3 ms·

Respectfully, You seem to think that SOCOM is a solution. I regard it as a problem. I'm not saying SF isn't great, particularly Green Beret, but a lot of the s

Respectfully, You seem to think that SOCOM is a solution. I regard it as a problem. I'm not saying SF isn't great, particularly Green Beret, but a lot of the special forces guys are hanging out on FoBs by day, and dealing out death by night. That's not governance. Assassination does nothing to settle a land dispute between farmers. Taking lives only disrupts local communities, and foments chaos instead of resolving it. That's why the Vietcong and the Taliban endured. They enforce the rule of law, even if the laws themselves are horrid, a stable system exists. The insurgents live in the village and therefore live by the same laws. That is governance. SF/Airpower runs counter to this. I've heard the "let the borders redraw themselves" argument before, but the truth is there are countries where different ethnicities govern and live in peace. Style of governance may need to change but it is not impossible. By cheap I mean cheap in terms of lives, and I would argue that yes these wars have been incredibly cheap in American lives for those who have not fought. For Iraqis, Syrians, and Afghans it is another story.

poof131 11y ago
I agree on governance, but disagree on how to get there. One, I wouldn’t say SOCOM was the problem and call the operators assassins. The military started off stupid, dropping a bomb on every person planting an IED. Then people got smarter and realized that understanding a network and finding the leaders was more important than just killing low level people trying to feed their family. SOCOM did a good job of finding those leaders. Two, I would focus on Army SF. Training locals to operate themselves is more important than direct action. I’d just move FID directly under SOCOM. The Navy and Air Force spent way more then they should have in these wars, costing the country trillions. The Army and Marines weren’t much better. Green Berets were built to work with the locals. And with an air power supplement they can prevent places from getting over run. Three, governance requires other agencies. Start with a minimal footprint of SF and Airpower. Then try to bring in state and aid and other agencies quickly. Only bring in more mainline military units as needed and get them out as quick as you can. This will never happen with the budget flowing directly through the military. I think SOCOM focusing on FID with a more limited budget then the entire military and getting in other agencies quickly would be a much better approach to governance. When the “big” military comes in, they come in for total war. You get fighter jets, bombs, and battalions. Whether you need it or not, the military will find a place for everything to keep it’s spot in the budget. Sometimes you do need tanks and bombers, but not where you are trying to govern. We need to differentiate between total war and governance with people getting shot at and always strive for the latter. I don’t think the military will ever be able to effectively govern, it’s not its job. So less ground troops and more SF and Airpower and more State Department please and get rid of SOCOM as soon as State is comfortable. That's the approach I'd vote for.

poof131 11y ago

I agree on governance, but disagree on how to get there. One, I wouldn’t say SOCOM was the problem and call the operators assassins. The military started off stupid, dropping a bomb on every person planting an IED. Then people got smarter and realized that understanding a network and finding the leaders was more important than just killing low level people trying to feed their family. SOCOM did a good job of finding those leaders. Two, I would focus on Army SF. Training locals to operate themselves is more important than direct action. I’d just move FID directly under SOCOM. The Navy and Air Force spent way more then they should have in these wars, costing the country trillions. The Army and Marines weren’t much better. Green Berets were built to work with the locals. And with an air power supplement they can prevent places from getting over run. Three, governance requires other agencies. Start with a minimal footprint of SF and Airpower. Then try to bring in state and aid and other agencies quickly. Only bring in more mainline military units as needed and get them out as quick as you can. This will never happen with the budget flowing directly through the military. I think SOCOM focusing on FID with a more limited budget then the entire military and getting in other agencies quickly would be a much better approach to governance. When the “big” military comes in, they come in for total war. You get fighter jets, bombs, and battalions. Whether you need it or not, the military will find a place for everything to keep it’s spot in the budget. Sometimes you do need tanks and bombers, but not where you are trying to govern. We need to differentiate between total war and governance with people getting shot at and always strive for the latter. I don’t think the military will ever be able to effectively govern, it’s not its job. So less ground troops and more SF and Airpower and more State Department please and get rid of SOCOM as soon as State is comfortable. That's the approach I'd vote for.