Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

librechik

(30,676 posts)
Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:14 PM Oct 2015

I'm no military strategist, but is it a good idea to announce our special ops troop movements

to the public? I guess maybe I'm unschooled about what special ops are but I assumed, secret. I don't think it should get people all upset about "Obama Lies" and scream about boots on the ground, because there's not even a division being deployed. It's a different category other than "troops"; there is no marching and invading.

AM I wrong? Is this all some kind of let's destroy Obama with media project again?

IMO spy/counter terror ops shouldn't be public knowledge. Why did this get leaked?

I know I'm going to get gutted here, because Obama should never ever do anything he said he wouldn't even though conditions on the ground have change.

but really wtf?

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm no military strategist, but is it a good idea to announce our special ops troop movements (Original Post) librechik Oct 2015 OP
Got a link? ffr Oct 2015 #1
With no specifics, not such a risk... Wounded Bear Oct 2015 #2
hmm--bizarre. Like so much of everything these days librechik Oct 2015 #4
I assume the link would be something like this. Igel Oct 2015 #5
Hey look over here, by the pink elephant Paulie Oct 2015 #3
I disagree. Igel Oct 2015 #6
Don't worry. "Special Ops" troops are "special" because silent bunny slippers rather than boots. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #7
No, unless it is detailed information. The announcement may even help Lurks Often Oct 2015 #8
Sometimes, sure Recursion Oct 2015 #9
Depends on why the spec ops are being sent in w0nderer Oct 2015 #10

Wounded Bear

(58,685 posts)
2. With no specifics, not such a risk...
Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:23 PM
Oct 2015

It's kind of like announcing the sky is blue. Everybody knows we're doing it. It's more for the home folks, kind of an "expect more casualties" statement as much as anything. After the Sergeant died last week, and was announced, it a bit of a CYA pre-emptive move going forward.

OTOH, this kind of shit has been happening since Viet Nam. It hasn't always excalated into full blown war, but it has a couple of times.

Not sure I'd call it a leak, since it was discussed at a press conference.

Igel

(35,337 posts)
5. I assume the link would be something like this.
Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:46 PM
Oct 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN0SO1VD20151031

No specifics.

Then again, the problem is that now people on the ground know to look for them--not suspect, but know. Still, not a huge change.

I'll save the rest of my comment for the OP.

Igel

(35,337 posts)
6. I disagree.
Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:53 PM
Oct 2015

This is low-risk territory.

What produced this announcement, however, wasn't low-risk. It was high-risk and presumably actually cleared the way for Putin and others.

Obama has this kind of verbal tic, "There's no military solution, we won't put boots on the ground" whenever there's a situation that might, just possibly, lead to violent conflict.

Often it's like telling a bully, "Look, whatever you do, I'm not going to resist you. I just won't talk to you and I'll say bad things about you to my friends." The bully knows that the legal repercussions aren't going to be that bad and might take years to implement, but once implemented won't last long. After all, he's done this before and only good has come of it.

Having good men publicly proclaim that they will not do anything about evil past a certain limited point encourages evil to test that claim and, if the claim is accurate, to push immediately past that point if they are of a mind to. If you get limited gains from limited evil that's resisted, why not up the ROI by going to evil that's not resisted?

All the rhetoric about "not allowing a frozen conflict" or "supporting X" means nothing if the other side knows exactly where you back down and whimper. Better ambiguity and bravado than pacifism that's confused with cowardice. It's easy to move into a vacuum.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
8. No, unless it is detailed information. The announcement may even help
Sat Oct 31, 2015, 02:23 PM
Oct 2015

depending on the real role the special ops troops take. If the Special Ops troops start conducting raids and ambushes like the SAS is rumored to be doing, it will likely have a negative affect on the morale of the average IS soldier.

As an IS soldier when snipers start taking out your comrades or when 20 of them die all at once in an ambush and you never see a thing, you become nervous and jumpy and sleep poorly.

In baseball terms it is like taking a mediocre high school team and putting them up against the World Series champs.

w0nderer

(1,937 posts)
10. Depends on why the spec ops are being sent in
Sat Oct 31, 2015, 02:43 PM
Oct 2015

if they are sent in to 'train' 'lead' then telling probably intimidate more (fear factor...spec op trained troops will soon face us)

if they are being sent in to operate....perhaps not the best idea, the shock value might be better (take out targets fast and hard with no evidence of who did it)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm no military strategis...