posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:45 PM
There are a few facts you my not be aware regarding this topic.
Special Forces (as a unit) exsists only as a unit within the United States Army (Uncle Sam Aint Released Me Yet). The term I believe is Special
Operations which I believe was also coined in the USA back in the 1980's when different 'Special Operational' units began joint operations as
alluded in this thread, different units are trained for different missions.
Small units tactics behind enemy lines require much the same skills (forms of infiltration, movement within an AO, and of course the mission
In the US the units are picked for specific mission to match the unit's expertise with the mission requirements.
I personally hold SAS in high regard, and in fact their selections process is very demanding and few make it to a squadron.
I'm partial to US Special Forces, which has been confused with many units within the Spec Ops community, it is however a seperate enitity to itself,
with its own selection process, qualification, and advanced training schools.
I would say that the mission would dictate which unit is best for an operations. To clearify one mis-understanding SF units train and perform long
range and prolonged missions. Some have been deployed and remained in enemy territory for up to a year sometimes 1 1/2 years. We train to assemilate
into the culture of the people we work with , adopt there tabbos, learn their language and live them on a daily basis.
To the best of my knowledge SAS missions are short deployments throughout a possible long mission statement i.e. strat recon of an area for as long as
there is interest.. for example the long term involvement with the IRA activist which has become the final qualification for new SAS candidates.
My apologies for the long winded reply, however this is a subject often confused and misapplied by laymen and professionals (the press) who you would
expect to be better informed.