Kerry was right (Version 2,009,678) Special Forces

[TayTay]

Plan Seeks More Elite Forces to Fortify Military

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A01

A top-level Pentagon review of defense strategy calls for bolstering the U.S. military with thousands more elite troops skilled in fighting terrorists and insurgents and partnering with foreign forces -- as part of a decades-long plan to expand efforts to thwart terrorists worldwide, according to U.S. officials and military analysts familiar with the review.

The increase would bring the ranks of Special Operations Forces -- which include covert Delta Force operatives, Rangers, Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces -- to their highest levels since the Vietnam War while adding billions to the budget of the 52,000-strong U.S. Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, over the next five years, said the officials and analysts, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the final document has not been released.

One of the largest gains would be in Army Special Forces, or Green Berets, soldiers trained in languages and navigating foreign cultures who work with indigenous forces and operate in 12-man "A-teams." Special Forces would expand by one-third -- from 15 to 20 active-duty battalions -- creating about 90 more A-teams to deploy to regions considered vulnerable to terrorist or extremist influences, the officials and analysts said. Currently, the bulk of Special Forces teams are rotating into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Increasing Special Operations Forces is one of the most significant elements of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which sets U.S. defense strategy, guides plans for forces and military hardware and has a major influence on defense spending. The QDR was timed for release along with the fiscal 2007 budget on Feb. 6, according to Pentagon and congressional officials as well as military analysts familiar with it through drafts and briefings. Implementing the strategy will occur primarily through the longer-range defense spending plan for the next five years, Pentagon officials said.

Kerry said:

12/8/05 Council on Foreign Relations speech

Now, of course, there will be times, like in Afghanistan, when direct military engagement will be necessary. And that requires reshaping our military for those missions ahead: a larger infantry and more special forces; more personnel trained and equipped to perform post-conflict reconstruction missions; a Guard and a Reserve force that meets the nation’s needs overseas and at home. But let me tell you, because this is a long-range war, we have to do now a better job, even, of destroying terrorist cells and preventing terrorist attacks here at home.

And at the Georgetwon speech on 10/26/05

We must make it clear now that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely. And as we withdraw our combat troops, we should be prepared to keep a substantially reduced level of American forces in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi government, for the purpose of training their security forces. Some combat ready American troops will still be needed to safeguard the Americans engaged in that training, but they should be there to do that and to provide a back stop to Iraqi efforts, not to do the fighting for Iraqis.

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more. This week, long standing suspicions of Syrian complicity in destabilizing Lebanon were laid bare by the community of nations. And we know Syria has failed to take the aggressive steps necessary to stop former Baathists and foreign fighters from using its territory as a transit route into Iraq. The Administration must prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq.

Finally, and without delay, we must fundamentally alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. Iraqis should police Iraqis. Iraqis should search Iraqi homes. Iraqis should stand up for Iraq.

Kerry was right. The Pentagon knows he's right, but they can't make this argument public because they would look 'weak.' But they are doing this, because they have to.

Oh, there was also this: Presidential debate 9/30/04 http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

Kerry: I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.

Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today.

I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended.

Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.

So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.

That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.

[whometense]

1. Torn between

:loveya: and :argh:

[beachmom]

2. Personal note on all this special forces stuff

The reason why I often object to the "Rethug" expression is because my good friend here is definitely right wing (although not religious right), and her husband is in special forces (I won't say which). He has already been to Iraq once which made the war a little too close to home, since her daughter and my daughter are very good friends. Anyway, he has been in a safe job, but hates it, so he's going to go back to his "normal" job, and will definitely deploy once that happens. To where I wonder? Looks like the most likely options are scenic Afghanistan or historical Iraq. My point is is that they are * supporters, total Republicans, but definitely NOT chickenhawks. That's the only reason why I felt a little funny about Kerry's "terrorizing" remark. Here I came to pick up my daughter with my Kerry sticker on my car, and her husband was home right after Kerry made that remark. No doubt as a special forces member, I'm sure he did his share of storming into people's houses, and yes, maybe terrorizing an Iraqi or two. Luckily, he's the quiet type, and said nothing. But I did feel funny, and if he had said something, I would have said it was a poor word choice, and what he meant was "scare". By the way, his mission was to train Iraqi special forces, which really is what Kerry thinks we need to do.

Anyway, back to the point of your post, yes, I agree with Kerry that we need to use special forces much more plus a lot of boots on the ground. It's the only way to find and kill the enemy (i.e. al Qaeda members). But since I'm connected to that community here, it can be a lot to take in, that people who you know are suddenly going to be in a very dangerous situation, and may not come back.

[TayTay]

3. I thought he explained it better here

Finally, and without delay, we must fundamentally alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. Iraqis should police Iraqis. Iraqis should search Iraqi homes. Iraqis should stand up for Iraq.

The Face the Nation interview made it sound like the 'terrorizing' was on purpose. It's not. It's a flaw in how the command structure deisgned and implemented it's plan in Iraq. We are 'terrorizing' them due to a lack of knowledge of the language and customs of the region. It is upsetting. And there is a better way. (And a way tht is far, far less dangerous to Americans and one that doesn't emphasize the 'occupier' status of the US either.)

[wisteria]

4. In regards to the terrorizing remark, people want him to speak

plainly and be clear.What he said was plain and clearly understood by most reasonable folks. Others read much more into it to just find fault or purposely twisted it for their own purposes. I never took what he said to be anything but what he was implying.

I do agree, I think your post of his remarks on this issue are much more elegant, but would it have played well or even been clearly followed in the interview?

[ProSense]

5. I love the OP and this post.

Your last point about the FTN interview is probably why they seized on the comment in the first place. Upon further analysis...Kerry makes perfect sense and they know it.

[karynnj]

6. I think so too

Kerry had made the same point serveral times before. Very formally in the Georgetown speech where he included transfering this function to the Iraqis and explained why. He then had the same point in the Matthews and Blitzer interviews, the Diane Sawyer (early Saturday morning interview), an NPR interview that was posted here, and then the following week the Face the Nation interview.

Although the hosts were mixed in whether they got this, it didn't really become news until Kerry was more graphic in his wording. What is too bad is that it didn't lead back to the issue as much as it should have, so it likely backfired. Although the fact that he explained it at least 5 times before then, does help. I think he is right that only the RW misinterrepted it - no one said it was a problem in the initial thread here (or on DU-P or Kos). I read all those because I missed it.

[MH1]

9. A very simple word change.

If he had said "terrifying" instead of "terrorizing" I think it would have worked very well. I wouldn't be surprised if that was what he meant to say, and he just slipped. Things happen.

[beachmom]

7. Yeah, I like that -- invite alienation and deepen risks

Look, I don't want you guys to get the wrong idea -- I completely agree with Kerry on this, and certainly agree with his statement on FOTN in spirit. I just thought it was a poor word choice, and if a member of the special forces had given me a hard time for my bumper sticker about the word "terrorizing", I would not have put up a fight. I would have said "you're right, it was a bad word choice. however, I think the main point he was trying to put across was that that work should be done by Iraqis, which was your mission (training them) over there, right?" Then I might add to not read too much into things, that Kerry is a big advocate for members of the military in the Senate and most of this talk is pure hype. But I am trying to be honest that I did feel funny about my bumper sticker that day. However, soon after my car died. It's fixed now, and I am so happy to see my Kerry/Edwards sticker once again! I am very proud of my adopted senator and shadow president for that smackdown performance on This Week. And because of him, at least for the moment, dKos has become a less harsh place to visit.

[TayTay]

8. Ahm, that's okay

You make very valid points. That FTN appearance was not JK's best. The lines were easily twisted. He has stated this point better and more in tune with what returning veterans have themselves said.

You raised a good point. No one wants to insinuate that our people over there are intentionally doing bad things to the Iraqis. (Oh, that is just awful.) We also have to acknowledge the RW Noise Machine that amplifies every verbal 'gaffe' into a huge thing. I understand that. And you are right to point it out. (Plus it is what you actually feel and it is always best to go with that.) I know you weren't raving or being hyper-critical. You were adding a great point of view that we should consider. Thanks!

[beachmom]

10. When the RW first attacked, I thought it was dumb and nitpicking.

It was only when I saw my special forces acquaintenance (that's the other thing -- that guy is aloof for sure. He's always checking the perimeter even at kids' b-day parties. I gave him a hug when he arrived safely back from Iraq and it was like hugging a tree -- a stiff board with no reaction), that I just wanted to get me and my Kerry sticker adorned car out of there as quickly as possible. But he said nothing, and now more time has gone by and hopefully Kerry's remark has been largely forgotten. (I may add, I think he's probably a nice guy, it's just he's hard to get to know. He doesn't do small talk). Had I not seen him, I probably would have had no qualms about Kerry's remarks. Does that make any sense?