The first mistake is what McMaster called "a raiding mentality": the idea that we'll get a "fast, cheap, and efficient" victory if we can only identify the crucial "nodes" -- enemy leaders, nuclear weapons sites, whatever -- and take them out, whether with a Special Ops team like the one that killed Bin Laden, a long-range smart weapon, or a drone, McMaster said in his remarks at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies.The discussion is fully engaged. The entire Special Operations Command led by McRaven has adopted the Raids, Raids and more Raids philosophy and it appears that Army Special Forces is finally pushing back.
"That's a fundamentally unrealistic conception," said McMaster. "We know raiding and an attritional approach" -- i.e. just killing enemies until the survivors give up -- "did not solve the problem in Iraq" (or for that matter Vietnam). "Targeting does not equal strategy."
At its worst, a raiding approach is a militarized version of "George Costanza in Seinfeld, 'leave on an up note' -- just go in, do a lot of damage, and leave," McMaster said to laughter.
Its a refreshing development and its an indication that US Army Special Operations (meaning Special Forces, Rangers and 160th) are ahead of the game when it comes to adjusting to life after Afghanistan.
It'll be interesting to see how Marine and Air Force Special Ops adjusts to the new reality. I don't see Navy SEALs making any changes, but if SOCOM as an organization is gonna make a change then it will require different leadership.
As strange as it would seem, I would recommend a member of Army Special Forces Command to get the top reigns. With a turn to the Pacific its essential that roles, and responsibilities be ironed out, duplication eradicated and a SMOOTHING of ties to the conventional forces established.
