Submit your comments on this article |
Government |
Special operations boom years may be coming to a close |
2018-09-13 |
For the past 17 years, special operations forces have been at the forefront of America’s military campaigns in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa. They took the lead in toppling the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks, reversing the gains of al-Qaida in Iraq, and capturing or killing thousands of militants, from Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen to Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. During that period, their strength has grown from about 45,000 personnel in 2001 to roughly 70,000, and they are now leading the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Yet they’ve also suffered setbacks recently, including reports of drug use, the ambush of a special forces team in Niger that raised questions about the scope of missions in that country, and the investigation of two Navy SEALs in connection with the death of a Special Forces soldier in Mali. Now, Congress and the Pentagon are trying to bring more oversight to special operations forces while reorienting them away from combating militants and toward fighting more traditional nation-states. Congress made its view clear in this year’s defense authorization bill, which President Trump signed into law on Aug. 13. The Pentagon’s 14-page unclassified summary of this year’s National Defense Strategy does not mention special operations, and says that "inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security." |
Posted by:Besoeker |
#4 Typical ignorant politicians. Translate into “not corrupt enough for us to dip our beaks”. |
Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2018-09-13 21:45 |
#3 There are distinct philosophical questions Funding allocation is different than having a ready group of hard and highly trained soldiers that can be deployed anywhere, on short notice. "Congress and the Pentagon are trying to bring more oversight to special operations forces while reorienting them away from combating militants and toward fighting more traditional nation-states." Frightening keywords here are militants vs. nation-states. This does NOT say 'prep BIG army for international conflict'. It says dull the tools of today to fight a unlikely conflict between nations. |
Posted by: Skidmark 2018-09-13 13:59 |
#2 There are distinct philosophical questions: "Do we really want to have a clandestine paramilitary force as a large fraction of our total military? "Do we have that pressing a need for a 'Standing COIN Army'?" "What keeps them from mutating into a (corrupt) Praetorian Guard?" |
Posted by: magpie 2018-09-13 12:27 |
#1 Now, Congress and the Pentagon are trying to bring more oversight to special operations forces while reorienting them away from combating militants and toward fighting more traditional nation-states. Congress sees it for what it has become, ie, a separately funded (separate from 'big Army') Klingon action arm. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2018-09-13 07:38 |