Why would the government ever announce when and where it is deploying special operations forces?

2015-11-02T09:52:11-05:00

"The decision to send spec-ops troops into Syria, even in an advisory capacity, is a reversal of Obama’s statement in an address to the nation in Sept. 10, 2014, when he flatly declared: 'I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.'"

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/30/us-deploying-special-operations-forces-syria/74868542/

U.S. deploying special operations forces to Syria

President Obama has authorized the deployment of “fewer than 50” U.S. troops into Syria.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 9:56 AM

2015-11-02T09:56:12-05:00

One part stupidity and one part ensuring the oversight committee doesn't fry their butts.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 10:04 AM

2015-11-02T10:04:32-05:00

Good question ... ...

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Nov 2 at 2015 10:10 AM

2015-11-02T10:10:47-05:00

It's quite simple actually. They are a bunch of idiotic morons!

Response by SFC Stephen King made Nov 2 at 2015 10:19 AM

2015-11-02T10:19:03-05:00

COL Sam Russell Unfortunately, this has become the norm. Whatever happened to OPSEC.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 2 at 2015 11:01 AM

2015-11-02T11:01:35-05:00

COL Sam Russell - Strictly because of politics at home. Obama has to do something/anything to show that he is addressing the problems in Syria. He is an incompetent and impotent novice who has no business being in the position he is in.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Nov 2 at 2015 11:06 AM

2015-11-02T11:06:23-05:00

Cause they are even dumber than they look

Response by MSgt Daniel Attilio made Nov 2 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-11-02T11:08:20-05:00

Deception? -perhaps. There could be dozens of ongoing operations whose actions are being overlooked thanks to attention grabbing "announcements."

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 2 at 2015 11:26 AM

2015-11-02T11:26:02-05:00

COL Sam Russell I suspect that many in the public affairs equivalent of the Obama administration are either ignorant of security implications or simply arrogant as they release information which should not be shared.
If this is a disinformation campaign it seems to be ill-conceived and poorly-executed.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Nov 2 at 2015 11:34 AM

2015-11-02T11:34:54-05:00

Simply put, it's a convenient way to announce policy.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Nov 2 at 2015 11:52 AM

2015-11-02T11:52:59-05:00

Because the person that is or did release the information has never served and thinks OPSEC is BS! Its like telling a theif "Hey I'm going to the ATM and withdrawing $1000"! You wouldn't do that because you KNOW you will be ROBBED. So why does the current administration think it is okay. Why even tell it. just send them and after the fact say Oh By the way I sent my guys and they kicked there ass!

Response by SGT Charles Bunch made Nov 2 at 2015 12:00 PM

2015-11-02T12:00:06-05:00

When the President throws OPSEC on the back burner for political gain we no longer have a President that is on our side.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 2 at 2015 12:00 PM

2015-11-02T12:00:33-05:00

They need to attend OPSEC classes.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 2 at 2015 12:33 PM

2015-11-02T12:33:17-05:00

This is as stupid an idea as has ever come out of DC

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Nov 2 at 2015 12:36 PM

2015-11-02T12:36:11-05:00

Good Question. I wonder why too.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Nov 2 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-11-02T12:39:11-05:00

A couple of things come to mind -

1. Half of RP lost their minds when it was discovered that Delta was involved in combat operations in Iraq/Syria. You can't have it both ways, either OPSEC applies and you suck your political BS up when you discover the POTUS said one thing while the military did something else or you don't cry when he announces it to the world.

2. This doesn't harm OPSEC at all, but sends a message to Russia, Syria and Daesh that combat beards are in play for real this time. It's not like SF hasn't been doing raids (primarily hostage rescue) into Syria and Iraq before now.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Nov 2 at 2015 12:41 PM

2015-11-02T12:41:40-05:00

Obama is both an idiot and a liar.

Response by CW2 John Brookins made Nov 2 at 2015 1:05 PM

2015-11-02T13:05:59-05:00

I don't think this is really an OPSEC issue. It's more of a PR issue. More operations with no long term strategy. Just noise.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 2 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-11-02T13:34:41-05:00

That's a great question, Sir, and I'm seeing it more and more often... I still see young troops getting chastised over it only to see what they've said, verbatim, all over the media... It freakin sucks as it still put our military in harms way and still has the potential to adversely compromise operations... I guess our government and society plays a "stress card" for OPSEC, COMSEC, PERSEC, etc......

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-11-02T13:59:20-05:00

Dangerous

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 2:11 PM

2015-11-02T14:11:24-05:00

So, COL Sam Russell's original question has nothing to do with OPSEC per se. His question is about the specificity (is it really specific?) of the use of SOF in Syria.

Then, suddenly, everyone says this is an OPSEC violation. How?

The original post asked an apolitical question, but immediately receives many political answers.

The press release could have plainly said that a small contingent of U.S. Forces were deploying to Syria for such and such purpose. The Administration chose to specify that they were SOF. In a politically charged environment, that seems like the only way to straddle the issue; say the U.S. are deploying forces (true) but qualify that statement by noting they are SOF (lighter logistical train; lower likelihood of mission creep; implicit short duration; focus on traditional SOF objectives rather than conventional war) to satisfy the more dovish commentators. This is arguably the only approach that could have been taken to satisfy the various conflicting interests, but some only wish to see this Administration fail. That is rooting against America, and that is wrong.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 2:47 PM

2015-11-02T14:47:12-05:00

At least when ol storming Norman did it it was to supply false information to the enemy. now we just tell them to just to make war more fair because everyone is a winner

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 2 at 2015 3:11 PM

2015-11-02T15:11:39-05:00

They are smoking a lot of crack. Lots!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 5:07 PM

2015-11-02T17:07:43-05:00

In answer to your question, to make a statement! What the statement is supposed to be is unclear, but I am not surprised. SOF relies on OPSEC and any discussions regarding past, present and future operations should not be allowed. The more information that the enemy can obtain regarding how we function, the easier it is to target us.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 2 at 2015 8:13 PM

2015-11-02T20:13:19-05:00

The National Powers are: Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economics. However, we don't know how to use any of them properly.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Nov 2 at 2015 11:10 PM

2015-11-02T23:10:33-05:00

Well Sir, it is simply because the one thing politicians do well is incompetence.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 11:39 PM

2015-11-02T23:39:27-05:00

Because this announcement wasn't for us or ISIS. It's for Russia/Syria/Iran. It is more of a geopolitical move to get us a little more leverage when the eventual negotiations begin over the Assad regime. Think of it like poker, we just threw a few more chips on to the table.

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Nov 3 at 2015 8:17 PM

2015-11-03T20:17:03-05:00

OPSEC only applies to military personnel. Like we were lectured about not giving out any information about when we will arrived at Australia or Thailand, we were met with a huge sign saying "Welcome US Military".

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 8:40 PM

2015-11-03T20:40:58-05:00

$5 says that by the time it was in the news our guys were already there at least a week...and it was already known by locals!

Response by SSgt Gary Guinn made Nov 4 at 2015 1:52 PM

2015-11-04T13:52:51-05:00

These people are traitorous in their incompetence or willful undermining of the mission. Sad. Just hope our Operators don't pay the price for their deeds.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 4:06 PM

2015-11-04T16:06:45-05:00

In my opinion it should never be announce

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 9 at 2015 6:44 PM

2015-11-09T18:44:56-05:00

I think they are digging for anything positive to include ratting out our Special Operations.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Dec 16 at 2015 8:35 AM

2015-12-16T08:35:49-05:00

COL Sam Russell I guess OPSEC is no longer important. Unwise dissemination of information.

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Oct 29 at 2022 10:32 PM

2022-10-29T22:32:13-04:00

We have a JCS who very clearly stated he would inform his counterpart in China. So why be surprised?