Special Forces

The least-understood branch of our military was born 60 years ago but today is coming into prominence as never before

“But, Dad, those don’t look like American soldiers.” My son was right. The bearded young men leaping from a white pickup truck in a TV news clip were dressed in an curious assortment of Western and Afghan garb. Yet even in the few seconds of broadcast images, one could see by their quick, purposeful movements that the newsman’s call was correct: The men securing a forlorn Al Qaeda safe house were U.S. Army Special Forces “Green Berets,” part of the major special operations forces deployment to Afghanistan, which also includes the Navy’s Sea-Air-Land teams—SEALs —and specialized Air Force elements.

Nor were their looks the only unconventional thing about them. All Green Berets are dauntingly adept fighters, but they also know how to build and run field hospitals, train foreign troops and guerrillas, speak foreign languages, and spend long, patient months behind enemy lines. Right now they might be the most crucial part of our military establishment. Certainly they are the least understood.

How about an Aaron Banks Bump!

Thanks for the ping. That may have been the most accurate news story about SF that I have ever read.

BTW,Colonel Banks is still alive,and attended the 50th Anniversary of Special Forces at Ft.Bragg recently as the guest of honor.

Oh I don't know about that.

Overrated and Underrated
Amendment to the Constitution

by Harold Evans

Overrated
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Never has a subordinate clause caused such trouble. The 13 opening words, qualifying the right, might as well be written in invisible ink, they are so frequently forgotten. The National Rifle Association and the gun lobby generally insist that the rights are individual, not collective for the purpose of protecting the community, and they seem now to have the support of the Attorney General in objecting to restrictions on the ownership of guns of any kind. Historically I see the Second Amendment as weasel words, a compromise between the Federalists, who insisted on a standing army, and the anti-Federalists, who feared it would be used to suppress States’ Rights. In the end a small standing army was agreed to, with the proviso that “a well regulated Militia” could be organized at the local level for local protection and to supplement the national army in a time of threat. The amendment limited only federal power; it left states free to regulate the use and possession of arms. And even as applied to the federal government, the prohibition has been watered down by the courts with more weasely words. The arms that the people have a right to keep and bear are only those that the militia of the day might keep and bear, not sawed-off shot-guns, machine guns, and other means of mayhem our day may contrive.

American Heritage runs excellent historical articles, including many on our nations proud military.

Actually, I am quite surprised by the quality of this article. I stopped my subscription to AH ten years ago when it became obvious (at that time) that their articles were one-sided and misleading (not to mention being anti-U.S.). I hope they have reformed their ways since then.

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.