View Full Version : HASC Wants to Move UW Ahead of DA
The Reaper
05-14-2007, 08:05
Occasionally, you actually believe that Congress gets it.
I see a whole lot of ways this can go sideways, even if passed, but at least it is acknowledgement.
TR
Panel Urges Change In Socom's Priorities
By RICHARD LARDNER The Tampa Tribune
Published: May 14, 2007
TAMPA - The House Armed Services Committee, signaling its discontent with the Bush administration's use of special operations forces, wants more emphasis placed on unconventional warfare and less on the "direct action" missions aimed at killing or capturing individual terrorists.
In the committee's version of legislation that would fund the military in fiscal year 2008, the committee is proposing to change a 20-year-old law listing the activities handled by the special operations community.
Topping the list is direct action, which is defined as "short duration strikes" intended to cause damage or seize objects in areas off-limits to U.S. troops.
According to the committee, direct action should fall to a "lower priority" while unconventional warfare would rise to first place.
More: http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBZZYU8O1F.html
82ndtrooper
05-14-2007, 08:17
Congress probably see's this as a way to get conventional troops out of the theater while maintaining low visiblity operations with SOF forces.
Perhaps they dont "get it" but it sounds better than having 150,000 DA conventional troops on the ground. Maybe it's a way to acknowledge the SOF capabilities with the agenda of getting the coventional troops back state side.
Just a guess, but I dont trust Congress to understand much military. :rolleyes:
incommin
05-14-2007, 10:44
Maybe someone on the Hill has been reading posts on this site......??????
Jim
Maybe someone on the Hill has been reading posts on this site......??????
Jim
While some here argue the FID, UW and DA missions and their "weight" in activities one thing is sure SF does them all good.
Why would an anti war, anti military congress want to limit SF in DA operations? That is the question.
Could it be that SF, where employed in DA, is gitting a good bang for it's buck and doing it on the low key? Could it be that some in congress would like to change that? Change that to what?
I never take anything at face value.
UW, and to a lesser extent FID have perishable skills but again I ask myself why now?
Pete
Edited to add. The report lists Special Operations Forces - That includes the Rangers. Rangers are DA.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-14-2007, 14:06
I never take anything at face value.
I totally agree. Do they even understand what they are saying and what exactly is their definition of UW? I would love to think that they are looking at deployment of pilot teams for UW assessments, pyschological preparation of target audiences and subsequent development of future battlefields ,but I know better.
Do they even understand what they are saying and what exactly is their definition of UW? i understand this as a rhetorical question...never the less, my response is this...Congress is looking for a way out of a situation they consider untenable...UW, in their limited understanding is a silver bullet...by calling for a greater emphasis on UW over DA, they are attempting to appear resolute and informed...it is nothing more than rhetoric...it is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover the withdrawal they are demanding...but damn, they called for action....
IMNSHO...
The Reaper
05-14-2007, 20:45
Well, IMNSHO, if we had commenced action in Iraq by supporting UW based insurgencies in the north and south, in conjunction with precision airstrikes, with a plan for a minimum of three to five years of military efforts, we would be on our way out as victors now instead of looking for ways to call "running away" something more palatable that we can live with.
TR
Well, IMNSHO, if we had commenced action in Iraq by supporting UW based insurgencies in the north and south, supported by airstrikes, with a plan for a minimum of three to five years of military efforts, we would be on our way out as victors now instead of looking for ways to call "running away" something more palatable that we can live with.no argument here...unfortunately, we had to have another couple cavalry charges...
Well, IMNSHO, if we had commenced action in Iraq by supporting UW based insurgencies in the north and south, supported by airstrikes, with a plan for a minimum of three to five years of military efforts, we would be on our way out as victors now instead of looking for ways to call "running away" something more palatable that we can live with.
TR
And just think we could have put all that saved money into a nice 4yr CD and made intrest :eek:
NousDefionsDoc
05-14-2007, 21:11
no argument here...unfortunately, we had to have another couple cavalry charges...
The only ones that could - did.
I totally agree. Do they even understand what they are saying and what exactly is their definition of UW? I would love to think that they are looking at deployment of pilot teams for UW assessments, pyschological preparation of target audiences and subsequent development of future battlefields ,but I know better.
Sir, this continued advocating of pre-event preparation will not be tolerated...;)
When I read you guy's comments on things like this, at all seems so simple and easy to understand. And it makes me wonder why we have think-tanks and study groups and what not and they still can't see the light.
NousDefionsDoc
05-14-2007, 21:14
Well, IMNSHO, if we had commenced action in Iraq by supporting UW based insurgencies in the north and south, in conjunction with precision airstrikes, with a plan for a minimum of three to five years of military efforts, we would be on our way out as victors now instead of looking for ways to call "running away" something more palatable that we can live with.
TR
Preach it Brother!