What's new

If you have to build an A-Team with special forces from 5 different countries besides your home coun

Syed Asif Bukhari

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
746
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
First of all, thank you for your question. I am a retired soldier from the United States Army.

Interesting hypothetical question, and of course my true preference would be to utilize Special Operations Warriors from my home country to conduct any real world mission.

You have asked me to build an Operational Detachment-Alpha (ODA), or A-Team. This is the smallest detachment structure of the US Special Operations Forces, and it is comprised of 12 men. The ODA is led by a Detachment Commander, a Captain, and an Assistant Detachment Commander, who is his second in command, usually a Warrant Officer One or Chief Warrant Officer Two. The team also includes the following enlisted men: one Operations Sergeant (known as the "Team Sergeant"), usually a Master Sergeant, one Assistant Operations and Intelligence Sergeant, usually a Sergeant First Class, and two each Weapons Sergeants, Engineer Sergeants, Medical Sergeants, and Communications Sergeants, usually Sergeants First Class, Staff Sergeants or Sergeants.

main-qimg-7cb8834a2090d3ef62121cde1319c803

**This is a real life US Special Forces Captain at work. Let's call him "Rob". Here, he is in Afghanistan directing two of his men to follow a shady looking character into a suspected Taliban hideout, or maybe he's just telling me to get out of his face, I'm not sure. I'm going to make him the leader of our A-Team. "Rob" is pretty badass.

Rob would love to have as his Assistant Detachment Commander a member of the British Special Air Service, or SAS. SAS commandos are right up their with our Delta Operators and SEALs in terms of training and mission capability. US Special Forces have worked well with SAS commandos for many years.

main-qimg-c5da59bb86d5497210c49ebeda9310ab

**An SAS soldier stands at the ready in Iraq.

Now that we have our leaders accounted for, it's time to look at some of the best special operations warriors in the world to fill out the rest of our team. I would next look to the Israeli Defense Force for their Sayeret Matkal. The unit is modeled after the British Army's Special Air Service, and is tasked with counter-terrorism and hostage rescue beyond Israel's borders, in addition to it's function as an intelligence gathering agency.

main-qimg-7929ecf3353cfaf0379d6fbd2e88885c

**In 2003, Israeli taxi driver Eliyahu Gurel was kidnapped after transporting four Palestinians to Jerusalem in his cab. But the Sayeret Matkal unit located and rescued him from a 10-meter-deep pit in an abandoned factory in a suburb of Ramallah.

Next I'd look to the Russian Special Forces Alpha Group. They are an elite, stand alone sub-unit of the Russian Special Forces. Alpha was primarily created as a counter-terrorism unit, although another important mission for Alpha was to provide security for the Soviet leadership against enemy special forces in times of crisis or war. Over the years, Alpha has taken on a number of missions of various types.

In 1979, the Alpha Group shot a young Soviet Ukrainian, named Yuri Vlasenko, who was occupying a room in the Consular Section of the Embassy of the United States in Moscow, demanding he be granted asylum in the United States. He was either killed by gunfire, or by the detonation of his home-made bomb, which also slightly damaged the building. They have also been used to foil numerous hijacking attempts and even to begin the initiation of regime change in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan under the orders of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.

main-qimg-6fc5c371ede03d739c26bd17abd5df44

**Russian Alpha Group in action

Without a doubt we have to have a couple members of the Special Service Group (SSG) on our team. They are the primary special forces group of the Pakistani Army and are also known by their nickname "The Black Storks" due to their unique headgear. The SSG is no small unit. They are an entire Regiment divided into 10 battalions of 700 men each. They are quite adept at counter terrorism in addition to more traditional military operations. They are particularly good at hunting down terrorists. On 6 December 2014, a special team of Pakistani Special Service Group and Light Commandos tracked down and killed the Global Operations Chief of al-Qaeda Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah along with five other al-Qaeda fighters in Pakistan's South Waziristan region during the counter terrorist operation, Operation Zarb-e-Azb. He was the highest ranking al-Qaeda commander to be killed after the killing of Osama Bin Laden in 2011.

main-qimg-332979001488903e5bee841692c4ee43

**It looks as if the SSG might have borrowed their motto from the Marines. They'll have to take it up with them.

Rounding out our list for our A Team is the Canadian JTF2 -Canada. Joint Task Force 2 is Canada's elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit. They were created in 1993 and expanded to several hundred members following the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks. Their covert operations have included rescuing hostages in Iraq and hunting down Serbian snipers in Bosnia. The force’s time in Afghanistan is largely guarded, but it is known they were involved before most ground forces arrived and worked beside other special forces, like the US Navy SEALs.

main-qimg-0d264236357f8af9aa6f60771d74138e

**JTF2 in their winter cammo because, you know, it's Canada.

These units all have soldiers who are extremely well trained and capable of providing members who are able to fill any of the available positions necessary to complete our A-Team.

Right now there are some people reading this wondering if I know what the hell I am talking about. "What about GIGN of France?", they are wondering. "What about EKO Cobra from Austria or the German GSG 9?". Those, and other extremely capable special forces units are federal police entities and not military assets. We can't be mixing cops and soldiers together, that is why I chose who I did.

Once we got through a bit of a language barrier I bet our newly assembled team would work together like a well oiled machine. The warrior mindset is universal. Once everyone had all the hand and arm signals down, they'd be ready to go and make the world safe for democracy.

Written MonView Upvotes • Answer requested by Rita Bogdanova-Shapkina
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-4-20_21-0-34.JPEG
    upload_2016-4-20_21-0-34.JPEG
    371 bytes · Views: 44
Safe for democracy? Democracy has nothing to do with what the US military is doing to the rest of the world. The only thing our military (of western origin) is peddling is terrorism. Bombing countries for Leaders that will not bend to western imperialism or bombing countries for resources. As-in, we will bomb you to the stone age then steal your resources.

I served in the US Marine Corps, and I say this with risk of being flagged and labeled a 'terrorist' myself. Stop believing the hype of "wearing the uniform equates to being a hero and doing good in the world." Wearing the uniform usually means being a harbinger of death and the bringer of misery to untold millions.
 
Safe for democracy? Democracy has nothing to do with what the US military is doing to the rest of the world. The only thing our military (of western origin) is peddling is terrorism. Bombing countries for Leaders that will not bend to western imperialism or bombing countries for resources. As-in, we will bomb you to the stone age then steal your resources.

I served in the US Marine Corps, and I say this with risk of being flagged and labeled a 'terrorist' myself. Stop believing the hype of "wearing the uniform equates to being a hero and doing good in the world." Wearing the uniform usually means being a harbinger of death and the bringer of misery to untold millions.

Hello, and first of all I'd like to extend you my gratitude for serving your country. I respect that as a member of the armed forces, you have the capacity to critically think about whatever conflict you might be called upon to fight in. I'd also like to point out that the US Armed Forces is one of the very few military establishments in the world in which its members are free to think, evaluate, and ponder without being tethered to the views of the current establishment, just so long as they perform the duties required of them.

Nobody doubts that most modern conflicts undertaken by the United States, either reactively or pro-actively, serve a more underlying purpose than what their ostensible pretexts seem to suggest. Such a discrepancy between pretext and purpose, however, exists in almost every conflict fought to date: the Korean War (North Korea's pretext was to "liberate Korea from US influence"), the Ukraine invasion (Russia's rationale was to "protect the interests of ethnic Russians"), the invasion of Poland (Nazi Germany's response to a "Polish attack"), and so on. Masking the real purpose of a conflict isn't exclusive to the United States. However, this is an issue the fault of which pertains to select individuals within the US administration, not the leaders of the military and certainly not those serving in it. To those who wear boots on the ground, and their commanders, a military operation or deployment is merely another job to be completed, an opportunity to serve the mandate of the prototypical soldier who is trained and indoctrinated to help others in need. I can't speak for all members of the US military, but I can assume that most of them set foot in another country with both the personal and professional goal of bringing a better life to the citizens of that country. A soldier does not care of what his government's take on a war, but rather his own interpretation grounded in morality.
 
Or you call the real A-Team,
latest


Once we got through a bit of a language barrier I bet our newly assembled team would work together like a well oiled machine. The warrior mindset is universal. Once everyone had all the hand and arm signals down, they'd be ready to go and make the world safe for democracy.

Spec Ops train within their units constantly, the amount of interaction they do with other units within their branches are paramount. It's these interactions and training that the replacement of some members can be easy to integrate. Tactics strategy are similar across the board.

But to bring together different units from different countries it's going to take a lot more than just a language barrier to get over.
 
Another point The Motto of SSG is not what has been posted in the article. it is something else.
 
Another point The Motto of SSG is not what has been posted in the article. it is something else.
yes exactly thats was first thing came to my mind its

Mann Janbazam (I am valiant)

and Black Storks
isnt the main nickname there r others like SSG Commandos, Maroon Berets, Army SS Group.
 
Hello, and first of all I'd like to extend you my gratitude for serving your country. I respect that as a member of the armed forces, you have the capacity to critically think about whatever conflict you might be called upon to fight in. I'd also like to point out that the US Armed Forces is one of the very few military establishments in the world in which its members are free to think, evaluate, and ponder without being tethered to the views of the current establishment, just so long as they perform the duties required of them.

Nobody doubts that most modern conflicts undertaken by the United States, either reactively or pro-actively, serve a more underlying purpose than what their ostensible pretexts seem to suggest. Such a discrepancy between pretext and purpose, however, exists in almost every conflict fought to date: the Korean War (North Korea's pretext was to "liberate Korea from US influence"), the Ukraine invasion (Russia's rationale was to "protect the interests of ethnic Russians"), the invasion of Poland (Nazi Germany's response to a "Polish attack"), and so on. Masking the real purpose of a conflict isn't exclusive to the United States. However, this is an issue the fault of which pertains to select individuals within the US administration, not the leaders of the military and certainly not those serving in it. To those who wear boots on the ground, and their commanders, a military operation or deployment is merely another job to be completed, an opportunity to serve the mandate of the prototypical soldier who is trained and indoctrinated to help others in need. I can't speak for all members of the US military, but I can assume that most of them set foot in another country with both the personal and professional goal of bringing a better life to the citizens of that country. A soldier does not care of what his government's take on a war, but rather his own interpretation grounded in morality.

A well thought out and articulated response, thank you for your comment.
I think my perceptions of what was on the ground and what was being sold to the public as well as to the branches of service were a bit more than just a 'discrepancy'. A genuine, purposeful intent to fool the members of the service/public with the reasoning for war needs a bit more of a descriptive word than 'discrepancy'. With all due respect I would chose to use a less politically correct term.

I would have to agree that the intentions of anyone serving in uniform might be that of one that they were sold while enlisting. "Bringing freedoms and democracy to those who are oppressed."

Could be a reason for the last war having the highest suicide rate of any armed conflict for returning vets. Maybe their consciousness was able to differentiate the lies they were told versus seeing first hand what was actually being done on the ground?

We have the power to educate those who would be fooled again.
 
What about the Mighty Indian special forces group that needed an entire week to kill 5 terrorists holded up in warehouse in an airforce base


LOL
 
I think we already have our Best Team

Pakistan Armed forces:

a) Military
b) Airforce
c) Navy
d) Rangers / Border
e) ISI

In term of international collaboration our forces do work routinely with many groups
But at the end of story , it is our own Forces that protect our Nation 99.99%


I think some where in the post you added some flair "TO FIGHT to protect democracy"
well to be honest , not many folks feel Democracy is he ultimate model of government. So I doubt many nations of world would form teams for these ventures. Wars are fought to win influence for Corporations, who in turn ensure their political candidates reach government office. These political heads formulate policies that start wars.

In term of International Collaboration or Unified force

I think our forces engage many nations

However at end of the day we have enough members in our own nation to form a team

We don't need bits and piece players from outside

If we needed we can call up certain colleagues, they are on our SPEED dial



098210f842b23d96692c4895a6c4d3d8.jpg


ChinaSF.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


SSG-2222.gif


d4bed9d5345511b8ea0260.jpg


The tiny disjointed A-B-C-D teams don't work as proven by failure of Afghanistan ops in 70s and then in 80's and 00 on wards

Only a fully trained Army can do it right

Look the phone is ringing who is calling

hqdefault.jpg

ba5cbda783337cda619c251922743602.jpg


Lets call these two Bill and Chuck from Russia


Lets see achivement

> Chinese beat India biggest terrorist
> Spetsnaz beat ISIS , Other terrorist
> SSG /Pakistan military beat TTP in Zarb-e-Azab
> Turkish special forces fighting against those KURD terrorist
 
Last edited:

Mirali 2014;
image.jpeg





Motto ; Mann Janbazam(I am valiant)

Nicknames ; Black Storks (because they wear black overalls/ soviet invasion notoriety),Maroon Berets,Powindas (Nomads)
 
Men fight wars and mothers pay the price, where few old men decide that deaths of many young.
In the end it all boils down to soldiers fighting to keep the average joe have a reasonable good life style and the state coffers full of coin.
 
we often underestimate special forces from Malasiya and indonesia, they are too well trained and skillful but just not battle hardened..
 
A well thought out and articulated response, thank you for your comment.
I think my perceptions of what was on the ground and what was being sold to the public as well as to the branches of service were a bit more than just a 'discrepancy'. A genuine, purposeful intent to fool the members of the service/public with the reasoning for war needs a bit more of a descriptive word than 'discrepancy'. With all due respect I would chose to use a less politically correct term.

I would have to agree that the intentions of anyone serving in uniform might be that of one that they were sold while enlisting. "Bringing freedoms and democracy to those who are oppressed."

Could be a reason for the last war having the highest suicide rate of any armed conflict for returning vets. Maybe their consciousness was able to differentiate the lies they were told versus seeing first hand what was actually being done on the ground?

We have the power to educate those who would be fooled again.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that soldiers and other personnel who've been to the front lines are perhaps the most powerful and invaluable educators for those who might not be totally in touch with the situation in those conflicts. Fortunately, the advent of vigilante journalism and public pressure has mitigated the issue somewhat, but certainly not to the extent that some veterans and whistleblowers would've liked for it to have.

It could very well possibly be that the suicide rates are the result of veterans being shattered by a reality so deviant to their expectations, or perhaps by the guilt of being manipulated by those to whom they've pledged allegiance.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom