Posted on 08/31/2006 3:35:21 PM PDT by neverdem
|
My understanding is that is the whole point of BUD/S!
When I was kid living in Coronado I would sometimes see those UDT guys training out on The Strand connecting Coronado to the mainland. I had no idea at the time how much they were suffering. :o)
In the Panama invasion in the Bush I administration, they misused Seals in a larger group to take an airport. The task
would have been more suited to a Ranger unit more used to larger groups. The misuse of Special Operations troops is an
old story. Regular officers will use them when available to
augment or replace their regular troops.
Some snarky elitism in the piece.
I served in a Marine Recon unit [not Force] and trained joint ops with SEALs. They're not all that, esp considering all the funding they get for training. In the water or litoral ops - nothing is better. But on dry land I'd rather have Rangers or Recon.
And Marines or Army line grunts are? SEALs are special, but they're not THAT special. The JOB is to go in harms way. SEALs don't get the job done sitting back at base camp.
What, Divine doesn't like the fact that he was sent out on a mission with the newly constituted Marine special operations folks? Too damned bad.
I've had the privelage of knowing several "sneaky peaches" (Green Berets), and other special ops types. Each has their own specialties and skill sets. But they were all warriors. If someone doesn't want to be a warrior because they're too busy keeping the books on training costs then they shouldn't be in special ops.
This is such manufactured DBM crap! Of course members of the community bitch about the loss of one of their own, blaming some REMF for "misusing" their talents. It goes with the territority. Suck it up, soldier! Or you can always ring the bell.
My SIL was telling me that in WW11 her brother a sailor was transfered to the Marines, because he filled a need, even though it was against his wishes. This is more efficient use of our military.
There's two sides to this story - if SOCOM units do missions, their funding is validated, so there is sometimes a push to include units and personnel who would seem better suited for different missions.
I'm with you on this one. There's a war going on. Can't speak for the SEALS, but Army's special operators are generally used against high value targets. Conventional forces get involved if its in their AO, but they are in a support role.
The Seals ought to be thankful that they have only had 1 KIA in Iraq, the Army's SFOD-D has suffered many more than that.
It's a little bit like sending out F-22 pilots on a foot patrol through Baghdad. A tremendous waste and misallocation of assets if you ask me.
Possibly a medic. They used to do that a lot. Maybe they still do.
Bad analogy. SEALs are trained for sniper support. F-22 pilots rarely know how to clear an M-16.
Okay, Blackfive has good commentary re this. I see the author's point.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/what_are_seals_.html#comments
Right, I only used the analogy to illustrate the absurdity of risking highly valuable assets in duties perhaps better done by less valuable assests. Not saying their lives are inherently more valuable than the life of a grunt -- they're not -- but as military assests they are more valuable. You wouldn't use an aircraft carrier as a mine sweeper or a pilot as a grunt (even if he knew how to shoot).
assests=assets
"Lee was the first SEAL to die in Iraq"
How many have we lost?
Ping!
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.