Security Force Assistance: Roles and Missions for SOF and Conventional Forces
I have read the discussions on this board wrt who should be conducting COIN and FID to a lesser degree; Should it be conventional forces?, SF? who is SF and who isn't? etc...what really constitutes an "SF" or "SOF" mission.
I have read on other sites how some in the Army SF community feel about organizations like MARSOC or anyone else who would venture into that realm.
I am reading Max Boot's "Savage Wars of Peace" and its VERY clear that we have waged small wars and sorts of irregular warfare since our conception as a country. Certainly the Marine Corps has played a prominent role in many of these incursions be it a day or a year long. It is also clear that until recent history we haven't had a professional force dedicated to COIN/UW/FID.
I would also say while the Naval services where pursuing those “Savage Wars of Peace”, the Army from 1865 to the late 19th Century waged its own form of COIN against the native American tribes out west.
Recently with the advent of MCTAG in the Marine Corps, that is a conventional advisor unit, and of course MARSOC's MSOAG, here we have two organizations that will focus on advising. I don’t speak for either organization but it is also clear that some don’t like this within the SF community.
http://www.veteransofspecialforces.o...ditorials.html
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...c-forms-mctag/
In MCTAG's case I believe they will be dedicated to FID and that alone. They are not and don't intend to be special forces or conduct UW missions, which brings me to, what constitutes UW or a special forces mission?
The men who conduct it (sorry ladies) or the mission itself?
If you say its the men who conduct it, then when someone other than SF conducts a mission that the men of SF normally do, and successfully pull that mission off, then what does that make those conventional Soldiers and Marines? If a SF Soldier conducts a more conventional mission, then what does that make them? Highly trained conventional Soldiers?
I believe the lines have really blurred in the last few years. Is it the way that SF thinks and goes about their mission planning? Is it the SFAS (MARSOC runs a RSAS that is pretty much the same). Doing these type of selection courses qualify an individual for further screening and selection in these organizations but don’t constitute automatic entry, it is a long process. I will say that this process does a good job of screening out and preparing an individual for this type of duty. I would say maturity being one of the traits that the screening process successfully screens for.
One only has to look at the TT's in Iraq and Afghanistan to see Soldiers and Marines conducting a form of FID or poor man's SF team as my Army counterpart liked to call them.
So;
-There is a history of the Marine Corps and conventional Army conducting UW/COIN/FID.
-TT’s in Iraq and Afghanistan do this now.
-Currently there are organizations that have formed or is forming that will conduct UW/FID/COIN within the Marine Corps (not sure what the Army is doing).
-Both are VERY small organizations compared to SFG’s. MCTAG is strictly conventional advising teams. It is a VERY small organization.
-SF types (not all) seem to be very apprehensive about this (I understand this)and unwilling to accept what is happening (I could be wrong but this is based on what I have read and heard)
-The “Long War” is here to stay and as Max Boot’s book points out, has always been here. History didn’t start at the end of WW II.
For the forum;
-These new organizations are here to stay, what is the best way for SF to handle it?
Refuse to deal with them? Pretend like it ain’t happening?, Get on board and work with them, thereby assisting in the direction they go?, which if done right will only complement SF be it MARSOC(JMO).
-What is the best way for new organizations (Army, Navy, USAF, Marines) to go about training these individuals and teams for this type duty. In MSOAG’s case, they have to meet the SOCOM standards, but what is the best way to train “conventional” forces? Don’t they deserve first class training to prepare them for this type duty?
-I do advocate a screening process for these conventional advisors. We do it all the time in the Marine Corps for Recruiters and Drill Instructors and in the Drill Instructors case, they really weed out those who can’t cut it. I have often heard the term “Drill Instructor Mafia” used. Its almost like they are an elite force within the Marine Corps within that context. Although both Recruiter school and Drill Instructor school are very demanding, I would say Drill Instructors are better analogy because they are teachers, trainers and mentors. Believe it or not(Sorry GySgt Emery, don’t mean to shatter the myth). My point is that Drill Instructors are weeded out and have a course that does this. Plenty have been dropped, so it is possible for conventional advisor courses to do the same, different mindset but similar process.
-Where is this leading, I will point out as I have before, that many of the Officers and SNCO’s in the Marine Corps who fought and won WW I and WW II cut their teeth in these “Savage Wars of Peace”. Lots of Marines made names for themselves during the Banana Wars (Chesty Puller).
I don’t know where conventional advisors will lead and how history will look upon this, but I would love to hear others views, should conventional forces do this and move out into something that has for at least the last 40 years SF's province (as the SecDef pointed out), how do you do it and not just pay lip service and do it right?. From what I have read here there are many on this board with experience in many of these areas, love to see your views. I’ll button up now, helmet is on…
Winning wars isn't a competition between Services
First -- it would have been helpful to have a more definitive thread title, but that's just me. The curiosity factor made me open the thread even against my better judgement.
The "demand signal" for security force assistance activities will outstrip capacity, both SOF and conventional for the foreseeable future, so there's plenty of work to go around, as long as nobody gets "rice-bowl-itis".
Future requirements will outstrip tactical capability. That simply means that the OD-A/OD-B skill sets can't cover the broad spectrum of required specialties. Building tactical expertise without development of infrastructure and institutions is insufficient. Additionally, development of non-military security forces lies outside the expertise of SF/MCSOAG except for highly focused CT forces.
What will be required is a holistic approach across a huge number of Combat, combat support and combat service support specialties, from the ministerial level all the way to the individual soldier/policeman.
If we start to do this right, maybe we can better prevent bad situations from developing rather than trying to respond to them once they're out of hand.
Speaking of Better Judgement... Not
Unless, I'm mistaken... SOF has been named the proponent for Security Force Assistance...
God love the snake eaters, I'm not here to throw stones while I live in a glass house... but this is not a good outcome...
As Old Eagle (isn't that a teenage clothing store) accurately states, the SFA demand signature will outpace SOF and current conventional capabilities alike for the foreseeable future. Burying proponency for this mission inside the SOF community will do nothing to remedy that situation:(
The current projected order of magnitude demand can only lead you to the conclusion that efforts to increase advisory knowledge, skills and aptitude need to be added to core curriculum of all PME and exercised as a routine part of all unit METLs:eek:
I wonder which newly assigned SF MAJ will have this additional duty added to his OER support form... because remember snake eaters are a T in advising, much the same way the 101st is a T in river crossing:D
What if anything does this signal?? I can hear the armor of the 98th Kraznovian AR BDE over the next terrain feature.
Live well and row (and develop a taste for rattler)
The $1,000,000,000 questions
I have been reading and rereading the post and linked articles since last night. I have decided any attempt on my part to add to or explain would be a pathetic attempt. Many of the answers to the questions are well above my pay grade and education level, but will continue to piece together a coherent boots on the ground perspective, utilizing as much common sense as possible based of experiences on both sides of the fence(conventional and SF). Quite possibly may just concede to the minds greater than mine.
Two good posts in short order.
Fortunately, I see signs that more and more people are starting to realize that what you say is true.
Im afraid I have to agree with this concern
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hacksaw
ODB and all Others....
SOCOM has always been the defacto/unnamed joint proponent for SFA. They do it well, although in very small discreet packages. But what is it that we expect of a proponent -- Buehler... Ferris Buehler anyone -- full DOTMLPF integration (across service providers).
I get it Rob, decision made, time to move on... OK, but the question remains what does this decision signal... I thought those were valid discussion points on this panel. Putting this back into its "old bin" does not signal a change in approach, a recognition of the mission's importance from a GPF perspective...
Sorry, this decision said... This stuff makes my brain hurt, who used to do this stuff before, maybe this is a blip and we are making too much out of the past 5 years...
All of which is bad juju... I say again this isn't an attack or even a knock on our friends who wear the funny colored berets -- we all like the crazy uncle who spells his name urinating off the back porch on x-mas day and then eats the slushiest parts (OK that was a swipe, but I can't help me'self) -- this just makes it too easy for those in spaces far higher than ours to go back to yesteryear and dream of corps on corps tank battles.
Was part of a conversation in which the wisdom of making sure that any op which might require SF capabilities included at least one rep from SF for the planning. Makes sense so one would readily agree with the premise.
The problem lies in the other way around. If operations are being planned by SOF which require GPF how realistically can we expect the necessity of GPF reps being at the table to be considered. I mean after all as ODB stated many come from GPF to SF and thus they already been there done that and would reasonably expect that they would be able to consider GPF stuff without need for input.
We may say naw this is a new day and things have changed but the table reserved for SOF element sign I saw in our dining area today speaks volumes to the problems we may encounter. Nothing wrong with wanting to make sure you have a place to sit,
But theres over 50 tables and in the entire time I've been there I haven't seen anyone else do the same. And looking at where I work plenty of fairly important people have been there at one time or another.
Accepting that the decision has been made, I can do but I sure hope someone makes sure we don't end up having to learn the same lessons all over again the hard way, in 10-20. That's our kids and grandkids that will be having to learn it.
Should have explained further
I realize this is not dealing with issues at the tactical level, unfortunately through the years this is where it has started. At some point those at the top started way down the totem pole where I am today. This unwillingness to work together is not something that started when they got into upper levels, it started years before when they were at the tactical level. My statement about 6 years after some of the most combined operations in US history we are still trying to cut each others throats, applies to all levels and in many cases between all services. Someone please help me understand how it is, if I at the bottom of the pecking order can see this, how is it those above me just don't get it? I attribute a lot of this attitude to the simple fact we (SOF/conventional) do not interact in our professional/advanced schooling/development. It has to start somewhere, where better than in the school house. This goes inline with my statement regarding many forget where they came from. Yes many of us started on the conventional side, but many forget what that side is like, additionally how fast all sides change. Just because we started on the conventional side does not make us experts in planning on the use of conventional forces, especially in todays asymetrical battlefield. By integrating both SF and conventional in the school house, both stay abreast of how they are operating. Allows our brillant minds on both sides an open forum to learn from each other about each other.
As I just reread the initial posting I think we have all strayed off the orginal questions ask of us which I'm still contemplating my response.
Quote:
For the forum;
-These new organizations are here to stay, what is the best way for SF to handle it?
Refuse to deal with them? Pretend like it ain’t happening?, Get on board and work with them, thereby assisting in the direction they go?, which if done right will only complement SF be it MARSOC(JMO).
-What is the best way for new organizations (Army, Navy, USAF, Marines) to go about training these individuals and teams for this type duty. In MSOAG’s case, they have to meet the SOCOM standards, but what is the best way to train “conventional” forces? Don’t they deserve first class training to prepare them for this type duty?
-I do advocate a screening process for these conventional advisors. We do it all the time in the Marine Corps for Recruiters and Drill Instructors and in the Drill Instructors case, they really weed out those who can’t cut it. I have often heard the term “Drill Instructor Mafia” used. Its almost like they are an elite force within the Marine Corps within that context. Although both Recruiter school and Drill Instructor school are very demanding, I would say Drill Instructors are better analogy because they are teachers, trainers and mentors. Believe it or not(Sorry GySgt Emery, don’t mean to shatter the myth). My point is that Drill Instructors are weeded out and have a course that does this. Plenty have been dropped, so it is possible for conventional advisor courses to do the same, different mindset but similar process.
-Where is this leading, I will point out as I have before, that many of the Officers and SNCO’s in the Marine Corps who fought and won WW I and WW II cut their teeth in these “Savage Wars of Peace”. Lots of Marines made names for themselves during the Banana Wars (Chesty Puller).
I don’t know where conventional advisors will lead and how history will look upon this, but I would love to hear others views, should conventional forces do this and move out into something that has for at least the last 40 years SF's province (as the SecDef pointed out), how do you do it and not just pay lip service and do it right?. From what I have read here there are many on this board with experience in many of these areas, love to see your views. I’ll button up now, helmet is on…
Will once again resume my position on the bottom of the pecking order, just hope one day those who haven't been there in years remember where it was they got their start;)