Posted on 04/29/2006 3:12:19 PM PDT by northmoor
A simple example would be that if an enemy spy, yes they are infiltrated thoroughout IP, IF, translators, food service, et. al, learned that one of these units was in the area or setting up, the enemy would leave or focus attacks. Either scenario is not good for us.
Col. Nick Rowe was a pow of the VC for 5 yrs. For most of that time they thought he was an combat engineer. Through spies in our government, most likely a member of the "anti-war" left, his true identity was discovered. He was being moved to a command location for execution when he escaped and was rescued.
He was eventually murdered by Phillipine communists after their intelligence discovered who he was and his mission.
They carry the enemies' water, in many cases. I was astounded by an advertisement on Military.com, run by Col. Hackworth and his group SFTT. They were helping a "major" news organization, asking to be contacted by any service members who had any knowledge of harsh treatment of enemies or of so called "war crimes".
"It is significant."
...oh yes.
"In short, just about everything the enemy does not know helps our side...."
Just like the MSM feeds us misinformation for their benefit, this information was carefully planned for it's objective.
"...that's part of the information battle."
Read article again. CODENAME coalition forces. LOL.
"Second, if they were that close, why was he not shot and killed instead of being allowed to flee?"
Imagine a street in Iraq, lots of small vendors on the streets, and a squad heading to an assignment sees their target buying food. The target panics and runs, the squad cannot just 'open fire' in the middle of the crowded street.
Not saying this is what happened, just providing a reasonable explanation.
What is the difference between a "white" SOF unit and a "black" SOF unit?
Thank you for your response...I don't know how "reasonable" it is, but at least you attempted and answer. Thanks again!!!
A rule of thumb is to say nothing that is not part of an information operation.
It even hurts to verify for the enemy that which we think he knows. Confirmation of information enables him to be certain rather than to wonder. It also enables him to free up resources for that which is still hazy or unknown.
How do you know this?
Please read my xzins and my previous posts. You seem to have missed them. The msm continually gives information that aids the enemy. With today's technology the information in this article could also be used to target the families, living in the US, of service members.
The "black" units conduct more Direct Action missions such as hostage rescue and taking down high value targets. These people are rarely open with their backgrounds and depend on secrecy.
The first half of John Wayne's movie "The Green Berets" gives the concept of a "white" operation. The movie "Navy Seals (with Charlie Sheen) shows an agrandized view of "black" ops.
Thanks for the explaination.
They were once published by the Military Times Publishing Company, which may still exist on paper, but is owned by Gannett (publishers of USA Today). When Gannett bought them out the editorial position of all of the papers veered left and the quality of the reporting took a nose dive.
The papers are mostly bought by career soldiers (sailors, Marines, etc), because the services do a lousy job of putting personnel info on their intranets, and you've always been able to see the War College selection list, the Master Sergeant promotions, the battalion command list, the new pay scales when there's a raise, etc. on the military times papers before the official word percolates down the chain.
But you're right that their editorial position is hard anti-war, insultingly anti-soldier, and pro-Democratic Party (but I repeat myself).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
This story did not come from any information released by anyone authorized to release information. There are accurate parts, inaccurate parts, parts that I won't say if they're accurate, and parts that I have no way of knowing about.
What this is, is a reporter repeating scuttlebutt or barrack-room bull from various REMFs. You can bet your pension that no member of the Rangers, or of any of those other units, assuming for the sake of argument that they do exist, gave that reporter this information. (The military can conduct a very effective OPSEC briefing). Some intel weenie who has been wandering out of his lane on the SIPRnet, or some FOBbit officer (I'd start the interrogations on the JAGs...) stitched together a blanket of fact, guesswork, and supposition and went boasting to a reporter. The reporter stirs it a bit, adds some juice as they love to do, and presto! It's a story.
Both the leakers and the reporters belong in Leavenworth. Even if the leak is wrong or inconsequential. (We had a case one time where some weenie made up a story for a reporter, and unbeknownst to him, he blew a real intel operation, because the increased security looking for his phony one stumbled over it).
Finally, there's the tantalizing possibility that some element of this is a barium meal, and the CI bloodhounds are already on the trail of Chatty Cathy, whoever he may be. I would like to think this is the case.
I'd like to address one side issue: black/white special operations. These terms are used to distinguish between denied (or deniable) elements and operations and overt elements and operations. The USG makes no official statements about the specific assigned elements, if any, and operations, if any, of JSOC. Therefore almost everything you read about JSOC is unsupported speculation and unsourced hearsay.
Black/White/Gray are also used to describe attribution in psychological operations or information operations. White is "we said it." Black is "It looks like them saying it, but it's us making them look bad." And Gray is "Good luck trying to prove who's really behind this." I believe this longstanding use in psywar theory (dating to before Special Forces formed in 1952), is the ultimate source of the black/white thing that has made such a stir.
The point several people made, that the DOD is not getting the word of success out, is true. However, that is because the DOD mostly goes to the public through the MSM, which is pretty much on the Zarkman's side in this whole thing. (They always figure they can switch back before he gets to TriBeCa). To get positive stories (and yes, some negative ones) without the blood-and-guts BS angle that this reporter has thrown in, check out DefenseLink.mil. Try to get Centcom's "Advisor" magazine emailed to you, also.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Thanks. That's what my reading affirms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.