Posted on 12/28/2003 1:34:37 AM PST by thesummerwind
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:03:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The real story in Saddam's capture is that the Bush administration has turned loose the Special Forces to fight a covert, no-holds-barred war in Iraq.
"A revitalized Special Forces mission is a policy victory for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who has struggled for two years to get the military leadership to accept the strategy of what he calls 'Manhunts' -- a phrase that he has used both publicly and in internal Pentagon communications," writes Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker's Dec. 15 issue. "According to American and Israeli military and intelligence officials, Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort Bragg, N.C., and in Israel to help them prepare for operations in Iraq."
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
It was, in fact, that near-daily killing of American troops over the past several months that changed American policySo how many soldiers had to die before we switched policy? Many of us would have said months ago: Rummy is right.
Benjamin Franklin said: "Only fools learn from experience."
It was very painful. There were so many times I wanted to speak up.......daily actually!
But this site, as I said earlier, has a great number of fine thinkers and, at the same time, witty folks. I have been very appreciative, and by the way I am in favor of a yearly posting fee to help keep FR alive and well! I have read the Robinsons' story, and IMO, they deserve everyone's sincere and continuous help.
"An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad explained the new plan of attack to Hersh: "The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla vs. guerrilla. Terrorism vs. terrorism." -- "This guy" you are referring to is not the writer of this article, Ralph Reiland. "The guy" is only identified as "an American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad". But I see your point.
My, my! For once Old Ben is wrong. Wise folks too learn from experience, but, experience is certainly not (and shouldn't be, or one can die) the only teacher! But I do get your point.
We needn't have had to wait for a number of Americans to be killed, to switch policy! You are right, but old Ben was a little off with that old adage.
Coincidence or not?
Semper Fi
Sometimes it worked that way for the Army too, depending on the quality of both their leadership and ours. When in the early days of the *advisor stage* of the war, one Special Forces A team was directed to instruct their counterparts in the basics of psychological warfare and emphasize that approach. So one team sergeant went hunting saved up a half dozen or so VC bodies of those NOT from the local area, and buried them standing up on one of the more densely travelled trails with just one of their arms sticking out of the ground with an advisory note reading *surrender or die.* Later, as North Vietnamese cadre were added to the local VC forces, the notes would read *Born in the north to die in the south.*
On one occasion, a local minor VC force leader who had repeatedly bribed his way out of South Vietnamese custody was picked up again by the same NCO who was really getting tired of meeting the same fella under the same conditions. And when he was told he'd better be nice because he could run into him again sometime, the NCO emptied a BAR into him from about 5 feet. The psychological effectiveness of that operation seemed to be aptly demonstrated to the ARVN strikers....
Sometimes the *other people* could be more or less reasonable; other times they'd get a fanatic or careerist in charge and the nastiness picked up. And after we started sending in company and battalion- sized line units in 1965, they probably made similar observations about some of our leadership.
-archy-/-
Like Mark Twain said, all generalities are untrue.
-archy-/-
That's all very well and good but I believe that you are still missing my point.
It is not about what this individual is saying about them. It is about what this individual is saying about us.
My objection was to the spokesman's statement, "We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla vs. guerrilla. Terrorism vs. terrorism".
This fool is equating any form of unconventional warfare with "terrorism" and then claims that the U.S. need to engage in "terrorism" when what he really means to say is that the U.S. needs to engage in unconventional warfare.
If unconventional warfare is incorrecvtly declared to be synonymous with "terrorism" that means that U.S. forces must either take this necessary strategy out of it's war planning or engage in "terrorism" which is a war crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.