So, can anybody explain this to me: why do they prefer shadowy, clandestine operations done by special forces, operations that by definition navigate the grey area between legal and illegal, over regular, open military action conducted by the military?

Does it have anything to do with their fondness for dictatorships and oppressive regimes - which use such paramilitary ops way more frequently?

I would be interested in this article mentioned by Asher as well - if anyone can find it!

Mary:

Expecting the Left to deal with military/strategy issues is like hiring Bjork to do your taxes. Many on the left are intelligent and talented people, but this issue is just not part of their skillset. They have no talent for it, they have no interest in it and if they're stuck with the job they'll make a mess of it.

They can't argue reasonably about the issue, you can't tell them about SEAL's and HALO divers because if you do their eyes will glaze over and they'll start to fidget. They really, really don't care. They just want the whole problem to magically go away.

Brazilian Neocon:

Is this the one?

"Alcibiades":

I would think it has to do with not liking the military and out of sight, out of mind. Because you'll notice when they do become aware of these kinds of ops they rue them as well. Which is plain in the current reaction to this story from the left (see comments below the story).

Jim:

Yes, that, and also it's more consistent with their fantasy of a really clean surgical mission that doesn't involve, you know, nasty stuff like collateral damage, civilian deaths--the stuff that is really inevitable if we were actually to [gasp] try to prevail in a war. As opposed to making a symbolic show of it, Carter-Clinton style, and then bailing out before it gets too ugly.

This is not to say anything against special forces, but they are just one part of the arsenal, not the end of the story.

Bob:

Immediately after 9/11, Bush was told by the Central Command that a military response in Afghanistan would take at least seven months to mobilize. It was Rumsfield and the CIA that came up with the counter-proposal of going in almost immediate with Special Forces assisting the Northern Alliance. (Rumsfield being keen on restructuring the Pentagon and building more mobile, integrated, and lightweight forces). It was the CIA plan that won out and had great early success.

The irony here is that Dems have claimed that the footprint in Iraq isn't big enough, which might be true. The military footprint in Iraq was a reflection of Rumsfield's predisposition.

What is interesting of course, is that every case is idiosyncratic and what works in one situation doesn't work in another. Also there are massive screw ups in all wars which open the door to "hindsight" demagoguery.

"Someone":

Actually, it was a reflection of Turkish betrayal (prodded by the French).

Judith: (Commenting afterwards as the omnicient omnipotent and omnipresent prime mover of this blog)

Turkey certainly kept a whole Division from participating in the initial Iraq invasion, but it is also true that Rumsfeld wanted to transform the US military into what Bob described. And succeeded to some extent, if you look at how our military actually operates in Iraq. There is still a lot of bureaucratic bullshit but much more "mobile, integrated, and lightweight" than the old stereotype of the Army.

UPDATE: A new member says:

Maybe it a "see, Democrats are macho just like JFK was." Also, most of them are clueless as to the level of skill and professionalism in the military these days. You can't just order another dozen at the supermarket.

A lot of Dems also are trying to do things on the cheap: Increase special operations forces without increasing the military numbers overall. The men who go into special operations are generally really good soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines. You can't pull too many of that type out of a conventional unit without decreasing its effectiveness, a point that was made in the Standard article. Also, no more than a small minority of indivuals are going to be both motivated and otherwise suitable.

So, in order to keep your conventional forces at top effectiveness, plus have enough specwar types to draw from, you would have to increase the overall force size. Then there's the general problem of procurement going for sexy big budget items and less for consumables and upkeep. Keeping shooters good at what they do takes a heck of a lot of training time and ammunition.
TAANSTAAFL.