Interesting Observation

[Tom Odom]

Back to ODB's original question; what I hear is that since Iraq has so much more 'big army' and a covey of Generals it is more tightly structured and there are more operational constraints -- and jealousies -- whereas those working in the 'Stan have a freer hand and the distribution of forces and the type and location of bad guys enhance that. That plus a lack of a pervasive host nation governmental presence sticking their nose into everything...

Working closely with vets from both AOs, I would say just the opposite at least at the BCT level. OEF with its NATO-ness has a much more lock step system for operations approval. The terrain and and significantly lesser troop and popualtion density in OEF offset that somewhat. But you still have a large combined and separate US C2 structure over that lesser number of troops.

Tom

[MikeF]

I'm a regular army guy that has spent the last three years conducting FID/COIN. Over some beers with my SF classmates, we continually discuss this topic.

For a broad sweep, we conclude that in Iraq, RA conducts FID/COIN while SF mostly conducts DA (remember broad sweep, not focused towards everyone). In Afghanistan, SF is still actively conducting FID/COIN. Around the world with other militaries, FID is still done well just low key.

One of the fundamental problems everyone is having right now is that most soldiers (SF and RA) wanna be door kickers. Well, that's easy and a monkey could do it- It doesn't win these type of wars.

It's interesting if you take a step back and consider future organizational structure. Within both RA and SF, there is an extensive combat tested FID/COIN capability with many Officers/NCO's. To maximize these skill sets would take a broad organization change in terms of defining unit makeups not by tabs and badges but by capabilities. I was considering Nagl's advisory corps concept in particular.

In Afghanistan And the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare, LTC (R) Hy Rothstein argues that SF is no longer conducting UW.

One last thing for the group: a discussion point came up yesterday that we found striking. All the FID material we've read only shows you how to train a new group of kids off the street into a workable fighting force. Does anyone have any info on manuals that show how to train on the more advanced levels? In Iraq now, with some units, they are proceeding very well- gathering intelligence, conducting raids, etc....It does not make sense to try and teach these seasoned leaders basic rifle markmanship.

All broad strokes here for discussion, nothing definitive.

[MikeF]

Regardless, we all concluded that SF should be battlespace owners regardless of the AOR.

That just seemed like common sense to us.

[Ken White]

Regardless, we all concluded that SF should be battlespace owners regardless of the AOR.

That just seemed like common sense to us.

not only a massive cultural shift but also some statutory changes. Not saying it's a bad idea but it (a) needs some thought; and (b) would not be easy to implement for a number of reasons.

An example of this conundrum is Tom Odom's comment above. I get the same sensing he does from the BCT returning folks I hear from; however, my earlier comment was based on the SF returnees I hear from. Rather different perspectives...

[Tom Odom]

not only a massive cultural shift but also some statutory changes. Not saying it's a bad idea but it (a) needs some thought; and (b) would not be easy to implement for a number of reasons.

An example of this conundrum is Tom Odom's comment above. I get the same sensing he does from the BCT returning folks I hear from; however, my earlier comment was based on the SF returnees I hear from. Rather different perspectives...

Yep and I was thinking about it as I mowed yesterday--5 acres so that was a good bit of thinking. You are correct in that from an SF and especially an ODA perspective Iraq would be more restrictive. From the conventional BCT perspective, Afghanistan wins that cupie doll.

Tom