Winds of Change.NET has covered Special Forces before: The official U.S. SOC web site. A briefing on what they really do, with stories from Afghanistan. Phil Carter's own briefing materials. Reports from Waziristan. Iraq, from advance reports, to Diwaniyah to the aftermath of war, where they continue to play a vital role. Australia's SAS on their Iraq experiences, and Poland's GROM (specialoperations.com | Weekly Standard), who performed so brilliantly at Um-Qasr and elsewhere. Even Special Forces and the laws of war.
Now Mike Duffy and others at TIME have published "Secret Armies of the Night." Its descriptions of operations in Iraq are valuable in and of themselves (though they neglected GROM's role), but the real news is the increasing influence of SOF within Rumsfeld's Pentagon...
This is a good thing. Special Forces have long been neglected by regular Army commanders, many of whom did not really know how to use SOF resources or even distrusted them. Not only is the Army's new Chief of Staff ex-Delta Force, but SOF now has its own command and the ability to plan and carry out its own operations. That last addition is huge, and very recent. As TIME reports:
"The increasing faith in special-operations forces (SOF) can be traced to one man: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Since taking over as Pentagon chief, Rumsfeld has repeatedly handed the commandos starring roles in the war on terrorism and pressed his Vietnam-era generals.... the "SOF guys," as they are called around the Pentagon, have emerged as the biggest winners in the Rumsfeld era. The defense chief has set in motion a host of changes that will boost their budgets and swell their ranks in the next five years.... "God love him," said Air Force Colonel Randy O'Boyle, who directed part of the Faw operation. "(Rumsfeld) had the confidence to unleash us on the target."Special Forces are only part of the U.S. military's "transformation" effort, but their needs dovetail nicely with many of its concepts: "jointness" (the ability of all military branches to work together in combat), greater emphasis on deployability and mobility, precision weapons, better intelligence backed up by firepower. As such, they serve as an excellent bellweather - and even leading indicator - for military transformation's progress.
It's also worthy of note that many of the post-9/11 operations detailed in "Playing Offense" include and/or involve SOF missions. Back to TIME:
"It would be wrong to imagine that Rumsfeld can convert his special units into supersoldiers who can do anything or stop anyone. Even he knows that.... "There are certain things we can do, and there are certain things we can't," said a top special-forces officer who served in Afghanistan. "We can't take and hold ground. But there are some things we can do, and finally the civilian commanders have learned the proper mix."We'll see. If you're interested in the future of the U.S. military (and very possibly others as well), this is an area worth paying attention to.
especially to 'JH', 'Armed Liberal, 'Joe Katzman' and 'jeanne a e devoto':
please recognize my last two answers in the 'back in the USSR' comments: http://windsofchange.net/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3592
although the article isn't anymore on the first page, the topic matters and the facts matter, too.
Maxim (putting admin. hat on...),
This is a blog. Debates last for a limited time, it's just the nature of the medium. Posting this kind of message once in another thread is acceptable, but twice is pushing it under the Winds of Change comments policy that comments must be relevant to the post they're attached to. Consider this a warning.
I'm still not convinced these measures you describe are innocent, and I still believe the EU as envisaged has a serious problem with lack of both accountability and meaningful checks and balances. That may be a worthy topic for another blog post or posts. In the meantime, your comments remain attached to the post that inspired them and may be viewed by the people who read it.
it's okay, i am sorry. but can you imagine i am not very satisfied to write pages and pages to find out in the end 'the point' just based on not reading the questioned document, it was based on prejudice and fabulous accusations?
and then realizing, after uncovering this, nobody is interested anymore in the truth? building their own truth seems to be their goal, not objectivity and unbiased view.
some may be beliefe in ideology, this way or any other, i let them but they should not claim to be interested in unbiased, objective discussions if they are not able to challenge them.
you may believe in whatever you want. to your own favour, to those of your country and, if you're interested in, to our favour you should try to endeavor an objective debate and view on things. this is not a question of belief, structures and constitutions are understandable, you can inform yourself. and if you are intereste in an unbiased debate you should inform yourself.
humans fail, and humans do wrong, so we can see their mistakes even in cases in which they had the best intentions.
i would agree that further direct democracy is needed, some things should be thinked twice of. even if it is not a big think i would agree that indeed the in the proposal descrebed way to exclude a party from these financial support is not the best way [though i don't know if this proposal was realized] to realize the principle 'no freedom for the enemies of freedom', and there are better ways to realize this principle and such an exclusion from financial support.
but does this mean there is a general problem about checks and balances [that you claim this shows you have'nt understood what the EU is by now. it is no 'federal gouvernment' that stands really above it's members. did you read my posts?]
and it does absolutely not mean the EU will be a new ussr [also to claim this shows the one hadn't understood what the EU is, and how it works].
sometimes humans need an enemy they can fight to stand tight together and to feel as one, this may or may not be a motivation here. whatever is it's spririt. and unbiased debate, and informing about reality and trouth is possible here and would be in favour of the people living in the US, those living in this one world, and last but not least those living in the EU.
to face the problems of the new century a new western alliance is necessary, if there are doubts inside the US about the honesty of europe or if there is lack of knowlege abiout it's structure or if there are fabulous accusations and prejudices, these should and could be removed in open and unbiased debate where one hears to the other. i am sorry to write all this HERE, but as you can guess there is need to talk on my side, and there is disappointment about the starving of the debate in the original thread.
so you may or may not reopen the debate in it's original thread or you may or may not initiate a new one, but if you decide not to you at least close on channel of american-europe debate and discussion, the one thing that is needed for both to consist in this new world order.
No, Maxim, it's based on differing interpretations of those documents, and sometimes a different way of looking at the world.
I'll be running another post on this subject, and will refer people to your views as part of that. BUT... that too will be a blog post, and so debate will only last a couple of days there too.
Ever think of getting a membership in europundits.blogspot.com, and writing Blog Articles that would have their own unique URLs? The site is led by your cvountryman, Nelson Ascher. That way, your work wouldn't be hidden - you could reference articles like mine, and I'd link back in the course of debate. Indeed, you would have your first post already: repost the comments you were pointing to in this thread, and link to the piece in question.
Think about it.
maxim, people are also more likely to take you seriously if you edit a bit. I tend to scroll past large chunks of text in comment sections - they scream "rant."
thanks for your help and your suggestions joe, i think i can accept the rules of blogscene, but in this special case i was very annoyed about my pagelong writings without an answer at the point of the discussion where some details where at lenght clearified.
i like your suggestions relating a own blog, but i think i lack of time and knowledge to make a real thing. participating in another blog sounds good, but i couldn't see the 'europundits' where bloggers who would need further support.
you have to consider i am a greenhorn in blogging scene, i have absolutely no idea about their rules, their working and the scene.
i was reading some blogs, right-wing, left-wing, news-boards [especially dailyKos, winds of change, daniel drezner and agonist.net made an excellent job in my eyes], since the war and enjoyed there texts and debates, their different points of view.
they gave me insight in america's point of view on daily political affairs and much further information and stimulation.
so at least i have to say thank you to all of you otu there, you're doing a gorgeous job and i like it every day (even if i would contradict on some opinions ;).
nice site i really like it
nice site i really like it