View Full Version : U.S. Special Forces Sent to Train Pakistanis
uboat509
05-16-2009, 18:57
Just found this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html) over at Small Wars Journal.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is sending Special Forces teams into one of Pakistan's most violent regions as part of a push to accelerate the training of the Pakistani military and make it a more effective ally in the fight against insurgents there.
Senior U.S. officials said 25 to 50 Special Forces personnel are deploying to two new training camps in Baluchistan, a Taliban stronghold on the porous Afghan-Pakistani border. The deployment brings U.S. personnel deeper than before into tribal regions of Pakistan, which the Obama administration views as among the world's most-dangerous flashpoints.
The Special Forces personnel will focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, who cross freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said. The U.S. trainers aren't meant to fight alongside the Pakistanis or accompany them into battle, in part because there will be so few Special Forces personnel in the two training camps.
A senior American military officer said he hoped Islamabad would gradually allow the U.S. to expand its training footprint inside Pakistan's borders. A former U.S. official familiar with the plans said the deployments would "get more American eyes and ears" into the strategically important region.
SFC W
I can't believe this was released by official channels.
The amount of OPSEC related info in that article is staggering.
Utah Bob
05-18-2009, 06:56
Jesus.!! Why don't they go ahead and put names and pictures in as well!! Might as well throw in a few op plans and maps too.:mad:
CoLawman
05-18-2009, 08:32
I can't believe this was released by official channels.
The amount of OPSEC related info in that article is staggering.
"Senior U.S. officials said 25 to 50 Special Forces personnel..."
"The Pakistani and British embassies in Washington declined to comment. The U.S. military's Central Command, which oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, also declined to comment."
OPSEC does not trump political hay with this administration. It is called gratuitously TRANSPARENCY! :rolleyes:
This ignorant administration is dangerous. Do away with bonuses, pinpoint SF locations for AQ and the Taliban. Sounds like an excellent recipe for destroying any incentive for someone to become SF.
YG2BSM:
Senior U.S. officials said 25 to 50 Special Forces personnel are deploying to two new training camps in Baluchistan
I wonder if these "Senior" officials are on the Biden "team"
I know a BG thats probably pulling his hair out now.
I know a BG thats probably pulling his hair out now.
you're not kidding.
Fiercely Loyal
05-18-2009, 16:36
Don't worry. It isn't you that they might kill by telling a reporter about numbers and locations of soldiers. Your supervisors won't care that you leaked it to the press as long as you did it under a condition of "Anonymity".
I CANNOT STAND THESE @$$HOLES!!!
If you cannot release information with your name on it because you are not supposed to then you should not do it. I know that this particular incident was thru "official channels" supposedly, however I cannot count the number of times I see "an anonymous source" cited for an article related to military operations.
AnonymousMonster Hunters. Sounds like a good name for a show on discovery.:lifter
Fiercely Loyal
05-18-2009, 19:04
AnonymousMonster Hunters. Sounds like a good name for a show on discovery.:lifter
Maybe we can make a pilot and sell the idea to Discovery channel. We will pose as CNN and ask people that work in the Pentagon about current events and see how many "Anonymously" leak info to us. Then if Discovery doesn't like the idea we will just put the leaked info on Wikipedia.
I wonder...could it be that this is just a bit of camouflage for what is really going on? Given some of the events we all hear in the media, a training mission seems about as innocuous as anything could be. Perhaps the leak is not really what it seems.
Fiercely Loyal
05-18-2009, 20:00
I wonder...could it be that this is just a bit of camouflage for what is really going on? Given some of the events we all hear in the media, a training mission seems about as innocuous as anything could be. Perhaps the leak is not really what it seems.
I do not have a hardon for this specific incident because I believe our Government makes misleading / misleading remarks at times to cover tracks. My problem is the major amount of OPSEC leaks that are happening currently in theater. Even on the home front no one can keep their fat mouths shut. My wife came home from helping with family readiness group related events and started telling me about how a Major was investigating a SNCO for sexual misconduct / harassment of another SNCO. Why would an investigating officer tell anyone outside of those involved what is going on? In fact isn't that illegal? That is the bone I have to pick.
Ambush Master
05-18-2009, 20:25
I wonder...could it be that this is just a bit of camouflage for what is really going on? Given some of the events we all hear in the media, a training mission seems about as innocuous as anything could be. Perhaps the leak is not really what it seems.
n, and All:
The "Tangos" in that AO and their Handlers, already KNOW what is going on with regard to deployments and the IMPACT that they are having. This "News" is merely HISTORY.
Later
Martin
n, and All:
The "Tangos" in that AO and their Handlers, already KNOW what is going on with regard to deployments and the IMPACT that they are having. This "News" is merely HISTORY.
Later
Martin
True. but that doesn't mean that it's fair game to release to the news media.
True. but that doesn't mean that it's fair game to release to the news media.
Sir, I perceive that I am deeply ignorant of some of the guiding principles and reasons behind OPSEC. Therefore, please understand that I am asking to learn.
If the opposing forces know the details, and if the events are historical and not current, why restrict the information? I recognize that some information about how things are done can never be released, and I guess there are sensitive issues that should not be discussed, but I speak now of the general case.
Patriot007
05-19-2009, 07:00
Maybe it's time to fight back, start releasing sensitive information about where these politicians and journalists are spending their free time, where they work, and the times they are alone and vulnerable.
Sir, I perceive that I am deeply ignorant of some of the guiding principles and reasons behind OPSEC. Therefore, please understand that I am asking to learn.
If the opposing forces know the details, and if the events are historical and not current, why restrict the information? I recognize that some information about how things are done can never be released, and I guess there are sensitive issues that should not be discussed, but I speak now of the general case.
AM was simply pointing out that the bad guys have lots of eyes/ears. Even if the local eyes/ears missed it they KNOW somthing has changed when they start feeling the pain (in whatever form that "pain" is). So it's easy to start to put 2 and 2 togehter. So if it's "History" in the fact that is simply talking about somethign that the bad guys already KNOW.
I agree with AM. Probably not the most devistating release of information ever, BUT... There is no reason to release it. What if someone only SUSPECTED or THOUGHT.....What if this causes problems with Pakistani public opinion. What is the burning need to get this info to the media?
Is it possible that this particular release of information is working to help sustain the war effort? There are any number of politicians and talking heads who are screaming "this thing is over, we lost." Maybe someone wants to show that we have the capacity to change the playbook i.e. "put boots on the ground in PAK."
greenberetTFS
05-19-2009, 19:14
Just found this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html) over at Small Wars Journal.
SFC W
SFC W,
They didn't send their names and pictures.......:rolleyes: Maybe that's in the next issue,and address's so the Taliban can send them Xmas cards........:mad:
GB TFS :munchin
BUT... There is no reason to release it. What if someone only SUSPECTED or THOUGHT.....What if this causes problems with Pakistani public opinion. What is the burning need to get this info to the media?
I guess I can see several possibilities.
One is that the leak occurred as a matter of official policy for positive reasons - perhaps to generate support for the war, as JacobGL suggests, or maybe to create confusing information for some other reason. It might even be intended to reassure those who have expressed concern about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
The alternative is that someone leaked the information to gain a personal benefit of some sort without regard to greater issues. That could, of course, create all the problems you've suggested. If that is the case, then perhaps prosecution of the leaker should be pursued.
Although I can certainly understand concern for the troops and the mission, there is also a political dimension to the situation. Maybe news stories can improve public support for military initiatives. Therefore, perhaps the desire to provide information to the media springs from a goal of enhanced public relations. I suspect the public has a considerable appetite for such information, which helps explain the eagerness among the media to spread the story.
I'm sure you realize that the story of Special Forces soldiers going into a distant and dangerous area engages a great many people. It might be the key to attracting more recruits, if not to the SF, then to other branches. And, too, it could influence people to believe that the national leadership are addressing a dangerous situation.
Of course, if my views are in error, I always welcome correction.
...Although I can certainly understand concern for the troops and the mission, there is also a political dimension to the situation. Maybe news stories can improve public support for military initiatives.....
nmap;
A mission is a process. From notification at home station, to getting ready/planning, deployment, execution in the host country, redeployment and cleanup write the AARs.
Depending on the mission OPSEC is stressed to the troops involved. You are told what you can say to even your family. You get in country and continue to do your best to maintain OPSEC and one morning you open up the local English copy of the local paper and there it is - the full layout of your mission. "Oh, crap!"
You are in a country where drive by shootings, riots and bombings happen all the time. The next time you pull out to go to a range Omar at the corner stall gives you a sullen glance.
At that point in time most of us could hardly care less about "news stories can improve public support for military initiatives...."
Thank you, Sir, for helping me understand.
The world experienced by Special Forces soldiers is so different from what I see that there is sometimes a gap (Grand Canyon sized) in my awareness.
Thank you, Sir, for helping me understand.
The world experienced by Special Forces soldiers is so different from what I see that there is sometimes a gap (Grand Canyon sized) in my awareness.
They do not understand that when we are on the ground there is nothing between us and the bad guys except our skills and methods. By the Politicians sitting in a nice office in DC playing Politics it endangers troops on the ground. Unless you have been there most people can not understand.
This is why I hate Politicians.......
alright4u
05-20-2009, 11:23
Richard and other QP's have stated the truth. The last thing any of us want is for our loved ones to find out where the hell we really are from any third party. I have never heard of/seen so many OPSEC breaches in my life since dumb ass Geraldo drew a sand table while being with a US unit south of Baghdad. This is sheer treason. Then the damn NYT tells the enemy how we track them. Shit, these used to be firing squad or hanging offenses.
I recall in early Jan 69 our CO at CCS telling us that Donald Duncan was in country looking to write about SOG. We were all told to stay away from him, as were the men at CCC and CCN. Well, I came back from the launch site one night with the FAC for a night at CCS. CPT Harrison pulled out a Newsweek or Time magazine. Sure enough the story was there about CCN, CCC,and CCS. It went on about SCU ( Special Commando Units), who were ranger like trained and led by SF. I doubt any SOG man said a word to Duncan. He probably got his damn info from a REMF in Nha Trang. I doubt any of the Delta guys said a damn word to his sad ass either. Yes, he wrote the New Legions in about 65 or so.
It fries my ass when men risk their lives to do the most dangerous missions, sign 20 plus year agreements to never talk about where they were, and; then some clown, who damn sure does have the balls to volunteer or even serve in in a real combat job runs his mouth.
I can tell you a true story. 1LT Harrigan's mother never knew where he died until she called me a few years back. He died with Shriver. That 86 year old lady was thrilled to talk to me and my top NCO in the company as we told her the truth about how good he was, what he did, and; how we considered him a true hero. What impressed her the most was talking to my top NCO in the company, who told her-" your son learned, wanted to learn to be the best, and; he listened to the SF NCO's. He became so good, that we NCO's trusted him to lead us anywhere." The same was true of Jerry Shriver's mother and his sister. We all told her the truth. She was relieved to hear the truth, and; she wrote me.
"We damn sure do not need more SF men killed because of OPSEC violations. "
Please tell these people who print this crap that you consider them traitors."
While I was in Legislative Affairs, I had to do a course sponsored by GWU in DC on Congressional Operations.
We had a speaker come in to talk to us about the media. He was a reporter for AP. I asked him how he slept at night knowing that he, and those like him put people like me, my husband and my son in harms way by printing things they sure as hell know they have no right printing, just so they could get a story in the paper.
He told me the citizen's "right to know" was more important than OPSEC, I pointed out that US citizens aren't the only ones reading the paper and the internet, and if he was so pompous and stupid, he could expect to see me with a gun in my hand, pointed at his head, if anything he personally wrote ever put one of my loved ones in harms way.
He almost had me thrown out. Luckily there were enough military folks in the class that they all seconded what I had to say, and the class was pretty much finished early because he walked out.
I had no idea how strong the feelings ran on this issue, although I suppose I should have known. As it's explained here, I begin to understand the viewpoint that OPSEC trumps other considerations. I get the impression that civilian and military perspectives are even more divergent than I had thought. I appreciate the opportunity to learn.
alright4u
05-21-2009, 12:16
Let me cover this right to know BS as I see it.
1. If I do not have a TSN security clearance, and; I am not in a TSN job, I do not have the right to know about any TSN program period. When I had a TSN, I knew only about our nuclear capiblity- not any others. 2.
2.Security clearances that are basic to one's job entitles one the right to know only what he/she needs to know to do the job.
3.Show me any reporter with a TS or TS plus clearance with a right to know. This right to know BS is a flawed argument.
I think former VP Cheney's statements in regards to this issue today in his televised speech were well said and in line with what the QP's here are saying. I only wish the current leadership had their views more in line with not handicapping the folks whose mission and duty is to keep us safe.
I'd rather give you folks free reign to do your job and what you're good at and never know the result and not suffer any future attacks or incident than have some LA Times or NYT reporter trying to justify his parasitic existence and salary by putting all of you in further danger. It seems the only thing our enemies understand and respect is overwhelming violence of action and force. I would like all of you to have the opportunity to 'take them to school.' Just my outsiders $.02
MARSOC0211
05-21-2009, 12:46
The actual clause used is NEED to KNOW, so that “right to know” is total BS. That is why there are caveats within the clearance system. The general public, and all of us for that matter, do not have the “right to know” everything. Just be content with the fact someone somewhere is risking their life IOT ensure the safety, security, and general well being of our beloved country.
The Reaper
05-21-2009, 12:50
I think former VP Cheney's statements in regards to this issue today in his televised speech were well said and in line with what the QP's here are saying. I only wish the current leadership had their views more in line with not handicapping the folks whose mission and duty is to keep us safe.
I'd rather give you folks free reign to do your job and what you're good at and never know the result and not suffer any future attacks or incident than have some LA Times or NYT reporter trying to justify his parasitic existence and salary by putting all of you in further danger. It seems the only thing our enemies understand and respect is overwhelming violence of action and force. I would like all of you to have the opportunity to 'take them to school.' Just my outsiders $.02
Concur.
If the D-Day invasion was taking place today, the NYT would provide, in advance, the date, time, location, units, and all relevant details in a special German language edition, then print an inside story afterwards on how the military botched the operation.
TR
My two cents are that the civilians' 'right to know' is covered by the fact that the armed services answer to civilian authorities that are ultimately answerable to voting civilians.
What ever value the fourth estate adds to the process of informing the citizenry was compromised long ago when getting the story right and reporting it correctly took a back seat to getting the story out first-- propriety and accuracy be damned.
The Freedom of Information Act addressed what the public does and does not have a right to know. I'm not a lawyer and would appreciate the experts insight, but I find it easy to conceive that releasing information that the public does not have a right to know (thus violating the US Code) would be prosecutable. Publishing sensitive information in the newspaper is just as treacherous as dead dropping it in a manila envelope for a specific enemy entity to obtain.
However, it seems like there may be a risk created by the FOIA by its specificity in exemptions from releasable information. The FOIA specifically prohibits the release of information that is of national security or foreign policy concern. Furthermore note what determines that information is of such a nature as to be kept secret: Executive Order. My understanding of this clause gives complete discretion to the issuer of an executive order.
US Code, Title 5, Section 522(b)(1-3) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc5.wais&start=187300&SIZE=125455&TYPE=TEXT), p.28
In regards to subsection (a), which requires the release of requested information:
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices
of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than
section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires
that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular
criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to
be withheld;
Interestingly enough, information relating to the locations of our wells seem to be held in higher regard than the locations of our troops. No "ifs, ands, ors, or buts about it".
(continuation from s522(b))
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including
maps, concerning wells.
The way I interpret this would mean that if there was no EO and the specific information is not "in fact properly classified", it is fair game. Now, assuming that everybody who will ever have the authority to issue an EO has US interests at the top of their priority list, we're all fine. But that is a heck of a big assumption to make. I suspect we will see less and less sensitive information being properly classified as to prevent its release. By the time I'm downrange each unit could have it's own placemark on Google Earth, updated weekly. Let's hope this trend dies soon.
I have no right to know the number of QPs operating in a region in Pakistan, or who they're training. That information has the potential to hinder security and strain foreign relations. I'm ready to see an end to the media prodding and exploring for information to distribute to the enemy. They are as good as HFI operating in the open.
-JD
I think former VP Cheney's statements in regards to this issue today in his televised speech were well said and in line with what the QP's here are saying. I only wish the current leadership had their views more in line with not handicapping the folks whose mission and duty is to keep us safe.
I'd rather give you folks free reign to do your job and what you're good at and never know the result and not suffer any future attacks or incident than have some LA Times or NYT reporter trying to justify his parasitic existence and salary by putting all of you in further danger. It seems the only thing our enemies understand and respect is overwhelming violence of action and force. I would like all of you to have the opportunity to 'take them to school.' Just my outsiders $.02
The Bush administration DOES NOT get a pass on this issue. I was in a unit dealing with some planning issues. We kept numbered copies of every brief we ever built, and they were kept in the SCIF. One of my daily duties was to scan the Early Bird and see what kind of information was being leaked about what we were doing. The leaks all came from Rumsfelds office.
Political expediency is more important to many politicians, than the lives they put at risk by talking to a reporter. It doesn't matter what party they are affiliated with.
alright4u
05-21-2009, 15:49
My two cents are that the civilians' 'right to know' is covered by the fact that the armed services answer to civilian authorities that are ultimately answerable to voting civilians.
What ever value the fourth estate adds to the process of informing the citizenry was compromised long ago when getting the story right and reporting it correctly took a back seat to getting the story out first-- propriety and accuracy be damned.
__________________
Everything that is worthwhile is to some extent subjective. For instance, you sitting there may be merely my dream, and I may be your nightmare.
Vladimir Nabokov ISBN-10 0156027755, p. 4.
Read your profile. An historian with a Naval interest. What is Navy history on this site?
This is an ages old proverbially double-edged sword for modern societies. James Eichner, in his biography Thomas jefferson: The Complete Man, describes the following incident having occurred while Jefferson was President:
A German visitor to the white House saw there a newspaper full of abuse of president Jefferson and asked why the President did not have the fellow who wrote it hanged.
"What? Hang the guardian of the public morals?" asked Jefferson. "Put that paper into your pocket, my good friend," he told the visiter, "and carry it with you to Europe, and when you hear anyone doubt the reality of American freedom, show them that newspaper and tell them where you found it."
I do not know what the answer may be to this quandry - and remain conflicted (if that's a word) myself over the complexities of the issue. However, my personal belief in this nation's ideals is so strong that I tend to side with Jefferson's points-of-view and fear more the alternatives.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
uboat509
05-22-2009, 09:05
I do not know what the answer may be to this quandry - and remain conflicted (if that's a word) myself over the complexities of the issue. However, my personal belief in this nation's ideals is so strong that I tend to side with Jefferson's points-of-view and fear more the alternatives.
Richard's $.02
I often don't like the press or the decisions that they make. I don't like that they are more often motivated by ratings than by any noble purpose. But I do honestly believe that the alternative is worse.
SFC W
If the D-Day invasion was taking place today, the NYT would provide, in advance, the date, time, location, units, and all relevant details in a special German language edition,
I agree completely with TR. It seems to me (again, trusting a deteriorating memory bank) that the NYT did devulge " sensitive " information and details during WWII. I know the certainly did so in the Korean and Cold Wars.
As long as politicians place their own pseudo importance above the well being and safety of those that serve, its highly unlikely that any media reporters will brough to task for printing "information from an UN-NAMED source".
In 1970, I was the Operations NCO for the DCSINTEL at Hq TASCOMEUR in Germany. One day I went to lunch at an Italian Restaurant with my friend Mike Dittman who was a civilian counter intelligence agent. As we ate our lunches, we overheard an American woman ask her lunch partner if her husband had responded to the Nuclear Weapons leak the previous night at Masweiler Army Depot. The woman went on to explain that her husband had been called out of bed at 3:00 a. m. to respond to a nuclear weapons leak and she didn't know when he would be home.
Mike and I were both in civilian clothing and the women didn't know that we were Americans too. Mike and I followed the women out of the restaurant and watched as they got into a car with U.S.A. license plates and drove off. We, of course wrote down the plate numbers. After lunch, I approached the DCSINTEL, and related what Dittman and I had overheard. General Poag (former SF) blanched and swore me to secrecy. He asked me who the car was registered to and I told him that it was a major from DCSLOG. The General got on the phone and called Masweiler immediately. He had the officer in his office within five hourrs and revoked the Major's security clearance. The Major shortly received orders to report to an Ordinance Depot in Bushy Park, England.
Read your profile. An historian with a Naval interest. What is Navy history on this site?
Alright4u--
This BB does not often touch on issues related to naval affairs.
This BB is improving my understanding of SOF in general and SF in particular.
I am also enriched by the friendships I've developed with a few members of this BB, the intensity of the discussions, and one of the QP's writing style.
Maybe someone need to Goggle GEN Repass' interview with Fay Obs when he took office of USASFC. maybe he didn't go into details, but ....