Euphemisms like Kerry's '...someone wants something done...' make me shudder.
I can't help but come to the conclusion that any 'marginally legal if that' activity that it administered by the government will suffer from a kind of Peter Principle, where it continues being expanded until a major mistake goes public.
> I can't help but come to the conclusion that any 'marginally legal if that' activity that it administered by the government will suffer from a kind of Peter Principle, where it continues being expanded until a major mistake goes public.
No institutional activity, "marginally legal" or otherwise, is at a stable equilibrium. That's why checks and balances should exist within most systems, that's why we have freedom of the press, and that's why whistleblowing is an important (albeit last-resort) activity.
That being said, it's hard to be upset about anything in the article -- it was reasonably balanced. Moreover, you can bet that the fact this is being published will spur some degree of internal review. Seems like the system, as a whole, is working as intended.
Rogue Warrior is mandatory read. It is sad to see that the team that was created as elite unit with no fat to trim (they had no support at the begining - Marchinco trained them as pilots, medics, engineers, whatever skills were needed) has been bloated so much and used as a conventional weapon.
Also - the whole point of the Seal 6 was that they were bad boys - that way they could mask themselves as civilians.
Yes but some times Parody and satire get closer to the truth. Read Blackhawk down and you can see the same petty little hitler tendencys - making delta get military hair cuts
Whilst Marcinko is no doubt a legend, reading Rogue Warrior should be mitigated by following it up by Gormly's "Combat Swimmer". Gormly inherited the unit after Marcinko had some issues with his chain of command (whether justified or not, is up to you to decide - we all know Marcinkos) and has his own (or the Navy's?) opinions about the man. Like Kurosawa (Rashomon), it is often better to know more than one point of view...
A more balanced account of what it is like to run these kind of units can be found in Beckwith's own "Delta Force" (also consider "The Mission, The Men and Me" by Blaber and "Inside Delta Force" by Haney).
The ultimate such unit may have been the Rhodesian Selous Scouts, and whilst Pamwe Chete is out of most people's price range, there are numerous excellent books on the subject. Whether or not you agree with Rhodesian politics, the tiny unit who pulled off Operation Eland and allegedly caused the majority of enemy casualties in the Rhodesian Bush Wars is worth reading about.
In the same spirit as Rogue Warrior, check out "The Phantom Major" which chronicles Sir David Stirling's efforts to create what became the SAS. "Mad Mike" Calvert's various books pick up where Stirling allegedly left (some, such as Stiff in "See you in November", claim that Watchman International amongst others was a front for the MI6's black ops, so Stirling never really "retired") and also has some nice stuff about Orde Wingate, another interesting leader (both in results, and as a person) who unfortunately did not survive Burma.
On a separate note, in "19 with a bullet", Korff claims that the South African 1 Recce's selection procedure was 8 weeks of walking through the bush with no food except a weekly tin of beans and two slices of toast to share between two, and no weapons or kit. The unit generally sounded very interesting and I'd be grateful if anybody knows of any good books or writings, I personally have not found much.
I think the main problem is that after 6's creation the Navy had no idea what they really had on their hands. It was unconventional unit for unconventional missions. That was problem with the first two SEAL teams in Vietnam too where their potential was wasted.
Those units should be given clear mission and wide operational freedom, while it seems that the army top brass prefer to have predictable units with undefined mission (WTF is nation building and why and how should the military do it is prime example).
The NYTimes article seems to confirm that - a lot of SEAL 6 one shot missions were stellar, while their conventional ones were messy.
Always slightly embarrassing to comment on these things as a civilian (what do I know)... nevertheless...
It was worse than that - the failure of Eagle Claw was due precisely to Delta Force's operating with the help of standard branches, and "not special" logistics. We never found out whether Beckwith's plan was any good as none of the men made it to Tehran, after too many of their helicopters literally crashed on each other on the refuel site.
Beckwith was, obviously, incensed at having to cancel his first mission due to other people's incompetence, and began the lobbying process that led to the creation of JSOC in 1980. This allowed for the systematic creation of "special" units in many branches, most famously 160th SOAR and the ISA (which is very important - the Selous Scouts built their own Special Branch in part because of Reid-Daly's personality, but mainly because they found the existing one to be lacking or not quite as cooperative as required).
At the risk of creating a simplistic narrative: JSOC grew in scope and power, particularly as COIN (Counter-Insurgency - under which your "nation building" falls - see Col. Gian Gentile's book for a fairly famous critique) was making its way into the Pentagon as the new, happy, less (visible) collateral damage, cheaper, conquer countries cleanly doctrine. So special operation forces went from being strange pariahs operating on the fringes and occasionally shunned by more traditional minded commanders (including, allegedly, Norman Schwartzkopf), to (today) a desirable career passage if one is aiming to collect stars on the collar (McChrystal is a famous example).
It's important because it has changed US foreign policy. There is a large, thriving JSOC with direct contact with the President and wars have been renamed "low intensity operations", offering low cost high impact war in neat PowerPoint format. So, gradually, EO 12333, EO 12036 and EO 11905 (respective executive orders by Reagan, Carter and Ford prohibiting assassinations) were selectively relaxed starting in the late 90s. The extent to which this has impacted foreign policy is fuzzy, because anything written recently is of dubious accuracy due to operational security being maintained (should really get on to reading WikiLeaks some day). But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Green Berets had been resurrected into JSOC as a "grow a cancer in the enemy's land" type force, except more deniable than SOG or the Contras ever were.
Like Kurosawa (Rashomon), it is often better to know more than one point of view...
Of course, the theme of Rashomon was that multiple points of view don't necessarily leave you any more knowledgeable than you were before you heard them.
I disagree with you somewhat: you ARE more knowledgeable, in that you now know that you cannot be certain of the facts presented by a single source, which itself is information (the information that some of your information is unreliable).
This is an early foray into the famous known/unknown quip (in other words, watch out for unknown unknowns). The priest balances the various pieces of information and their uncertainty to make his final moral judgement, and it is more accurate than if he had only heard one of the stories.
For the length of the article it is actually very uninformed.
Not any new information. OMEAGA program has been around for years it is known for years.
SEAL team articles are hot and get readers, unfortunately this is a glorified article and its main point "no oversight" in the opening paragraph is seldom visited.
TLDR : Seal team 6 rescued many hostages, lost members, has the coolest toys in town.
> TLDR : Seal team 6 rescued many hostages, lost members, has the coolest toys in town.
A great example of a poor use of TLDR. That was not even remotely the point of the article. And instead of implying that only uninformed idiots have never heard of the "OMEAGA program" and how it's been around for years, why don't you point to mainstream sources that have previously made the point about Omega that the NYT does?
> The missions, part of the Omega Program, allowed the SEALs to conduct “deniable operations” against the Taliban and other militants in Pakistan. Omega was modeled after the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program, when C.I.A. officers and Special Operations troops conducted interrogations and assassinations to try to dismantle the Vietcong’s guerrilla networks in South Vietnam.
> Another former Team 6 member, an officer, was even more dismissive of some of the operations. “By 2010, guys were going after street thugs,” he said. “The most highly trained force in the world, chasing after street thugs.”
The satellite images of the SEAL Team 6 headquarters are credited to "Satellite images from U.S.D.A. and Google Earth"...I don't recall USDA imagery being used often, is it because other official sources of imagery have blocked these kinds of classified images?
In my (rural, midwestern) hometown, Google Earth credits the USDA for imagery in most places. Some places may not offer much value for commercial satellite overflights.
> “They have become sort of a 1-800 number anytime somebody wants something done,”
This is what happens when the military gets overused and tired; you have to reach for your "special" resources and use them as regulars. An example would be: you have an axe, and you keep chopping wood with no time to sharpen it and take care of it, it'll become dull; then your only option, if you still want to chop wood, is to bring out your Shun knife and use that.
We need to cut back on our engagements overseas, and stop fighting other peoples' wars. We need to give our military folks time to rest, regroup and retrain, and take care of themselves.
I think it's worth refining that statement. It's not really the overuse and weariness, it's the lack of boundaries and limitations that causes abuses and maladjusted behaviors. Just like any spoiled brat with too much money and too few boundaries, the military has always acted out. It is why we are constantly at war and there has never really been a time in American history when we have not been in one stage or anther of instigating, agitating, or engaging in war.
What do we do when, e.g., China starts applying our own principles and logic and they start sending in elite troops to assassinate, sabotage, and undermine our society and interests abroad? Anyone ever think past step A? The problem is we get stuck on step A because we think A stands for America.
While I respect the point your trying to make (reduce foreign intervention), in this situation your analogy isn't applicable. What happens with the Special Operations units is that they are given more funding, more independence, high fitness and personnel standards with the ability to release someone for failure to meet standards. This kind of unit attracts high caliber individuals, which the selection process picks and chooses from.
I'm gonna guess the implication is that they're being commodified and there's something more elite in the background. The military will market themselves based on the images drawn by Kathryn Bigelow and others, including the military themselves, while using it to deflect attention away from operators under other guises.
This is just speculation, but to me it seems more like we have grown to expect/demand nothing but the best performance. We don't want any operation to have even the slightest error. How do we do that? Use the crack troops every time.
After all, if ordinary troops are almost certain to get it right... doesn't that mean the crack troops are even more likely to get it right?
Very few people outside the "Conservative" echo chamber think this way. And I use Conservative in quotes because (based on my reading) very few true Conservatives would support military adventurism abroad, when our national security is not at stake.
This is almost entirely because of the Iraq war. America had quite a sufficient military, even when Afghanistan started getting bad. But it was Iraq that over-stretched every aspect of the American military apparatus. Which became very obvious by their totally dependency on PMFs like Blackwater and Halliburton to provide security.
The blow-back from Iraq also pushed America to depend on covert wars because Iraq made overt warfare totally unpopular with the public. Now everything is done via special forces during classified operations, as the book "Dirty Wars" covered so well, as not to put politicians in a place where every military operation is potentially political suicide.
I doubt we'll see many large-scale wars in the future. It will almost entirely be drone bombings + intelligence-driven covert special forces raids.
Which is good / bad. Bad because the public will never be fully informed on the number or breadth of intervention the US is engaged in. But good because less soldiers will die via conventional warfare.
This is propaganda and some of it is quite false (for example the bin Laden stuff). They are killers, enforcers, doing dirty-work for the most deadly, brutal and dominant empire the world has ever seen.
Your reality is false, a myth created to ensure the perpetuation of the status quo.
> This is propaganda and some of it is quite false (for example the bin Laden stuff). They are killers, enforcers, doing dirty-work for the most deadly, brutal and dominant empire the world has ever seen.
I have no love lost for imperialism, wherever it comes from, but it sounds like you never heard of Rome or the way Genghis Khan solved problems.
Intresting timing, I finished re-reading Haney's "Inside Delta Force" last night. Definitely pick it up (after reading Beckwith's "Delta Force").
"Rogue Warrior" (and "Red Cell", presented as fiction but if you read enough on the subject, you can realize that it's most definitely "based on true events") by Marcinko and "Combat Swimmer" by Gormly are an interesting pair, considering that Gormly replaced Marcinko after much drama.
Sadly, the "Rogue Warrior" fiction series quickly devolved into "big-dick drinkin' swearin'" pulp trash. He's changed coauthors 2-3 times now.
As an European this glorifying of people who kill other people when we're at the beginning of the 21st century is a little perplexing.
Also, by the looks of it this latest US tactic of treating wars as video-games ("lets kill the big boss and then it's game over!") is actually very counter-productive, as in it hasn't won them anything big. But, then again, long-term diplomatic strategy and trying to make sense of the world (as guys like Metternich and Talleyrand did) is a lot more complicated when you can easily send in the drones.
This article has a number of inaccuracies, the most blatant is that they incorrectly identified the base's credit union complex as the unit's new headquarters.
The HQ is still at the same old location on Dam Neck, as well as some other satellite offices, ranges, courses, etc.
40 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadSEAL Team 6 was created after the original SEAL Team 1. They wanted the Soviets to think there were 4 other teams already operating.
There's a great 6-part YouTube series on the basic SEAL training, and how incredibly demanding it is both physically and mentally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQFRePXMI9M
I can't help but come to the conclusion that any 'marginally legal if that' activity that it administered by the government will suffer from a kind of Peter Principle, where it continues being expanded until a major mistake goes public.
No institutional activity, "marginally legal" or otherwise, is at a stable equilibrium. That's why checks and balances should exist within most systems, that's why we have freedom of the press, and that's why whistleblowing is an important (albeit last-resort) activity.
That being said, it's hard to be upset about anything in the article -- it was reasonably balanced. Moreover, you can bet that the fact this is being published will spur some degree of internal review. Seems like the system, as a whole, is working as intended.
Also - the whole point of the Seal 6 was that they were bad boys - that way they could mask themselves as civilians.
Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/04/admiral-cleanliness-check/...
A more balanced account of what it is like to run these kind of units can be found in Beckwith's own "Delta Force" (also consider "The Mission, The Men and Me" by Blaber and "Inside Delta Force" by Haney).
The ultimate such unit may have been the Rhodesian Selous Scouts, and whilst Pamwe Chete is out of most people's price range, there are numerous excellent books on the subject. Whether or not you agree with Rhodesian politics, the tiny unit who pulled off Operation Eland and allegedly caused the majority of enemy casualties in the Rhodesian Bush Wars is worth reading about.
In the same spirit as Rogue Warrior, check out "The Phantom Major" which chronicles Sir David Stirling's efforts to create what became the SAS. "Mad Mike" Calvert's various books pick up where Stirling allegedly left (some, such as Stiff in "See you in November", claim that Watchman International amongst others was a front for the MI6's black ops, so Stirling never really "retired") and also has some nice stuff about Orde Wingate, another interesting leader (both in results, and as a person) who unfortunately did not survive Burma.
On a separate note, in "19 with a bullet", Korff claims that the South African 1 Recce's selection procedure was 8 weeks of walking through the bush with no food except a weekly tin of beans and two slices of toast to share between two, and no weapons or kit. The unit generally sounded very interesting and I'd be grateful if anybody knows of any good books or writings, I personally have not found much.
Those units should be given clear mission and wide operational freedom, while it seems that the army top brass prefer to have predictable units with undefined mission (WTF is nation building and why and how should the military do it is prime example).
The NYTimes article seems to confirm that - a lot of SEAL 6 one shot missions were stellar, while their conventional ones were messy.
I would give Gormly's book a shot though.
It was worse than that - the failure of Eagle Claw was due precisely to Delta Force's operating with the help of standard branches, and "not special" logistics. We never found out whether Beckwith's plan was any good as none of the men made it to Tehran, after too many of their helicopters literally crashed on each other on the refuel site.
Beckwith was, obviously, incensed at having to cancel his first mission due to other people's incompetence, and began the lobbying process that led to the creation of JSOC in 1980. This allowed for the systematic creation of "special" units in many branches, most famously 160th SOAR and the ISA (which is very important - the Selous Scouts built their own Special Branch in part because of Reid-Daly's personality, but mainly because they found the existing one to be lacking or not quite as cooperative as required).
At the risk of creating a simplistic narrative: JSOC grew in scope and power, particularly as COIN (Counter-Insurgency - under which your "nation building" falls - see Col. Gian Gentile's book for a fairly famous critique) was making its way into the Pentagon as the new, happy, less (visible) collateral damage, cheaper, conquer countries cleanly doctrine. So special operation forces went from being strange pariahs operating on the fringes and occasionally shunned by more traditional minded commanders (including, allegedly, Norman Schwartzkopf), to (today) a desirable career passage if one is aiming to collect stars on the collar (McChrystal is a famous example).
It's important because it has changed US foreign policy. There is a large, thriving JSOC with direct contact with the President and wars have been renamed "low intensity operations", offering low cost high impact war in neat PowerPoint format. So, gradually, EO 12333, EO 12036 and EO 11905 (respective executive orders by Reagan, Carter and Ford prohibiting assassinations) were selectively relaxed starting in the late 90s. The extent to which this has impacted foreign policy is fuzzy, because anything written recently is of dubious accuracy due to operational security being maintained (should really get on to reading WikiLeaks some day). But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Green Berets had been resurrected into JSOC as a "grow a cancer in the enemy's land" type force, except more deniable than SOG or the Contras ever were.
Of course, the theme of Rashomon was that multiple points of view don't necessarily leave you any more knowledgeable than you were before you heard them.
This is an early foray into the famous known/unknown quip (in other words, watch out for unknown unknowns). The priest balances the various pieces of information and their uncertainty to make his final moral judgement, and it is more accurate than if he had only heard one of the stories.
Not any new information. OMEAGA program has been around for years it is known for years.
SEAL team articles are hot and get readers, unfortunately this is a glorified article and its main point "no oversight" in the opening paragraph is seldom visited.
TLDR : Seal team 6 rescued many hostages, lost members, has the coolest toys in town.
A great example of a poor use of TLDR. That was not even remotely the point of the article. And instead of implying that only uninformed idiots have never heard of the "OMEAGA program" and how it's been around for years, why don't you point to mainstream sources that have previously made the point about Omega that the NYT does?
> The missions, part of the Omega Program, allowed the SEALs to conduct “deniable operations” against the Taliban and other militants in Pakistan. Omega was modeled after the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program, when C.I.A. officers and Special Operations troops conducted interrogations and assassinations to try to dismantle the Vietcong’s guerrilla networks in South Vietnam.
> Another former Team 6 member, an officer, was even more dismissive of some of the operations. “By 2010, guys were going after street thugs,” he said. “The most highly trained force in the world, chasing after street thugs.”
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/03/09/subredw...
This is what happens when the military gets overused and tired; you have to reach for your "special" resources and use them as regulars. An example would be: you have an axe, and you keep chopping wood with no time to sharpen it and take care of it, it'll become dull; then your only option, if you still want to chop wood, is to bring out your Shun knife and use that.
We need to cut back on our engagements overseas, and stop fighting other peoples' wars. We need to give our military folks time to rest, regroup and retrain, and take care of themselves.
What do we do when, e.g., China starts applying our own principles and logic and they start sending in elite troops to assassinate, sabotage, and undermine our society and interests abroad? Anyone ever think past step A? The problem is we get stuck on step A because we think A stands for America.
That's not a refinement; it's an ill-posed generalization based on misinformation and speculation. Please don't do that.
The responses to this article have been on-topic and clear-headed; let's keep it that way, instead of delving into predictable and boring politicking.
After all, if ordinary troops are almost certain to get it right... doesn't that mean the crack troops are even more likely to get it right?
People that think that the US overseas engagements are a charity are funny.
The blow-back from Iraq also pushed America to depend on covert wars because Iraq made overt warfare totally unpopular with the public. Now everything is done via special forces during classified operations, as the book "Dirty Wars" covered so well, as not to put politicians in a place where every military operation is potentially political suicide.
I doubt we'll see many large-scale wars in the future. It will almost entirely be drone bombings + intelligence-driven covert special forces raids.
Which is good / bad. Bad because the public will never be fully informed on the number or breadth of intervention the US is engaged in. But good because less soldiers will die via conventional warfare.
wash or rinse freely with a stream or shower of water.
Never heard of this word before. Rolls of tongue.
Your reality is false, a myth created to ensure the perpetuation of the status quo.
I have no love lost for imperialism, wherever it comes from, but it sounds like you never heard of Rome or the way Genghis Khan solved problems.
"Rogue Warrior" (and "Red Cell", presented as fiction but if you read enough on the subject, you can realize that it's most definitely "based on true events") by Marcinko and "Combat Swimmer" by Gormly are an interesting pair, considering that Gormly replaced Marcinko after much drama.
Sadly, the "Rogue Warrior" fiction series quickly devolved into "big-dick drinkin' swearin'" pulp trash. He's changed coauthors 2-3 times now.
Also, by the looks of it this latest US tactic of treating wars as video-games ("lets kill the big boss and then it's game over!") is actually very counter-productive, as in it hasn't won them anything big. But, then again, long-term diplomatic strategy and trying to make sense of the world (as guys like Metternich and Talleyrand did) is a lot more complicated when you can easily send in the drones.
The HQ is still at the same old location on Dam Neck, as well as some other satellite offices, ranges, courses, etc.