Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: The question...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rocky Mtn Empire
    Posts
    473

    Default Don't draw a line

    There -- mansolved!

    The truth of the matter is that we now need to develop more synergy between SOF and GPF than ever before. During the Army's recent Unified Quest war game, some SF participants actually admitted that. We're going to see SFA missions led by conventional organizations that are augmented by SOF, and other SFA missions led by SOF that are augmented with GPF, whether as SMEs or as force multipliers. Let's just get used to it. Nobody is trying to "steal" anyone else's thunder. War is a conclict between or among opposing sides, not a conflict or competition within our side.

    The truth of the matter is that future requirements will outstrip SOF capability and capacity. We need to get used to working together. GPF should not be unilaterally conducting CA or CMO activities, but they should be enablers for the pros from Dover (Bragg). A little levening goes a long way. Same with the advisory roles that SF traditionally do. Gotta have a meaningful mix.

    Tell me I'm wrong.

  2. #2
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default You're wrong...

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
    Tell me I'm wrong.
    Just kidding. We can start by giving SOF a seat on the JCS. Then, I'd recommend them to move from Tampa to Fort Bragg.

    On the lower end, SF should consider allowing CF/GPF personnel with significant advisor time to slide into their ranks.

    That's all common-sense to me until you throw in ricebowls, budgets, egos, and tabs...The simple things that get in the way of mission requirements .

    Mike
    Last edited by MikeF; 05-13-2009 at 10:23 PM.

  3. #3
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes, yes and yes...

    Surferbeetle:
    On the civilian-side, when I need help with a special problem I call a specialist in that problem and its not an affront to my manhood to do so...it would be a good thing if we could do this consistently in the Army.
    True -- and most everyone in the Army does the same thing with no hassles -- until you get to a certain level of either ground in parochialism (due usually to an incident somewhere along the line; after that every perceived slight became reinforcement) or concern for flags and spaces. In the end, much of the discombobulation is really about those flags and space, not about manhood. Both sides, IMO are at fault but regardless of source, I agree it should go.
    not all CA soldiers are CA...yet (this may/probably applies in other areas of SOF but I will defer on SF).
    I think it applies across the board. I spent 45 years being amazed at the number of people, including some quite senior people who didn't like or want to be in the Army (and the other services as well). I was also amazed at the number who really had no self confidence...
    Brainpower and skills uber-alles baby. I try not to get hung up on rank either, as long as everybody understands that since the highest ranking guy gets fried if it all goes bad the team will factor this into the equation.
    Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, some of those folks I mentioned: senior, don't really like the Army, more importantly those with no self confidence -- they think you and I are nuts and will fight for form over function.

    Old Eagle:
    Tell me I'm wrong.
    Can't. Target. Good shot!

    Mike F:
    That's all common-sense to me until you throw in ricebowls, budgets, egos, and tabs...The simple things that get in the way of mission requirements.
    Sigh. Too true...

  4. #4
    Council Member Boot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Then, I'd recommend them to move from Tampa to Fort Bragg.
    Groan...Tampa is sooooooo much nicer than Fayetteville...

    I say NOOOOO to that!


    BOOT

  5. #5
    Council Member Boot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    That's all common-sense to me until you throw in ricebowls, budgets, egos, and tabs...The simple things that get in the way of mission requirements

    Well we don't have a tab problem in the Marines, now about those egos and ricebowls...



    BOOT

  6. #6
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    We can start by giving SOF a seat on the JCS.
    I used to believe this but I have come to reconsider this of late. If we did create a "SOF" seat at the JCS then experience tells me that the command will be dominated by JSOC and that means SF will continue to be the red headed step children of the SOF community.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    Then, I'd recommend them to move from Tampa to Fort Bragg.
    Fort Bragg is already way overcrowded and there are more than enough major headquarters there now.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    On the lower end, SF should consider allowing CF/GPF personnel with significant adviser time to slide into their ranks.
    Selection is open to every qualified candidate.

    SFC W

  7. #7
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    I used to believe this but I have come to reconsider this of late. If we did create a "SOF" seat at the JCS then experience tells me that the command will be dominated by JSOC and that means SF will continue to be the red headed step children of the SOF community.



    Fort Bragg is already way overcrowded and there are more than enough major headquarters there now.



    Selection is open to every qualified candidate.

    SFC W
    Uboat,

    I'm an armor officer that has spent many moons with SOF and SF.

    Relook what you stated and see if you want to change your words.

    I have PT with a seal tomorrow morning. If you're words stand, I'll rebut them one by one.

    I love you guys, but your wrong on this one.

    And with my brain injuries, I have no dog in this fight

    v/r

    Mike
    Last edited by MikeF; 05-14-2009 at 09:39 AM.

  8. #8
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Just off the top of my empty head,

    I'm inclined to agree with UBoat 509 so I'm looking forward to the discussion

  9. #9
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I'm inclined to agree with UBoat 509 so I'm looking forward to the discussion
    SFC W is probably right. I can provide counter-arguments to my statements, but I though this would provide an interesting discussion.

    Many do not understand the difference between SOF and SF. I didn't until I worked with them.

    v/r

    Mike

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default The difference between SOF and SF

    I am not about to explain the difference. I will state where I am coming from (which ultimately goes back to the War Crimes thread where I had to read in order to understand, since most Gitmo detainees resulted from special operations, military and/or civilian).

    My knowledge of SOCOM is based on looking at its legal framework, which is summarized in the Operational Law Handbook 2008 (chap. 24, Special Operations - all quotes below from that source); and by reading other, related materials.

    From a lawyer's standpoint, SOCOM is very legal intensive: (1) as to the Laws of War and Rule of Law, and development of ROEs, because it is on the cutting edge of operational considerations involving them; and (2) as to the "Laws of Appropriations" (turf and rice bowls), which affect everything:

    A. As noted above, 10 U.S.C. §167 established USSOCOM. This Combatant Command is unique in that it is the only Combatant Command specifically established by Congress and required by law. The DoD could, for example, eliminate the Pacific Command (PACOM) and reorganize its sub-component units. However, DoD does not have the authority to disband USSOCOM. Congress realized that, if it created a Combatant Command without a separate funding authority, DoD would continue to have tremendous control and the ability to drawdown SOF assets simply by refusing to fund their programs. Therefore, an entirely new budgetary authority, Major Force Program Eleven (MFP-11), was established to fund SO. Some have observed that USSOCOM is the only Combatant Command with its own "checkbook." This is important for SO because MFP-11 funds may only be used for articles and programs with an SO basis or nexus.

    B. USSOCOM is both a supporting and supported command. It is a supporting command in that it is responsible for providing ready and trained SOF personnel to the geographic Combatant Commanders. It is a supported command in that, when directed by the President or Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), it must be capable of conducting selected strategic SO under its own command.
    All of the following is well-known to everybody in this discussion - so, this is not intended to be educational, but solely a framework for discussion (which comes at it from a legal viewpoint):

    D. Each service has its own specific SO command. For the Army, it is the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), commanded by a Lieutenant General, at Fort Bragg, NC. The Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM) is commanded by a Rear Admiral at Coronado, CA. The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is located at Hurlburt Field, FL and led by a Lieutenant General. These service specific SO commands are responsible for selecting, training, and equipping the force. They are also responsible for SO doctrine within their respective services. In the Army, USASOC is a Army Service Component Command (formerly MACOM) and, therefore, Army SOF (ARSOF) is not within the FORSCOM chain of command.

    E. There is also a Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a sub-unified command of USSOCOM, which is located at Fort Bragg, NC. This is a joint command that studies special operations requirements and techniques; ensures interoperability and equipment standardization; plans and conducts joint special operations exercises and training; and develops joint SO tactics.
    [JMM: plus more].

    F. In 2006, the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) was established at Camp Lejeune, NC under the command of a Major General. Other than MARSOC, certain units of the Marine Corps, along with particular conventional elements of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force, have been designated "special operations-capable." SO-capable units are, from time to time, designated as SOF units by SECDEF for specific operations. Many Marine Corps units perform and train to perform SO-type missions. The expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps makes it particularly well-suited as an SO-capable force.
    The discussion re: the difference between SOF and SF (I think) focuses on USASOC and ARSOF and their components (quoting just the headings):

    G. U.S. Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) includes active duty, Army National Guard (ARNG) and U.S. Army Reserve elements. ARSOF falls under the command of USASOC, which is headquartered at Fort Bragg, NC. USASOC is comprised of the following subordinate commands:

    1. U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) (USASFC(A)).
    ....
    2. The 75th Ranger Regiment, commanded by a Colonel, and its three battalions, are also ARSOF.
    ....
    3. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), commanded by a Colonel and located at Fort Campbell, KY, provides special aviation support to ARSOF, using specialized aircraft and highly-trained personnel.
    ....
    4. The 95th Civil Affairs (CA) Brigade and four active component CA battalions fall under USASOC. Additionally, the 4th Psychological Operations Group (4th POG) falls under USASOC.
    ....
    5. The John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (JFKSWCS) is responsible for training, leader development, and doctrine.
    ....
    6. The Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne) provides Combat Service Support and Combat Health Support to ARSOF. ....
    I suspect that the difference(s) also relate to the mission tasked, which from a legal standpoint include nine basic missions (headings only):

    A. Direct Action (DA).
    ....
    B. Special Reconnaissance (SR).
    ....
    C. Foreign Internal Defense (FID).
    ....
    D. Unconventional Warfare (UW).
    ....
    E. Combating Terrorism.
    ....
    F. Psychological Operations (pSYOP).
    ....
    G. Civil Affairs (CA) Operations.
    ....
    H. Counterproliferation (CP) of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
    ....
    I. Information Operations (I0).
    Finally, besides the nine mission (operational) areas, a number of collateral activities fall within the legal ambit of SOCOM. E.g., the following (headings only):

    A. Coalition Support.
    ....
    B. Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR).
    ....
    C. Counterdrug Activities (CD).
    ....
    D. Foreign Humanitarian Assistance (HA).
    ....
    E. Countermine Activities.
    ....
    F. Security Assistance (SA).
    ....
    G. Peace Operations.
    ....
    H. Special Activities. These are activities that are planned and executed so that the role of the U.S. Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly. Special activities require a Presidential finding and Congressional oversight.
    All of that is one heck of a mix of different missions and activities, as much driven by where funding and bodies are available than by logic (my perception).

    So, I would like to hear the discussion from a practical standpoint. All the above tends to look very neat from a legal standpoint, but reality often differs.
    Last edited by jmm99; 05-14-2009 at 07:03 PM.

  11. #11
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh, ain't that the truth...

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    Many do not understand the difference between SOF and SF. I didn't until I worked with them.
    I think that's partly due to our ignorant media, partly to the similarity in abbreviations, partly to the fact that SF is part of our SOF but all SOF is not part of our SF and partly due to the fact that the DA crowd effectively dominates SOCOM and therefor those SOF missions are given priority over normal SF missions -- even by some in SF -- and that priority has resulted in some SF doing SOF DA and allied missions...

    Or something like that.

    I think that is slowly changing and I acknowledge my perceptions are all from hearsay. Equal opportunity hearsay, though. SF, non-SF SOF and conventional -- and even less conventional -- military types all contribute to my hearsay collection. They contribute far more than I could ever gather open source (without more work than I'm prepared to put into it).

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Entertaining Debate

    This is a great comedy. I have to agree with the posts that the differences between SOF and so called GPF are much easier to discern in the U.K. and Israel. In our system SOF is everything, but only as everything pertains to SOF. Sort of reminds me of Steve Martin's Special Purpose in one of his earlier movies, when he finally found out what is special purpose was for.

    We didn't have the capabilities across the joint force to rescue our hostages in Iran because the services under invested in these special capabilities. There was a "real" capability gap, not a perceived gap, so we have SOCOM, and I think we can make a strong argument that SOCOM has done a pretty darn good job of fixing that problem.

    Unfortunately, as Ken has pointed out a lot of common Army skills related to COIN and FID migrated to SF over the years, so not only did SF provide specialized COIN/FID support, they also supported basic infantry skills training which some would argue (like me) that isn't the ideal use of a specialized force, but there are times when it is appropriate.

    Rice bowls, ego issues, etc. are just part of the DoD culture, so just roll with it and enjoy the food fight. We need to stay focused on getting the mission accomplished in spite of the great comedy.

  13. #13
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Commodians all...

    Did I spell that right...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    This is a great comedy.
    We aim to please...
    Rice bowls, ego issues, etc. are just part of the DoD culture, so just roll with it and enjoy the food fight. We need to stay focused on getting the mission accomplished in spite of the great comedy.
    True, it all works out...

  14. #14
    Council Member Boot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Rice bowls, ego issues, etc. are just part of the DoD culture, so just roll with it and enjoy the food fight. We need to stay focused on getting the mission accomplished in spite of the great comedy.
    I just can't believe that anyone in the services or DoD would let these things influence thinking! D:(note: laced with laughter)


    Boot

  15. #15
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default I'll try to explain a bit better...

    And this is my opinion. It may change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    I used to believe this but I have come to reconsider this of late. If we did create a "SOF" seat at the JCS then experience tells me that the command will be dominated by JSOC and that means SF will continue to be the red headed step children of the SOF community.
    The issue is not about SOF/SF. I don't think y'all will ever get along, and I never understood why you're under one command. Personally, I thought it was kinda similar to when they did away with specialties for infantry (Bradley grunt = airborne grunt). Just weird.

    IMO, y'all need a four-star seat at the table. That's the only way to work within bureaucracies (ricebowls, budgets, egos, etc)...On the big army level, y'all have not done that well since 9/11. ADM Olson wears too many hats. Is he the Chief of staff of SOF, the CoCom of SOF, or equivalent of FORSCOM? He can't do all three jobs, and I think that's hurt y'all a bit.



    Fort Bragg is already way overcrowded and there are more than enough major headquarters there now.
    True, but in some respects, it is the center of the universe. Seriously, well, you may be right on that one.


    Selection is open to every qualified candidate.
    That's just not a true statement particularly with O's. I know you're probably laughing right now thinking we have enough O's, but you are missing out on some GPF company commanders who excelled working in patrol bases and FID.

    Plus, some of the enlisted that would make excellent SF's simply don't want to go to school after 3-4 deployments.

    Does it matter? I dunno.

    Would you be better off if you found a way to integrate them? Probably.

    Will it happen? Probably not.

    I've tried to look at these issues from a neutral standpoint.

    v/r

    Mike

  16. #16
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    IMO, y'all need a four-star seat at the table. That's the only way to work within bureaucracies (ricebowls, budgets, egos, etc)...On the big army level, y'all have not done that well since 9/11. ADM Olson wears too many hats. Is he the Chief of staff of SOF, the CoCom of SOF, or equivalent of FORSCOM? He can't do all three jobs, and I think that's hurt y'all a bit.
    Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing that SOF should have a seat at the table. I just don't want to see it overtaken by JSOC guys again. Given the current numbers, I don't see how it wouldn't be.


    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    That's just not a true statement particularly with O's. I know you're probably laughing right now thinking we have enough O's, but you are missing out on some GPF company commanders who excelled working in patrol bases and FID.
    O's do have a smaller window than we enlisted swine but they do have a window.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    Plus, some of the enlisted that would make excellent SF's simply don't want to go to school after 3-4 deployments.

    Does it matter? I dunno.

    Would you be better off if you found a way to integrate them? Probably.

    Will it happen? Probably not.

    I've tried to look at these issues from a neutral standpoint.

    v/r

    Mike
    SF is not just a cool hat and some more uniform flair, nor is it just a collection of good guys. It is a series of skill sets and a lot of institutional experience doing many of the things that GPF had to learn, more or less from scratch, but more than that it is a mind set. If you aren't ready to put in the time and training to be SF then you aren't ready to be SF.

    SFC W

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default We are in violent agreement ...

    from ODB
    Laws are unclass, but there are some that others should never know that the military is capable of carrying out legally.
    as provided by sec.167(j)(10) "Such other activities as may be specified by the President or the Secretary of Defense."

    And your ideal image definitely appears to be "a more well rounded individual."

    Cheers

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 05-15-2009 at 03:26 AM.

  18. #18
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thinking more about the discussion between Uboat 509 and MikeF,

    I'm sitting here chortling at the thought of USASOCOM, USASFCOM, JSOC and USSOCOM all being located at Bragg -- then when FORSCOM moves up there in 2011, the 7th SFG goes to Eglin (unless they win the fight to not do that...) and with XVIII Airplane Corpse and the Eighty-Deuce and a few earthling commands, it would be downright interesting...

    'Course, if you had all those hindquarters there, Bragg would have a higher GO count than Afghanistan (barely...). and man, what a target; take all the hot responders out at one whack.

    I'm also trying to picture Jim Lindsey (LINK) at a meeting in the Tank with his Cigar ...

    Mike, you know someone once tried to tell me that the XVII Abn Corps was not commanded by the 82d. Silly guy or a heretic, one or t'other...

Similar Threads

  1. Question for CJCS
    By ODB in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-24-2009, 12:31 AM
  2. The challenge of Institutionalizing Adaption - the question SASC did not ask SECDEF
    By Rob Thornton in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 06:39 PM
  3. Council New Members Examination
    By SWJED in forum Small Wars Council / Journal
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 08:59 PM
  4. Training for Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •