Reply #110: I think they're using "boots on the ground" differently than you are. [View All]

[joshcryer]

You consider, for example, the fact that a dozen or three SAS / special forces are not going to be able to logistically stay there beyond the conflict itself where they can hide within the rebel forces and be conspicuous. To be able to handle more than a few dozen troops you need increasingly large logistics, until at which point those troops become an occupying force. They can stay as long as they want and fight off any attempts to oust them indefinitely (see: Iraq / Afghanistan).

From your own link: "British special forces soldiers in Libya currently number fewer than 30, but the size of the deployment could be increased if the security situation deteriorates and the hunt for Gaddafi and his entourage drags on.

SAS troops have so far taken an undercover role, training rebel groups in advance of the attack on Tripoli. They have been working with French commandos and special forces from a number of east European countries. British defence officials, perhaps for political reasons, are emphasising the role played by Qatari special forces, notably in the storming of Gaddafi's compound, and those of the UAE."

I have read reports where SAS has been very low key where the rebels didn't even know they were there. And for good reason, I suspect, as there was the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12658054">detention of British SAS when they first arrived. Saying 6 men, 30 men, qualify as "boots on the ground" in the context of occupying forces is really taking the words out of context. Yes it would be better if every single report made that distinction ("No troops outside of special forces"), but it does not suddenly destroy the credibility of an article.