What's Special Here?

fr. The Salute (Fall 2009)
______________

More from the propaganda bulletin The Salute ("an authorized publication for members of the U.S. Army"). Their creed -- "I was a soldier, I am a soldier, I will always be a soldier" -- already has two out of three wrong.

I am no longer a soldier, nor will I always be one. The days that were given will suffice for a lifetime, so why does the Army propagandize us after retirement?

Page One topic: "Special Forces to Expand":

"Soldiers wearing the Green Beret are more than just unconventional fighters. they perform special reconnaissance missions, conduct direct action operations, defend the infrastructure of friendly countries and fight terrorism."

Yes, recon is an SF mission as it is direct action, but what does that mean? Look at the above photo -- the Special Forces are indistinguishable from PV1 Rifleman of the Infantry. Do we train SF to perform such basic functions? How is this implementing SF as force multipliers, which is their true asset to the Army?

When did Special Forces become responsible to defend the infrastructure of friendly countries? In fact, one should define just what constitutes a friendly country. In fact, friendly countries should defend their own infrastructures. My SF/Army should defend our infrastructures, or is that too much to ask? Or, by virtue of our presence, is it all ours?

In a complete non sequitur, the article continues, "Units such as the 75th Rangers trace their heritage back to ranger units that fought the Indians and French prior to the American Revolution." Has everyone, even Army propagandists, syncretised the Special Forces and the Rangers? They are not the same thing.