US to rely on special forces

[UpInArms]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4386,271042,00.html

THE United States would emphasise the use of special forces in guerilla conflicts against terrorists and rogue states rather than fighting large-scale wars against traditional enemies, officials said on Friday. The shift in strategy comes under a broad change in defence thinking being weighed by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The proposal could carry major implications for defence spending.

It would move some funds away from ships, tanks and planes and towards troops, elite Special Operations forces and intelligence gathering.

The shift has been building for some time, but the plan circulating at the Pentagon would accelerate the changes, analysts said.

<snip>

One example of the new thinking urged in the plan was what it called the 'stretch goal' of being able to invade a country, keep 200,000 troops there for five years, and be able to organise, train and equip a local military force of 100,000 troops in just six months.

...more...

Huh?

[wrang_wrang]

1. "We don't need nuclear missiles, we need death squads"

That's considered progress in the evolution of American imperialism.

[aquart]

7. International death squads. Anywhere, anytime.

We kill anyone we want.

Well, not me. I don't ever get to kill who I want.

[pinkpops]

2. The real strategy is to drop bombs from a safe distance

all you have to do is watch them in action.

[daleo]

3. Will this be in addition to Iraq?

Where they are already trying to do essentially what is mentioned in the article (invade country, keep 150K troops there several years, attempt to train puppet government troops).

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. They feel as though they accomplished this in Germany, Japan, and

Russia... and they want to get rid of the rest of the bad actors on the planet. Bad actors are regimes that haven't bowed down to globalization..... yet.

www.globalizethis.org

www.soaw.org

www.corpwatch.org

[tabasco]

4. They are sacrificing our national defense to build Star Wars.

Mark my words. They are preapring to shift money to the greatest scam of all time.

[necso]

6. So Our Supreme Soviet

has decided that our expensive, mostly "tail" regular military was the cause for the failure of their grand design! What brilliance! What insight!

And now is the time, they say, to concentrate on lighter, cheaper forces... no matter how high the body count! For what patriot is it that needs armored vehicles for his protection! Are these people lacking in faith? Do they simply not believe? Shame!

We must all hail the Supreme Soviet's vision and wisdom! We can only hope that there will be a commensurate increase in the use of private contractors! After all, they have performed so well in Iraq and elsewhere!

[aquart]

8. Weren't lighter cheaper forces the problem to begin with?

I mean aside from the total lack of justification???

[necso]

10. Comrade,

Some wreckers have argued that the lack of adequate forces, particularly infantry forces, was to blame, or that heavy weapons were dismissed too early. Other internal enemies have even had the gall to suggest that a good plan by the State Department was thrown out. Some of these vile wretches (certainly terrorists!) have even gone so far as to imply that a bad plan was forced upon the military by the Supreme Soviet.

But we have learned to recognize these traitors for what they are! And we must rely upon the unparalleled genius of our Great and Glorious Leaders to guide us through these difficult times!

And what was your name and home address, again, comrade?

[aquart]

18. My name is George P. Bush. I'm the future.

[Eloriel]

24. Yeah -- Lighter forces "light" on equipment and supplies

not to mention plans.

:kick:

[BeachBuckeye]

9. We've only been suggesting this for a year and a half now.

Can't believe it took the Pentagon this long to figure it out. Not as much money in it for Halliburton is probably the reason they haven't done it before.

[kiahzero]

11. This seems like the right idea to me...

What am I missing? We do need to fight terrorism, and we need to do so in a much more surgical and precise manner than the overkill solutions often proposed by the military.

If you read "Against All Enemies," you'll notice a recurring theme - the military, when asked for plan, would always come back with a "total war" scenario.

[kodi]

19. its the only way to fight if we expect to succeed on the back end

but it is only effective if used within the context of a unified strategy from which such actions are used in support of a systems administration of a stable, popular government.

in other words, it won't work alone. it has to have popular indigenous support and work in concert with civilian plans to secure the peace.

[kiahzero]

21. Yeah, pretty much

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that this administration is competent enough to pull it off.

[peacetalksforall]

12. Do you recal *'s little dropping a couple of months ago? - Wants to use

Africans. Outsource soldiers.

[wrang_wrang]

13. What capability leads to security?

The ability to spread death or the ability to foster justice?

[0007]

14. duh! Wish John Wayne was still around to show these yo yo's

that one is better than hundreds.

So does that mean we don't need allies anymore? And the special forces can dress with the latest from the Gap clothing store?

Smoke 'em, rope 'em,dope 'em, go rummy go!!

[Massacure]

15. Now they are copying John Kerry's idea.

It was Kerry's idea to double special forces and intelligence.

[Yavin4]

16. Folks, It's Not Going To Happen

It would move some funds away from ships, tanks and planes and towards troops, elite Special Operations forces and intelligence gathering.


There's a hell of a lot more money in building ships, tanks, and planes than there is in using special forces. No politician in Washington will ever again vote against any weapons system of any kind, even if it's a valid reason.

[Massacure]

17. Kerry has, Clinton has, Bush Snr has.

Any politician who thinks they can deploy 70 ton tanks in the mountains of Afganistan has issues.

[TahitiNut]

20. The New American Dream: "to invade a country", any country

.. and occupy it for five years while setting up a puppet military regime.

The United States of America is now the most criminal nation on the planet and the biggest threat to its survival, having the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability to totally destroy all life on it several times over.

All Hail the American Caeser, George Duhbya Bush!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[DulceDecorum]

22. That is really quite amusing

The special forces have a strong reputation for being elite -- and highly racist. Nor are they known for diplomacy at any level or showing interest in learning other languages. This makes them completely useless as interrogators but very proficient as reducing the will and ability to live.
Look at the damage they did to themselves and everyone else in Somalia. All that the special forces personnel seem to know is how to rappel out of a helicopter and kill scores of UNARMED CIVLIANS in a few minutes before being evacuated out of there. And they ALWAYS leave quite the mess for regular forces to clean up (as Blackwater employees did in Fallujah.)

There are comparatively very few of these people and they are exceptionally prone to friendly fire.
Black Hawk Down -- and staying down.

[Eloriel]

23. Yeah, it's worked so well in Iraq so far, hasn't it?

One example of the new thinking urged in the plan was what it called the 'stretch goal' of being able to invade a country, keep 200,000 troops there for five years, and be able to organise, train and equip a local military force of 100,000 troops in just six months.

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

Is there NO ONE who will question all this "invading" planning?