DoD Directive 3000.07 Irregular Warfare and Security Force Assistance

[Strat]

Does DoD Directive 3000.07 on Irregular Warfare bring a new emphasis to Irregular Warfare that has not been seen in the past and how will that translate into action. For example, of all the concepts (COIN, CT, UW, FID etc) mentioned Security Force Assistance is not listed. Does this document signal the end for SFA as a concept.

[Bob's World]

Based on recent comments I've heard my boss make, I'd say SFA is not only alive, but thriving. Time will tell.

Much more likely that the phrase (not the concept) of IW is retired and replaced with one not saddled with so much tragically bad strategic communications baggage. This phrase turns off virtually every group it was designed to attract.

[Old Eagle]

There should be an implementing instruction on SFA out shortly.

SFA contributes to all the missions listed; it is not a parallel mission.

[Hacksaw]

Anyone not wearing a uniform will shun any effort bearing the IW tag...

Speaking of really stupid naming conventions... I'd be curious how the Asymetric Warfare Group and Army Asymetric Warfare Office got tagged with those monikers... Stupid me always sought (and still seek in other endeavors) to gain an asymetric advantage in any battle/competition...

As trivial as it seems, the Army commits language fratricide more often than any other organization I'm aware of...

Live well and row

[Ken White]

Speaking of really stupid naming conventions... I'd be curious how the Asymetric Warfare Group and Army Asymetric Warfare Office got tagged with those monikers... Stupid me always sought (and still seek in other endeavors) to gain an asymetric advantage in any battle/competition...While you and I and many others might always try to do that, the US Army does not have a good record of so doing. Not at all. In fact, I'd say the reverse is generally true with way too few exceptions...

Perhaps those two organizations were formed in an attempt to change that.

AWG has been successful at several things, notably teaching the Army in Iraq how to run patrols -- which TRADOC doesn't teach at all well; getting Outcome Based Training instituted in the Army which will hopefully spread and offer an order of magnitude improvement in training. There have been several intel improvements due to their tutelage as well. They're earning their money.

I have no doubt the bulk of the Army will fight such change tooth and nail as it sounds though it might entail risk.

[oda175]

Start, the publication of DoDD 3000.07 does bring new emphasis throughout the department as it now delineates IW as a core mission area for the department and the services. What everyone really needs to accept is the fact that IW is one aspect of the overall national defense strategy that ultimately supports the U.S. national security strategy. Formalizing IW as one of the USG's main security challenges of the 21st century is a concept that will be readily accepted by the in-coming administration.

With respect to your comment on Security Force Assistance (SFA) - it is definitely alive and kicking. You can expect to see a DoD Directive in the coming months. This is a good thing as the operational environment continues to evolve i.e. SOF enabling GPF or GPF enabling SOF.