The question...

[MikeF]

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

[Ken White]

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...

[Boot]

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

[Boot]

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

[Uboat509]

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.

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.

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

[MikeF]

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

[Ken White]

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

[MikeF]

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

[jmm99]

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.

[Ken White]

Depends on who's the White Queen and can really say "It means whatever I say it means." Not being dismissive or evasive, there are just too many varied situations to pin it down with legal precision (and if someone tried, the other guys lawyers would dispute it... ). It really does depend on the situation -- and the senior parties involved at the time. You are correct to point out the funding issues as that drives many things -- particularly in peacetime or, as now, near peacetime. Once a big war starts, most -- not all -- that infighting gets put away. Lacking that, lotsa turf and ego battles. At lower level, the troops generally work it out pretty well.

Basically, the conventional forces can do any of the missions listed in your two boxes. Note that the law says that SOCOM is on the hook for the special operations facets of all those missions, not the pure or total mission.

A, C and I on the upper chart can certainly be SOF missions but they are not exclusively so. Item D there and the application of items F and G can also leave the 'special' definition and become quite mainstream.

Same thing applies to your second chart. Items A, D, E ,F and G are not at all SO peculiar. Even Item D, which nominally is that can also be parceled out to conventional forces when things get busy. I've been on three CSAR mission myself when I was no longer SF.

Clear?

[Boot]

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.

You know I have forgotten about that piece of this. Thanks for bringing it up; Perhaps the GPF who carry out FID/COIN get designated SOC. I had a discussion today with someone at yet another conference and we discussed the GPF/SOF subject. His take was that it a GPF individual that goes to a unit (NON-SOF, I know the difference between SF/SOF)
become "specialized" for the amount of time they are in a GPF unit designated "SOC" and after 2-4 years return to the GPF which would enhance their units having served as advisors and such. Now the organization carrying out FID or SFA missions aren't SOF but they aren't necessarilly a GPF unit. What would be the difference in this? Obviously the specialized training (a screening, language, culture, force protection skills, negotionation skills, title/authorities law etc...)
Also, if a Marine helo squadron is undermanned (pilots etc...) and are preparing to deploy, that squadron gets priority and from across the Marine Air Wing (other squadrons), Marines are sourced. In a GPF unit that specializes in traditional SF missions (lets say advisors) they would be fenced off, and not touched. I would also submit someone who is at this type unit would be a perfect candidate for MARSOC, AFSOC, USASOC (SF) organizations that carry out this type missions. Sure they would still have to qualify but would have a leg up on other potential selectees, and they probably wouldn't have to spend as much time and money training them as they would have language, culture and certain other skill sets already, that is if they got selected.
Just my thoughts.

Boot

[Ken White]

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).

[John T. Fishel]

Special Forces are a US Army SOF element. SF consists of USASF Command under USASOC. SF Command consists of 1st SFG(A), 3rd SFG(A), 5th SFG(A), and 7th SFG(A) & 10th SFG(A) in the Active Component plus the 19th and 20th SFG(A) of the National Guard (reserve component). All other Army SOF are not SF with the exception of some of the training elements of the JFKSWC which train SF. To be considered SF and wear the Green Beret, Flash, and SF tab, a soldier has to have successfully completed the SF Qualification Course (and normally have been assigned to a SF unit).

SF soldiers are qualified infantrymen, airborne qualified, and trained and cross trained in two SF team specialties (intel, engr, comms, medic +). They are alos supposed to be proficient in the language (or one or more of the languages) of the area in which their group normally operates. They are all supposed to be proficient in all kinds of weapons including foreign and are trained to be trainers. And they train on knowing the culture, history, and politics of their region.

3 of the SF groups have left particular marks on SF as a whole. 10th SFG(A) historically specialized on UW, 7th SFG(A) on FID, and 5th SFG(A) on DA. Thus, 2 of the 3 central groups have a trainer/advisor focus.

Non-SF SOF do not go through the full array of training that SF do and focus on other SOF skills. I would not, for example want to give the Ranger Regiment the mission of training Afghan Rangers if I had 5th group available (or any other SFG). I would not want to give 4th POG the mission of training Iraqi infantry nor the 95th CAB the same mission. If I had a US commando mission, I would want SEALS, Delta, or Rangers to do it with support from AFSOC. If I had to lead foerign troops on a similar commando mission I would prefer to have SF rahter than any of the others. (I've left out MARSOC because I'm still not entirely sure of their niche but, from what I've heard and read, the Marines would likely be my back up choice for SF tasks.)

Cheers

JohnT

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Ken White]

Did I spell that right...

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...

[Boot]

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

[MikeF]

And this is my opinion. It may change.

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

[Uboat509]

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.

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.

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

[jmm99]

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

[Ken White]

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...