Special Operations Forces Going To Iraq.

[esmith]

Let see now if I have the right. Obama said there will be no US boots on the ground in Iraq. Just what are these Special Operations forces wearing, slippers? Obama sending up to 300 soldiers to Iraq as advisers, says move is limited - The Washington Post

Then he says they will not be involved in combat. Obama Sends Military Advisers to Iraq - WSJ

As he outlined his plans, Mr. Obama stressed that the U.S. response doesn't mark a return to an unpopular war.

"American forces won't be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region and American interests," he said

.

Yeah right. How naïve does he think we are. You put troops in a position that have the very good possibility of coming under fire and they wont fight back? "Hey, you people shooting at us, we are not combat troops, we are here just to train your adversaries, provide intelligence on your operations, and oh yeah provide targeting information for CAS."

Seems I have been here before. Seems like we sent some "advisers" to a country back in the late 50's. Now I'm not saying this will escalate, however situations do get out of hand. Oh, by the way, I understand we do not have a SOFA with Iraq. However, the White House says they will be protected under embassy status. Huh????

 

[bobhikes]

Special forces, or special operations forces are military units highly trained to perform unconventional, often high-risk missions. Special forces, as they would now be recognised, emerged in the early 20th century, with a significant growth in the field during the Second World War.
Depending on the country, special forces may perform some of the following specializations: airborne operations, counter-Insurgency, counter-terrorism, covert ops, direct action, hostage rescue, High Value Targets/manhunting, intelligence operations, mobility operations, and unconventional warfare.

This is what they do, and they would take offense if you called them boots or slippers. I definately wouldn't do that in a bar with one of them.

 

[Koldo]

My question is: What happens if some of them die?

Will that be used as an excuse to wage war?

 

[esmith]

Special forces, or

This is what they do, and they would take offense if you called them boots or slippers. I definately wouldn't do that in a bar with one of them.

It appears that my remark about "slippers" was not seen as a sarcastic remark by you. In other words if Special Ops are in Iraq are not there "boots" on the ground. Maybe Obummer has a different connotation for what "boots on the ground" means.

 

[bobhikes]

It appears that my remark about "slippers" was not seen as a sarcastic remark by you. In other words if Special Ops are in Iraq are not there "boots" on the ground. Maybe Obummer has a different connotation for what "boots on the ground" means.

I am just replying as you post Obummer understands that special ops are not boots on the ground. Boots is a slang for regular enlisted men.

Special ops are used all over the world every year when problems break out. Sending 300 to Iraq is nothing special. We have cilvians there to protect and information is needed on what is happening.

About there deaths for the most part, they are mostly unhearlded. It is a sad statement about what they do, most of there work is hidden in shadows.

 

[Tarheeler]

It depends on the actual forces sent in. The US Army's Green Berets, for example, are specialists at training native and guerrilla forces in the things mentioned in previous post. While they are fully capable of engaging the enemy, they are often used instructors and observers rather than combatants.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh.

Obama is sending advisors to help the same Shia that Iran so enthusiastically supports in crushing the Sunnis that the USA funded back in the 1980s.

It will doubtless also spend a lot of military toys there, all paid by the American taxes and, if the rumors are correct, by drug money enabled by military and governamental corruption.

And you folks are complaining that the soldiers actually sent might end up fighting?

That sounds a bit like marrying a dangerous psychopat with several STDs and complaining that she might end up wanting to be my life partner and bring me joy and companionship.

The shame is not if they end up fighting. It is if they attempt to drown the conflict with expensive weaponry in order not to fight. That would be buying their way out of the most basic demands of military honor.

 

[metis]

What's being done is a bit too scary to me because it's too similar to the mission creep that led us into the quagmire called "the Vietnam War".

Anyone watch "The Sixties" last night on CNN, which dealt with the build-up to our involvement in Nam? All too painful for me. Let me briefly explain why.

I was brought up in a military family, whereas I first saw my father when I was three because he was stationed in the Philippines under MacArthur. As a kid growing up, I would sit and watch "Victory At Sea" that dealt with WWII with my father.

When the Vietnam war started, I was all for going in. But when I was in my junior year (1965-66) while doing my undergraduate work, I had to do research for one of my anthropology classes that involved "culture conflict", so I chose doing it on the Vietnam War. It quickly became an obsession with me because the more I read, the more that it was becoming apparent to me that this was a conflict that we shouldn't have got into in the first place and that we should pull out as soon as possible because we were in a no-win situation, unless you wanted to basically destroy the entire country.

This was not a just slap-it-together paper as I read two full books on the subject written by Bernard Fall, the French historian ("Streets Without Joy" and "Two Vietnams") who warned us that we were getting in over our heads, and probably about a dozen magazine articles from different sources. My paper turned out to be 50 pages typed, and I have no idea how many total hours I spent on the subject.

Imagine the shock to me, the son of a devout Army father, to discover that we were making a terrible mistake, but back then polls indicated that the vast majority of Americans were for getting involved. In 1967, I believe, they ended the educational draft deferments, and all our names were put into a lottery for the upcoming drafts. This scared the holy bejabbers out of me, not because I was afraid to join the military (I actually had signed up for ROTC in my freshman year but had a schedule conflict that forced me to withdraw before the classes started), but because I strongly felt we were taking actions that were blatantly immoral, killing so many innocent Vietnamese and leading to the death of what would eventually become over 50,000 American men.

My wife and I talked about this, and she also was upset about what we were doing there, so we discussed what we would do if I got drafted. Essentially, we decided that we would go to Canada (I have some distant relatives in Quebec that are Me'tis).

Fortunately, my draft number came up to some number over 300 (it was based on which day of the year you were born), so I was safe. Now maybe some can see why this was such a traumatic time period for me, and why I'm so concerned about mission creep on Iraq.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let see now if I have the right. Obama said there will be no US boots on the ground in Iraq. Just what are these Special Operations forces wearing, slippers? Obama sending up to 300 soldiers to Iraq as advisers, says move is limited - The Washington Post

Then he says they will not be involved in combat. Obama Sends Military Advisers to Iraq - WSJ
.

Yeah right. How naïve does he think we are. You put troops in a position that have the very good possibility of coming under fire and they wont fight back? "Hey, you people shooting at us, we are not combat troops, we are here just to train your adversaries, provide intelligence on your operations, and oh yeah provide targeting information for CAS."

Seems I have been here before. Seems like we sent some "advisers" to a country back in the late 50's. Now I'm not saying this will escalate, however situations do get out of hand. Oh, by the way, I understand we do not have a SOFA with Iraq. However, the White House says they will be protected under embassy status. Huh????

Good grief....SPECULATE much?

Special ops don't just sit on base playing XBox waiting on something to happen or to be given orders to assist... They're used quite often for various missions. And remember "Benghazi" you righties were going on and on about...well, if we have embassies in these regions then it is an administrations responsibility to have it protected. Had he not sent extra forces then you guys would be complaining about that. He is well within his right to send Spec. Ops in on a temp basis.

Oh, did you forget that it is "Congress" that has the say whether we go to war or not....?...Many of these war mongers (i.e. McCain, Graham and others) need to pipe down. After McConnell, Boehner, Reid and Pelosi met with the president they all pretty much said that what he was doing is fine and needs no authorization from them.....A big reason why is because war hawks talk a good game until it's time to put your name on legislation or to be associated with a bonehead decision such as going to war wasting American blood and treasure..So if the president is doing what he supposed to be doing and righties like McConnell and Boehner aren't going to authorize "war" what's your problem....

 

[BSM1]

I am just replying as you post Obummer understands that special ops are not boots on the ground. Boots is a slang for regular enlisted men.

Actually 'boots on the ground' refers to any human asset in country that could be in harm's way.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Boots is a slang for regular enlisted men.

Special ops are used all over the world every year when problems break out. Sending 300 to Iraq is nothing special. We have cilvians there to protect and information is needed on what is happening.

About there deaths for the most part, they are mostly unhearlded. It is a sad statement about what they do, most of there work is hidden in shadows.

Pretty much this. :yes:


We must assume esmith gets this point considering he was in the military at some point in his life.....

 

[bobhikes]

Actually 'boots on the ground' refers to any human asset in country that could be in harm's way.

Not any any slang book I read. Civilians is normally used for non-milatary. Diplomats for politicals or non-active milatary and boots for regular military.

But use it as you wish. Refering to anyone in harms way in a slang in wrong period. Its a way to dehumanize the situation.

Just as he makes light of Barack Obama's decision, as if he could make a better one.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

WNow maybe some can see why this was such a traumatic time period for me, and why I'm so concerned about mission creep on Iraq.

Personally I'm for getting ALL assets out of the middle east....tantamount to isolationism but I realize that this isn't realistic in today's global political and economical environment. If we have to be there then close down any small facilities (consulates...) and beef up troops at the embassies and go on lock down. I'm not for us assisting with any military training (we've been there and done that didn't seem to work). I'm not for any consulting because I believe it will make our people into targets.

 

[oldbadger]

Special Operations Forces Going To Iraq.

May these brave people be in our thoughts.
If you have faith, please pray for them...
If you don't, please think of them.....

 

[metis]

Personally I'm for getting ALL assets out of the middle east....tantamount to isolationism but I realize that this isn't realistic in today's global political and economical environment. If we have to be there then close down any small facilities (consulates...) and beef up troops at the embassies and go on lock down. I'm not for us assisting with any military training (we've been there and done that didn't seem to work). I'm not for any consulting because I believe it will make our people into targets.

I can't quite go that far, but I do believe we have to be very careful what we do, and try to do our thinking over longer spans of time rather than just today. Occupying another country, whereas a high percentage of the population doesn't want you there, is extremely difficult and deadly as we've seen all too many times.

A quick example: McCain pushed last year/early this year to have us militarily support one of the anti-Assad insurgent groups in Syria that was supported by a Saudi leader that we're friendly with who wanted us to equip them. Well, that group is now one of the major groups in ISIS.

How many times have we given or sold weapons in that area of the world only to find them being used against us or one of our allies? You'd think we'd learn after a while.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know what Obama should have been doing?

Openly pushing for the creation of a peace army inspired on these people:

Khudai Khidmatgar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[columbus]

I can't quite go that far, but I do believe we have to be very careful what we do, and try to do our thinking over longer spans of time rather than just today. Occupying another country, whereas a high percentage of the population doesn't want you there, is extremely difficult and deadly as we've seen all too many times.

A quick example: McCain pushed last year/early this year to have us militarily support one of the anti-Assad insurgent groups in Syria that was supported by a Saudi leader that we're friendly with who wanted us to equip them. Well, that group is now one of the major groups in ISIS.

How many times have we given or sold weapons in that area of the world only to find them being used against us or one of our allies? You'd think we'd learn after a while.

I don't think it is possible for the USA to predict what the outcome of military ops in this region. The motivations and alliances are too murky and foreign and changeable. So it just isn't worth the risk to us or the Iraqi people.

Why do so many Usonians find this hard to understand when the history is so well documented?

Tom

 

[metis]

I don't think it is possible for the USA to predict what the outcome of military ops in this region. The motivations and alliances are too murky and foreign and changeable. So it just isn't worth the risk to us or the Iraqi people.

Why do so many Usonians find this hard to understand when the history is so well documented?

Tom

I agree. And too often our actions in that area of the world are both short-sighted and not taking the culture of the area into consideration.

An example was our terrible reaction to 9-11 whereas we actually fed right into what bin-Laden wanted us to do-- attack and occupy, he knowing full well that we would end up like the Soviets by eventually running away with our tails between our legs. Bin-Laden won because we were ignorant enough to fall into his trap-- unfortunately so. 9-11 could and should have been dealt with quite differently than what we chose to do.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree. And too often our actions in that area of the world are both short-sighted and not taking the culture of the area into consideration.

An example was our terrible reaction to 9-11 whereas we actually fed right into what bin-Laden wanted us to do-- attack and occupy, he knowing full well that we would end up like the Soviets by eventually running away with our tails between our legs. Bin-Laden won because we were ignorant enough to fall into his trap-- unfortunately so. 9-11 could and should have been dealt with quite differently than what we chose to do.

So true. Bin Laden knew full well that he could not expect a military victory.

He hoped for, and far as I can tell succeeded completely, at a very different kind of goal. He convinced the USA to overextend itself, bleed for no good reason, develop terrible internal conflict and destructive fears.

He wanted to convince Middle East that the USA are unreliable, dangerous and imperalistic and must be hated, repealed and mistrusted.

Either he was right or he was made right.

 

[BSM1]

Not any any slang book I read. Civilians is normally used for non-milatary. Diplomats for politicals or non-active milatary and boots for regular military.

But use it as you wish. Refering to anyone in harms way in a slang in wrong period. Its a way to dehumanize the situation.

Just as he makes light of Barack Obama's decision, as if he could make a better one.

The term "boots on the ground" has come from the recent Middle Eastern conflicts. It simply refers to having human troops in the conflicted area or country as opposed to using only air, naval, or electronic support in the region. It could mean anything from actual combat troops to CIA operatives.