UKSF Upset With McChrystal

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, May 16, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The SAS can't be that cross with General Stanley, he's still alive.

    I love this "a major general who cannot be identified for security reasons" sh1te. Google is your friend if you wish to know who DSF is...that's if you don't know already!
  2. McChrystal is a US General who consistently praises and gives credit to British troops when credit is due. British General is mad at him. There has to be more to this story.
  3. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    Top British officer also banned from Hereford as well
    They'll be re painting the boathouse as I type to remove a possible security breach if he's asked the question

    Pretty harsh on McChrystal who as pointed out always seems very generous in his praise of British Forces

    Probably best if he dosen't by any houses with balconys in the near future
  4. Stonker

    Stonker On ROPs

    Are you following Mike Yon on Facebook, JJ?

    He posted this same (10 day old) article on his FB news feed just this morning (Part of his ongoing sniping at McC since he was dis-embedded).

    The book which seems to be behind this has been in the public domain since Feb.

    It 'feels' like there is also some sort of personality clash between DSF and the erstwhile/now resigned CO of the UK DF in Afg. Mebbe a little of that is to be found between McC and DSF?

    Hard to tell if there's really any substance to this, given that no other news outlet has anything on it.
  5. Any article which uses the Mafia term "Omerta" while discribing UKSF has to be suspect... :roll:

    Journo's know that putting SAS in a story makes their readers wet. So if there is'nt a decent story about the Hooligans, they'll cobble one together.
  6. I had a previous reply by Iphone but obviously hit wrong button. This was my reply:

    I do follow Yon on FB and should have mentioned this possible back story. While I have appreciated Yon's d(e)ispatches generally, I wonder if he is a bit paranoid/in need of some R&R at times.
  7. Stonker

    Stonker On ROPs

    You got me there JJ - or is there an echo on this thread . . . :?

    Ahh!! Now your response makes sense . . :D
  8. I've just finished reading that book; shame I gave it to someone else as it describes a very similar complaint against McChrystal but during the Iraq operations. Wonder if someone is getting confused?
  9. Perhaps UKSF need to re-calibrate the "essential irritant" level...
  10. Bit hypocritical considering the sheer amount of "memoirs" that originate from Hereford.

    Sounds to me like the DSF is upset because he was in the middle of his own book deal but this one has stolen his subject matter!

    Timeliness Fail. :D
  11. I won't get the book because I'm not into SF porn.

    I sometimes wonder if they are more worried about losing the myth of being super secret ninjas than any other reason.

    I was speaking to a SAS bloke who we used to do a task with sometimes, who reckoned people wouldn't believe how mundane most of the tasks they get given are.

    I recall Andy McNab said something in an article recently, about the jobs that normal infantry are doing now would have been the preserve of the SF community years ago.

    You can actually do some pretty warry secret squirely tasks no matter what cap badge you're wearing, you could be a TA chef even. :D

    So in this day and age when everyone's getting shot at could they be worried that the regiment will lose some of it's mystique.
  12. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    If this is true, the SAS must be the touchiest regiment in the army.

    I recall that DLB was allegedly told he was persona non grata at Hereford after his Gulf War memoir came out. Given that, at the time, he was:
    A major general, a knight and a household name;
    Had just commanded the UK's combined forces in a very successful campaign;
    Had served with distinction in the regt; and
    Is a pretty formidable individual above and beyond all the above;
    I would love to have been a fly on the wall when he was given the news.

    Brave chap who delivered it too, I should think.
  13. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    You can understand the concern of DSF about security in general because, even if what was revealed in Urban's book was not especially sensitive, he would not want the precedent of people speaking relatively openly to be out there for the occasions on which they are conducting very sensitive operations.

    Having said that, I think it's an unsustainable and probably counter-productive view. Firstly, the blanket 'non-disclosure' approach makes SF operations more interesting for journalists and the public in general because they assume all kinds of weird and wonderful things are happening. The fact is that in reality, they aren't that remarkable: SF operations require a lot of technical skill to carry out but, by and large, they aren't doing all that much that one wouldn't expect them to be doing. If you take Urban's book at face value, the SAS in Baghdad spent a lot of time kicking down doors and arresting/shooting bad guys: surprise, surprise. The interesting bit would be how the intelligence they worked on was acquired, but that doesn't get so much attention.

    Secondly, however big-testicled we get about secrecy, we supposedly live in a democracy where government has to account to us - through parliament - for how it spends our money, and for what it does in our name. DSF has acquired a relatively large organisation over the past decade which chews through a substantial amount of money; is it possible for the House of Commons Defence Committee to adequately scrutinise whether SF make best use of that money if they refuse to talk about their operations?

    At a slight tangent, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that some of what SF were doing in Baghdad amounted to a policy of targeted assassination, effectively on behalf of the UK Government and, thus, the UK people. Should this be happening without - at least - some discussion in parliament?

    My personal view is that a slightly more relaxed attitude needs to be taken, as is the case with MI5 and SIS. Both organisations do a certain amount of press liaison and both are scrutinised by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee. Nobody is suggesting they get Ross Kemp and his camera crew embedded with them but it isn't unreasonable to release limited information at the conclusion of SF operations giving a general idea of what was done and why.
  14. Urban spills the beans again huh??

    I remember when he blew the OP-SEC of the '95th back in the penninsula days.................