To a certain extent, isn't all this the eggs arguing with the flour about the cake?
By that I do not mean to disagree with either TR or Col JM, but rather to put a finer point on it. Isn't it somewhat of a false distinction between DA and UW? Aren't both usually necessary to a mission? It was my experience (VERY limited compared to some of you men here) that most DA actions (no matter who carried them out) were built, at least partially, on intelligence gleaned through UW and FID activities.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Not saying we are better, just different from the "hammer only" DA options some of the other branches present.
|
Reminds me my community's inane arguments over which INT is superior. The truth (at least as I see it) is that there is no intrinsically better INT and any one who advocates one doesn't really understand the business...its all just a question of context. As you say, its not about a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather whats the right tool (or combination of tools, usually) for the job at hand?
Also, I don't mean to get back to Rumsfeld, but isn't the imbalance towards DA a symptom of the same attitude that saw PSYOPS and CA moved out of SOCOM and the increased tasking of FID missions to regular Army brigades? And doesn't that attitude trace right back to civillian leadership who, after OEF, became enamored with special operations without really understanding them in the necessary depth? Are we moving towards a SOCOM thats completely dedicated to HVT hunting (in the narrowest sense)?