The question...

[jmm99]

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 [JMM emphasis].

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.

because sec. 167(j) is clearly phrased inclusively, not exclusively, with respect to SOCOM:

(j) Special Operations Activities.— For purposes of this section, special operations activities include each of the following insofar as it relates to special operations:

(1) Direct action.
(2) Strategic reconnaissance.
(3) Unconventional warfare.
(4) Foreign internal defense.
(5) Civil affairs.
(6) Psychological operations.
(7) Counterterrorism.
(8) Humanitarian assistance.
(9) Theater search and rescue.
(10) Such other activities as may be specified by the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Also pretty much totally clear as to John's succinct explanation; except as to this one:

I would not, for example want to give the Ranger Regiment the mission of training Afghan Rangers...

Does this mean that the 75th is capable of performing its ranger mission, but incapable of transmitting that knowledge to trainees ? Maybe so, but that seems odd to me, since I can't think of a legal analogy.

I also understand the distinction between SF and non-SF (Rangers, CA and POG) as explained by John - and how it could be a source of friction. What I perceived (in at least one of the posts) as friction between SF and JSOC is really lost on me - I can only infer it is really inside-inside baseball.

Coming back to the OP question - "what in their view is the dividing line between GPF and SOF" - the answer seems to be that the lines are pretty well drawn from a legal standpoint - and organizationally.

One could I suppose question why CA and POG are in SOCOM; and probably a zillion other questions as to why this or why not that. I'd like to hear all of them. This is a very interesting area of the law in the process of development - Common Article 3 and the "irregular combatant" (which legally is different from the current buzzword "irregular warfare").

Hey, Boot, the US Marines have been doing special ops in "gray-space" areas since at least Puerto Plata - 1800 - my CFMs much earlier. They both attained and retained the art of shape-shifting from porpoises to land crabs. As they say, colonialement.

[ODB]

In a nut shell the seperation comes down to laws not to capabilities, at least not on the level it should. In a perfect world yes, capabilities would be as much as a dividing line as the laws are, but they are not.

IMO it is also time to relook the Titles that dictate what SF can and cannot do legally. The world has changed since these laws were implemented and need a re-evaluation. Will not elaborate other than there is a call from some to change these things and I think they are headed in the right direction.

We "SF" are own worse enemy. In many formal articles we do call ourselves SOF not SF. Forty some yars ago how many had Green Beret comic books? How many saw Green Berets in National Geographic? How many owned a Green Beret action figure? My point is that along the way we took the "Quiet Professional" role too far. I'm not advocating chest beating, but the line needs to be drawn again, before the identity disappears all together.

Ken: Your sources are good.......there is a fundamental shift taking place. Better late than never.

Can some one riddle me this? Why is the USASFC only a 1 star billet?

GPF vs SF training others. As an NCO in the U.S. Army do I not train my own soldiers daily? Am I not a trainer? So should GPF be able to train host nation forces? The quick answer would be yes, but! And that is a big but. One has to look at two big differences: mindset and maturity. In no other situation does that one oh sh!t wipe away 1000 atta boys more than when working with host nation forces. The effect can be disastorous if not deadly.

Finally to address the post about letting GPF slide into the ranks....no no no! The more I have thought about it over the years, it's not about the training I received, so much as about my assessment throughout SFAS and the Q-Course. It's not all about physical prowless or mental capacity but a whole person, what is SF getting when they get me? They know what they are looking for and are good at picking them out. Yes, inevitably some slip through the cracks, but very few. The QC is good. If you have read some of my posts on other threads you'd realize I am a fan of bringing them into the fold in a staff capacity and vice-versa. It would be good for Army and my stop some of the bigger d!ck on the block syndrome.

[jmm99]

from ODB
GPF vs SF training others. As an NCO in the U.S. Army do I not train my own soldiers daily? Am I not a trainer? So should GPF be able to train host nation forces? The quick answer would be yes, but! And that is a big but. One has to look at two big differences: mindset and maturity. In no other situation does that one oh sh!t wipe away 1000 atta boys more than when working with host nation forces. The effect can be disastorous if not deadly.

Good answer to my 75th question - mindset (teaching-oriented) and maturity (experience in both teaching and subject-matter).

General thought. The laws ("titles") should allow as full scope to operational considerations as is possible within the rather broad constraints that exist (my position - other lawyers will take a more retarded view). The laws are unclassified - so proposed changes can be discussed and hypotheticals safely proposed.

The laws are the broad strokes on the canvas. The ROEs, which result from a confluence of (1) operational considerations; (2) laws of war and rule of law (the latter to a lesser degree); and (3) diplomatic, policy and political considerations, are generally classified - so, e.g., JAG found it somewhat difficult to spell out with completeness, for public consumption, the lessons learned re: ROEs in Iraq and Astan.

CLAMO has a number of legal studies - for public consumption - dealing with special operations. You can find them here and here - big .pdf files (best have broadband - and put them on a CD).

Appreciate the answer.

[ODB]

Who? Where? I am trying to expand my horizons, to be a more well rounded individual and just never know when that art knowledge might just build some rapport! Have had to put that one on the back burner as of late.....

Laws are unclass, but there are some that others should never know that the military is capable of carrying out legally.

[Ken White]

What I perceived (in at least one of the posts) as friction between SF and JSOC is really lost on me - I can only infer it is really inside-inside baseball.

is the basic problem. Though it's really more complex, that serves as a simple andswer.

It's just different tribes -- and different jobs. JSOC folks are shooters primarily; hard wired, multi skilled and pretty much Type A guys. The SF guys OTOH are fixers and trainer; educators, if you will primarily; most of' em are pretty laid back.

It's the battle (philosophical differences) between the SWAT eam and the EMTs in a sense.

Those are very broad generalizations and there are exceptions and nuances all over the place but that'll do for a quick and dirty broad description. Add in the fact that in the upper echelons of USSOCOM, preference has in the past been given to the slightly more glamorous (to some) but far smaller community of shooters and that the far more numerous SF guys have folks who also do the DA stuff and you have a recipe for dissension. As ODB mentioned, this is slowly changing as some high powered shooters realize the value of SF -- and become aware of the fact that one can train an Operator a lot quicker than one can train an SF Team member.

The operator takes more and expensive practice to sustain but the SF guy takes longer initially. The Rangers sort of get caught in the middle, though they serve as a farm team (Dalton Fury's words) to an extent for both JSOC and SF. All those folks cost more per bod than do conventional units; that and the selection and training time required preclude a rapid strength increase of either type.

As usual, most of the Troops on the ground work it out with little friction; the flaps occur in the States and are about dollars and spaces -- and who gets the dirty thankless jobs sort of stuff -- while in the field that stuff is not important. Usually.

SF and JSOC both run selection and assessment programs -- similar yet different and passing one does not mean automatic entry to the other (or it didn't used to...) -- and it has been said that passing that in both cases is seen as as big or a bigger bragging / unit cohesion factor than simply being there by many...

The 82d also plays farm team but they're far bigger, strength wise than the Ranger Regiment, so while the 82d grumbles about it, it doesn't impact them as badly as it does the Rangers. There are people who got to selection (both) without being in or having been in the Ranger Regiment or the 82d but from elsewhere in the Army; the numbers used to be sort of small. SF also directly recruits with the '18X' program (LINK); Uboat509 commented on that some time ago.

[jmm99]

had definite value in your answer to my inside-inside baseball question. Thanks for your insights.

Time for sleep.

Mike