Obama Has Special Forces Operating in 75 Nations

Are you guys kidding? This article is a joke.

Special forces have had reputation of taking out the enemy before the enemy even knows they are there. We don't announce to the world that we are sending them before they get there. Most of the time they do the mission and get out secretly, that's what they are trained to do!

The title of this thread should be, special forces, doing their job well. Or, special forces, doing what they were trained to do.

These are the guys who risk their lives and don't get credit for it, they don't expect it. The last highly public mission that I remember reading about was when the SEAL's took out those pirates who were holding an American captain hostage. The only reason we knew about that was because the story was posted all over the news.

So the answer is yes, SF does their job and we don't hear about it.

reply to post by Styki


sounds more like your post is a joke, i was laughing anyhow casue guess what bud..

Military and senior administration officials said Special Operations forces have grown in numbers and budget allocations, and now are deployed in 75 countries, up from about 60 countries at the beginning of 2009

www.upi.com...

the cats out of the bag... bummer for you.

So much for our Nobel Peace Prize winner? Now it is back to running and gunning in the jungle, desert, and mountains. From sea to shinning sea. Subverting governments, political assassinations, death squads, destruction to infrastructure, and other black op activities. Wow! This type of behavior by a man who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize? If he had any fiber of self-respect and common reason, he should have respectfully declined the award given his office as Commander and Chief. By accepting the award and formally admitting to black ops in countries not at war with the US, he is turning the Nobel Peace Prize into a mockery.

I am not surprised in the least, because just about every politician seems out for self instead of the greater good. This escalation certainly is on par with Present Bush's covert operations, or vastly surpasses it? We will have to wait and see? Still, this type of behavior is only going to weaken the image of the US even further. We all know where these type of operations lead to: like democratically leaders being deposed resulting in destabilization, death squads, corruption, war crimes, acts of torture, and other malicious affairs. I am referring to the CIA led ousting of Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadeqh, Iran/Contra, Operation Phoenix, Air America, and the illegal military activities in both Cambodia and Laos. Each of the instances listed above where covert ops and led to disastrous consequences when the dust finally settled.

Moreover, it gives the United States government the right to use military personnel and intelligence assets with unwarranted ambiguity in the scope and responsibility if something goes wrongs. For instance, forces will be sent into harms way with unmarked uniforms and no identification. It was done before in Vietnam, and I am certain there are instances of stories involving captures and mishaps that remain secret to this day. As it stands, if something goes wrong, the US government can deny all knowledge or involvement in a military operation that took place in a nation not formally at war with the US.

Now, I am not naive, and I know covert operations happen all the time. However, the very notion is secret and classified. Why has this information been released to the world in the first place? Perhaps, there is a big leak at the Department of Defense, or in the Intelligence Community? This information was probably classified before it was released to the media. Still, I am opposed to this type of behavior, because the perils caused by it in the past. Its seems to do more harm than good.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by TheCoffinman


What I am saying is that it should be no surprise that the US has SF operating in a large range of countries. That's what they do, it's what they are trained for.

The US has been involved in two semi-major wars. There are a bunch of people who are not pleased with the US right now. It should be no surprise that we need covert operations in a massive amount of countries.

Keep in mind, it may be our fault that these people hate us but they do in fact hate us. In my personal life I make mistakes which make people mad, that does not mean that I am gong to let them take swings at me (I don't really get in fights, that's just the best way to explain things).

In a perfect world we wouldn't need SF, we don't live in perfect world yet. I like to think of SF as a good thing. They are trained to hit their targets. That minimizes collateral damages.

reply to post by Styki


semi-major is hardly what id call iraq and afghanistan. neither the taliban or the iraqi regulars offered much resistance and simply melted in the face of the american war machine. insurgencies are just that, they arent wars per say. the last conventional actual war was fought in 08 in south ossetia and abkhazia.. (georgia/russia) thats what war is..

truth of the matter is that the U.S. has SOC forces with boots on the ground around the globe, and has since the inception of modernized special operations forces (late 60's into the 70's).

There is, however, a major difference between having operators in-country and actually conducting "black-operations." Many of the countries I assume are part of this list most likely have operators (which can range from intelligence gathering entities to supply and logistics personel down to combat forces) do not have active combat operations ongoing. Most of the SOC (special operations capable) forces act as advanced eyes and ears, doing very little operationally.

Obama has certainly championed the use of special operations forces in much the same way JFK did, and though it may not suffice as a strong enough argument for many, on my own word and experience, most of these forces deployed internationally do not engage in the classic "black-ops" that so many people associate with special operations capable units.

People must also account for the large amount of turbulence around the globe. If American citizens in a foreign country, say the Congo as an example, must be extracted due to one of many factors, SOC forces are the best candidates to pull them out quietly and under the radar.

I am not arguing for or against the continued use of SOC units, however there is a fine line between the silence necessary to achieve the objectives of a SOC unit and the accountability necessary to run a legitimate and humane government. I can assure you, however, that most, if not all units I have served with, trained with and otherwise come across have had very respectable and just mission objectives. That is not to say that we don't have some unaccountable shady operatives running around, but those are generally recruited and operated by the CIA, NSA and DHS (subsequently removing themselves from any list that would EVER be made public).

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Shark VA84]

reply to post by TheCoffinman


Semi-major is just a term I picked. I picked that because they are not the all out conventional type of wars. The differences between how you and I would describe "semi-major" are irrelevant.

The point is that people are upset with the US. If you would like to argue that they are not then go ahead.

Shark is right. I don't know enough about SF to say what they are doing but from the SF guys I have talked to not all of their missions are combative. From my understanding SF guys also do training as well as other missions.

reply to post by Styki


It may be less confusing to get your acronyms down. I don't mean to be a stickler, but SF, SOF, SOC, SWP, etc are all different people and units in military lingo, though some could be classified as more than one of those.

Special operations has become so encompassing that it can practically operate as its own branch of the military, and in some ways does (see SOCOM, SOC, NSWC). Operators and their supporting personell are incredibly flexible and for the most part, their assignments will be ever changing and evolving.

Communications, transport, combat, medical and all other manner of MOS' now fall under SOC in many operations. The Army and Air Force have their own SOC helicopter transport units, various branches maintain SOC communications specialists, you get the point.

The funding and support that SOC programs recieve is incredible, especially when compared to just 30 years ago.

reply to post by Shark VA84


Fair enough. I don't think the topic requires us to use detail on that level. It does help explain how this article can be misleading but lingo on that level is going to fly over most peoples heads.