[DX251]

This thread topic is something I think about a lot. Though I have yet to be deployed and am by no means a BTDT I want to see how my thoughts sit with those of you who have been down range before.

Does having an uncoventional warfare MANUAL, especially in the hands of conventional leaders make unconventional warfare less unconventional? In other words does having predetermined strategies for an unconventional enemy undermine the necessity for "out of the box" thinking that SF is so well trained to utilize?

What might the results be of reducing conventional troop levels, but simultaneously increasing the flexibility given to SF and SOF along with their support elements to function without so much top down central planning from the chain above?

Seems to me that this war is perfectly designed for SF and SOF to basically be "unleashed." I remember a video clip from somewhere, maybe on this site, about SF soldiers ousting the taliban in a very short period of time in the beggining days of the war mostly because ya'll were given more freedom to utilize the kind of training that SF stands for.

Also, what repercussions/advantages would come from possibly reducing the amount of money we poor into nation building and trying to be friends with everyone and allocate some of that money over to SF and SOF to further fight the enemy? I fully understand the need to win hearts and minds, especially in order to obtain intelligence. However, are we doing this so much that we lose sight of the fact that there is an enemy that is relentless in the pursuit of our destruction?

Finally, for the BTDTs, is there any thinking from those involved that this might be a war that is not so much a win/lose type of conflict so much as more of a maintenance war? Here is what I mean...the GWOT, mainly radical Islamic terrorists is comprised of a staggering number of enemy combatants that I believe are never going to go away. Ever. At least not any time soon. Their religious beliefs mandate them to always bring the fight to us. That being said, what would the ramifications be of treating the conflict in the middle east with our enemies as more of a pest problem? One that requires consistent action for many years to come by the US and her allies to more so mitigate the problem to a safer level through SF and SOF and their support elements. I say this because I do not see radical Islamic terrorism every dying out. It is too rooted in their beliefe structure. Some might say hell no thats too expensive and too labor intensive, but could we do it while also reducing our conventional troop numbers thus saving more money and allocating some of it to our more financially efficient SF/SOF units to do what they are trained to do. That being force multiplication with indigenous forces and turning enemy combatants into swiss cheese.

Sorry for the long post, just always wanted to hear the BTDTs opinions on some of my thoughts. I welcome any criticism/praise, just please be respectful as all of you have my complete respect for your expertise and bravery. Thanks.