Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World?

Are the actions and operations of Special Forces stabilising or destabilising the contemporary world? While the USA is by far the most widespread user of special forces operations globally, this topic should also includes the activities of similar forces from other states. Is it wise and pragmatic to wage hidden wars covered by the veil of secrecy or does this just permit abuse of military force while at the same time exacerbating tensions which erupt into open warfare later? Examples are Syria where US, British, French, Russian and possibly Canadian special forces operations eventually escalated mission creep to where now regular forces are involved turning a civil war into a wider proxy war. A second example is Libya where special forces operations in conjunction with aerial military intervention further destabilised an already fractured country.

It should be obvious from my initial post that I think they are a net negative, but given the clandestine nature of their operations, who can really know?

So please offer opinions and if you feel so inclined back them up with cited evidence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

We have had as a goal for a very long time, continual destabilization of the middle east and south america, among others. It is a for profit business for the military contractor, arms dealer and mass surveillance industries and serves the interests if Wall Street and the "job creator" class.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum:

Who is the "We" you mention? The USA, the West, all foreign states, American voters, powerful and politically influential groups like NGOs or corporations? Please be more specific.

For the sake of discussion, if the policy of the USA is selective regional destabilisation then why bother hiding it with the use of special forces?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

Fenton Lum:

Who is the "We" you mention? The USA, the West, all foreign states, American voters, powerful and politically influential groups like NGOs or corporations? Please be more specific.

For the sake of discussion, if the policy of the USA is selective regional destabilisation then why bother hiding it with the use of special forces?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I'm here particularly referring to the USA and collaborators. Why? We can't claim "exceptionalism" and do what we do. I mean we do, but it's obviously schizophrenic.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

Are the actions and operations of Special Forces stabilising or destabilising the contemporary world? While the USA is by far the most widespread user of special forces operations globally, this topic should also includes the activities of similar forces from other states. Is it wise and pragmatic to wage hidden wars covered by the veil of secrecy or does this just permit abuse of military force while at the same time exacerbating tensions which erupt into open warfare later? Examples are Syria where US, British, French, Russian and possibly Canadian special forces operations eventually escalated mission creep to where now regular forces are involved turning a civil war into a wider proxy war. A second example is Libya where special forces operations in conjunction with aerial military intervention further destabilised an already fractured country.

It should be obvious from my initial post that I think they are a net negative, but given the clandestine nature of their operations, who can really know?

So please offer opinions and if you feel so inclined back them up with cited evidence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Possibly it is less the special forces and the removal of a warlord or dictator than how and who organises the restabilisation and maintains security, while the society comes to grips with a new form of governing itself.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum said:

I'm here particularly referring to the USA and collaborators. Why? We can't claim "exceptionalism" and do what we do. I mean we do, but it's obviously schizophrenic.

Click to expand...

Not really. But we do not have the stomach for the methods required in many cases.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

joG said:

Not really. But we do not have the stomach for the methods required in many cases.

Click to expand...

Stomach, lack of humanity, whatever it take to foment violence and pursue economic colonialism.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum said:

Stomach, lack of humanity, whatever it take to foment violence and pursue economic colonialism.

Click to expand...

Don't be so superficial.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

joG said:

Don't be so superficial.

Click to expand...

Brillant rebuttal.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

The primary job of the Army S.F.O. is to train and then advise insurgent forces in nations we are in conflict with, and to train and then advise counter-insurgency forces for nations we are allied with or otherwise support.

There are other secondary operational capabilities, but that is the primary mission.

If you read the first mission as "destabilizing," then in the context of nations we are in conflict with you would be correct.

If you read the second mission as "stabilizing," then in the context of nations we support, you would be correct.

Special Forces is also an overall tag for special units in all the branches. This would include Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, Army Rangers and Airborne units. Even the Air Force has a special forces air unit that provides air transport and support for the other branches.

In the case of those units? NO, they are not destabilizing. They have clear cut combat missions, as exemplified by the SEAL operation that got Osama.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

Are the actions and operations of Special Forces stabilising or destabilising the contemporary world? While the USA is by far the most widespread user of special forces operations globally, this topic should also includes the activities of similar forces from other states. Is it wise and pragmatic to wage hidden wars covered by the veil of secrecy or does this just permit abuse of military force while at the same time exacerbating tensions which erupt into open warfare later? Examples are Syria where US, British, French, Russian and possibly Canadian special forces operations eventually escalated mission creep to where now regular forces are involved turning a civil war into a wider proxy war. A second example is Libya where special forces operations in conjunction with aerial military intervention further destabilised an already fractured country.

It should be obvious from my initial post that I think they are a net negative, but given the clandestine nature of their operations, who can really know?

So please offer opinions and if you feel so inclined back them up with cited evidence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's wise to keep military operations secret. It would be hard to launch successful operations if we informed the terrorists that we were coming.

It's hard to say the death of Osama Bin Laden is "destabilizing". Neither is the example you used, in which special forces are aiding in the fight against ISIS. That's not "destabilizing".

Gaddafi dug his own grave with his sponsorship of terrorism across the globe. The idea that many of the far left and far right seem to have that he was some sort of enlightened leader is rather amusing.

I'm sure the terrorists who keep getting wiped out by special forces troops don't like it very much.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum said:

We have had as a goal for a very long time, continual destabilization of the middle east and south america, among others. It is a for profit business for the military contractor, arms dealer and mass surveillance industries and serves the interests if Wall Street and the "job creator" class.

Click to expand...

:roll:

You posting the same rant over and over and over again may seem amusing to you, but it doesn't convince anybody.

No sane government would let people like Shining Path or AQ take power if they could take measures to advert it.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum said:

We have had as a goal for a very long time, continual destabilization of the middle east and south america, among others. It is a for profit business for the military contractor, arms dealer and mass surveillance industries and serves the interests if Wall Street and the "job creator" class.

Click to expand...

Of course you have zero proof of this right?

Do you know how often our special forces are called out on humanitarian rescues, interference missions, and to take out bad guys who are terrorizing entire regions?

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

joG said:

Possibly it is less the special forces and the removal of a warlord or dictator than how and who organises the restabilisation and maintains security, while the society comes to grips with a new form of governing itself.

Click to expand...

joG:

Fair point. But that raises the following question. Why remove a foreign government (even a bad one) if you do not possess the wherewithal to replace it with something better?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Tigerace117 said:

:roll:

You posting the same rant over and over and over again may seem amusing to you, but it doesn't convince anybody.

No sane government would let people like Shining Path or AQ take power if they could take measures to advert it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm kinda referring more to the supporting of Saddam and Osama, the supporting AQ and ISIS, selling N Korea nuclear reactors from a company Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of a mere two years before we placed them on an "axis of evil" list, selling the Wahabists another $110B in arms while selling Qatar fighter jets, supplying the Wahabist Saudis the cluster bombs (known to have a 90% collaterl casualty rate in the field) that they rain down on Yemen, you know, that kinda stuff.

As for convincing you of anything? Pfffffft. Horses to water is a pretty common phenomenon.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum said:

We have had as a goal for a very long time, continual destabilization of the middle east and south america, among others. It is a for profit business for the military contractor, arms dealer and mass surveillance industries and serves the interests if Wall Street and the "job creator" class.

Click to expand...

how many times could one state BINGO?

If it were one million & one times it would not be enough times as a reply to your post ............

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

joG:

Fair point. But that raises the following question. Why remove a foreign government (even a bad one) if you do not possess the wherewithal to replace it with something better?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Clear and present danger. Precedent as a means of dissuasion.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Fenton Lum said:

Yeah, I'm kinda referring more to the supporting of Saddam and Osama, the supporting AQ and ISIS, selling N Korea nuclear reactors from a company Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of a mere two years before we placed them on an "axis of evil" list, selling the Wahabists another $110B in arms while selling Qatar fighter jets, supplying the Wahabist Saudis the cluster bombs (known to have a 90% collaterl casualty rate in the field) that they rain down on Yemen, you know, that kinda stuff.

As for convincing you of anything? Pfffffft. Horses to water is a pretty common phenomenon.

Click to expand...

We've been over this over and over buddy. Even when Saddam was fighting Iran he was hardly "our boy" as evidenced by the fact that we promptly kicked him out of Kuwait several years later. But somehow you always forget about that.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that the Mujahideen and the Taliban are two completely different organizations.

Gee pal, listening to people like you who thought the US was being a big meanie to North Korea and letting them have those reactors doesn't seem like such a great idea anymore does it.

Selling our allies weapons? No. Way. :shock: :roll:

Which is why you copy and paste the same lame rant ever third post.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

Fenton Lum:

Who is the "We" you mention? The USA, the West, all foreign states, American voters, powerful and politically influential groups like NGOs or corporations? Please be more specific.

For the sake of discussion, if the policy of the USA is selective regional destabilisation then why bother hiding it with the use of special forces?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Can't believe this but I'm actually agreeing with Fenton Lum.

The Russians were invited in by a sovereign nation-state that is one of members of the United Nations. They had and have a right to use special operations units in Syria if authorized by the Syrian Government.

Yes, I believe invading other nations with Special ops forces creates problems--generally speaking.

I mean... I keep asking when Germany is going to invade the USA with German special ops troops or regular forces to free Americans from the two-party dictatorship? But I don't see German troops hitting the ground.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Captain Adverse said:

The primary job of the Army S.F.O. is to train and then advise insurgent forces in nations we are in conflict with, and to train and then advise counter-insurgency forces for nations we are allied with or otherwise support.

There are other secondary operational capabilities, but that is the primary mission.

If you read the first mission as "destabilizing," then in the context of nations we are in conflict with you would be correct.

If you read the second mission as "stabilizing," then in the context of nations we support, you would be correct.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse:

Is it in the interests of the American people to topple a popularly supported governments in "conflict" with the American State when they pose no real threat to the American people or their homeland? Likewise, is it in the Amercan peoples' interests to prop up an unpopular government if many of the people of that state want it removed? In both cases are you not just creating the conditions for a wider conflict down the road and thus further destabilising the world? How much of the "training" involves actual combat by American personnel? If Canadian SFO with the Kurds are anything to go on, it's quite a large component of the "training".

Should the nature of the regimes being attacked or supported be a matter for public debate by the American people before such operations are initiated by elected or appointed US state personnel or agencies? Should after the fact disclosure of operations be required so that the people and interested American parties have a chance to review what is being done in their names and to ensure best practices are being followed? Should a state be held accountable for the actions of its SF operators and the local proxies the SFO have trained?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

Are the actions and operations of Special Forces stabilising or destabilising the contemporary world? While the USA is by far the most widespread user of special forces operations globally, this topic should also includes the activities of similar forces from other states. Is it wise and pragmatic to wage hidden wars covered by the veil of secrecy or does this just permit abuse of military force while at the same time exacerbating tensions which erupt into open warfare later? Examples are Syria where US, British, French, Russian and possibly Canadian special forces operations eventually escalated mission creep to where now regular forces are involved turning a civil war into a wider proxy war. A second example is Libya where special forces operations in conjunction with aerial military intervention further destabilised an already fractured country.

It should be obvious from my initial post that I think they are a net negative, but given the clandestine nature of their operations, who can really know?

So please offer opinions and if you feel so inclined back them up with cited evidence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Whassamatta you eBilroddy? You got no business sense? If you don't have wars, you don't have a good war business. When your business is "privatizing profits and socializing liabilities," the first step is to destabilize some backwater Nation that is in control of a desirable natural resource or R.O.W. by throwing them up against a wall for harboring terrorists. If they don't have terrorists, get them some. We, the USA, send in al Qeda. Saudi Arabia and Qatar send in ISIS. Now you got terrorists. We bomb everything and everybody and shed crocodile tears for the collaterol damage. Wars run on Energy so the Energy CORPORATIONS get good profits. Bullets are used up, so the Ammo CORPORATIONS get good profits. Weapons are used up, so the weapons manufacturing CORPORATIONS get good profits. Bombs are used up, so the Bomb CORPORATIONS get good profits. Aircraft, tanks, humvees, rocket launchers, night vision, mortars, TOWs, RPGs, camo, boots, and gear of all type create renewed orders for the manufacturing CORPORATIONS. Banks finance all these purchases at both ends. Simple, no? Just have Special Ops destabilize any useful area like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and BOOM! Wowser! Now your PR agencies, a/k/a MSM, create a cacaphony of gerbish promoting the need to protect, R2P, the third world backwater from themselves and VOILA! Instant war. Lots of profits. Resources are privati;zed and liabilities are socialized. I cite US backed al Qeda in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as acknowledged by USA leadership. I cite $110 billion dollars of arms sales to S. A. Another $10 billion of arms sales to Qatar. I cite the USA mantra, "THE BUSINESS OF THE USA IS BUSINESS." I cite the business mantra of Corporate Amerika, "WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, BUSINESS IS GOOD".

'/

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Tigerace117 said:

Yes, it's wise to keep military operations secret. It would be hard to launch successful operations if we informed the terrorists that we were coming.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117:

I don't think anyone would challenge the need for operational security during an on-going operation. The question is should after the fact disclosure of SFO be required once operations are completed? Is there a real need for post-operational secrecy so long as such disclosures don't reveal means and methods best kept secret for good reason (not political expediency)?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

Evilroddy said:

Tigerace117:

I don't think anyone would challenge the need for operational security during an on-going operation. The question is should after the fact disclosure of SFO be required once operations are completed? Is there a real need for post-operational secrecy so long as such disclosures don't reveal means and methods best kept secret for good reason (not political expediency)?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Well, sometimes I suppose. I think it would depend on the situation--- like in Vietnam when the enemy had invaded Cambodia and used it as staging bases to attack our troops' flank. We couldn't let something like that go, but there would be a huge ****storm of criticism once we did crush their bases in Cambodia. Which is why we had to use special forces to hinder the enemy until we could strike in full force.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

DaveFagan:

An interesting but somewhat breathless response! I am sympathetic to many of your points you made in that digital mini-tsunami. But it doesn't answer the question I asked. The question is, "Do SFO stabilise or destabilise the contemporary world?". It is not, "Why would some governments like to destabilise the world or parts of it?". That would be a follow on question and a very valid one once this thread has fully developed.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Are Special Forces Operations Stabilising or Destabilising the Contemporary World

I am not nor have I ever been in the military but it seems clear the point of the military as currently trained is not nation building but rather enemy suppression. Large land armies were a disaster in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I am amazed that anyone with the education available to the military would advocate a large land army in any of the countries mentioned. We had a beef with Al Qaeda after 911 and thats it. Seems like keyhole, CIA, NSA, the various special ops, cruise missiles and those c-130 gunships were more then adequate to knock down Al Qaeda.