Indirect Approach is Favored in the War on Terror

Indirect Approach is Favored in the War on Terror - Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times

Quote:

---

Weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, a small team of Green Berets was quietly sent to the Philippine island of Basilan. There, one of the world's most virulent Islamic extremist groups, Abu Sayyaf, had established a dangerous haven and was seeking to extend its reach into the Philippine capital.

But rather than unleashing Hollywood-style raids, as might befit their reputation, the Green Berets proposed a time-consuming plan to help the Philippine military take on the extremist group itself. Seven years later, Abu Sayyaf has been pushed out of Basilan and terrorist attacks have dropped dramatically.

"It's not flashy, it's not glamorous, but man, this is how we're going to win the long war," said Lt. Gen. David P. Fridovich, the Army officer who designed the Philippine program.

Fridovich is part of a quiet but significant transformation taking place within the most secret of the US military's armed forces, the Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, which encompasses the Green Berets, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, Delta Force and similar units from the Air Force and the Marines...

---

I'm not sure exactly what is new about FID. It's been SF's bread and butter since the beginning. It's why there is SF in the Army. I blame Hollywood. I suspect that most people think of Rambo when they hear the words Green Beret, so of course they are surprised that we train people to fight our enemies rather than running around the country side with a bow and explosive tipped arrows.

SFC W

Agreed. It was a rather ignorant article. But, then again how many people in our society understand the conventional Army, let alone the SOF community? The various pillars of our society are becoming more and more entrenched into their various groupings. Combine that with a lack of a historical perspective being taught in our schools, masses of potential voters are being produced who don't have a clue. Many are "learning" about the world via video games and 30 second blurbs they catch on tv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

I blame Hollywood. I suspect that most people think of Rambo when they hear the words Green Beret, so of course they are surprised that we train people to fight our enemies rather than running around the country side with a bow and explosive tipped arrows.

---

Yes, but you COULD destroy terrorists with explosive tipped arrows!

Hollywood and the media have done much to bolster SF's mysterious and elite image, even if it is a little corny...maybe a reason so many try out for it?

Many guys I know who went to selection BECAUSE they wanted to be a part of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bismark17

Agreed. It was a rather ignorant article. .

---

I would be interested in reading your analysis on why it was an ignorant article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max161

I would be interested in reading your analysis on why it was an ignorant article.

---

Not speaking for Bismark bit my take on it would be the premise -- that FID is new is shall we say unaware, naive, uneducated, or ignorant as in unknowing in the classic sense. The irony is that the author then uses "Hollywood-style raids" as his fall guy when he has already demonstrated a rather screenplay understanding of what SF does.

That aside, I would not apply ignorant to Eric Olson whom I would describe as a no-bull####, unpretentious, thinkerwith little patience for flash but a quick wit and great sense of humor. We shared a 20x20 classroom at DLI for modern standard Arabic in 1982-1983. I also believe that since its inception, SOCOM has tended toward direct action more than FID and if Eric is steering the ship more toward the middle channel, he is doing the right thing.

I was not impressed with mid-level SF leadership when I had 'em on the ground with me in Rwanda and 2 of 'em had to go home. The teams were great but the leadership did not seem to get that working indigenous forces meant adapting rather than dictating. My own SF contacts tell me that the post 9-11 has been a great shakedown and that is good thing.

Tom

Given the rise of suicide bombers, VBIEDs, etc., is it still possible to send small teams of advisors overtly into the ME or SW Asia or has the threat environment increased to the point where a Phillipines or El Salvador mission is simply not feasible in some parts of the world?

Furthermore, I believe this article highlights the interal SOF debate over Rambo and the quiet professional.

v/r

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeF

Given the rise of suicide bombers, VBIEDs, etc., is it still possible to send small teams of advisors overtly into the ME or SW Asia or has the threat environment increased to the point where a Phillipines or El Salvador mission is simply not feasible in some parts of the world?

Furthermore, I believe this article highlights the interal SOF debate over Rambo and the quiet professional.

v/r

Mike

---

Mike

In answer to the 1st question, I would say yes it is possible and even preferred, certainly on the African continent.

Roger on the internal debate. As is always the case, a middle ground is probably the best choice. Look at the film Green Berets and note that it was filmed at Ft Bragg with a section modeled in the SF Team capablities demonstration. Do we do that anymore, Bismarck, Bill M., UBoat, or others?

Tom

Tom,

I concur particularly in Africa, but my concern is that there are areas where the conflict level is too high for an OVERT mission even if the host nation requested it. We're working a tasking on this now. And yes, the quiet professional is my preferred solution. Sometimes, I just wonder where he went.

ADM Olson is proposing a 'new' depoyment of SOF whereas individuals will deploy to a country with their families off and on for their entire careers- extremely similar to FAOs. The key advantage to this deployment is developing SME's, cultural intelligence, and more importantly developing personal relationships.

Also, I was considering that maybe the RA should go back to the dual track model of OPS/FAO to allow us regular dudes the same learning opportunities and ability to 'think' creatively.

I believe his proposal has merit, and I wanted to get your opinion.

v/r

Mike

Quote:

---

ADM Olson is proposing a 'new' depoyment of SOF whereas individuals will deploy to a country with their families off and on for their entire careers- extremely similar to FAOs. The key advantage to this deployment is developing SME's, cultural intelligence, and more importantly developing personal relationships.

---

We used to do that with the SF groups and I would guess we will resume somewhere down the road. A number of Africa DATTs and Operations Coordinators got into the embassy cycle this way.

On ME as a whole, it is probably still doable, depending on specific country. Jordan, Tunisia, and Morocco come to mind as good prospects. The ODC in Egypt is huge.

I am all for it.

Tom

You have to be careful with terms like SOF and SF. They are not interchangeable. All SF are part of SOF but SOF also includes a lot of other units with a much different focus and mission than SF. The problem that we seem to have now is that SOCOM and USASOC are largely dominated by JSOC guys. They don't do what we do and they often aren't all that interested in what we do. It creates a certain amount of friction but it also means we just plain don't get the attention (read, money and missions) that other assets get. As for SF internally there will always be guys who are too focused on DA but as a whole we have taken ownership of our other missions, particularly FID/UW and are quite proud of the fact that we do things that nobody else does, and we do it well.

Now as to the question of whether or not we can operate effectively in the ME, the answer is an unequivocal yes. We can and do work in areas with populations that are less than thrilled to see Americans in their midst. I would say that command level risk aversion plays a greater role in whether or not we get those missions than our capability to execute them.

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

You have to be careful with terms like SOF and SF. They are not interchangeable.
. . .

I would say that command level risk aversion plays a greater role in whether or not we get those missions than our capability to execute them. SFC W

---

The latter having a constant and serious adverse impact on a lot of things in a lot of places for SOF, SF and the GP Forces...