- Reaction score
PuckChaser said:What does it add? A bunch of conventional guys doing an OMLT task in Afghanistan were killed, so what. It also notes SOF had casualties doing similar, yet likely in higher risk/higher value missions. It doesn't prove either way what force is appropriate for that specific theatre, unless you've got some deeper analysis?
I'm not saying it proves anything. But I think it does speak to what we were talking about earlier in terms of what roles are suitable for SOF vs. line units. I'm not out to argue one way or the other but I think how different nations are approaching these "limited" engagements whether in Afghan, Iraq or Syria is interesting and relevant for the CF. At what point does it become "SF+" rather than just SF?
It was mentioned earlier (in the Canadian context) that the political will to use SOF troops is higher than conventional troops due to public opinion. In regards to the incident in the article above, this is a relatively new development "after years of President Barack Obama restricting the use of conventional combat troops on the battlefield."