Connect with us

Op-Edge

How Special Forces Bury the True Cost of America’s Wars

Published

on

Former special forces soldiers are mostly engaged in private military companies doing jobs as PMCs (Private Military Contractors)

Over the past 16 years, a profound transformation has been underway in how America wages war. Starting under George W. Bush after 9/11, and accelerating under Barack Obama and Donald Trump, Special Operations Forces—once a small, secretive subset of the military used for highly specialised tasks—have been transformed into the primary instrument of American military power and foreign policy. In the process, they have been put in an impossible position.

In a 2013 report for the Council on Foreign Relations, Rand Corporation scholar Linda Robinson outlined this already well-advanced trend when she noted, “[Special Operations Forces] have doubled in size and been deployed more often and for longer periods than ever before. They have more generals and admirals leading their ranks—almost 70, compared with nine a dozen years ago.” And according to a recent TIME magazine report, there are currently 8,000 members of these forces deployed around the world at any given moment, up from 2,900 in 2001.

Often known by the abbreviation SOF, Special Operations Forces is the umbrella name covering the gamut of commando and unconventional warfare units across the armed services. These include the Navy SEALs who carried out the Osama bin Laden raid in 2011, Army Special Forces like the kind operating in Africa—where four* Americans were killed in an ambush this October—and a bevy of other elite units and their support personnel. On one hand, these fabled operators have become the crown jewels of the armed forces, oohed and aahed over by the public and policymakers alike. But at the same time, they’re increasingly used like a utility tool—inside the SOF community, they call it an “easy button”—one that can supposedly fix every kind of disorder and conflict in every corner of the world.

The changes come at a price—to the idea of the military as protector and executor of democratic politics, rather than its substitute, as well as to the special operators and their families, who are being pushed to the breaking point.

“SOF has become the US version of the French Foreign Legion,” an Army Special Forces sergeant with over 25 years of service—who requested anonymity as he did not have permission to speak to the press—told VICE. He was referring to the quasi-mercenary French military force that is separate from its national army and made up almost exclusively of non-French citizens. “The legion being ultimately a force that is not French. Ma and Pa in Paris or wherever, they don’t care if a bunch of Legionnaires get killed somewhere around the world because they’re not French anyway. That’s what SOF is like now.”

Of course, the people who make up SOF are a class apart by choice—that’s the point of volunteering for elite units. But for soldiers like the one who spoke with VICE, being anointed emblems of American power has made them less visible as actual Americans. At a point, a professional warrior caste becomes indistinguishable from an army of foreigners. Their purpose is to be no one’s sons and daughters.

The glory awarded SOF operators in movies and at public spectacles, divorced from any wider sense of shared sacrifice, only makes their existence more remote. As the writer Matt Gallagher, an Iraq veteran, put it last year, “The mythos of Special Operations has seized our nation’s popular imagination, and has proved to be the one prism through which the public will engage with America’s wars.” We engage mostly through a kind of celebrity worship—you too can dress like an operator and feel contempt for beta males—and the forms of cheap adulation available in popular books and film.

Consider this fact from the TIME piece: For the first time ever in 2016 (and again so far in 2017), more special operations troops were killed in action than conventional forces. The article notes: “Special Operations forces now make up nearly all US combat casualties, despite making up less than 5 percent of the total force.” That’s out of the less than one percent of the population that serves in the military in the first place. In other words, the operational burden of American foreign policy now rests on the backs of one twentieth of half of one percent of the American people.

Special Operations Forces are relatively cheap and unencumbered compared to conventional ones. The organizational culture is flexible enough to be thrown at everything from counter-terrorism to diplomatic tasks—and mature enough to be left on its own, trusted to find at least temporary solutions. Individually, these are defining strengths, but taken together they’ve created the illusion of a unified strategy where none exists.

And the same qualities making Special Operations Forces such an effective and attractive tool for policymakers present drawbacks. Retired General Stanley McChrystal, who served most of his career in SOF, was instrumental in expanding its role and influence before scandal pushed him into early retirement. In 2010, he warned, “That’s the danger of special operating forces. You get this sense that it is satisfying, it’s clean, it’s low risk, it’s the cure for most ills.”

War is getting more special but less political. That may seem appealing, what with the state of American politics these days. But depoliticizing warfare cuts it off both from oversight, accountability, and the very purpose of politics, which is to broker solutions short of armed combat. A number of different factors have converged to cause this trend: A proliferation of drones and forms of automated attack—cyber and otherwise. The rise of private armies. The increasingly targeted nature of military operations in which, as army veteran Brian Castnerwrote, “War is reverting to a perversion of classical single combat [and]… after a century and a half of industrial anonymous bloodshed, the individual is key.” None of this foretells less war or that it will no longer serve political interests, only that those interests will become more opaque and less responsive to the polity.

And Trump, who is drawn to “his generals” by an esteem for military pageantry and the appearance of strength, has shown a particular aversion to articulating the kind of clear strategic goals that could discipline the use of SOF and restore it to a balanced place in the spectrum of foreign policy options.

“The Trump admin[istration] may uniquely overvalue the military compared to diplomatic and other resources,” one Democratic congressional staffer with knowledge of the Armed Services Committee, who requested anonymity as he was not authorized to speak in an official capacity, told VICE. “But even if there was a different administration in office now, there’s still a broader trend that any executive will rely on SOF not only because of their utility in the mission but because they offer the advantage of being subject to less public scrutiny and less Congressional scrutiny.” What Trump inherited is a highly adaptive, highly lethal military force that could be sent nearly anywhere—and was already almost everywhere—to deal with nearly anything, and with little public criticism until things go wrong.

First there was the raid in Yemen. On the night of January 29, at the end of Trump’s first month in office, one Navy SEAL was killed and three were wounded in a raid on an al Qaeda-affiliated compound in Yemen. A subsequent military investigation found up to a dozen civilians were also killed in the raid. President Trump responded to the news by publicly distancing himself from the operation and blaming the death of Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens on his generals. In fact, according to the Congressional staffer who spoke with VICE, the White House had an unusually high level of involvement in the raid’s organization. “The process by which that raid was approved and executed wasn’t the traditional process that was used by the previous administration or most other administrations,” he told me. “It circumvented the Principals Committee at the NSC [National Security Council] and instead it was a hodgepodge of more political actors from the West Wing reviewing and approving that raid.” (The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but the thrust of these criticisms was aired in a letter sent by multiple members of Congress to the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in February.)

Yemen was followed by Niger, where, in early October, four* soldiers were killed—two of them Special Forces soldiers and two others support troops serving alongside them—and two more wounded in an ambush. SOF’s mission in Niger is, as VICE News has reported, one of many ongoing in Africa, where the US military presence has been rapidly expanding and, according to TIME, now occupies 15 percent of Special Operations Forces. Yet the scope of the American presence in the country was news to a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lindsey Graham, who told NBC’s Chuck Todd in October he’d had “no idea” about it. “I didn’t know there was 1,000 troops in Niger,” Graham said, adding, “we don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world militarily and what we’re doing.”

Thousands of individual terrorist and insurgent leaders have been killed since 2001 in less publicized versions of the SEAL team raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Infrastructure has been destroyed, networks have been disrupted. And yet, in Afghanistan, the Taliban is arguably more powerful than ever and the global jihadist movement remains resilient. In August, Foreign Policy’’s Micah Zenko noted that, “Despite more than 200 JSOC (and occasional CIA) airstrikes over the past eight years, the State Department’s estimated strength for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula grew from ‘several hundred members’ in 2010 to 4,000 fighters now—a force size it has maintained for the past half-dozen years.”

The fact that America is not winning its wars is hardly the fault of the special operations forces it increasingly relies upon to wage them. They’ve had some incredible successes with the missions they’ve been given. But it shows limits of what a SOF-centric approach can accomplish, and the costs of over-reliance on them.

Special Operations Forces are overworked, over-deployed, stretched thin, and even “fraying,” as former Special Operations commander General Joseph Votel put it in 2014. And there are signs that this is already leading to tragic results. Lurid scandals. Allegations that SOF members massacred civilians in Somalia—the Pentagon says it has investigated and refuted this claim but congressional hearings are still set to be held. And, less dramatically, allegations about standards being lowered to increase numbers that echo perennial concerns in elite units but seem to have become more vehement lately.

David Maxwell is the associate director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and a retired Army Special Forces colonel. In an interview, he focused on the lack of a coherent and unifying national security strategy as the fundamental problem affecting Special Operations Forces and the military at large.

“There’s a lot of great people out there doing a lot of great things, achieving a lot of tactical effects, but it’s really the orchestration of strategy that we are just not good at,” Maxwell said.

He pointed to the ongoing human rights nightmare in Syria as a prime example. “What we’ve seen in Syria and a lot of these places is the employment of SOF to demonstrate that we’re doing something.”

It’s easier to keep “doing something,” pressing the easy button again and again, when it’s only the legionnaires dying.

*Correction 12/12/17: Because of an editing error, a previous version of this story suggested three Americans were killed in Niger this October when in fact four were. The story also previously said three special forces soldiers were killed, when in fact two special forces soldiers and two support personnel were killed. We regret the errors.

Follow Jacob Siegel on Twitter.

Advertisement

Op-Edge

Why Photos Of Osama bin Laden’s Corpse Are Still Not Available to Public

Published

on

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri

A years after the Osama Bin Laden, the notorious terrorist leader, was killed there is still many conspiracy theories about his death He was killed on May 2, 2011, by US Navy SEALs operators at his compound in Abbottabad, Abbottabad, Pakistan. The operation was codenamed as Neptune Spear. In an article published on TheNewsRep, author Jack Murphy writes about the fact that so far there are no publicly released photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse. Down below you can find his opinion on this topic:

There are a lot of puzzled expressions on people’s faces when it comes to the subject of the late Osama bin Laden and why the White House has not authorized the release of any pictures of his body. Photographs and video were released of Saddam Hussein’s hanging, as well as post-mortem pictures of his criminal sons, Uday and Qusay after Delta Force took them out. Why not release a few pictures of Public Enemy #1 to prove that he is dead and show the world what happens when you take on the U.S. of A?

Matt Bissonnette, one of the SEAL Team 6 operators on the bin Laden raid, partially outs the reason in his book “No Easy Day.” The book reads, “In his death throes, he was still twitching and convulsing. Another assaulter and I trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless.”

But this is perhaps the most measured and polite description that one could give of how operator after operator took turns dumping magazines’ worth of ammunition into bin Laden’s body, two confidential sources within the community have told us. When all was said and done, Osama bin Laden had more than a hundred bullets in him, by the most conservative estimate.

Was this a one-time incident or part of a developing trend of lawless behavior? Consider these two other incidents:

•In 2013, The Associated Press reported that SEALs attached to SEAL Team 6 were investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service after $30,000 in cash strangely vanished from Capt. Richard Phillips’ lifeboat. Phillips had been taken a hostage from the Maersk Alabama ship. SEAL snipers shot and killed his pirate captors using night-vision goggles, laser target designators, and multiple rounds. They took control of the lifeboat — and presumably the money.

But the money was never recovered — and its disappearance remains a mystery to this day. Phillips described the incident in his book this way: “Two stacks of hundreds, one of the fifties, then twenties, fives and tens … I never saw the money again. Later, when they gave me a sack to lean against, I felt the stacks of money inside, but I never spotted the cash out in the open again. “The case was eventually closed because there was no substantial evidence linking the SEALs to any wrongdoing.

In Eric Blehm’s book “Fearless,” he openly writes about illicit drug use by an active-duty SEAL stationed on the East Coast who ultimately went on to serve with SEAL Team 6. How this same person managed to pass a top-secret background clearance despite having 11 prior felony convictions is perturbing and revealing at the same time.

You may not care if bin Laden got some extra holes punched in him — few of us do — but what should concern you is a trend within certain special-operations units to engage in this type of self-indulgent and ultimately criminal behavior. Gone unchecked, these actions worsen over time and in the end risk creating a unit subculture that is hidden from senior commanders, that is more “Sons of Anarchy” than “American Hero.”

So is putting a few extra rounds into the enemy illegal?

Under the Laws of Land Warfare, a soldier is fully authorized to put a few insurance rounds into his target after he goes down. Provided the enemy is not surrendering, it is morally, legally and ethically appropriate to shoot the body a few times to ensure that he is really dead and no longer a threat. However, what happened on the bin Laden raid is beyond the permissible. The level of excess shown was not about making sure that bin Laden was no longer a threat. The excess was pure self-indulgence.

And if there’s any truth to the rumors floating around the special-operations community related to illegal activities at home and abroad, it will be a sad day of reckoning for America in many regards. When the truth comes to light, honor will have been betrayed by actions that are not aligned with the very principles these warriors swore an oath to uphold, the same ones that distinguish good guys from the bad.

Of course, these attitudes and behaviors do not come out of anywhere. Endless back-to-back combat deployments, post-traumatic stress disorder, broken families and the ugliness of more than a decade of war all play into it. War is ugly, ugliest of all for the warriors required to do the actual wet work, and Americans would do well to keep this in mind before passing judgment.

Now you know the likely reason why the Obama administration has not released pictures of Osama bin Laden’s corpse. To do so would show the world a body filled with a ridiculous number of gunshot wounds. The picture itself would likely cause an international scandal, and investigations would be conducted that could uncover other operations and activities many would do anything to keep buried.

Continue Reading

Op-Edge

This Might Be the U.S. Military’s Worst Idea Ever

Published

on

us military - This Might Be the U.S. Military's Worst Idea Ever

The Pentagon wants a mobile nuclear reactor. The goal is to provide reliable electrical power to remote forward operating bases and during quick-response humanitarian missions. But the project also raises questions of nuclear security and keeping atomic materials from falling into the wrong hands.

On January 18, the Pentagon published a Request for Information on the feasibility of developing a portable nuclear reactor in support of a program known as “Project Dilithium.” The reactor is in response to a 2016 Defense Science Board report that found that fuel and water accounted for as much as 90 percent of supplies sent to outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn exposed U.S. truck convoys to ambush (air-dropped fuel cost as much as $400 per gallon).

With power use only likely to grow with the advent of power-hungry systems such as high-energy lasers to shoot down missiles and drones, the report recommended nuclear power as a solution, with “the need and benefit outweighing the difficulty in achieving nearly limitless energy on the battlefield.”

In its RFI, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office extolled the virtues of a mobile reactor for both overseas and domestic use. “Small mobile nuclear reactors can make the DOD’s domestic infrastructure resilient to an electrical grid attack and fundamentally change the logistics of forward operating bases, both by making more energy available and by drastically simplifying the complex fuel logistical lines which currently support existing power generators operating mostly on diesel fuel. Additionally, a small mobile nuclear reactor would enable a more rapid response during Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. Small mobile nuclear reactors have the potential to be an across-the-board strategic game changer for the DOD by saving lives, saving money, and giving soldiers in the field a prime power source with increased flexibility and functionality.”

The reactor should be able to supply 1 to 10 megawatts of power at least three years without refueling. It should weigh “less than 40 tons total weight, sized for transportability by truck, ship, and C-17 aircraft,” and be passively cooled by ambient air.

The reactor should be “semiautonomous,” capable of safely functioning without the need for human operators, and requiring minimal monitoring. The reactor should require less than a week for shutdown, cool down, disconnect and preparation for transport, and require less than three days to begin generating power again.

Given that a mobile reactor is likely to generate as much controversy as electricity, the military wants an “inherently safe design, ensuring that a meltdown is physically impossible in various complete failure scenarios such as loss of power/cooling.”

There should also be “no net increase in risk to public safety by either direct radiation from operation or contamination with breach of primary core. Minimized consequences to nearby personnel in case of adversary attack.”

Continue Reading




Most Popular Last Week