Thread: special special forces

Wouldn't a [u]very[/u] unconventional warfare unit be very useful in combat. As in a band of classified, highly armed, slightly illegal soldiers. I know that the country employing this unit would get blasted later for war crimes, but it could be worth the tribunals to win the war.
More detail:
Networked on secure radio and obscure frequencies
Supported by conventional and spec ops troops.
Armed with all kinds of small arms, improvised weapon knowledge, some heavier equipment, and an advanced networked
Integrated into population like CIA and MI6 agents.
No holds barred, no Rules of Combat, with limits.
Use of fear and intimidation tactics (mimic local superstitions, or plan unpredictable raids, etc.)

I might get a lot of hate for this, but it is just an idea.
Is it worth the war crimes if it is helpful enough?

I kind of agree... as long as people are dying, make them die in the most efficient way possible [ sad truth ]. But some code of honor would help, so innocent civilians don't have any fears of being killed, because that would defeat the point of war: To establish governments over lesser governments, with the ultimate purpose to protect civilians from barbaric anarchy and Mad Max 2 land, or to increase the power of the governments, but that's a corrupt system, and they probably don't heavily value morals, so nothing is stopping them from these terms.
As long as there isn't absolutely devastating environmental impact from, like, chlorine or phosgene or whatever gas in excess, or any civilian deaths, or unnecessarily brutal military casualties from sadistic weaponry, I don't think there is a need for agreements like the Geneva convention...
Of course, the Geneva convention does protect against toxic gases, because of environmental and agricultural impact, and it protects against the other worries. All of those reasons are accounted for in the existing agreements.
All of these ideas are perfectly reasonable (I don't see the moral problem with them), except maybe integration, because that could get civilians involved and injured. And mimicing local superstition, but not really. It's just mean.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Wouldn't a [u]very[/u] unconventional warfare unit be very useful in combat. As in a band of classified, highly armed, slightly illegal soldiers. I know that the country employing this unit would get blasted later for war crimes, but it could be worth the tribunals to win the war.
More detail:
Networked on secure radio and obscure frequencies
Supported by conventional and spec ops troops.
Armed with all kinds of small arms, improvised weapon knowledge, some heavier equipment, and an advanced networked
Integrated into population like CIA and MI6 agents.
No holds barred, no Rules of Combat, with limits.
Use of fear and intimidation tactics (mimic local superstitions, or plan unpredictable raids, etc.)

I might get a lot of hate for this, but it is just an idea.
Is it worth the war crimes if it is helpful enough?

What makes you think such units do not already exist ?

Well, the fact that no nations so far have been tried in an international war crimes tribunal for a unit like this, even if the unit was deployed a long time ago. Also, WikiLeaks hasn't leaked anything on this yet . Do you know what would be very classified information from your work in the aerospace/defense industry? :-D

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Well, the fact that no nations so far have been tried in an international war crimes tribunal for a unit like this, even if the unit was deployed a long time ago. Also, WikiLeaks hasn't leaked anything on this yet . Do you know what would be very classified information from your work in the aerospace/defense industry? :-D

Some special OPs units are pretty black. For instance the U.S. admits to the existence of Delta Force, but you won't find much information on them. You won't find a lot on the Naval DEVGRU (formerly Seal Team 6), or the CIA SOG either. You hear more about ordinary Seals, Army Special Forces and rangers, and Marine Recon, but you don't hear about specific missions very often.

The Seals that I have met are all really nice guys, but you wouldn't want to mess with them. If you took away their guns and left them with only their boot laces they would still be dangerous. You can be very thankful that they are on our side.

To be tried for war crimes, the first step is usually to lose a war. What you have described does not immediately strike me as war crimes anyway.

The nature of classified information is such that one usually does not disclose whether one has some particular piece of information or not. When asked about something that relates to classified info, you neither confirm nor deny.

I put the smiley face for a reason-I don't expect you to have any highly sensitive info, and if you did, I wouldn't expect you to disclose it.
pomegranate cameron-
I totally agree that a force like this woul need control. I think the code of honor is a good solution. From what I've see of miliary, they seem pretty upstanding citizens. Dr could probably help verify or deny that. I don't really understand what you said about governments, but I assumed it is a control mechanism.
US ROEs are at www.fas.org/man/dod/docs/cjcs_sroe.pdf

Originally Posted by 15uliane

No holds barred, no Rules of Combat, with limits.
Use of fear and intimidation tactics (mimic local superstitions, or plan unpredictable raids, etc.)

I might get a lot of hate for this, but it is just an idea.
Is it worth the war crimes if it is helpful enough?

I'm usually not the one to say this, but I think you'd find the blow back would never be worth it. The things our forces do are never forgotten, even if later on we want them to be.

In 1998 we sent a SEAL team into Bosnia to capture some war criminals by driving across the country side in an ambulance posing as medical workers. Kovachovich, in particular was held up in a hospital, so it made sense, and given the severity of his war crimes, it was understandable. But, later on when Bhurma (another place with war criminals) got hit by a massive hurricane, they decided not to let medical workers in to help the afflicted out of fear of the same thing happening again.

If you don't want every physically fit medical worker in the world getting arrested and detained on sight, you've got to avoid setting a precedent of embedding special forces in medical caravans. The same logic can be applied to other things.

So you agree with pomegranate cameron, who said that embeding the troops would be bad?
I kind of agree to a degree. As long as it doesn't hinder their effectiveness, and is absolutely harmful or dangerous, I would try to keep them undercover as much as possible.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

So you agree with pomegranate cameron, who said that embeding the troops would be bad?
I kind of agree to a degree. As long as it doesn't hinder their effectiveness, and is absolutely harmful or dangerous, I would try to keep them undercover as much as possible.

I'm just saying you need some things to be off limits, otherwise there are no civilians. Embedding troops among medical workers creates a situation where medical workers have to be considered a valid military target, because the enemy cannot be sure there are no military assets among them.

You're only looking at this from one side of the coin. The first, and most important job of a soldier is to protect civilians (at least the civilians on one's own side). The worst way to fail at that job is to hide among civilians. Who cares what else you may accomplish if you fail at that first objective?

I agree-
Your logic is pretty strong. If we start sending troops as medical workers, aid workers, employees or even civilians, it could make all of those groups targets, causing them, as you said, to fail at their job.
I'm also not sure if I conveyed this (and this might sound like an insult, but it's not), but the troops would not be posing as civilians from their country.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

I'm also not sure if I conveyed this (and this might sound like an insult, but it's not), but the troops would not be posing as civilians from their country.

If you're talking about posing as Afghan or Iraqi civilians, I would say that would just be playing fair. It's tit for tat. The enemy's been pulling that trick on us for a while.

That is no easy task, trying to blend into a culture that's so different from our own, but heck, if they pulled it off maybe they could even make their attacks appear to be attacks by the insurgency taking Sharia law and pushing it too far. Make it look like the insurgency has articulated Islam into a reason to commit acts of brutality against their own base. The insurgents would deny it, but who really trusts them when they deny stuff?

We give them too much Sharia law until they choke on it. Let them see what happens when the extremists come knocking at their door instead of ours. One person in a village somewhere is rumored to have committed a minor sin, so our guys go in looking like insurgents and wipe out everyone in the village. (At least that's if you want to take this to the extreme, and probably go to jail over it after the war is over.)

About blending in- in a book calld down range, seal soldiers spent two weeks in a valley looking for taliban bunkers. The didn't shave, and were wearing sandals and robes to ward off conditions. One day, a Taliban column moved through the area. The seal team did no see them in time to hide. They were not engaged, or noticed. The later calld in an airstrike. Tis was a non fiction book, and this happened in 2001.
Anyway, me as a personam not ready to go as far as you say. If you ca pretend that search/raids are made by the taliban on suspects, fine. But I would not be happy if we purposly killed civilians. Some people in washington probably are though.

You're right, come to think of it. There's no need to kill or maim them. Just go in the village and like beat them all up or something, or make off with their cattle, but still blame it on a skewed interpretation of Sharia law.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

About blending in- in a book calld down range, seal soldiers spent two weeks in a valley looking for taliban bunkers. The didn't shave, and were wearing sandals and robes to ward off conditions. One day, a Taliban column moved through the area. The seal team did no see them in time to hide. They were not engaged, or noticed. The later calld in an airstrike. Tis was a non fiction book, and this happened in 2001.

That sounds as though the Seals did everything right. I am not even slightly surprised

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Anyway, me as a personam not ready to go as far as you say. If you ca pretend that search/raids are made by the taliban on suspects, fine. But I would not be happy if we purposly killed civilians. Some people in washington probably are though.

I would not worry much.

Our Spec Ops people are dangerous. They are killers. But they are neither murderers nor thugs.

Agreed. I hoped you would shed some light on that:

From what I've see of miliary, they seem pretty upstanding citizens. Dr could probably help verify or deny that.

I think that a measure of Machiavellian ideals are required. If the ends justify the means, the means aren't too immoral, and the ends are worthwhile, by all means, keep the SSF units up and running.

Though, we have been doing this sort of stuff by some measure since before the Cold War.

Yeah... keep order so we don't become them.