Cosa Nostra
You should never underestimate
the predictability of stupidity
--Snatch (2000)
--How can John Wayne die?
--Fuckin' Indians got him.
--Donny Brasco (1997)
____________________
Naval History magazine (12 Feb 12) featured an article by Retired Captain Dick Couch, "SEALS: From Vietnam to bin Laden," featuring a section titled, "Special Ops Forces, SEALS, and the bin Laden TAKEDOWN" (emphasis mine).
The magazine is a publication of the U.S. Naval Institute, and as such is a reflection of official policy. Try as Ranger might, there are no references in any of his Special Operations training manuals for the military option, Takedown.
Our politicians have already spoken of "Taking Out" military targets, Like Osama bin Laden. When did these wrestling and mafioso terms enter the lexicon of accepted military terms or practice? What's next? Shakedowns? Are we gonna "whack" or "make" somebody?
The closest military action is a raid which has a military purpose and is within the rules and practices of warfare. But raids are not conducted in the bedrooms of "castled kings," even if they are terrorists. The OBL mission was pure theater (see "The Greatest Show on Earth") and political in nature. If "takedown" equals simple assassination, then yes, it was a takedown -- one that violated the sovereignty of Pakistan and accomplished little or nothing to the benefit of increased security in the U.S.
The USNI has compromised its integrity when it sanctions articles that use the terms of thuggery to describe military actions.
Labels: dick couch, military history, united states military academy, usni
posted by rangeragainstwar at 8:20 PM
20 Comments:
Aloha, Ranger and Lisa...!
Friends don't let Friends drive Drunk, right...?
Israel's Best Friend...
CT,
I don't feel safe when my friends drive sober.
jim
Lisa,
i reckon this makes the ST6 =made guys.
Help us all.
jim
Just to be a dick...what about Operation Vengeance, the shootdown of Yamamoto? You could make the argument that it was a "decapitation" mission to eff up the IJN, but the main purpose seems to have been revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Not gonna argue that going around whacking individuals is a good thing for soldiers to get in the habit of...but seems like we've come a ways since the days when commanders used to prohibit their troops targeting the opposing commander...
I agree with FD Jim...
1.The The Political Science Definition of a "State" revolves around the legitimized use of violence...
This is the difference between the Mob and The Army in simple terms...
Now you may not agree with the ROE but the US does go out of it's way to clearly define how violence is to be used and bases it's doctrine on it.
Most troops find the ROE in Afghanistan to be too restrictive by the way...Something La Cosa Nostra never has to worry about...Being brought up on charges for killing civilians.
The Soviets made Afghanistan a free fire zone and look how that worked out.
William Ranger Hazen
PS. Been Clean and Sober now for over 23 years hence No Accidents Jail Time or Dents...LOL I even remember where my car is in the morning. ;)
William,
Congratulations! Here's to another 23 good years :)
The CIA's Bin Laden desk had known about OSB and his training camps in Afghanistan since the 90's. The sad reality is it took us over a month to act. By that time the Arab Mujahedin had fled and a month later we had front row seats to the most expensive fireworks show in 55 years. All we did is kill a few goats and destroy some mud huts but it made us feel good and feel like we were on the winning side. Then we dared tell the Taliban we didn't like their politics, Salafism, nor human rights record (as if we really cared)...so send in the Cavalry. Ten years later we're still playing ROE with the Taliban, the last threat to our national fucking interest.
Were still being fed the same old shit, all the while Al Queda has planted it's self in every failed state in existence beyond the reach of 'law'. It's also been well known for some time Al Queda has been interested in acquiring WMD and has actively sought them out. One can talk about ROE's, military law, and every other convention in the world, but if Al Queda succeeds in detonating a WMD, we're not be having this conversation in the same civil tone. Are we going to call it a Terrorist act, consult legal scholars and the UN for guidance, or meet the enemy on our terms, not his.
BH,
Here we go.
It ain't a war and the taliban is not an enemy.
The taliban didn't do 9-11. They facilitated but that's a step removed.
Yamamota was a legitimate target. There are no roe in war. Real war.
Can any of you guys show me a military manual with a TAKEDOWN chapter??
All of you are being emotional.
jim
William,
I'm proud for you.
Keep it up.
jim
CHIEF,
YOU DON'T NEED TO SAY IT -WE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE.
i'VE GOT YOUR RANGE.
jim
No Jim,
If you read my post, I did not say the Taliban was the enemy. I said the Taliban was "the LAST threat to our national fucking interest." So 'can' the "here we go" again shit...it's degrading and insulting.
I did say was Al Queda is and will be our mortal enemy, who's motivations and ideology and arms are aimed at our complete and utter destruction. Your not going to find what I'm saying in any Special Op military manual.
Sorry I'm not conforming to 'Rangers rules of order' but you're pissing me off....lol
Xin Loi,
Brother
I retract my last post
Gotta work on this hic-up
BH,
Earthlings are so emotional.
If you're really pissed off- i'm glad i'm in Fl and you're in ...
Be real - panetta said aq has 200 active personnel world wide. He said this last year. By god man- you and i could handle them , if they land on our lawns.
Remeber it's better to be pissed off ...etc...
Don't go all commando on me- we're all friends here, and i readily admit that i'm an ass hole.
jim
Well Jim...accusing folks like me of being emotional is something I've heard form the other side for a decade. I know you're smart enough not to lower yourself to their level. ;) Your Ranger Pal
William
I'm going to attribute this 'Mongolian Charlie Foxtrot' to the massive solar flares bombarding our planet at this very moment.
200 AQ ? Hey who am I to doubt the math skills of the Obama appointed CIA director Leon Panetta who tenure lasted two sorry years.
I'm getting emotional, sorry.
BH, William, et. al.,
I for one welcome your passion and emotionalism. That makes life lively! We're not automatons.
I think being enthusiastic and rational need not be exclusive.
Ranger's possibly more emotional than he recognizes ;)
Re: the whole Taliban/national interest threat question;
The Talibs are a contender for rule in Afghanistan. The question then becomes; is it in our national interests to care who rules in Afghanistan?
I merely note that the Soviet puppet there neither picked our pocket nor broke our leg, and neither did the fact that it was a failed state from about 1980 to the mid-Nineties.
I'll grant you the combination of AQ and the Talibs. But that axis has been broken.
So, in all honesty, we don't really KNOW whether the current Taliban constitutes a threat to our national interests. We made deals with the mullahs in Iran (remember Iran-Contra?), with caudillos in Argentina and Peru, with the Reds in China...we might very well be capable of dealing with the Talibs, assuming they ever return.
AQ?
Well, they're definitely our enemy, meaning that they have the intent to do us harm. Whether they're a "threat" in military terms depends on your assessment of their capabilities, which I consider somewhere between "miniscule" and "geddafuckouttahere". So I would consider the "threat" from them to consist of the economic threat of blueing half of Asia and the Middle East with conventional military forces to "fight" a bunch of raggedy-ass bin Laden T-shirt wearers.
Of course, your mileage may vary...
But that's how I'm seeing it at the moment...
Chief.707,
That describes it in a nutshell.
When i drive across this country in any direction i just marvel at our greatness of spirit and physical reality.
Contrast that to a nebulous threat that i don't even know exists, except in name only , and i wonder how any one can say that AQ is an existential threat. Do these people smoke ganga? and have mushroom tea for dessert??!
We and our leaders have lost the ability to assess threats realistically.
Yesterday i was reading about Panco Villa, and the Columbus raid.
Did we invade and destroy/regime change in Mex for what a small element of their society did to us? They killed 18 and we didn't over react. We dealt with the problem in a realistic manner.
I believe the disconnect is when we select our leaders b/c they have lapel US flag pin.That is a clear sign of leadership ability.
That's the only thing that i see that any of them have as a qual.
We are the problem. Forget AQ.
If our leaders had realistic knowledge of anything other than the ability to get elected, then we might level out and be a great nation once again.
But i fucking doubt this will happen.
jim
Chief,
I hate to say this, but the last Potus that did anything close to great was when LBJ abdicated for the good of the country.
That was the last act of selfless leadership that i can quote.
jim
Post a Comment
<< Home