Honesty

So, on Fox News via AFN, Toby Keith was interviewed. Among the more interesting revelations was that he's actually a life long Democrat and not a particularly strong supporter of the war in Iraq. He does think is it much more complicated than the sloganeering it is often reduced to and feels fortunate that somehow is celebrity has allowed him to have some of his questions answered by the generals in charge. He is very much a supporter of the troops and is working hard to promote USO tours and has been to some rather remote locations to perform.
At one point he said that he is just an entertainer and no one should be listening to his opinions. He said people should be ignoring most celebrity knuckleheads (knuckheads was his word), regardless of their political leaning.
Unfortunately, knucklehead is an all too appropriate term to describe whoever is coming up with the magical policy plans I keep reading about.
While I've been out here and engaged if the fight against some very bad people, I think I've become both more hardline about certain things and yet much more aware of the limitations of military power. Unfortunately, it seems the policy debate has gone in the reverse directions on both.
I try and get my news from a variety of sources. Unfortunately, one of the common themes I read on the various Op Ed pages, from various think tank publications, and that you'll find in the transcripts of interviews/speeches of too many candidates is some belief in the magic of Special Operations.
It scares me because it represents either an incredibly superficial understanding of both the global conflict and Special Operations, or it is intentional and emblematic of systemic moral cowardice.
I am firm believer in Special Operations and am a proud member of that community. There is much that we bring to the fight, but understanding those capabilities and their limitations is important. Thinking that air raids and Special Operators will magially solve all your problems, kill all bad guys without a politically difficult in-country presence, and is risk free is sheer nonsense.
Imagine that your city decided that to better fight crime, it was going to increase the number of SWAT teams, but would be drastically cutting the number of patrol cops. It wouldn't work so well.
In the movie, the SWAT team can show up, reenact the battle of Stalingrad downtown, and everyone goes home. They don't show the investigation that is dependent upon information collected by beat cops and studied by detectives before SWAT shows up at the bad guy's door to deliver the arrest warrant.
Now imagine advocating skipping the process and dropping the SWAT team in to a foreign city.
Keep in mind, Special Operations are capable of doing much more than just the SWAT type mission and that the primary role of Army Special Forces is actually to train people. Really. Think about that for a few minutes.
It's been bugging me. That these things look at all easy is a testament to the profesionalism and skill of the troops in question.
Ironically, Elliot Cohen--who's book Supreme Command was popular, though horribly misunderstood, within the current administration--wrote a book about the political implications of Special Units. It was short and well worth reading.

Don't be shy. If you think I'm crazy or full of crap, comment or email me.