Who apparently don't know what the word "elite" means (as in Saddam's "elite Republican Guard"). Or maybe it's all just relative. Donald Sensing explains. Why do they do this? It can't be simple cluelessness, because somehow, the cluelessness always ends up going in a certain direction.

David Blue also makes a good point in comments: that armies win battles, but people or nations win wars. And it's very hard to win a war when half the people in the country don't even really believe that we're in one, and/or believe that their own government is the enemy.

It can't be simple cluelessness, because somehow, the cluelessness always ends up going in a certain direction.

The author of the article seems to think "elite forces" is a compliment, and complains that it's rarely paid to Americans, but he misses the negative connotations of the term--a fanatical, imperial, or fascistic corps that serves especially brutal or grandiose purposes. Usually the more belligerent and evil a regime is, the more "elite troops" it has in its military. This doesn't necessarily mean they're superior in combat, just that they're selected specifically for lack of compassion or fear. A rational strategist would prefer good logistics and solid troops over such sociopaths, but dictators are usually more instuitive than rational--they take comfort in being surrounded by fearless animals. My point is, you don't want the press to start calling Americans "elite troops," and they aren't doing the various Middle Eastern thug armies any favors designating them as such. And no, please don't go all Rain Man and start quoting the dictionary at me.

And it's very hard to win a war when half the people in the country don't even really believe that we're in one, and/or that their own government is the enemy.

Supporters of this thing knew the American people were divided going into it, so you should take responsibility for that.

intuitive, dammit.

Why is it a problem that half the people in the country don't believe that their own government is the enemy? *Should* our government be the enemy?

I mean, yes, the administration has handled the information side of things so horribly, but does that make them the enemy, per se?

That was poorly worded. I fixed it to make it more clear.

Elite is a relative term, the elite of one group may not be so elite when compared to another group.

And the idea that "elite" in and of itself has ANY negative connotation is, well, BS.

The author of the article seems to think "elite forces" is a compliment, and complains that it's rarely paid to Americans, but he misses the negative connotations of the term--a fanatical, imperial, or fascistic corps that serves especially brutal or grandiose purposes. Usually the more belligerent and evil a regime is, the more "elite troops" it has in its military. This doesn't necessarily mean they're superior in combat, just that they're selected specifically for lack of compassion or fear. A rational strategist would prefer good logistics and solid troops over such sociopaths, but dictators are usually more instuitive than rational--they take comfort in being surrounded by fearless animals. My point is, you don't want the press to start calling Americans "elite troops," and they aren't doing the various Middle Eastern thug armies any favors designating them as such. And no, please don't go all Rain Man and start quoting the dictionary at me.

Brian, you don't get to decide how we deflate your argument. My dictionary says:

1) The few who are considered socially, intellectually, or professionally superior to the rest in a group or society, 2) A typewriter font of 12 characters to the inch.

It says nothing about your definition. I also glanced on-line and saw nothing about this definition there either. So it appears to me that you're just telling us what you decide "elite troops" means. Since neither we or the reporter use that definition, then that's irrelevant. Come on, why do you waste our time with an argument that can be punctured with a dictionary check?

My favorite jargon along these lines was "ultra-loyal". I gather it was supposed to mean people that have more loyalty than rats on a sinking ship.

Elite means there's a gold dragon around the targeting icon, right?

Cecil: And the idea that "elite" in and of itself has ANY negative connotation is, well, BS.

It has negative connotations when applied to a military force, and for a very simple historical reason: Armies of a free republic don't need special cadres of vicious killers, but tyrants need such creatures to carry out their will on a continuing basis. Examples would include the Immortals, the Praetorians, the Varangian Guard, and the Waffen SS, to name a few of the more prominent.

Karl: Brian, you don't get to decide how we deflate your argument.

I was hoping to preempt a pointless detour into semantics. Dictionaries are a simple communication aid, not an absolute accounting of all possible meanings and connotations. Misusing a word because you don't know what it means is one thing, and using it to reflect common, unstated assumptions is quite another.

My dictionary says: 1) The few who are considered socially, intellectually, or professionally superior to the rest in a group or society

And in a military context, that can mean people selected for unusually pronounced traits such as ruthlessness, fanaticism, and lack of fear.

It says nothing about your definition.

Do you suppose that's why I explained it?

So it appears to me that you're just telling us what you decide "elite troops" means.

How do you think human beings communicate? Just mentally add up memorized dictionary entries to reach the sum total of a sentence? You can spout all the definitions you want and not know a damn thing about what someone means. Information is fuel for thought, not a substitute for it.

Elite means there's a gold dragon around the targeting icon, right?

And the theme music becomes quicker and more ominous.

"It has negative connotations when applied to a military force,"

No, it does not. You just don't like the military so you find a negative connotation in anything related to the military.

> And the idea that "elite" in and of itself has ANY negative connotation is, well, BS.

It has a very negative connotation for people who tend to favor the underdogs simply because they are underdogs, as certain groups tend to do.

BS lives up to his initials and demonstrates massive ignorance of the military. "Elite forces" are those who have received special training and equipment, enabling them to do things that ordinary military personnel can't. For example, US Army Special Forces (the Green Berets) operate in A Teams - small units (tyically less than 13 men) that are organized to train, equip, and lead in combat guerilla forces of battalion size. They did this with incredible success with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, supported by an Air Force Combat Controller attached to each A Team. Special Forces are also able to conduct direct action missions like the Rangers and Navy SEALS. Small units, superbly trained, able to conduct missions that ordinary soldiers couldn't. That's an elite unit. The US military has several types of elite units totaling approximately 30,000 personnel. Even the Marine Corps (which considers itself an elite force) has Force Recon, an elite within an elite. They're very effective. Likewise, the British and Aussies have their SAS units who are some of the finest soldiers on Earth. Those are elite units. It isn't about loyalty or politics. It's about troops who are simply the best.

Larry J nails it.

Brian can only win arguments when he redefines the terms of debate outside the boundries of reality. Unfortunately for him, that don't play well here.

Mutch to his chagrin, this this not 2nd grade recess and such is not allowed amongst adult thinkers.

I was hoping to preempt a pointless detour into semantics. Dictionaries are a simple communication aid, not an absolute accounting of all possible meanings and connotations. Misusing a word because you don't know what it means is one thing, and using it to reflect common, unstated assumptions is quite another.

In the future, it might be best if you stuck to accepted meanings for words in order to avoid pointless detours into semantics. Larry J has it right. That is the common usage of "elite" when describing military units.

If there is one thing you all should be certain of, and that is:

I'M L337.

Cecil: No, it does not.

Yes, it does. Why do you never respond with relevant comments, choosing instead to spew idiotic ad hominems and state articles of faith?

You just don't like the military so you find a negative connotation in anything related to the military.

I state a negative connotation because one exists, and I explained why I think so.

Neil: It has a very negative connotation for people who tend to favor the underdogs simply because they are underdogs, as certain groups tend to do.

There are historical reasons, as I explained above, and they have nothing to do with who has the advantage.

Larry: BS lives up to his initials

Another Mensa candidate who thinks it's clever to make fun of initials? Boy oh boy, the IQ points just fall away like prices in a Wal-Mart commercial.

and demonstrates massive ignorance of the military.

Ignorance of the military is mainly found in its members and fetishists.

"Elite forces" are those who have received special training and equipment, enabling them to do things that ordinary military personnel can't.

Yes, and in the vast majority of history, that has been the domain of palace guards--fanatically loyal, ruthless, merciless, and terroristic specimens who did their job by seeking out and murdering enemies of the dynasty. Other troops were usually poorly trained, poorly equipped, and liable to corruption if important matters were left in their care, but the elite forces of the realm could be trusted to exterminate entire clans. The idea of applying "elite" to specialist battlefield units is relatively new--if a soldier was elite, that meant he personally was a superior fighter or his commander a superior tactician, not that he had unusual training or weaponry.

Mike: Brian can only win arguments when he redefines the terms of debate outside the boundries of reality.

If you could respond with something other than chickenshit 3rd person ad hominems, you might learn something.

In the future, it might be best if you stuck to accepted meanings for words in order to avoid pointless detours into semantics.

Regardless of how individual words are defined, the English language is not a mathematical sum of the words in a sentence--"elite" can mean what you insist while "elite forces" can mean something other than "elite" + "forces." This is due to something called connotation--what your precious dictionary calls "the suggestion of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes." It all comes from the fact that human language is a network of associations, not axiomatic identities.

Mike: Brian can only win arguments when he redefines the terms of debate outside the boundries of reality.

"If you could respond with something other than chickenshit 3rd person ad hominems, you might learn something."

If you would stop being a chickenshit, you might become capable of learning.

If you would stop being a chickenshit, you might become capable of learning.

I just said that. Polly want a cracker?