Excellent board, gentlemen. I was looking for something like this to dovetail with my self-education in history and military affairs. Until I happened upon this, I was despairing of ever finding reasoned, rational, civil and informed discourse on the subject matter.

It seems that the young originator of this topic is dealing with perhaps at least two realities: (1) he cannot see the big picture relative to his commanding officer's responsibilities that would require a PSD and is resentful; (2) he is assigned to a unit in which the command element unnecessarily or without authorization uses a PSD as a status symbol. A first sergeant or battalion S-1A who doesn't want to ride with a convoy to pick up the mail, for example, but rather mounts his own vehicle element with attached PSD to perform that task.

As to the role and quality of personnel assigned to PSD, I can only add that in my experience, limited as it is, such people were also expected to properly plan and brief the mission to the PL/OIC, gather information during their mission, execute the mission, perform a competent post-mission briefback, and examine lessons learned for application to the next mission. This goes for grunts and tankers as well as NSW, reconnaissance, and SF types. Especially in this type of conflict, everyone is an intelligence-gatherer and everyone needs to be on board.

A bunch of surly, skeptical, and cynical admin, supply or motor T types who were disengaged from their cots, daydreams, or regular duties by the company gunny or unit senior chief for a poorly planned mission would have been unacceptable. The poster's unit leadership is clearly at fault if, as he says, personnel with no clear understanding of or appreciation for the mission were utilized.

In LIC/COIN, everybody makes a difference and as near complete as possible an understanding of the mission is essential. This is not Willy's and Joe's war.