Return of the Special Forces (In other words, no more sitting ducks)

Pittsburgh Tribune Review ^ | 12/21/03 | Ralph R. Reiland

[thesummerwind]

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."

[Cogadh na Sith]

These "insurgents" are too well educated by our own citizens: the DU types, the Batcrap followers, the Garafalos, the Scott Ritters, the Barbra Streisands, all the stinking traitorous pieces of human excrement, that stand and make the treasonous statements they make, all serve to embolden these "insurgents", because they truly believe that all Americans are cast from the same chickenshit mold..

Holy Cow! I've never heard it put better....

[Cogadh na Sith]

I don't know where this myth of Americans being the "nice guy" in wars came from. Until recently, we've always been an enemies worst nightmare in war.

Yeah, but only after we have very nearly lost the conflict.

An American war is always a cliffhanger: "Will the US go down honorably? Or, will they finally fight?"

Like each week on WWF--the good guy get pummled unfairly and finally comes back and wins.

Unfortunately, in the past many years--since Gulf War I. We may not actually have the will to fight for our survival anymore.

Heck, at least half of Americans don't want us to survive as a nation.

Time will tell whether we have the will to fight for our own survival--personally, I am sceptical. I do not believe we are willing, as a nation, to do what it takes to actually win.

Today, we revere the loser we love the underdog--we want to be the underdog: We are One Nation, Underdog.

[SBprone]

What the hell took you so long?

Thanks for contributing.

[Lancey Howard]

"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. We've got to scare the Iraqis into submission."

What that means is no more Mr. Nice Guy. It means our first priority will not be to arm American troops with paint rollers each morning, to get everything looking more spiffy in Baghdad. Instead, we're talking about what some in the Pentagon call "pre-emptive manhunting" -- more intelligence, more captures, and more assassinations of Baathist insurgents. The paint can wait.

WOW!!!
It's about time.

But if my memory serves, wasn't there a general who was let go (or "retired") at the beginning of the war on terror who was a strong advocate of "unconventional warfare"? I wish I could remember his name, but I was very disappointed to see him go. Looks like he had the right idea all along.

[SBprone]

"I thought if I got on FR, Hillary and her ghouls would come and get me for what I was thinking and saying about her and The Bent One"

They're still at large you know. It was Saddam who was captured.

[Cogadh na Sith]

That is a picture of the 'Highway of Death' from Gulf War I isn't it?

I consider that event to be the cause of Papa Bush, Colin Powell and most of the DoD losing their nerve to win that war.

That was the last time we fought like Americans--the results were staggering: Thousands and thousands of enemy dead; armored columns circling round and round enemy convoys like Cherokees around a wagon train; 27 miles long by 1 mile wide of burning hulks filled with 'crispy critters'; not a US man lost.

...And when we saw what we had done, we quailed. I think at the highest levels, the pantywaists felt we should rather lose than duplicate that.

We could have won this war in days, not months, if we could find the will to fight as Americans do.

As it is, we will slog on honorably, bleeding, and hopeless under the self-imposed yoke of political correctness: "It is far better to die than prevail."

[Lancey Howard]

I'm relatively new posting here, but have been reading (lurking sounds so surreptitious) about 20 hours a week for over five years.

I thought I was bad. I lurked from the day the intern story broke (Januaury '98) until Gore conceded in December '00. Nearly three years of clicking on FR 10 - 20 times a day and gnashing my teeth. I can't imagine how you went 5 years.

[Polybius]

"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 needs to choose his words more carefully.

"Unconventional" does not automatically translate to "terrorist".

In a war, the guerrilla that snipes at an American soldier or launches a mortar attack at a U.S. base or fires an RPG at an American vehicle is not a "terrorist". Whether we like it or not, in a war, our soldiers are legitimate targets.

Likewise, in a war, whether the liberal news media likes it or not, the guerrillas are legitimate targets.

As long as they are in some sort of uniform and refrain from blowing up civilians for the sake of blowing up civilians, in a war, the guerillas have every right to try to seek out American soldiers and try to kill them in any way they can.

Likewise, we have every right to try to seek out the guerrillas and try to kill them in any way we can.

That's not "terrorism". That's war.

To equate unconventonal warfare with "terrorism" only hinders the American military from doing what needs to be done to kill the enemy that is trying to kill us.

If we wanted to engage in "terrorism" all we would need to do is to carry out B-52 strikes on Tikrit and another cities and town in the Sunni Triangle every time there was an attack upon an Amereican in Iraq.

[Polybius]

Do you guys think that our Special Forces guys may actually be the ones who are killing the Baathist who have been reported to have been killed by Iraqis? I know that A LOT of these Baathist have been killed in what some are calling "revenge killings", but I think it may be our special forces guys.

I think our Special Forces are killing Baathists, that Iraqi revenge killers are killing Baathist and that we are not trying very hard to put the revenge killers out of business.

[river rat]

Terrorize the terrorist?
Does that work?

Well, I believe it was more than a coincidence - that disemboweled Marines stop showing up lashed to trees in the area of Lao Bao (far NW corner of I Corps), AFTER a number of disemboweled AND beheaded VC/NVA inexplicably showed up - spiked to trees in the area.

Coincidence or not?

Semper Fi

[King Prout]

this ought to bring a smile (of sorts) to your face.

[dennisw]

G-d, guts and glory!

[MizzouTigerRepublican]

It is about time that we got the Special Forces actually involved more in the missions they were created for!

[dennisw]

In a war, the guerrilla that snipes at an American soldier or launches a mortar attack at a U.S. base or fires an RPG at an American vehicle is not a "terrorist". Whether we like it or not, in a war, our soldiers are legitimate targets.

*Maybe* but these terrorist scum kill unarmed people too. They explode car bombs in front of Iraqi police stations. Same terrorist scum kill Japanese aid workers. They are terrorist scum in my book, following in the footsteps of the terrorist founder of Islam.

[dmzTahoe]

Just finished reading "Inside the Delta Force" by Eric Haney...he was one of the original Delta Force members and stayed on for quite a while to develop that outfit.
Very good read. Made me feel confident that if we unleash all tools at our disposal (the human element), we will win this thing.
There is much more going on behind the scene than we will ever know. Thank God for our Special Forces!

[Conservative_Nationalist]

In the articles that came out about the "Revenge Killings" it said that there seemed to be an organized group carrying out many of these killings. I think it's so organized because Americans are working with small numbers of Iraqis and letting them carry out most of the actual killings. This is the best way to get rid of certain people without having to deal with the media or detaining them and eventually probably having to release them.

[Polybius]

*Maybe* but these terrorist scum kill unarmed people too. They explode car bombs in front of Iraqi police stations. Same terrorist scum kill Japanese aid workers.

That is why I specifically mentioned, "unless they kill civilians".

Either way, whether they are legal combatants, illegal combatants or terrorists, they are still legitimate military targets.

My point was that unconventional warfare is not automatically to "terrorism" and therefore the U.S. need have no qualms in engaging in unconventional warfare.

[dennisw]

At the same time it's better, more accurate to call them terrorists than "the Iraqi resistance" or "insurgents". It's terrible for these murderers to be called "resistance" thus linking them to the brave resistance of WW2. Also making them out to be resisting the US oppressors. And we are not occupiers of Iraq. We are liberators!!! I say you are missing the real word games going on with the international press calling these killers "resistance". It makes me ill to hear these terrorist called resistance. Also calling this a US occupation of Iraq is a vile word game by lefty media. This ignores our role in freeing Iraq. We are liberators.

Yes our military is legitimate targets for these killers. They use good guerilla tactics that will be studied for years. But in recent weeks this scum has been aiming at us less (we are too protected) and killing the unarmed Iraqis and others. Trying to terrorize them away from the US.

[thesummerwind]

I'm not thrilled with analogies either. My mother used to warn me against them back when I was a kid back in the 50's. (She used to say, and I'll never forget it, "comparisons are odious." - I must have heard that 100 times - I guess I made too many comparisons even then! ;))

Anyhow, what particularly do you find that the writer wrote with which you disagree? What? Your sarcasm is never-ending, but you are not making your point at all. What particularly do you find incorrect in the article? Quit attacking the messenger, try attacking the message. You are sounding not unlike a weak-minded liberal with your rant against the writer's background.

I'm beginning to think you must have just had an unpleasant experience at your local chuckwagon or tearoom!