Security Force Assistance: Roles and Missions for SOF and Conventional Forces

[Old Eagle]

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.

[Ken White]

Thanks for capturing my 6,000 words in five concise paragraphs...

[Hacksaw]

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

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

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)

[ODB]

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.

[Rob Thornton]

Yes, but its not Army-SOF that has been listed as the Joint Proponent, it is SOCOM. There is some goodness in this - first among them - we now have a joint proponent, and its a proponent that wanted to do it.

The important thing I think the services must keep in mind is that this does not absolve them from dealing with the problem just because we have a joint proponent, and that proponent is SOCOM. If we go down the road, of "whew, glad its not me", then we will not get this right.

As OE mentioned, there is more work to go around then can possibly be met. Even if we establish priority to OIF and OEF, we quickly outstrip capacity and will for the next couple of years I think. If you start looking at all the other places we would like to conduct SFA in some form, you can see the need for the services to stay engaged and supportive of the joint proponent. They will provide the means appropriate to the level and type of assistance.

Hacksaw is correct - we need to consider this from the complete DOTMLPF point of view, I think the Joint proponent understands that, and I think the services must each consider the DOTMLPF issues of the mission be they a ground service, sea service or air seervice. Ultimately, SFA is also a JIIM issue - and we should consider it based on ends and conditions in a holisitc manner.

Best, Rob

[Cavguy]

Hacksaw captured my issue with SFA being at SOCOM - historically SOCOM doesn't talk or have any interest in assisting the GPF - and it allows the GPF to wash hands of it and place it back in that useful box of stuff we don't think we ought to do. Also the developers will all be SF types not familiar with the differences and needs of GPF units to conduct these types of ops and who don't have unlimited resources, training time priority, and no-limit IMPAC.

1973-2003 all over again, my worst fear. Same with IW and COIN, which SOCOM might also get lead on. If it enters there, it is unlikely to remain a core competency in the GPF forces.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong though.

[Vic Bout]

Also the developers will all be SF types not familiar with the differences and needs of GPF units to conduct these types of ops and who don't have unlimited resources, training time priority, and no-limit IMPAC.

Well, except for the 18X program types, nearly everybody with a long tab comes out of the GPF.....most especially officers. They spent their formative 2LT-CPT years in units like the 82nd or 1st Cav and are quite familiar with the problems the GPF face. Nobody springs fresh from the manicured gardens at Camp MacKall with a green beret, rolex and randall (again, except for 18X, and they're enlisted). And, unlimited resources and a no-limit IMPAC? Please. We'd both have to take that up with our tier I, "black" SOF brethren.

[Rob Thornton]

Remeber SOCOM is a pretty big tent. We tend to lump them into the "special" pile, but there is diversity both in terms of service, function and experiences.

The real challenge its probably keeping the services engaged in and amongst the many other things they are asked to do. Ideally, the services would create "service" proponents that are either outside their own SOF representation, or some kind of composite that keeps their GPF culture engaged.

While within OSD it might be convienient to say "SFA is something that only falls into ASD SO/LIC"; but SFA as a broad conceptual framework for employing tools such as Security Assistance, Security Cooperation and Foreign Internal Defense, the other policy shops (GSA, ISA, etc.) also touch SFA in a number of environments, to a number of ends - as a result it'd be hard to not consider the impacts on the other USDs, or for that matter the whole of government given the various legal authorities and JIIM responsibilties.

The same must be considered by the services - its not just a SOF only activity. If the services voluntarily divorce themselves from supporting the Joint proponent it not only comes back to haunt them, but it hamstrings our policy ends both with regards to a given state and regional goals. "That is not my job" does not cut it.

Best, Rob

[Boot]

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.

I wasn't sure of how to title this.

Thanks MODS for framing this the way it needed to be framed.

[Boot]

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.

Old Eagle,
I agree 100%. Winning wars is about winning wars or peace for that matter.
To further add, what about an organization that has all services and is an operational unit?
In MCTAG's (conventional advisor's) case, obviously the force structure will be what it is as laid out by the Marine Corps; What about having Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen, who haved served as FAO's or adviors on the staff? or maybe mixed teams? I could see an SF Soldier or 2 in the "3" shop advising on how to put together a training plan and how to be advisors. The IAG in Iraq is already a mixed organization headed up by mostly staff from the 1st Infantry Division. Would the Army or Air Force (this already happens with Sailors) allow for theirs to be under a Marine organization that does this, that isn't a joint unit? I just throwing out ideas (officer bright ideas OBI's). Anyone want to be stationed in VaBeach?