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

[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

[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.