"sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate"After S-11 we started hearing about War against Terrorism.
At the time, I listened to quite a few 'experts' on TV panels disputing the idea that such a war was a war, as it did not accommodate to the traditional concepts used nor to the Geneva Conventions provisions, et cetera.
Of course, those expert commentators were people out of this world that insisted on the awkward idea that reality shall accommodate to their previous knowledge and preconceived ideas, instead of them acknowledging what was going on in real life, updating their ideas and adapting to the new scenarios.
What surprises me in the NYT article of reference, besides its opportunity, just a few days after the resignation recently occurred at the highest level of the US National Security, is the following remark by the journalist:
"Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees."Although the journalist put this idea in other people's mouths (I don't believe it), it reminded me of those out-of-their-time expert commentators post S-11: do SO military really expect that yihadists will apply the Geneva Conventions to them? ... come on NYT, give us a break.