In Lieu of Reason

Don't give me no lectures
'Bout stress and strife
So-ber-i-ety
Just ain't my way of life 
--If You Don't Start Drinking, 
George Thorogood and the Destroyers
____________________

Ranger was troubled by a recent Popular Mechanics piece on the "Future of Special Forces" but couldn't find the right way to address his concerns; he now realizes that is the subtext of the piece which is more significant than the particulars.

Subtext is the basis of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) and present United States' insecurities, whether politico-military, economic or psychological.  All of Gaul is divided into three parts, the greatest of which is the psychological, and the following ideas are brought to bear:


[1] The U.S. loves the underdog

[2] Control of the media is more important than the losses to al-Qaeda terrorism

[3] Terrorists and the Neoconservatives and Teabaggers share the belief that government is just no darn good.  Both wish to monopolize belief systems and worldviews

[4] The Department of Defense, government, FBI, CIA SOCOM and the Homeland Security Administration all want the polity to believe that they are indispensable to our continued existence

[5] Terrorists thrive on inculcating the belief that government is powerless to protect us; this leads to government overreaction, suggesting the the PWOT is about violence when actually it is about control -- control of media and the resulting propaganda which perpetuates the collusion of the institutions which have control as their raison d'etre; a perfect Mobius strip.

[6]  Both terrorists and government interests are battling for our minds and hearts, and a sorrowful heart will accept lunacy as policy, in lieu of reason.

[7] Terrorist, government and religion all seek to castrate the individual will, and teach that through abdication of such may salvation be offered.  "Please be lost, so that we can find you."  Our collective will grows flaccid through fear borne of incessant propaganda.

The message in media like the Popular Mechanics piece and the movie "Act of Valor" is to confirm our infirmity and needful subservience to the institution for our safety, under the bunting of piousness or patriotism.  This requires we believe threats are everywhere and in need of outside neutralization.

The needful analog to the institution's efficacy is the primacy of our own insecurity.

Both the Right and the Left thrive upon this distortion of reality in the name of freedom of liberty and we accept their patronage, while never examining the reality of terrorism, its capability and intent.  Concurrently, we do not examine the capabilities and intents of our own government, also shrouded in secrecy and dogmatic hypocrisy.

Both terrorism and government are based upon paternalism and elitism, and the Special operations Forces are the definition of military elitism.

Next: A discussion of the Popular Mechanics article.

What is Special Ops? -- Part II

I still act, and look the same
What you see ain't nothin' new
--I Was Country, When Country Wasn't Cool,
George Jones

Stray dogs that live on the highway
walk on three legs
'Cause they learn too slow to get the message
--Ballad for a Soldier, Leon Russel
_________________

In yesterday's What is Special Ops?, Ranger suggested that with the conversion of Special Operation Forces into a dedicated branch of the armed forces, a new monster was created, taking SF into previously unchartered territory for that organization.

Today Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) are paths to the 4-Star billets, and this has compromised the nature of the beast. SOF/SF today is a special branch that cooperates with or facilitates operations that are political in nature, posing high risks but promising career payoffs. The CIA template has been placed over the SOF, therby creating a Special ops Army within the conventional force structure. Since the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a military unit which morphed into the CIA, there has been a schism in the ranks of the National Command Authority. It is undecided whether the SOF is a CIA or a military function.

SF of the RVN variety was formed to alleviate the CIA's weakness is paramilitary operations. When the SF became the CIA's tool, they also became the read-headed stepchild of the Department of Defense. When Delta under Beckwith folded in the Iranian desert, SF was once again carrying the CIA on their military backs. Today in our endless wars, SF is supposedly back in the fold of the DoD; however, the assassination of Osama bin Laden reveals the lie.

The decision should be made to demilitarize the SOF and place them under the CIA, or to militarize the CIA, giving them the military functions of SOF. The SOF must be a tool of the theatre commander and a dedicated asset, or it will remain the plaything of politicos and will not garner the respect of either the military or the intelligence worlds.

The recent postings of Panetta and Petraeus exemplify my assertions. The CIA and the DoD are becoming interchangeable entities, and have cross-fertilized to the point that neither agency has a clearly-defined mission delineating whether they are military or paramilitary. Regardless of the wiring diagrams, these organizations lack cohesive organizational legitimacy due to the haziness of their loyalties.

Stanley McChrystal's career is an example of the problem. In the SF of old, McChrystal would never have achieved a rank above 0-6 (Colonel). He was rude, crude, and a chip off the old Charlie Beckwith block. However, today he achieved promotion beyond anything dreamed of in the old pre-tab SF days. His conduct, as seen in his collusion in the Pat Tillman coverup, places McChrystal firmly in the position of fence-rider -- part military, part CIA.

The SOCOM/JSOC nexus has not defined the parameters of the SOF beast, and the latter will continue to be a loose cannon on the deck of a foundering ship.

What is Special Ops?

--Sky and Water, M. C. Escher

I don't wanna do your dirty work
No more
I'm a fool to do your dirty work
Oh yeah
--Dirty Work, Steely Dan

For a fee, I'm happy to be
Your back door man, hey
--Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, AC/DC

Neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring
--John Heywood
_________________

Since Osama bin Laden was killed by Special Operations Forces (SOF) earlier this month, Ranger's been mulling over the meaning of Special Operations.

He took a trip down memory lane to 1970, when he was awarded the flash to his Green Beret. It was then an outward sign that we were MOS qualified; today's equivalent is being tabbed-up. Historically, SOF refers to SEALS, SF and Rangers, with supporting air assets. These are usually lumped under SOCOM and JSOC.

Today's focus is Black Operations ("Black Ops"), a sub-specialty of these two organizations. The question is: "How did the U.S, go from snake eaters and Sneaky Petes to hired guns and assassins?"

Seal Team 6 (ST6) is the group credited with killing OBL. They are described as --

"a Special Black Ops unit made up of the top soldiers from each of the other nine SEAL units, operating under a cloak of secrecy outside of military protocol and often international law. . . . The unit's members specialize in targeted assassinations, . . ." (SOF: Elite Killing Commandos, The Week).

While a correct description of Special Ops today, if they do operate outside of military protocol why are they in the military establishment? Militaries operate well when constrained by strict protocol. If these Special Ops members are not bound to international law, how are they upholding their oaths to uphold the Constitution (as treaties and international laws ratified by the U.S. operate at the same level). Extra-legal actions are not military in nature.

Why add another layer of soldiers to the Department of Defense roster when the Army SOF assets are slap-full of specially trained soldiers? Why does the Navy need these special soldiers when they have an entire U.S. Marine Corps to fill the niche?

The answer may be that we want units that conduct illegal activity; if so, why have a Central Intelligence Agency with paramilitary capabilities? The CIA would seem to fit the bill better since they are neither military nor constrained by distracting oaths of fealty to the rule of law.

After the Vietnam War and the Desert Storm I fiasco, there was rightly seen a need for a SOCOM/JSOC type reorganization. However, somewhere along the way these military assets crossed over to the Dark Side, and we cheered, giving our imprimatur to the monstrous conversion. The death of Special Forces came when SF became too comfortable doing CIA dirty work, thereby losing the confidence of the regular Army. After RVN, SF reorganized and tried to lose the stigma by reintegrating into the larger picture by becoming a branch specialty.

Prior to SF's becoming a branch specialty, Ranger's personal experience was one of an Infantry Officer who was shunned by his basic branch for his Sf affiliation. Infantry distrusted his loyalty, and SF had no power to promote or reward his special contributions. The creation of a dedicated SF branch was supposed to alleviate this rift; instead, it created a monster.

Tomorrow: Pt. II, "What is Special Ops?"

What's So Special?

A d0-gooder is an enslaver,
for they think they should go and save the world,
or amend situations to which they have no business [amending],
for the situations need to occur in order for
a working or a desire to be fulfilled,
and who are they to say what that is?
--Voyage to the New World, Ramtha

Ignorance is God's prison
--Emptiness, Rumi
________________

In his book Packing Inferno (courtesy friend tw), former Marine Tyler Boudreaux illustrates the folly of imposing "hearts and minds" theory at the hands of Infantry battalions. After a brief moment of falling back into a reverie on how Special Forces was and is the prime Counterinsurgency tool in the Army's kit, Ranger must agree with Boudreaux's assessment.

What makes the SF any sharper of a blade than that of the USMC, and how do their missions differ?

Historically, SF missions have been:

• Internal Defense and Development [IDAD], which has morphed into nation building and Provisional Reconstruction Teams [PRT's]

• Unconventional Warfare/Guerrilla Warfare [UW/GW]

• Strategic Intelligence and Reconnaissance

• Direct Action

While all fit into COIN, they have lost their strategic relevance. Even in the heady early days of the U.S. Afghan invasion, SF did not operate in the traditional UW/GW scenario of the Jedburgh mode. SF did not recruit, train or accompany the Northern Alliance when overthrowing the Taliban. They simply tagged along, presenting feel-good photo-ops. The Northern Alliance did not need anything in the form of training -- all they needed was beans and bullets. It is doubtful they even needed U.S. intel on the Taliban.

The Special Operations Forces haven't exactly formed "A" Camps, CIDG forces, Mobile Guerrilla Forces [Mike Forces], regional forces or any special projects of significance (if so, they are kept hidden.) In the days of super high-resolution, real-time photo intelligence, strategic recon seems OBE.

This leaves Direct Action [D.A.], the ground of all military combat elements, but the least effective employment of SF assets. SF is devolving into mini Ranger Battalions. What is being lost is the thing that distinguishes them -- the finesse and nuance, which earned them the well-deserved title, "Sneaky Petes".

D.A. is why God made Rangers and Marines. When SF and SEALS are used as assault infantry, then a fine tool is being misutilized. Conventional commanders simply don't know how to synergistically employ SF assets as force multipliers [Note: We are not talking SOF assets; we are talking SF and SEAL.]

Rangers, Force Recon Marines and Marines are classic Infantry assault troops of world-class quality. It is doubtful that any foreign military equals their level of expertise. But the point is, D.A. is not a hearts and minds moment. It is closing with and destroying a hostile force, which is not what COIN is all about, as Boudreaux points out. Killing the indig is not nation building.

The book challenges us to consider what actually makes the SF special. It certainly is not the beret, since everyone wears one these days.