One word Wumpus then, Vietnam. You cannot force a people to become democratic overnight with simple rhetoric. Nor should you fight their independence for them.

Afghanistan was a better strategic picture because most of the military assisted the Northern Alliance and special forces detachments. Yet somehow to track down Osama Bin Laden didn't warrant the same troop deployment as Iraq then... Funny isn't it.

Stop selling the Iraq war as one of liberty and freedom. When it's clear its not.

Special forces are trained to obey just about anything, they break them down for weeks and months, each task more absurd than the next, if you dont obey, your out. no sleep, no rest, just more mindless shit, and then they ask you to "jump off this cliff" At this stage some are so broken down they'll jump.. and if they do, they are considered unfit because they DID follow the order.

This is a good video. They had to be special forces, because only British, U.S. specialized troops, and these guys get the FN scar, and the G3A3 machine weapon, and it seemed they were all very specialized in their weapon selection. I believe the red devils have been around since WWII, and they made the climb of Monte casino, i think ... I'm probably wrong. I just know the group that they idolized in the movie was a group of convicts in Canada.

Good footage, its a little strange that all the footage we see from the war zone there is never an enemy captured on the camera, i sure hope the soldiers can see em because I cant. Its just a little frighting to be in a war zone and not see who is shooting at you, any one has played a FPS game where you get sniped by a well concealed enemy knows what i mean, now take it to the ultimate level. Infinitely worse than any video, paint ball, laser tag game ever was. Thats why I respect them, and care about where they get sent and why they are fighting.

Even if they are Canadian.

Nice post.

-a platoon of lesbians that sounds like a great idea for a special forces branch/..... with their own insignia,uniform, and a yell would be cool....

In response to your comment about there being no clear plan, the plan is for the additional troops to be a police force. This is right out of the counter-insurgency playbook. Look at successful counter-insurgencies throughout history and they all applied overwhelming force to police the populace, provide security, and prevent insurgent forces from operating freely. This may not be the dashing, clear mission objective such as "take Hill 317" or "defend this bridge until relieved" but again successful counter insurgencies have all used military forces in a police role.

To be honest I do not think 21,000 additional troops will be sufficient to establish the baseline of security necessary for an effective counter-insurgency. It is worth a try however because there is still a possibility it might slow down the escalation of sectarian violence, and if we cannot slow down said violence then nothing else we do will really matter. My key point here is that the additional troops for security purposes is straight out of the counter-insurgency playbook. Watch the movie Battle for Algiers sometime. Granted France eventually lost Algeria but they conducted a successful counter-insurgency against the FLN in Algiers several years prior to the mass uprisings that would eventually lead to independence. If you watch the movie, you will see that the French had a military presense on virtually every street corner. Attacks still got through, but the ability of the FLN to operate freely throughout the city was severely, severely limited.

"I agree that a force addition looks good on paper, but it looked good on paper back in Vietnam, the additional force elements there were just not enough to back out of what turned into a civil war. The same situation is being repeated here."

Except that Vietnam was a conflict between two sovereign nation-states. Granted both states were ethnically linked, but it was an external conflict between two states rather than an internal conflict in one state. In the event that the Soviet Union ever invaded Western Europe, US Special Forces teams would have been deployed throughout eastern Europe to make contact with dissident forces and train, equip and lead them on guerilla operations in the Soviet rear. In Vietnam, the North was doing the exact same thing to the South in preparation of a conventional invasion. The reason why we failed in Vietnam was because we treated the conflict as if the South had a domestic insurgency, rather a foreign infiltration by the North. Granted Iran is playing a part in supporting the Shiite militias, but such support pales in comparison to the guerilla combat operations that the PAVN was conducting in South Vietnam.

"If the 21,000 force commitment fails. What then?"

Then it fails and we try plan B, which I would hope would be a partitioning of the country.

"The US will have no maneuvering "

So are you saying we should hold said 21,000 troops in reserve for deployment in some later, alternative strategy? If not, then how does deploying the troops now limit our ability to maneuver? Look, the NIE makes it pretty clear that withdrawal in the next 12 to 18 months is not an option. In the face of that we either commit our available resources in one last push to make this thing work, or we can immediately turn to other options such as partitioning the country. Either way we will be in this for the long haul. With that in mind, giving the surge a try for 5-6 to months is worth a shot. If the security situation improves then we follow up on such success, if we see no improvement then we pursue the other less favorable options (i.e. partition). In the event it doesn't work, having additional forces on the ground gives us additional flexibility to pursue an alternate strategy. If said troops are not needed for an alternate strategy they can be redeployed, if they are then they are already in country availible for use.

"there will be another crushing morale plummet as US forces will pull out like they did in South Vietnam."

In the likely event that Iraq completely falls apart then such a moral plummet will occur regardless of whether or not the troop surge occurred.

Look, I am very pessimistic about our chances for success in Iraq. I think success would still be entirely possible were there still support for the War. I think the troop surge could possibly work, but probably won't. And I think if the surge fails we should look into a soft partition of the country, which is far less than ideal but will serve our interest of regional stability for better than a failed Iraqi state. In all likelihood I think the failed state is the outcome we're going to get however. The last three years in Iraq have basically been wasted, and I blame the bush administration entirely for that. If we are to succeed we basically need to start from square one. There simply isn't patience among the American people any more for such a long term commitment to Iraq however. I suspect that if the troop surge does not succeed, which is highly probably, patience for the war will be entirely over and a rapid withdrawal will follow leading to the collapse of the Iraqi government and a destabilization of the region. With that in mind what I think we should do is entirely a moot point because there will never be an opportunity to do any of it.

Ah, Rollins, just as much a businessman as those he pretends to rail against.

Question his judgment and soundness of mind, since he published book after book by Bill Shields, (2.13.61 Press) an author who claimed to be a Special Forces Vietnam Vet but who was later exposed as a fraud who never set foot in Vietnam.

The one man who had the right to question Shields's credentials didn't.

Now he expects others to believe what he believes, without question.

Two words, Hank: Johnny Mnemonic.

quantummushroom, all you do constantly is regurgitate the same GOP arguements over and over again without analyzing your parties own actions within conflict resolution. I for one, fully support military incrusions to circumvent terrorist attacks, the strikes against Afghanistan were thus fully justified.

But why then were the following tactical errors made by the Right-wing goverment:

-Reduced Ground Force Depolyment In Afghanistan : We put less troops into Afghanistan then Iraq to find the number one enemy post 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. There was an over reliance on the Northern Alliance, Air power and special forces. The administration had fully backed support from the international community and the american people.

-Overreliance On Technology : Afghanistan and Iraq are possible to decimate by area but impossible to conquer by technology. For all the smart guided misslies and UAVs we still face shortages in infantry armour and troop numbers as a whole.

-Disregard For Military Plans : Plans drawn up for a Post-war Iraq were discarded by the administration. No plans were drawn up resulting in chaos breaking out as the social structure of Iraq was taken apart.

Defending the country is something everyone believes in. But why support a defense that doesn't listen to it's own military? Why support Rumsfeld who was failed the people and administration as a whole countless times over?

Why do you never directly answer questions before jumping back to the same GOP trash line you hear all over right wing radio? You all sound like drones you know that?

From Google Video description:
"Helmet cam video of US Special Forces rescuing Polish business man Jerzy Kos from Iraqi kidnappers."
Not all helmet cam footage - cool stuff.
Glad they saved Jerzy, but you can't help but wonder - how optimistic/reckless/adventerous do you have to be to go to Iraq for commerce, anyway?

Clinton did take a lot of flack from the right for his anti-terrorism strategies, and his desires to kill terrorists with our special forces.

It does make this a very surreal tactic for the right to play.

Recommend reading "Master of Chaos" by Linda Robinson - a book about the Special Forces.

They do amazing work - of course, they're sort of "anti-establishment" in how they operate, but it's a v. interesting book that shows you another side of things worth reading about.