Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
But (there is always a "but") Ken
Usually several, in fact...
the norm is for the regional COCOMS to control SOF in their AOR through their SOCs. USSOCOM, as we said in that other thread, is an odd duck.
Totally true on both, of course. Though I'd suggest that while SOCCent reponds in theater to CinCCent; they're really also responding directly (and probably more quickly, openly and honestly) to SOCOM thus one could say they're more SOC then Cent -- or something like that...

Yes, SOCOM is an odd Turducken (to use the Cajun vernacular). IMO it was a bad idea and even as Barbwire Bob sold it, it was poorly designed. No matter, it exists so it's the way we'll go forward.

I agreed with Dave and I also agree with Old Eagle, their and my differences are all minor and of scale, no more.

I suspect the Marines will take over the expeditionary effort and the Army will revert to the big war syndrome and attempt to revitalize the Weinberger Doctrine (unsuccessfully in the long term - it's too geopolitically limiting). He's correct in saying there's a lot of baggage in the way of the Army truly getting involved in FID. One example is that the Marines have, as Bill said:
...The Security Cooperation MAGTF concept is at the core of future theater engagement. It is not SOF, but full spectrum engagement.
an excellent approach but one the Army will not adopt simply because the Marines did it first (even though many in the Army have talked about that methodology for years).

The problem with all that is, as Old Eagle said:
Within the Army only Special Forces possess that doctrine. All that works relatively well until major SFA missions like Iraq and Afghanistan crop up, or budget constraints force us to do SFA more efficiently.
and as I said:

""* Emphasized to point out that there's only so much SOF, in any mid or larger sized commitment, conventional forces will have to do direct and combat FID.""

Sigh. Deja Vu all over again...