posted by Ray

Cactus,

Here is an article from the CSM, which is a balanced newspaper, and which indicates the American mindset.
...

It is full of violent answers to what one thought and justified as conflicts of good vs evil.

And no holds barred!

Ray,

This is way off topic; and IMHO unnecessary exercise in trying to characterize a definitely uncharacterizable thing as a "national psyche". India surely did not deploy the Jaina Regiment or the Gandhi Legion when attacked in 1999, why then do you expect Americans to respond with Amish Brigade or Thoreau Division when similarly wronged? Anyway, I have no intention of being dragged into what I feel is an unnecessary debate - more posts fired off in this direction amounts to wasted ammo, and I am willing to say so because debate is one field where is good to draw fire on oneself!