I think that everyone's there from USMC Force Recon and USAF parajumper to British SAS, Australian SAAS and even French 2nd REP shock units.
Why Special Forces are more suited to fight this type of combat operations than regular units ?
2006-10-31 21:30:41 · 6 answers · asked by StéphanDeGlasgow 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Its mainly because its a ground combat war. SFs are the best trained to deal with these situations. Its seems this is the way war is going to be for a while. They are even extended AF basic training so that we can get more training to deal with this type of combat because we are being used more on the ground then we are in the air.
2006-10-31 22:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by JB 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Special forces are a lot more suited to close quarters firing in a metropolitan area. Australian special forces (and probably all special forces) do an extremely large amount of training for this eventuality. Both for urban fighting and for hostage situations (both prevelant in iraq and afganistan). special forces are also extremely well motivated because we can be sure that they are the soldiers that actually want to be there (you have to volunteer over here). As a result they are a lot less prone to mistakes as they are trained tirelessly at their own choice.
(by the way, australian special forces are SAS with the formal name being SASR (regiment), it is a common mistake to just chuck another A in there, lol.)
They are the best.
2006-10-31 23:20:23 · answer #2 · answered by cokie_999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come on over and visit and you will see. The SF units are better trained for counterterrorism than the other units. I'm active duty and not SF of any kind. But the SF units have the best equipment for use with small unit action. They have all the cool toys as the saying goes. Sometimes you get a lot better cooperation out of a war lord or village elder if 10 guys show up instead of 100. All the units here are proving their worth on a daily basis.
2006-10-31 21:40:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i did no longer study the object above. For starters the Bush administration made 2 substantial blunders initially. They coined the term "war on Terror". they might besides declare war on crime. you will possibly by no skill do away with it. no person has been waiting to confirm what the hell that war on Terror skill; aside from the few generals on the floor. They found out even until now Rumsfied replaced into booted out that the final which could be was hoping for isn't have a fear base for the likes of Osama. this is the purpose now. Democracy: No, for the reason that comes from interior no longer from with out. exchange in way of life' No; that too comes from interior. the 2d Bush mistake replaced into to attack Iraq; we (people) pays the fee for that for generations to return. consequence in Iraq; we now have not got a mundane government; this is plenty extra radical and is in basic terms no longer friendly to the U.S. interior the long-term. the answer is easy, create a freed from fee and self sufficient state for Palestine and for Kashmir. If that may no longer finished there is in basic terms no longer peace for every person. that's what supplies people like Osama a gadget to recruit.
2016-11-26 21:35:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its the only troops suitable for the afghani terrain
2006-11-01 02:01:15 · answer #5 · answered by Peiper 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
BECAUSE THEY NEED TARGET PRACTICE FOR "FRIENDLY FIRE" MISSIONS AND SUCH LIKE!
2006-10-31 21:46:46 · answer #6 · answered by swapitmaster 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋