PDA

View Full Version : unleash the dogs of war


Sound_Man
July 10th, 2008, 02:50 PM
This type of talk reminds me of the bureaucratic mess that was the Vietnam war. I hate to see soldiers, especially the SOCOM guy with their hands tied.


Policy dispute
Defense officials are criticizing what they say is the failure to capture or kill top al Qaeda leaders because of timidity on the part of policy officials in the Pentagon, diplomats at the State Department and risk-averse bureaucrats within the intelligence community.
Military special operations forces (SOF) commandos are frustrated by the lack of aggressiveness on the part of several policy and intelligence leaders in pursuing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his top henchmen, who are thought to have hidden inside the tribal areas of Pakistan for the past 6˝ years.
The focus of the commandos' ire, the officials say, is the failure to set up bases inside Pakistan's tribal region, where al Qaeda has regrouped in recent months, setting up training camps where among those being trained are Western-looking terrorists who can pass more easily through security systems. The lawless border region inside Pakistan along the Afghan border remains off-limits to U.S. troops.
The officials say that was not always the case. For a short time, U.S. special operations forces went into the area in 2002 and 2003, when secret Army Delta Force and Navy SEALs worked with Pakistani security forces.
That effort was halted under Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who recently blamed Pakistan for opposing the joint operations. Mr. Armitage, however, also disclosed his diplomatic opposition to the commando operations. Mr. Armitage, an adviser to Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain, told the New York Times last month that the United States feared pressuring Pakistani leaders for commando access and that the Delta Force and SEALs in the tribal region were "pushing them almost to the breaking point."
However, the officials said that without the training and expertise of the U.S. commandos, Pakistani forces took heavy casualties in the region, with about 1,000 troops killed by terrorists and their supporters.
Another major setback for aggressive special operations activities occurred recently with a decision to downgrade the U.S. Special Operations Command. Under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the command in 2004 began to shift its focus from support and training to becoming a front-line command in the covert war to capture and kill terrorists. In May, SOCOM, as the command is called, reverted to its previous coordination and training role, a change that also frustrated many SOF commandos.
Critics in the Pentagon of the failure to more aggressively use the 50,000-strong SOF force say it also is the result of a bias by intelligence officials against special forces, including Pentagon policy-makers such as former CIA officer Michael Vickers, currently assistant defense secretary for special operations; former CIA officer Mary Beth Long, assistant defense secretary for international security affairs; and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a former CIA director.
The officials said the bias among intelligence officials against aggressive military special operations is long-standing. As evidence, they note that one of the very few recommendations of the 9/11 commission ignored by President Bush was the panel's call for giving the Pentagon the lead role in paramilitary operations.
The commission report stated that "lead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department." That has not occurred, and the officials said one result is that bin Laden and his deputies remain at large.
Said one Pentagon official: "The reason some Pentagon leaders appear to be so indecisive about President Bush's order to catch Osama bin Laden dead or alive is that they have not unleashed the dogs of war. Too many bureaucrats have blocked ideas from the aggressive U.S. commandos in Afghanistan and at SOCOM headquarters who just want to carry out the president's orders to stop al Qaeda from rebuilding."
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell declined to address any specifics of special operations policies but said he thinks senior commanders do not share the critics' views.
On the hunt for bin Laden, Mr. Morrell said: "No one should question our commitment to bringing Osama bin Laden and the rest of his cowardly lieutenants to justice, one way or another. It will happen. it's just a question of when."

henpecked
July 10th, 2008, 03:13 PM
politicians treat problems....thats how they stay in business
they can treat things for years......

Just like the pharmacuetical companys...................no money in FIXING the problem

ZappBranigan
July 10th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Soldiers always think they know more than the "suits" back in the Pentagon. But doing something like setting up bases in Pakistan would have repercussions that most grunts, even of the SOF variety, haven't stopped to consider. It is those repercussions that the politicians and the diplomats have to consider, whether the grunts realize it or not.

The mission of the military is to execute the foreign policy of the elected government, not to make thier own. They can disagree all they want, but at the end of the day, they have to accept the orders of their political masters, which is exactly as it should be.

Dagimp
July 11th, 2008, 09:20 AM
politicians treat problems....thats how they stay in business
they can treat things for years......

Just like the pharmacuetical companys...................no money in FIXING the problem

Without an enemy for the fear factory media what would they use to control us and take away our rights?

Pilot
July 11th, 2008, 09:25 AM
They need to call these guys. Yeah, that's Ed O'Neill, aka Al Bundy in the back.
http://www.imcdb.org/images/121/478.jpg

Swat
July 11th, 2008, 10:53 AM
This type of talk reminds me of the bureaucratic mess that was the Vietnam war. I hate to see soldiers, especially the SOCOM guy with their hands tied.

The way I see it, there are checks and balances. Release the dogs of war and all we would have is war and more war.
You’re wrong about Vietnam. The balance was there. When we started kicking ass in Vietnam the Chinese started showing-up. Had we continued it, it would have been WWIII with the Chinese. We policed it because of that fact.

Sound_Man
July 11th, 2008, 11:06 AM
The way I see it, there are checks and balances. Release the dogs of war and all we would have is war and more war.
You’re wrong about Vietnam. The balance was there. When we started kicking ass in Vietnam the Chinese started showing-up. Had we continued it, it would have been WWIII with the Chinese. We policed it because of that fact. We won that war if you look at the fact that we did halt the progress of communism at the 17th parallel. We still patrol that dividing line.

I see checks and balances as well. I have been involved in a few wars in my life and I will tell you that it sucks. It sucks even more when your hands are tied due to bureaucracy and politics. I am not wrong about Vietnam, our hands were tied by politicians. We lost a lot of very brave men and women there and we did not finish the job. I am afraid that the same is going to happen with the conflicts we are involved with in the middle east now. I believe there will be more John Kerry's and Jane Fonda's this time around.

I am really interested in who exactly is patrolling the 17th parallel. I know it is not our military.

Pilot
July 11th, 2008, 11:15 AM
I am not wrong about Vietnam, our hands were tied by politicians. We lost a lot of very brave men and women there and we did not finish the job. I am afraid that the same is going to happen with the conflicts we are involved with in the middle east now.

That is the inherent problem with all proxy wars. We never fight to win, just as a show of force. Its a disservice to the people actually doing the fighting as it puts them in harms way for an unclear purpose. We should be fighting Saudi Arabia and Iran, but we are afraid of what the Russians and Chinese would do in a perceived oil grab. I'm afraid its coming however.

Swat
July 11th, 2008, 11:19 AM
A difference of opinion between me and you and I was strong in saying you are wrong, too strong? IMHO you are wrong had there not been the balance in Nam it would have escalated to WWIII.

I am with you in that if we let congress him and haw over a war decision it will often be too late to get the job done.

I retracted a mistake I had made in regards to an earlier time in Vietnam.

Sound_Man
July 11th, 2008, 11:26 AM
That is the inherent problem with all proxy wars. We never fight to win, just as a show of force. Its a disservice to the people actually doing the fighting as it puts them in harms way for an unclear purpose. We should be fighting Saudi Arabia and Iran, but we are afraid of what the Russians and Chinese would do in a perceived oil grab. I'm afraid its coming however.
I agree, it is coming, it is a matter of when and not if anymore.

Sound_Man
July 11th, 2008, 11:38 AM
A difference of opinion between me and you and I was strong in saying you are wrong, too strong? IMHO you are wrong had there not been the balance in Nam it would have escalated to WWIII.

I am with you in that if we let congress him and haw over a war decision it will often be too late to get the job done.

I retracted a mistake I had made in regards to an earlier time in Vietnam.

Please read this. http://www.vietnamwar.com/warhistory.htm

While I was on active duty I got to take a little trip to Somalia. While I was there it was so full of political crap it would make your head spin. Things like having to call in and ask permission to return fire while actively being engaged by an enemy. I found out pretty quickly that when we were asking for permission that request was not being granted locally it was someone back here in the states. the enemy figured that out really fast and they also figured out we would be told not to return fire if there were civilians present because some asshat that had no clue what was going on there did not want any collateral damage. Yes we got our asses handed to us on a platter because of some bureaucrat and we left with our tails between our legs. The same type of thing happened in Vietnam.

In war there are casualties. People will die in order to control the ground. Civilians will die. Some civilian deaths can be avoided and others can not be. Atrocities happen in war as well as in peace time. Atrocities happen on the streets of this nation every day. Children are raped, women are murdered, banks are robbed.... Just because it happens in a war zone it suddenly becomes news worthy.

henpecked
July 11th, 2008, 11:55 AM
"If you're going to go to war against a major enemy, go; knock the hell out of him fast, and go in there to kill him and get it over with"
................Lieutenant General Harold Moore

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I wont"
.........General George Patton Jr.

The Roman empire didnt fall because of its army.............it fell because of its politicians.


Steve

Swat
July 11th, 2008, 12:17 PM
Sound Man,

My bad:o, I was confusing the 17th and the Korea DMZ and well, beleive in a balance of powers but it certainly shifted to far too the politicians and congress is trying to grab more now. If we have to wait on those decisions from them we'll get our asses handed to us. Thanks for your service.

I hope we get McCain because he has a better understanding of this and has served vs the idealistic and pure politician in Obama.

The founding fathers understood that we needed a way to expedite our defense and thus the war powers of congress and the president/Comander in Cheif were born. Good checks and balances there but, it seems the politicians forget that basic protection in the Constitution and most have no idea how to fight and win a war.

If we just had politically correct bullets and bombs.

Budman
July 11th, 2008, 11:06 PM
Soldiers always think they know more than the "suits" back in the Pentagon. But doing something like setting up bases in Pakistan would have repercussions that most grunts, even of the SOF variety, haven't stopped to consider. It is those repercussions that the politicians and the diplomats have to consider, whether the grunts realize it or not.

The mission of the military is to execute the foreign policy of the elected government, not to make thier own. They can disagree all they want, but at the end of the day, they have to accept the orders of their political masters, which is exactly as it should be.

Well said.

The problem is that the policy makers are trying to get too far into the weeds. Here is how it is supposed to work. The policy makers set a goal, then they deside how (in the broad sence of the word) we are going to do this. i.e. Do we use Diplomacy, Information, Military, or Economic means or any combination of the above listed. Once they decide to use the Military option, they give the military thier goals, and set BROAD guidlines (Example: we don't want to level the country in order to stop OBL) They they get the hell out of the way and let the military machine do it's magic. They can check up on the military on a regular basis, and give guidance, but they have to give them the tools, time, and flexibility to do what needs to be done.

This is the very basics of leadership, and should work at all levels of govt.

If the politicians/diplomats don't want us operation openly in Pakistan, then we need to come up with another way to reduce the threats coming from there.