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

[Hacksaw]

I think CAVGUY and I are, in principle, violent agreement with you and OE...

We all agree that SOCOM as a community has exactly the right expertise to serve as the Joint Proponent for SFA...

The fear, based on historical example, is that this mission will get buried in that organization. All the things you caution against in your post are the most probable outcome as opposed to most dangerous...

I realize it is part of JCISFA's mission to prevent that from happening, but I think they just made your mission more difficult rather than less. A whole bunch of organizational culture issues working against SOCOM as a vigorous and inclusive joint proponent.

Perhaps its just scar tissue, but Tigers, Stripes and all that stuff

Live well and row

[Rob Thornton]

Well, the decision went as it went so to speak, and SFA has a Joint Proponent now - which I think is a positive step. As a 25 person organization, JCISFA is limited on capacity; a Joint Proponent has resources and authorities that a Center does not.

As the Chairman's activity the question for us might be, "what things should a Joint Center of Excellence do that a Joint Proponent can not do well, or what things can it do that allows a Joint Proponent to better do other things? Its interesting working here, our equity is really philosophical in that it represents the interests of the group vs. a service, or a command.

Some things to consider:

SFA as a holistic conceptual framework includes tools outside the Purple ones.

Consider the need to assist the Joint Proponent in the promotion of SFA as a core competency across the DoD - what you'd mentioned above about organizational culture holds true for all organizations, not only SOCOM - if policy decides it, you may not have to swim directly upstream against the cultural current.

As such, the idea of SFA as core competency in all the services and at OSD needs to be seen as complimentary, not as an either/or or as being at odds with other core competencies.

At some level, SFA operations permeate through almost all types of operations and all operational environments - be it the front end, the conduct of operations or on the back end.

Global SFA solutions must be inclusive vice remaining parochial - each set of conditions requires some unique framing to come up with the most practicable and best fit solution - it must pass the CFAS test as it applies to the conditions e.g. it must be congruent with both our ends/ways/means, but it must also be sustainable by the HN or regional entity. This must be seen both within the context of the ends and expectations, and against competing ends and expectations elsewhere that have more or less priority

The need to inform the employment and development guidance

Demand is driven by policy and priorities - and its hard to see past the current demand, no matter if we are talking about SFA or strategic lift - CENTCOM is where the two most important fights are right now. However, that does not mean we should not consider how future policy requirements will impact the demand signal.

We can address most of this with leader and education development, doctrine, and some personnel policies. The impact to organizations should be kept small, and if anything should enhance existing force structure and strengths.

I think we are moving past the wouldn't this be a good idea, and into the implementation phase. No matter if proponency went to a service, JFCOM, or SOCOM it would be a challenge – it is just a matter of what flavor. Its not as though the CDRs and staffs want to make it hard, it just is - but the only way we'll make it work is together. There is not room for parochial attitudes, and we'll all have to try hard to guard against defaulting to cultural bias.

Best Rob

[Ken White]

"...There is not room for parochial attitudes, and we'll all have to try hard to guard against defaulting to cultural bias."

Excellent point.

Between this thread (sorta) and the "Air Power in the new COIN era" thread (lotta), one could have difficulty breathing -- if one inhaled...

[ODB]

Sorry but I find it hard to believe that after six years of some of the most combined operations (SOF/conventional) in US history we are still at each others throats. Yes there are legitimate reasons for both sides views. As in everything, there are good units, there are bad units, good ODAs, bad ODAs, unfortunately as we are creatures of habits, if one did us wrong they all must be wrong. I spent many years on the conventional side, fighting for resources: land, ammo, gear, etc...., guess what still doing it in SF. Luckily during this time I had friends down the street in SF,guess what, I used those resources. My unit spent many days on the range shooting their ammo, in their team rooms getting classes and in return helping them as well. Now that I'm that guy down the street with old friends on the conventional side, I do they same for them, it's a rare case of a win win situation. Nothing gets me more irrate than personnel on either side having preconceived notions of the other. Vic hit it on the head, most of us come from the conventional side first, unfortunately many forget where they came from, happens all the time everywhere. By nature of the size of SF vs conventional the same money covers a lot more ground, I'll be the first to admit that it isn't always spent in the right ways, but that's an Army wide black hole.

Maybe I'm too simple minded to understand, who cares who the proponent is, we are all in the same fight in the same larger organization, the U.S. Army. Unfortunately too many in today's service have their own agendas, strickly basing what needs to be done in their mind for their next promotion, not what is best for the institution. The sooner we run these people out of our Army the sooner we can get down to business and might actually have a truely combined cohesive force. I'll finish with redundancy throughout the force is the right answer, no different than having contingencies, if we lose sight of this we will fail.

[Ken White]

Fortunately, I see signs that more and more people are starting to realize that what you say is true.

[Hacksaw]

ODB and all Others....

This is not about tactical level cooperation. That is not the concern here. This isn't about wanting it in the conventional army for some sense of proportion, and iIt is not about thinking some guy hair is too long either, DON'T CARE. And Rob, I certainly don't think JCISFA is the right place either, although I think you might have made the basis for the staff management element of a joint proponent

There is a large, and I do mean large, community of officers who long for the days of fighting the Kraznovians - Gian might be the prophet screaming in the desert - but he has a very large (albeit muted) following.

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.

Another rant I know, but this was never about "those guys get cool toys" rather about how do we make sure it stays on the front burner.

So I respectfully disagree Rob and OE... I don't think any step is a good step, especially one that moves us five years in reverse...

Live well and row

[Ron Humphrey]

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.

[Ken White]

"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."

but I think this:

"This is not about tactical level cooperation. That is not the concern here..."

while true is the key to not letting what you both fear actually occur. If the youngsters work it out on the ground, they'll drag the old bulls along. In contrast to the post Viet Nam Army where all the combat experience was up high in the chain; the bulk of the actual time in contact is now down in the O4 and below area...

I suspect reality in the form of the quantitative shortfall in SOCOM will preclude them getting too parochial; some there will try to fix that shortfall but I strongly doubt that'll be successful. I further suspect that the 2012-202 budgets, barring something unforeseen, will be a ferocious leavener...