WP: U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role

[Redskins Diehard]

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965.html?hpid=topnews------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good for the President. Will be interesting to see how this thread plays out.

We have expanded secret and preemptive combat. And circumvented traditional military chain of command.

[Kilmer17]

Meet the new boss.

[Larry]

I'm sure they're over there helping terrorists.

[Special K]

Me likies.

[GhostofSparta]

This word "secrect".....I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Hubbs]

Good. This is how it should have been done in the first place.

[Corcaigh]

I'm happy with this approach and hope there is some oversight. And by oversight I don't mean open hearings in Congress.

A secretive approach where the very bad guys disappear in the middle of the night combined with using other actions to win "hearts and minds", including cynical two-faced diplomacy , is much better than the unilateral approach where we piss off more people, and put many more boots on the ground at much greater cost and risk.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm happy with this approach and hope there is some oversight. And by oversight I don't mean open hearings in Congress.

A secretive approach where the very bad guys disappear in the middle of the night combined with using other actions to win "hearts and minds", including cynical two-faced diplomacy , is much better than the unilateral approach where we piss off more people, and put many more boots on the ground at much greater cost and risk.

So are you opposed to the build up in Afghanistan then?

[alexey]

Meet the new boss.

...who expanded Special Operations presence by 25 perce-e-e-e-entttt...

wait a sec, that doesn't rhyme.

[Redskins Diehard]

Good. This is how it should have been done in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/international/asia/12INTE.html?pagewanted=1

Interesting....

[Corcaigh]

So are you opposed to the build up in Afghanistan then?

Yes. I'd love to be proven wrong but I don't see a sufficiently stable regime emerging anytime soon that would make the costs worthwhile. But much smarter people than me seem to think we can accomplish something given a concentrated effort, so let's see.

In my opinion, the enemy we want to exterminate is the senior leadership of Al Qaeda, not the rank and file Taliban and the local warlords of Afghanistan.

[JMS]

Yes. I'd love to be proven wrong but I don't see a sufficiently stable regime emerging anytime soon that would make the costs worthwhile. But much smarter people than me seem to think we can accomplish something given a concentrated effort, so let's see.

In my opinion, the enemy we want to exterminate is the senior leadership of Al Qaeda, not the rank and file Taliban and the local warlords of Afghanistan.

Well we have killed the #3 guy in al quada like 4 times in the last three years.

Seriously though you make a good point

[Redskins Diehard]

Yes. I'd love to be proven wrong but I don't see a sufficiently stable regime emerging anytime soon that would make the costs worthwhile. But much smarter people than me seem to think we can accomplish something given a concentrated effort, so let's see.

In my opinion, the enemy we want to exterminate is the senior leadership of Al Qaeda, not the rank and file Taliban and the local warlords of Afghanistan.

The interesting thing is that we essentially went in to Afghanistan under that model. Light on conventional forces...heavy on unconventional military and other covert forces(Jawbreaker). Some by design, some by necessity(would take too long to build up conventional military forces to mount any kind of attack).

[Redskins Diehard]

Well we have killed the #3 guy in al quada like 4 times in the last three years.

Seriously though you make a good point

And I am not sure if it happened in Afghanistan a single time. Or was done by conventional forces.

[illone]

Then let's pull the grunts off the ground and outta there, Mr President.

:thumbsup:

[Skin'Em84]

Well we have killed the #3 guy in al quada like 4 times in the last three years.

I know, that guy needs to stop coming back.

[thebluefood]

Then let's pull the grunts off the ground and outta there, Mr President.

:thumbsup:

Thatum sounds good, kemosabe!

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Thanks media for letting us know about this 'secret war'...I always love it when they do this...kinda like that time when a terrorist infiltrated the top secret CIA base in Afghanistan and they told you what city it was located in...great job media! :thumbsup:

[Redskins Diehard]

Thanks media for letting us know about this 'secret war'...I always love it when they do this...kinda like that time when a terrorist infiltrated the top secret CIA base in Afghanistan and they told you what city it was located in...great job media! :thumbsup:

Ummm, this article is nothing like the scenario you mention. There is little, if any at all, tactical or operational info that can be gleaned from it. In fact, it could be used as a propaganda message FRIENDLY to our mission. A "our special forces are EVERYWHERE" type of message. Regardless, if you are going to be angry at the information being out there you may want to be angry at the people that release it. And may wonder if they are doing that for a reason

[DCsportsfan53]

Now if only this was all we were doing instead of fighting two wars while doing this it would be awesome. Reflecting back to the invasion of Afghanistan, wow, it seems stupid in retrospect. We basically gave them two options following 9/11...give us Bin Laden or we'll overthrow your gov't and occupy your country, the most impossible country to occupy on the planet that's ruined many an empire before. Yeah, great plan. In retrospect, there should've been an or we'll leave your ****ing gov't alone and tread through your country however and wherever we feel like it to fight that **** Bin Laden. Kind of painted ourselves into a corner, there. It's called the land where empires go to die for a reason, just a thought.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Ummm, this article is nothing like the scenario you mention. There is little, if any at all, tactical or operational info that can be gleaned from it. In fact, it could be used as a propaganda message FRIENDLY to our mission. A "our special forces are EVERYWHERE" type of message. Regardless, if you are going to be angry at the information being out there you may want to be angry at the people that release it. And may wonder if they are doing that for a reason

The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, "we are doing all three," the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.

Its things like that are what piss me off. I see what you are saying, but I dont like letting the enemy know what are special forces are doing and where they are concentrating.