Support NeoGAF

[Aselith]

So if I don't understand the situation from top to bottom (and ask for clarification), it's damning of an inability to do proper research? I'll remember that the next time I have something to say about Hillary.

Well, mostly it's because you said yourself you didn't do the research.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So I'm reading more about what these special ops guys are doing and apparently their job is a lot more involved than it's being made out to be:


NBC News

So correct me if I'm wrong, but is this in line with what Hillary is saying/advocating? Because I specifically asked about ANY ground troops in Syria/Iraq (meaning a small number of forces) vs. a large-scale operation . And you said that they're the same thing (that neither is going to happen), yet this NBC report says otherwise (if I'm understanding it correctly).

I mean, I specifically asked whether there would be ANY head-to-head combat against ISIS on the ground, and not to say that you were skirting the issue, but you equated that to an "invasion." But that's not what I was asking.

A special force took out Bin Laden yet Obama did not put proverbial boots on the ground in Pakistan to get it done.

A small expert team is not boots on the ground

 

[commedieu]

This is painful.

 

[Joezie]

My source doesn't say anything about special ops engaging in combat operations (which Pai Pai Master explained). It just says that special ops aren't considered ground troops.

And knowing what I know now, I'm very reluctant to even support this type of policy.

Help the locals. Give them intelligence. Arm them. That's all fine. But doing anything that puts them directly in harm's way, I not totally behind. Whether it's the ground troops, special ops, WHOEVER they may be. I am not really supportive of this policy.

No ground troops in combat missions but special ops in combat missions? That's not OK either.

(but to reiterate, she does appear to have been saying what she had said all along...but now that I completely understand what she meant, I disagree with it)

It's fine to be concerned for the safety of Spec ops. It's another thing to stop them from doing their job. The mantra of Spec ops is to do what conventional forces cannot either do politically or militarily speaking with low profile, speed and sometimes violence which sometimes happens to budge them into bad places.

The US sent in 18 Force Recon Marines into Liberia in the middle of a civil war(A joint Task Force would later partially take root around Monrovia). 18 men who's job it was to conduct hydrographic surveys and determine whether the US needed to launch a full scale intervention inside the country. The marines instead decide to act as political liasons between the various factions, acting as harbors of the interventionist apocalypse instead. They did this while also inquiring about their struggles, their problems what they wanted to see changed in the country ect...Few months later, the war is over. No Marine losses.

2 helicopters carrying 2 dozen Seal Team 6 members flew over 100 miles into Pakistan in violation of their airspace into the middle of a literal military academy city. Went in, got bin laden, got out at the cost of one chopper and no human loses.

Sometimes you get results like the above. Othertimes you get an Eagle Claw or a Black Hawk Down. Spec ops aren't just thrown into places willy nilly. There are extensive plans and strategies developed to ensure that they can do their work with the least amount of risk that can possibly be afforded. We don't want to lose them, but the men serving in those units know what they signed up for.

Secondly, Spec ops are forming a brunt, but are not the only parts of the military currently engaged in combat. Various pilots from the services perform airstrikes above enemy territory as well.

If an American Airman, Naval or Marine Aviator was to go down over Syria somewhere heaven forbid, should we NOT use the Pararescue teams(or the nearest SOF) to save the downed pilots because the PJ's might be exposed to direct combat? No, it'd be silly to train a unit primarily for the rescue of downed pilots and NOT use them when the time comes. The pilot would be stuck behind enemy territory most likely, surrounded by hostiles, in a foreign land, likely armed with an M9 and a few clips vs AK's and AR's who has to go god knows how far or try to remain undetected for as long as they can. Nobody would want to see harm befall to the PJ's or whatever other force goes for them, but the fact is it might happen, and the training pipeline is so constructed as to prepare these men to face the most dangerous enemies, in any condition and to make sure they have the skills and willpower necessary to do it.

 

[MIMIC]

Please, you only need to read your last posts to know what you did wrong.
You went in with assuming you knew better, you went in disregarding what you knew you should have watched or read, you went in to disdain not to debate.

You've got to be kidding me. I didn't know that Clinton elaborated on her claim when I made this thread. When I looked for news regarding her comments, nothing came up about her elaborating.

But some suggested that I should have already known about the press conference before I made this thread. And maybe I should have, and for that I am sorry. But like I said, this standard is something I definitely will remember the next time I have something to say about Hillary.

 

[Suikoguy]

You've got to be kidding me. I didn't know that Clinton elaborated on her claim when I made this thread. When I looked for news regarding her comments, nothing came up about her elaborating.

But some suggested that I should have already known about the press conference before I made this thread. And maybe I should have, and for that I am sorry. But like I said, this standard is something I definitely will remember the next time I have something to say about Hillary.

You just can't take the L and have to somehow push the blame on others don't you?

It's amusing.

 

[MIMIC]

You just can't take the L and have to somehow push the blame on others don't you?

It's amusing.

You're right. I'm sorry. I take the L.

 

[Suikoguy]

You're right. I'm sorry. I take the L.

Just to summarize, if you had just read what links you actually posted, and framed the question like:

"Should specialized forces count as Ground Troops?"

You would likely have gotten a very different response.

After all, the NPR article you linked said:

Clinton has outlined a policy on ISIS that would pick up where President Obama's policy left off. Today, there are about 5,000 American troops in Iraq and several hundred deployed to northern Syria. They include special operations forces who are helping the Kurdish, Arab and other indigenous fighters, plus advisers, support troops and others. The White House doesn't count them as "ground troops," and evidently neither does Clinton, but they are serving close to the combat zone.

This has nothing to do with the press conference she had later, as Adam pointed out the differences between the two were very minimum. The NPR link very clearly laid out the difference.

 

[MIMIC]

Just to summarize, if you had just read what links you actually posted, and framed the question like:

"Should specialized forces count as Ground Troops?"

You would likely have gotten a very different response.

After all, the NPR article you linked said:



This has nothing to do with the press conference she had later, as Adam pointed out the differences between the two were very minimum. The NPR link very clearly laid out the difference.

"Take the L, MIMIC."

"I'm sorry. I take the L."

"Just to summarize....."

OK.

Firstly, that's not a question I'm interested in asking (at least right now). My primary concern was with combat, period. I'm fine with the distinctions. If the government doesn't want to consider special forces ground troops, that's fine. They can be different entities but also overlap in certain objectives. However, I think that it's important for her to clarify that special forces were set to engage in the same types of things that ground troops are. If we don't want ground troops there because of dangerous combat missions, what makes it OK for special forces to be conducting combat missions? Considering this, I think it's an important distinction to be emphasized at the start.

Secondly, I already knew that special forces weren't considered ground troops. What I didn't know was that special forces would also be engaging in combat missions.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

However, I think that it's important for her to clarify that special forces were set to engage in the same types of things that ground troops are. If we don't want ground troops there because of dangerous combat missions, what makes it OK for special forces to be conducting combat missions?

You didn't read the above poster.

The mantra of Spec ops is to do what conventional forces cannot either do politically or militarily speaking with low profile, speed and sometimes violence which sometimes happens to budge them into bad places.

This is special ops:

This is "ground troops":

Spoiler

If you are a veteran and have seen the above film, I am not trying to disrespect any current or past service member. I am merely summoning a comparison for illustrative purposes.

 

[Joezie]

"Take the L, MIMIC."

"I'm sorry. I take the L."

"Just to summarize....."

OK.

Firstly, that's not a question I'm interested in asking (at least right now). My primary concern was with combat, period. I'm fine with the distinctions. If the government doesn't want to consider special forces ground troops, that's fine. They can be different entities but also overlap in certain objectives. However, I think that it's important for her to clarify that special forces were set to engage in the same types of things that ground troops are. If we don't want ground troops there because of dangerous combat missions, what makes it OK for special forces to be conducting combat missions? Considering this, I think it's an important distinction to be emphasized at the start.

Secondly, I already knew that special forces weren't considered ground troops. What I didn't know was that special forces would also be engaging in combat missions.

It's fine to be concerned for the safety of Spec ops. It's another thing to stop them from doing their job. The mantra of Spec ops is to do what conventional forces cannot either do politically or militarily speaking with low profile, speed and sometimes violence which sometimes happens to budge them into bad places.

The US sent in 18 Force Recon Marines into Liberia in the middle of a civil war(A joint Task Force would later partially take root around Monrovia). 18 men who's job it was to conduct hydrographic surveys and determine whether the US needed to launch a full scale intervention inside the country. The marines instead decide to act as political liasons between the various factions, acting as harbors of the interventionist apocalypse instead. They did this while also inquiring about their struggles, their problems what they wanted to see changed in the country ect...Few months later, the war is over. No Marine losses.

2 helicopters carrying 2 dozen Seal Team 6 members flew over 100 miles into Pakistan in violation of their airspace into the middle of a literal military academy city. Went in, got bin laden, got out at the cost of one chopper and no human loses.

Sometimes you get results like the above. Othertimes you get an Eagle Claw or a Black Hawk Down. Spec ops aren't just thrown into places willy nilly. There are extensive plans and strategies developed to ensure that they can do their work with the least amount of risk that can possibly be afforded. We don't want to lose them, but the men serving in those units know what they signed up for.

Secondly, Spec ops are forming a brunt, but are not the only parts of the military currently engaged in combat. Various pilots from the services perform airstrikes above enemy territory as well.

If an American Airman, Naval or Marine Aviator was to go down over Syria somewhere heaven forbid, should we NOT use the Pararescue teams(or the nearest SOF) to save the downed pilots because the PJ's might be exposed to direct combat? No, it'd be silly to train a unit primarily for the rescue of downed pilots and NOT use them when the time comes. The pilot would be stuck behind enemy territory most likely, surrounded by hostiles, in a foreign land, likely armed with an M9 and a few clips vs AK's and AR's who has to go god knows how far or try to remain undetected for as long as they can. Nobody would want to see harm befall to the PJ's or whatever other force goes for them, but the fact is it might happen, and the training pipeline is so constructed as to prepare these men to face the most dangerous enemies, in any condition and to make sure they have the skills and willpower necessary to do it.

They're called SPECIAL Operations for a reason.

 

[therealjay]

It was the one thing in her answers I really didn't like.

I'm not in favor going into Syria or Iraq full scale invasion style but ruling out completely seems to be pretty insane. The situation on the ground in both countries could be vastly different in a year and American intervention may be needed.

Whether citizens like or not America is essentially the world's police and these type of military invasions aren't really wars in a conventional sense. We "won" Iraq in days. Just look at the casulty lists on both sides if you want proof of that. The police action that followed was a massive failure.

My point is simply that despite all the bad that comes with this full scale invasions it may one day still be the best option. It's just not something we know now. What we do know is that exporting our culture to the middle east like the early 2000s neocons thought was doable is not. So no matter what we end up planning on doing militarily that simply cannot be the goal.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Syrian opposition don't want US troops on soil, they just want a no-fly zone.
ISIS would die in no-time, like all attempt of state-building by Al Qaeda these recent years (Irak, Yemen and Somalia). They just feed on chaos and instability.

 

[platakul]

All war over the next 8 years will have different names yes

 

[Joni]

It makes sense. Islamic State is on the defensive, which means putting booths on the ground serves very little purpose in the war against them aside from popularizing them again. So that means there is no reason to put troops in Iraq. You just need trainers to support local combat troops. Iraq is stable enough to survive. Syria is another question, that is everything but stable. But putting troops in Syria means two things: you will support the Syrian government to eradicate the rebels, in which case, they serve no purpose as Russia, Turkey and Syria can serve that same purpose in big lines. Or you put them on the ground to support the rebels, in which case you confront Russia and Syria in one part, and NATO ally Turkey in another part when supporting the Kurds. A bad idea. What is the situation here where you'd want American troops in this country?

 

[Nocebo]

However, I think that it's important for her to clarify that special forces were set to engage in the same types of things that ground troops are.

Why is it her job to clarify things that don't need clarification? It's not her job to educate you on what certain terms mean. And saying that special forces do the same types of things as ground troops is incredibly dishonest or ignorant.

 

[MIMIC]

Why is it her job to clarify things that don't need clarification? It's not her job to educate you on what certain terms mean. And saying that special forces do the same types of things as ground troops is incredibly dishonest or ignorant.

1. Well it needed clarifying for me. Or maybe I'm just the only person in the world that didn't know that special ops would be conducting combat operations.

2. I didn't say they do the same things. Read my post: "They can be different entities but also overlap in certain objectives." Objectives like combat operations (raids), correct?

 

[excelsiorlef]

1. Well it needed clarifying for me. Or maybe I'm just the only person in the world that didn't know that special ops would be conducting combat operations.

2. I didn't say they do the same things. Read my post: "They can be different entities but also overlap in certain objectives." Objectives like combat operations (raids), correct?

Ding

 

[Nocebo]

1. Well it needed clarifying for me. Or maybe I'm just the only person in the world that didn't know that special ops would be conducting combat operations.

How is that her problem? The world doesn't revolve around you. What did you think special ops do?

You know if I were constantly confused and perplexed by things I would seriously start to question if my opinions on the world may be unfounded and or wrong also. I would do some serious self-reflection.

 

[MIMIC]

How is that her problem? The world doesn't revolve around you

Committing men that are in dangerous, direct combat with ISIS fighters is a huge concern. That's one of the reasons why there is reluctance to send ground troops (among several other reasons). So the suggestion that men won't be in this type of situation "ground troop"-wise, but will/might be "special operations"-wise is an important distinction. One that I would have liked to hear.

The fact that revelation was a big deal when it was revealed to reporters (what they would actually be doing) leads me to believe that this wasn't as big of a no-brainer as you're trying to make it out to be.

What did you think special ops do?

Advise and assist? They've been doing that, right? Reporters even asked that (in the link I posted):

Q: What the president said about the -- you know, months ago, last year, that this is an advise and assist mission, no combat troops, no boots on the ground. I mean, so how does that square with what the president said?

I suppose that was a dumb question as well.

You know if I were constantly confused and perplexed by things I would seriously start to question if my opinions on the world may be unfounded and or wrong also. I would do some serious self-reflection.

I'll keep that in mind.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Advise and assist? They've been doing that, right? Reporters even asked that (in the link I posted):

Who do think killed Bin Laden?

Soecial Ops do all kinds of shit including covert combat mission. That's literally their raison d'être

 

[MIMIC]

Who do think killed Bin Laden?

Soecial Ops do all kinds of shit including covert combat mission. That's literally their raison d'être

OK? And I was trying to figure out how their raison d'être squared up with there being a policy against direct combat with ISIS fighters.

 

[TarNaru33]

OK? And I was trying to figure out how their raison d'être squared up with there being a policy against direct combat with ISIS fighters.

Please for the love of pizza, read the post I quoted below. Like 2 others tried to direct you to it, but it is like you are ignoring it or something.

Whether you like it or not, advising and giving air support to the local factions hold some risks to the troops, so you can not rule out combat operations for SOF (Special Operations Force) even if you wanted to. To rule that out, you are damning any pilots that get shot down and any Special Force that gets captured to death, without trying to get them back. Hostage rescue is not the sort of operation that can be handled by just any unit.

Besides that, there are also a number of other issues that can happen that would definitely push the need for highly trained forces, this is why SOF are not considered "ground troops" politically. It is for the sake of expecting the unexpected and not locking one's own foot due to some political oversight.

For example, if Syria's chemical weapons stockpile were threatened by ISIS, who do you think would go in to secure it?

If a genocide was taking place and there were no locals that can reach the area, who do you think would go in?

If some high profile ISIS official was able to be captured, but locals couldn't get to him, who do you think would go in? (example of Osama Bin Laden).

There is a reason why SOF exist and their job IS to conduct special operations that include combat operations. To try using these forces just for training is a severe misuse of their intended establishment. These forces are not like typical forces, they know exactly what their role is, it is impossible for them not to with how long it takes to become one of them.

It's fine to be concerned for the safety of Spec ops. It's another thing to stop them from doing their job. The mantra of Spec ops is to do what conventional forces cannot either do politically or militarily speaking with low profile, speed and sometimes violence which sometimes happens to budge them into bad places.

The US sent in 18 Force Recon Marines into Liberia in the middle of a civil war(A joint Task Force would later partially take root around Monrovia). 18 men who's job it was to conduct hydrographic surveys and determine whether the US needed to launch a full scale intervention inside the country. The marines instead decide to act as political liasons between the various factions, acting as harbors of the interventionist apocalypse instead. They did this while also inquiring about their struggles, their problems what they wanted to see changed in the country ect...Few months later, the war is over. No Marine losses.

2 helicopters carrying 2 dozen Seal Team 6 members flew over 100 miles into Pakistan in violation of their airspace into the middle of a literal military academy city. Went in, got bin laden, got out at the cost of one chopper and no human loses.

Sometimes you get results like the above. Othertimes you get an Eagle Claw or a Black Hawk Down. Spec ops aren't just thrown into places willy nilly. There are extensive plans and strategies developed to ensure that they can do their work with the least amount of risk that can possibly be afforded. We don't want to lose them, but the men serving in those units know what they signed up for.

Secondly, Spec ops are forming a brunt, but are not the only parts of the military currently engaged in combat. Various pilots from the services perform airstrikes above enemy territory as well.

If an American Airman, Naval or Marine Aviator was to go down over Syria somewhere heaven forbid, should we NOT use the Pararescue teams(or the nearest SOF) to save the downed pilots because the PJ's might be exposed to direct combat? No, it'd be silly to train a unit primarily for the rescue of downed pilots and NOT use them when the time comes. The pilot would be stuck behind enemy territory most likely, surrounded by hostiles, in a foreign land, likely armed with an M9 and a few clips vs AK's and AR's who has to go god knows how far or try to remain undetected for as long as they can. Nobody would want to see harm befall to the PJ's or whatever other force goes for them, but the fact is it might happen, and the training pipeline is so constructed as to prepare these men to face the most dangerous enemies, in any condition and to make sure they have the skills and willpower necessary to do it.

I was not aware of this operation, will read up on it when I can.

 

[MultiCore]

I'm on a military base in Iraq right now, and it's growing by the day. There's literally a C-17 or two flying in every night delivering equipment.

The Brits just sent 500 troops here, and there's more on the way on all fronts.

So, she's gonna have her work cut out for her.

Thank god the air force is taking over soon, because the marines are bad at running this base.

 

[davepoobond]

i think its a trap for republicans because they'll have to say something like "we have to put ground troops back into Iraq!"

 

[Joezie]

I was not aware of this operation, will read up on it when I can.

Yea, it's been really hard for me to find actual text references for it. I heard about it on Veterans day while watching the American Heroes Channel which was running a bunch of specials. Two of them had to with Spec Ops; Force Recon and Delta Force. While I can't find the exact video on anything other than a paywall, I did manage to find a readable transcript(apologies for caps and thread bump).

WHILE WE WERE HEADED HOME, WE GOT THE 9-1-1 CALL FROM WESTERN AFRICA. Narrator: THE MISSION IS IN CIVIL-WAR-TORN LIBERIA. UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF DICTATOR CHARLES TAYLOR, THE GOVERNMENT IS REACTING TO REBEL OPPOSITION BY MASSACRING THE NATION'S CITIZENS. Haley: WE WERE SENT IN TO MONROVIA AS THREE FORCE RECON TEAMS TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS, TO GIVE EYES ON TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SO THEY COULD MAKE A BETTER DECISION ON WHETHER THEY SHOULD INTERVENE AS THE UNITED STATES OR LET THE UNITED NATIONS HANDLE IT.

Narrator: UNLIKE THE RECON PLATOON'S LAST DEPLOYMENT IN IRAQ, THIS ONE IS TOP SECRET. THIS WAS A PERFECT MISSION FOR FORCE RECON BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW AMERICA WAS THERE. AND AMERICA WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
Narrator: AND THAT'S NOT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS MISSION AND THEIR LAST.I WOULD SAY IT MADE IRAQ LOOK LIKE DISNEYLAND. THERE WAS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DYING ON SOMETIMES A DAILY BASIS. THE GENOCIDE, THE EVERYDAY, JUST, MURDERS, FROM HEADS SITTING ON TABLES TO CHARLES TAYLOR, WHILE IN EXILE, STILL PUMPING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HIS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT FORCES TO GO OUT AND CREATE HATE AND DISCONTENT AND ***, ***, PILLAGE.

Narrator: THE MEN IMMEDIATELY PUT THEIR TRUSTED RECONNAISSANCE SKILLS TO USE. IT WAS A JOB FOR US TO GO IN AND DO HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS, MEANING THAT WE WOULD GO IN AND SWIM THROUGH THE PORTS AND THE BEACHES AND ACTUALLY SCAN AND SURVEY THOSE LANDING SITES FOR THE BATTALION LANDING TEAM OF INFANTRY THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE CALLED IN TO STOP THIS CIVIL WAR. THAT'S HUGE INTELLIGENCE, AND ONLY THE FORCE RECONNAISSANCE AND, OF COURSE, NAVY S.E.A.L.s CAN CONDUCT HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS.

Narrator: TRADITIONAL RECON ISN'T THEIR ONLY TASK. OUR JOB WAS TO GO IN AND STOP THE FIGHTING NOW. Narrator: TRAVIS AND HIS COLLEAGUES -- 18 MEN IN TOTAL -- MUST FIGURE OUT HOW TO INTERVENE IN A FOREIGN WAR WITH COMPLETELY NEW RULES. THEY DETERMINE THAT THEIR MOST EFFECTIVE ROLE IS TO SECRETLY LIAISE BETWEEN FORCES FROM OTHER NATIONS WHO HAVE COME TO BROKER PEACE AND STAND READY TO INTERVENE WITH OVERWHELMING FORCE, SHOULD THE NEED ARISE. Haley: NOT FIGHTING THE ENEMY'S FIGHT IS WHAT REALLY HELPED US. BY LIAISONING AND TELLING THESE COUNTRIES WHAT THEY WILL DO AND HOW THEY WERE GONNA HELP US AND HOW WE CAN HELP THEM IS WHAT, I THINK, CONTRIBUTED TO STOPPING THAT CIVIL WAR. Narrator: LIBERIA'S CIVIL WAR ENDS IN 2003, MONTHS AFTER TRAVIS AND HIS TEAM ARRIVE. THAT THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS MISSION HASN'T BECOME PUBLIC UNTIL NOW