[Filibuster_60]

At the end of the day we need both a large standing army and superb, substantial Special Forces. Neither is a substitute for the other. We shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of toppling hostile regimes through covert action alone. At best the historical record is mixed, because certain regimes are much better-equipped to survive anything short of outright invasion than others. I'll be damned if anyone with a grip on reality would say we didn't need to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam, or that covert action alone can bring Iran and North Korea to their knees. Furthermore, what should we do about nations whose governments aren't friendly, but whose people probably hate us even more? (Saudi Arabia immediately comes to mind.)

[zencat]

Agreed. You need both. Rumsfeld seems to realize this and his main focus is making the regular army as mobile as possible for quick deployments. A six-month long build up, such as we have twice witnessed for Iraq, just won't cut it if the stuff really hits the fan.

[STARWISE]

Certainly I don't.. nor do I believe Kaplan does .. believe that our standing army should ever or will ever be abolished. What he's painting is a very real picture of the
potential times that lie ahead in, frighteningly, the near future. Special Forces will increasingly figure in that picture very greatly, if we want to survive. I don't think we'll ever fully know how much they've done to protect our safety, and I pray for all our brave military - Navy, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marianes and Special Forces and those brave souls who fight for us in darkness in our intelligence agencies.