More military capability equates to more security for the United States. This precept is so deeply embedded in our minds that no one sees a need to state it. Yet it may be false. Let's consider the following. If we did not possess a mighty high-tech military, we may never have considered invading and occupying Iraq. Since the ramifications of that action clearly are negative for American security, then there is a negative correlation between capability and security. The same holds for our protracted occupation of Afghanistan and subsequent incursion into Pakistan. Then there is the contemplated war against Iran -- unimaginable if we lacked deep penetration bombs and assorted other state-of-the-art weaponry.
Now we are faced with an audacious plan to give the central role for advancing American interests (very broadly defined) to Special Operations Command under the aggressive leadership of Admiral William H. McRaven, who directs our Special Forces. As outlined in Monday's New York Times, he is putting the finishing touches on a detailed, comprehensive plan for using his 60,000 personnel as a multi-purpose, semi-autonomous force operating on every continent except Antarctica. It will be designated the military's tool of choice not only to fight insurgencies. SOC will be mandated to do active intelligence gathering, to engage in political penetration of other countries and governments, to undertake training and liaison with foreign militaries, and to address underlying conditions that spark insurgencies.
McRaven modestly admits that "we're not yet ready... to run the global war on terror." We must wait awhile for that happy day to arrive. When it does, the Admiral wants the authority to make independent decisions when and where to deploy Special Forces without going through standard Pentagon procedures. Where is the State Department and other Executive Branch agencies in all this? The White House? Eclipsed. The State Department has yet even to be briefed on the plan that bears the formidable name of Global SOF Alliance.
The plan's purpose and justification is clearly the all-encompassing 'war on terror.' It is noteworthy that McRaven routinely uses this term despite its having been jettisoned by Obama three years ago. The 'war on terror' is open-ended, elastic and multi-dimensional. In short, perfect for a mission without limit in time or space. As the Raven might said, "Evermore, Evermore."
All this will be enabled by a healthy increase in budget and personnel. The other enabling factor is the feebleness of civilian leadership from the Oval Office on down which continues to fail at providing strategic guidance to the Pentagon.
I'm rooting for a smaller defense budget and the reduced capabilities that would result. This is not a fixed principle. It is merely pragmatism. We simply do not have a civilian or military leadership that can be counted on to use it sensibly, prudently and responsibly. They are untrustworthy.
Mr. Brenner states in his article that “more military capability equates to more security for the United States.†Even though he is trying to make an argument that this is not true, he unwittingly substantiated it by not doing his homework and spouted off fallacies about what has been accomplished by such forces. He states “SOC (USSOCOM) will be mandated…to undertake training and liaison with foreign militaries, and to address underlying conditions that spark insurgencies†which is what we have been doing since before JFK granted us our Green Berets. If anyone knows anything about Columbia, the country not the college, you would know that we've been assisting in training their armies to combat the FARC and ELN since the 1970’s and have built such a strong relationship with them that they have begun to contribute to Operation Enduring Freedom. Training like this happens in many places around the world to help build capacity and to root out the terrorist before they can formulate a plan to bring the fight to our soil and this is just one example.
Mr. Brenner also needs a lesson in how the military is organized and does not report (or brief) to the state department just as the State Department does not brief the Secretary of the Defense. I’m confident that when the time comes, the DoS will have its share of input to the plan and will outline specifically what it will and will not be responsible for. As for The White House, the SECDEF does brief the President and I’m sure the President will know what the USSOCOM commander is going to do. It’s just the way it works.
“I'm rooting for a smaller defense budget and the reduced capabilities that would result.†This is the dumbest thing I think I read in the article. While we are at it Mr. Brenner, let us just through away all security measures at the airport, too. That makes sense, right? If we don’t have the technology to protect ourselves and the American people, we can live in ignorant bliss and walk through life…scared of the next September 11, 2001.
Major Loren Bymer
United States Army Special Forces
Special forces operations would resemble police actions in being small-scale, very mobile, surgical, and unpredictable for the enemy. However, coming too late now when terrorists have greatly expanded their range of operations, firmly established their influence, and increased their numbers, the special operations proposals and plans are more or less a blank check which signal nothing more than another facet of the totalitarian mindset of American political leaders.
All special forces operations promise at this point--which is why they have such appeal to ideological, ineffective, and increasingly powerless politicians--are periodic dramatic, bloody, and well-executed, yet marginally relevant deeds for the media.
We must not just cut the war budget we must decimate by 10 times, at which point it will simply be the largest war budget on the planet.
We must not just cut it, we must reinvest in green energy independence and waste recycling to end the need for resource wars.
You are correct. The USA is busy committing war crimes around the world. We have no right to tell the world what to do.
There are good citizen's Democrats
Don't be confused by the Clinton DLC moderate republicans, they also are for Reaganomics, trickle down and the Tories. Also called New democrats, pragmatic Progressive, Blue dogs, New American Foundation, Progressive Policy Council, Third Way..
The Warren Kucinich, Grayson CPC progressive are the real Founder type progressive liberals. Vote for them in the primaries
then vote for the dems in the general, because the GOP are anti republic war loving theocratic plutocrats, working to destroy democracy so the rich and their multinationals can rule unfettered.
But, empirically, the "standard Pentagon procedures" have not demonstrated much success.
The bureaucracy of the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. doesn't seem to match the need for agility to meet the terrorist threat. Terrorist count on those Pentagon "standard procedures" that have demonstrated themselves to be too slow.
That leaves us with regular warfare, which has also proven to be unsuccessful because we then rebuild the country.
Leadership in the countries with which we go to war seem to totally disregard any casualties of their own people. So we don't create refugees - we encourage them to stay. The result is increased asymetrical warfare and increased American casualties. Which, of course, is no skin off of American politicians who never put their own families at risk.
What''s the downside for protected leaders from going to war against the U.S. when they aren't at risk and the USA will pay to build all new infrastructure for them?