What is the Democrats' Special Forces obsession?

Question

It was one bullet point in the plan for the Pelosi Congress's "first 100 hours," two sentences in the Democrats' 31-page "New Direction for America" document released last June: In order to "Defeat terrorists and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we will...double the size of our Special Forces". Sounds nifty, doesn't it, like a bumper sticker reading "Outlaw War Now!"?

Answer 1

Increasing the size of special forces is contentious. First, the plan is actually an increase in "special operations", which is a general term. "Special Forces" is a specific army unit type, often mistakenly called the "green berets". The democrats plan is for an increase in all types of unconventional forces, to include other army special ops, navy, etc.

The dem view is that these forces are more equipped to fight the war on terror, and such an increase justifies cuts in other areas of the military.

This view is not held by the department of defense, since a doubling in size also means a required drop in standards for those special operations forces. To increase the number of Seals (for example) one would have to lower the standards.

A third view is the republican view, which holds that the military is best equiped to determine their own needs without the intervention of either political party through the congress.

Both parties are well intentioned, but both views have their agendas. The dem view is hypocritical since their agenda has typicaly been force reduction against the military structure. The repub view is likewise hypocritical since republicans often force expensive weapons programs on the military that the military often has tried to decline.

Determining force structure against the military's advice is probably not a good idea. This is just my opinion, but I believe that the congress should enable force to be used (as it has), that the president should be the prime administrator of the force (as he is), and the military should conduct the conflict and determine their needs. As it currently stands, both the right and the left in this country have acted badly.

Allow me to expand the idea of both parties acting badly, since I want to demonstrate that the special operations proposal is an example of bad military policy that both sides can be guilty of.

The right (the president) has not been agressive in stopping insurgents from entering Irag through Syria and Iran, has lacked a plan for victory, and hasn't taken leadership in reporting the successes we have had (capturing several Al Queda leaders, Iraq's surging economy, the low casualty rate proportionate to any simular US engagement, Sadr fleeing the country after the surge, the capture of yellow cake uranium and small amounts of chemical weapons though by no means a stockpile). These failures play into the insurgent strategy to break the resolve of the American people.

The left (through congress and the media in particular) have also played into the insurgent strategy by making the conflict out to be a blood bath that it isn't and by openly attacking our leadership without an alternative plan for victory. Calling someone a liar (when the president only echoed the intelligence of other countries and even the previous president) is unfortunate. Retreat emboldens terrorists, and both parties are guilty of this too. Reagan fled when the Marines were bombed in Beirut, and Clinton ran when some troops were killed in Somalia.

Both the dems and repubs should back off and let the military do their thing. When politics enters a warzone we all lose. Thus, I feel the dem proposal of dictating to the military a structure they have rejected is not helpful, particularly during conflict. But I feel they aren't the only ones to blame here either.

Answer 2

something happened, whether it ought to not be what every person is questioning. I recommend there are various possibilities, it ought to have been a diversion for something that happened there or maybe even someplace else, so human beings would be distracted by skill of the story happening in Roswell. i'm very attracted to maximum matters that folk think of are off the wall, i'd say that i'm attracted to issues that have not been appropriate defined or are unexplainable. Mysterious issues. i don't think in what i've got not seen with my own eyes, yet I certainly have an open suggestions and prefer to contemplate each and all of the probabilities.

Answer 3

People are not understanding the concept of "war on terror". This is not a traditional war. In a traditional war we fight a country, troops, soldiers. Terrorists are small cells that can be strategically taken out without invading a whole country. It is time to wake up and realize that the word "war" has a different meaning when talking about terrorists.

Answer 4

The Special Forces are especially trained to fight unconventional wars, the kind of war we face when fighting terrorists. Therefore, it's the appropriate policy to increase the size of that branch of the armed services and the Democrats are right this time.

Most of our armed forces personnel are trained to fight conventional wars against other nation states and not unconventional wars waged by the terrorists. Therefore, we do need to increase the size of our special forces to deal with our current threats.

Answer 5

How is increasing the size of the very armed services force created to fight unconventional war an obsession? Sounds intelligent to me.

Answer 6

Actually increasing the size of our special forces is a good idea.
They're trained to fight unconventional wars like the one we face now.

Answer 7

Expanding special forces is the right thing to do. The approach of George Bush, using the main body of our military as a sledge hammer, hasn't worked.

Answer 8

Terrorist are usually smaller orginizations, It's better to take them on with special forces than large amounts of troops or a submarine like the one we just bought.
How do you fight terrorist with a sub? Who we fighting? AquaOsama?

Answer 9

The Democrats are always anti-war but had no plans against terrorism.