The question...

[Ken White]

Having been around at the conception as it were and having seen Barbwire Bob scuttling around the halls of Congress, I'm very much aware of the law that created USSOCOM -- and the fact that it was deliberately delayed so it could develop some bypasses to the six months prior Goldwater Nichols Act.

Few points on the Law. The SecDef has the authority to move units in and out of SOCOM. Law also says that unless the Prez or secDef directs otherwise, all SO activities will conducted under command of -- not coordination with -- the Geographic Commander. Note that the list of activities at the bottom of the post of Max 161are not a list of Special Operations but a list of activiteis that can relate to Special operations.

That's a long way of saying that Special operations are what ever the President and /or the Sec Def say they are. Or, in many cases whatever SOCOM wants to say they are and the GPF allows them to get away with.

As far as I know, the PREVIOUS SecDef gave SOCOM an exception to being under CoCom command and I guess that's still in force. whether that's wise or not is very much TBD.

I watched the migration of many GPF 'mission sets' into the SOF arena during the 80s and 90s as the US Army lost its focus and adopted a training system that robbed commanders of time and choices. I have watched -- and cheered -- as the GPF has regained those minor skills in the last few years. We're supposed to be in this together...

Surferbeetle says:

Like most things it can be boiled down to the people who are involved.

True. Today, many SOF missions are a result of that deteriorating number of mission capabilities of the GPF, a quest for dollars back in the 80s and 90s and some good -- and bad -- decisions. All people products...

SOF is people who are intuitively inquisitive about other cultures and languages, who intuitively understand that there is one than one path to accomplishing the mission, and who are able to use whatever skill set they have to advance the cause.

True for CA and most SF, less true for all PsyOps and the DA types (JSOC, SEALs). All are needed but they do different things and the DA guys do not need the in-depth culture and language bit; though the other attributes apply.

I'll note that all those attributes exist in the GPF as well -- they're just under trained and under used. That is due to the fact that the Army for 25 plus years denied those things were important - all of todays Generals grew up in that time period. IOW, it's a situation that need not exist and should cahnge for the good of all.

There are of course GPF who meet these criteria and from a management standpoint a SOF identifier, and some sort of vetting by training would be beneficial for when GPF forces have to cover down on SOF missions.

Condescend often?

How about forgetting management and concentrating on mission accomplishment, not 'vetting' but just training people properly for the jobs they may have to do simply because the numbers will always -- write that down, always -- in any MAJOR operation entail the GPF doing, as they have done and are doing today, some full spectrum missions. Not SO missions, just full spectrum of warfare missions.

From my viewpoint DA is more a 'super-set' of GPF skills, but this defintion does not mesh with the legislation (j)(1).

DA is an infantry skill . Application of DA is an Infantry job, period. Application of DA for some missions can be Special Operations depending on several parameters -- but most in most wars, most such operations will not be SO due to the quantity. Nor should they be. Special can lose its meaning if one is not careful...

Boot said:

So there is precedent for this. It seems to me that there is resistance from sectors of SOF, in having GPF carry out some of these missions. I say take the lead like the SECDEF has directed, and help the GPF who will be assignned to this, screen, train etc...bring their standards up. I think they will find that some organizations are a lot better than they think and it wouldn't be that big of a leap to do this.

Absolutely correct.

Calling basic military missions 'Special operations' when they are essentially basic everyday warfighting tasks pose the risk to the SO community of making them not special...

We will ignore what Boot says at some cost to the Nation and to people in ALL the Armed Forces.

[Surferbeetle]

That's a long way of saying that Special operations are what ever the President and /or the Sec Def say they are.

Agreed.

Or, in many cases whatever SOCOM wants to say they are and the GPF allows them to get away with.

I am amazed at some of the rivalry between GPF and SOF that I see at times. We on the CA-side try to downplay things with some humor since we do not have the super-DA skills but its interesting nonetheless. 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.

I watched the migration of many GPF 'mission sets' into the SOF arena during the 80s and 90s as the US Army lost its focus and adopted a training system that robbed commanders of time and choices. I have watched -- and cheered -- as the GPF has regained those minor skills in the last few years. We're supposed to be in this together...

I would agree here as well, like most SOF I started as GPF and I find that I rely upon my GPF skills to keep me and mine alive, as well as most day to day soldiering issues. My SOF skills are reserved for a more narrow range of problems.

Today, many SOF missions are a result of that deteriorating number of mission capabilities of the GPF, a quest for dollars back in the 80s and 90s and some good -- and bad -- decisions. All people products...

Your USMC time is showing through and its a good thing. Fiscal discipline, everybody is a rifleman, la-de-da and everybody will get it done no matter what attitude...I can see through the sides of some their helicopters they use them so much...sheesh. Very different than the approach that I often see in the Army.

True for CA and most SF, less true for all PsyOps and the DA types (JSOC, SEALs). All are needed but they do different things and the DA guys do not need the in-depth culture and language bit; though the other attributes apply.

DA is both a needed and a different beast and I suspect you know one or two more things more than do I about the need for a specialization in things other than the culture and language bit.

Condescend often?

Sometimes, although the vast majority of times its not intended (and it was not intended here) and a timely boot upside the head helps me to reset, thanks

How about forgetting management and concentrating on mission accomplishment, not 'vetting' but just training people properly for the jobs they may have to do simply because the numbers will always -- write that down, always -- in any MAJOR operation entail the GPF doing, as they have done and are doing today, some full spectrum missions. Not SO missions, just full spectrum of warfare missions.DA is an infantry skill . Application of DA is an Infantry job, period. Application of DA for some missions can be Special Operations depending on several parameters -- but most in most wars, most such operations will not be SO due to the quantity. Nor should they be. Special can lose its meaning if one is not careful...

Ken/Sir - Let me be CA-centric here for a moment. Unlike some, I do not have a problem with GPF doing CMO or even CA missions...not all CA soldiers are CA...yet (this may/probably applies in other areas of SOF but I will defer on SF). 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. We had a USMC/USAR/ENG/LT-non CA type Electrical Engineer running electricity, which as it should be. I have also seen a Electrical Engineer with E-5 stripes being used as a driver...bad #### and unfortunately I didn't win that particular fight to get that changed. My experience then is that it would be beneficial to our efforts that folks holding these, and other 'special' skills sets, be consistently identified and properly utilized.

As a dirt and water guy I definitely believe in get-er done, and truly understand the difference between theory and real world application. I do find however that its faster and less painful when we have the right folks on the team. Either way, I still enjoy the work.

Best,

Steve

[Old Eagle]

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.

[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]

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