Hi Sir,

I am curious what are the other things we would like Army SF to do for us? Army SF is optimized to work, "through, by and with" indigenous forces either conducting Unconventional Warfare or Foreign Internal Defense (which of course includes COIN). What besides those two missions do we think we need Army SF to do.
I think the missions sets they have been assigned are the right ones, but the conditions drive the prioritization of missions and their availability to do other things. I guess then the question needs to be considered against the things we have them doing now, and in what proportion. This is dependent on a number of things and raises the question of which model we are looking at - the model that works in the conditions of OEF-P may not be the one that works best in OIF or OEF-A. The solution set for any of those may not be 1:1 applicable to a future requirements in another place given its requirements or the concomitant requirements elsewhere.

Quick Anecdote:

When I went to the ODA up on MAREZ and asked for some assistance in training some high end skills for the IA (CTR), they could not assist. They truly desired to, but there schedule was not their own - in fact even the BCT CDR had limited input - mostly coordination and benefit from the information they'd obtained and their assessment of their operations. The ODA did provide advice to us on how to do it, which was a great start, but their unique skill sets were being used in other areas.

So while a force may have a range of skills, the conditions may require those skills and numbers to be concentrated on specific things that are critical to achieve an operational objective.

I know you did not at all mean this in your post, Rob, but I would like to say that all these discussions end up implying a "we-they" attitude and an apparent attempt to say one force is superior to another. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all have a job to do and we need to get on with business. Okay, one rant for today.
You are absolutely correct - I did not mean to imply a we/they relationship, and would go further to say that we cannot afford one. What I am trying to say is that its not so much about having a special or general capability, its really about having the right capability in theright capacity when you need it ("right" being a substitute for good enough to achieve your objective(s)). I would say that in many cases the resources we put into force development are based on a solid understanding of the requirements, and that wherever possible we must maximize that wisdom - the problem occurs when we omit the possibility or probability that the better choice will not be available, and when we don't completely understand the requirements. This has proven to be a problem no matter if we are talking about civilian capability and capacity, or military. The answer I think is in a full spectrum approach that increases our flexibility and our options until we can either change the conditions some, or free up more specialized capability. We should not look at it as we/they, but as we/us.

Best, Rob