Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Indirect Approach is Favored in the War on Terror

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Indirect Approach is Favored in the War on Terror

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

    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...

  2. #2
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    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

  3. #3
    Council Member bismark17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    206

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Council Member jkm_101_fso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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.
    Sir, what the hell are we doing?

  5. #5
    Council Member max161's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    142

    Default Ignorant article?

    Quote Originally Posted by bismark17 View Post
    Agreed. It was a rather ignorant article. .
    I would be interested in reading your analysis on why it was an ignorant article.
    David S. Maxwell
    "Irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge." T.E. Lawrence

  6. #6
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by max161 View Post
    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

  7. #7
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Is FID still possible in the current COE?

    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

  8. #8
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    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

  9. #9
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default FAOs et al

    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

  10. #10
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    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

  11. #11
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Two truths...

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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...

Similar Threads

  1. Mainly terrorism in Indonesia: catch all
    By SDSchippert in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 01-25-2019, 08:10 PM
  2. Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror
    By davidbfpo in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 600
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
  3. Indirect and Direct components to strategy for the Long War
    By Rob Thornton in forum Strategic Compression
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 11:36 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-2007, 08:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •