# Golden Age of Special Operations?



## Marauder06 (Mar 18, 2013)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-bacevich/obama-special-operations_b_1552620.html

excerpt:




> As admiring spectators, we may take at face value the testimony of experts (even if such testimony is seldom disinterested) who assure us that the SEALs, Rangers, Green Berets, etc. are the best of the best, and that they stand ready to deploy at a moment's notice so that Americans can sleep soundly in their beds.  If the United States is indeed engaged, as Admiral McRaven has said, in "a generational struggle," we will surely want these guys in our corner.
> Even so, allowing war in the shadows to become the new American way of war is not without a downside.  Here are three reasons why we should think twice before turning global security over to Admiral McRaven and his associates


----------



## x SF med (Mar 19, 2013)

Mara... I read the article, and I'm still mulling over the imprecations and implications of the author's treatise.  The main points that confuse me... is this a condemnation of the current Administration's use of Special Operations, or a condemnation of the mindset of all Special Opertions?  My analogies... you don't go to a proctologist for podiatric problems, and you don't use morphine when aspirin will suffice.  Allow mw a little more time for a more eloquent response, maybe.


----------



## Ravage (Mar 22, 2013)

One thing I don't get. The author states that:



> Autonomy and accountability exist in inverse proportion to one another.  Indulge the former and kiss the latter goodbye.  In practice, the only thing the public knows about special ops activities is what the national security apparatus chooses to reveal.  Can you rely on those who speak for that apparatus in Washington to tell the truth?  No more than you can rely on JPMorgan Chase to manage your money prudently.  *Granted, out there in the field, most troops will do the right thing most of the time.  On occasion, however, even members of an elite force will stray off the straight-and-narrow.*


 
From day one on this site one thing that showed up in every discussion, is the level of trust that is bestowed upon the SOF elements. Guys are being sent into delicate areas because they can do their job without supervision. One minute the author praises the men and women of SOCOM, and worrieing will they handle their dads corvette with care in the next. Kinda confusing.


----------



## pardus (Mar 23, 2013)

Ravage said:


> One thing I don't get. The author states that:
> From day one on this site one thing that showed up in every discussion, is the level of trust that is bestowed upon the SOF elements. Guys are being sent into delicate areas because they can do their job without supervision. One minute the author praises the men and women of SOCOM, and worrieing will they handle their dads corvette with care in the next. Kinda confusing.


 
Why are you confused about the opinion of a reporter with zero knowledge of the people he is writing about? Who cares what he thinks?


----------



## goon175 (Mar 23, 2013)

Although it is not the norm, there has been more than a few occasions when SOF elements have not handled that trust well. That is besides the point though, at least in the context of the article.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 23, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Although it is not the norm, there has been more than a few occasions when SOF elements have not handled that trust well. That is besides the point though, at least in the context of the article.


 
I totally agree.  I understand why some people look at all of SOF as a bunch of cowboys who run around doing their own thing and leaving messes for everyone else to clean up... because sometimes they do.  It happens just enough to reinforce the negative stereotype.


----------

