The question...

[Boot]

Ok,
So I have been to some conferences and such in the beltway and down in sunny Florida.
Can anyone explain to me what in their view is the dividing line between GPF and SOF. I read an article that was posted on this forum in which ADM Olson writes about why SOF are uniquely qualified for the Long War. I don't disagree with him on that, however I then read an article about two young Marines partnered up with Afghan forces by themselves alone and unafraid in the capacity as advisors. So I thought, well ADM although I don't disagree with you, that SOF have unique skill sets why is it that these two kids are doing it without specialized training?
So I ask again what do you think the integration between GPF and SOF will be? I have heard SOF types state that when its a potential combat situation then its an SOF mission. I cannot agree with that as OIF and OEF bear out mounds of data that run contrary to this.
The only thing I can see that is the dividing line is funding lines. Titles and authorities.
My fear is that the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine who are those GPF tasked with IW/SFA won't get screened and trained properly, which I submit, that individual is the building block of any effort. Invest in the man. Does that sound familiar?
I think you do screen individuals for Advisory type duty who are going to be the persistent engagement types, who are carrying out FID like missions or working very closely with FSF that have a national view. These are the forces we must invest in because send the wrong people, and it could cause more harm than good. Does the screening have to be a month long event in the woods. I don't think so. I have known Marines who can hump and run all day, jump out of high flying aircraft and lock out of subs, but I would NEVER want those guys partnered with FSF on their own. Great for DA type missions not soft missions. I doubt I will get much response to this, as I haven't in the past.

Boot


Boot

[jmm99]

as an amateur (in the original sense of that word) in Marine history (US and CFM-Canada), I'd suggest that the two Marine kids - more likely grandkids to me - can do what they are doing because Marines are both general purpose and special operations oriented creatures[*].

They also have had combined arms for so long that they think it's a genetic feature. And can mix and match, shrink and grow, with reckless abandon (MAGTFs).

The GPF and SOF discussion(s) [re: GPF and SOF dividing lines, assuming that both of them are monoliths, which they seem not] is perceived by this detached and armchair observer to be primarily an Army thing. Although DoD Dir 3000.05, if executed fully, would affect all the services.

---------------
[*] marsouins - sea hogs, the marine mammal with the most brains, even though no one but themselves understand their language and habits.

PS: like the photo with kids on your personal page.

[selil]

The GPF and SOF discussion(s) [re: GPF and SOF dividing lines, assuming that both of them are monoliths, which they seem not] is perceived by this detached and armchair observer to be primarily an Army thing. Although DoD Dir 3000.05, if executed fully, would affect all the services.

You are correct. Though the other forces would disagree they are not organized that way.

[William F. Owen]

So I ask again what do you think the integration between GPF and SOF will be? I have heard SOF types state that when its a potential combat situation then its an SOF mission. I cannot agree with that as OIF and OEF bear out mounds of data that run contrary to this.
The only thing I can see that is the dividing line is funding lines. Titles and authorities.
My fear is that the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine who are those GPF tasked with IW/SFA won't get screened and trained properly, which I submit, that individual is the building block of any effort. Invest in the man. Does that sound familiar?
I think you do screen individuals for Advisory type duty who are going to be the persistent engagement types, who are carrying out FID like missions or working very closely with FSF that have a national view.

Good question - as I read it.

I think the difference between proper SOF and GPF forces is very to see when people are honest about intent and purpose. EG: Training, doctrine, and Description match the purpose of the forces they describe.

In the UK it is fairly easy to see who is SOF and who is not. Israel is the same, and they also have very strict rules and doctrine describing who is SOF and who is not.

[max161]

In the UK it is fairly easy to see who is SOF and who is not. Israel is the same, and they also have very strict rules and doctrine describing who is SOF and who is not.

Here is the legislation describing Special Operations Forces and activities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/167.html

§ 167. Unified combatant command for special operations forces
How Current is This?
(a) Establishment.— With the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, through the Secretary of Defense, shall establish under section 161 of this title a unified combatant command for special operations forces (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “special operations command”). The principal function of the command is to prepare special operations forces to carry out assigned missions.
(b) Assignment of Forces.— Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, all active and reserve special operations forces of the armed forces stationed in the United States shall be assigned to the special operations command.
(c) Grade of Commander.— The commander of the special operations command shall hold the grade of general or, in the case of an officer of the Navy, admiral while serving in that position, without vacating his permanent grade. The commander of such command shall be appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for service in that position.
(d) Command of Activity or Mission.—
(1) Unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, a special operations activity or mission shall be conducted under the command of the commander of the unified combatant command in whose geographic area the activity or mission is to be conducted.
(2) The commander of the special operations command shall exercise command of a selected special operations mission if directed to do so by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
(e) Authority of Combatant Commander.—
(1) In addition to the authority prescribed in section 164 (c) of this title, the commander of the special operations command shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, all affairs of such command relating to special operations activities.
(2) The commander of such command shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, the following functions relating to special operations activities (whether or not relating to the special operations command):
(A) Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics.
(B) Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for special operations forces and for other forces assigned to the special operations command.
(C) Exercising authority, direction, and control over the expenditure of funds—
(i) for forces assigned to the special operations command; and
(ii) for special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command, with respect to all matters covered by paragraph (4) and, with respect to a matter not covered by paragraph (4), to the extent directed by the Secretary of Defense.
(D) Training assigned forces.
(E) Conducting specialized courses of instruction for commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
(F) Validating requirements.
(G) Establishing priorities for requirements.
(H) Ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
(I) Formulating and submitting requirements for intelligence support.
(J) Monitoring the promotions, assignments, retention, training, and professional military education of special operations forces officers.
(3) The commander of the special operations command shall be responsible for—
(A) ensuring the combat readiness of forces assigned to the special operations command; and
(B) monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command.
(4)
(A) The commander of the special operations command shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, the following:
(i) Development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment.
(ii) Acquisition of special operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services.
(B) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the commander of the command, in carrying out his functions under subparagraph (A), shall have authority to exercise the functions of the head of an agency under chapter 137 of this title.
(C) The staff of the commander shall include an inspector general who shall conduct internal audits and inspections of purchasing and contracting actions through the special operations command and such other inspector general functions as may be assigned.
(f) Budget.— In addition to the activities of a combatant command for which funding may be requested under section 166 (b) of this title, the budget proposal of the special operations command shall include requests for funding for—
(1) development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment; and
(2) acquisition of other material, supplies, or services that are peculiar to special operations activities.
(g) Intelligence and Special Activities.— This section does not constitute authority to conduct any activity which, if carried out as an intelligence activity by the Department of Defense, would require a notice to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.).
(h) Regulations.— The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations for the activities of the special operations command. Such regulations shall include authorization for the commander of such command to provide for operational security of special operations forces and activities.
(i) Identification of Special Operations Forces.—
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), for the purposes of this section special operations forces are those forces of the armed forces that—
(A) are identified as core forces or as augmenting forces in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, Annex E, dated December 17, 1985;
(B) are described in the Terms of Reference and Conceptual Operations Plan for the Joint Special Operations Command, as in effect on April 1, 1986; or
(C) are designated as special operations forces by the Secretary of Defense.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of the special operations command, may direct that any force included within the description in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) shall not be considered as a special operations force for the purposes of this section.
(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.

[Boot]

Max,
Your right we do have this; however I would submit that GPF has ans is doing some of this. Not just as providing security for SOF forces as they carry out their mission. I think that is a waste of GPF forces. I also have to question whether or not items (2), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (9) should be considered solely the purview of SOF. I have done some of that. An argument can even be made about DA; Some GPF do carry out DA.


Boot

[Surferbeetle]

Boot,

Your point about the two young Marines who are getting it done out in the boonies is the definition of what tactical SOF is IMHO. Max161 brings up a key operational issue for SOF with the legislative background...no legislation, no funding, no officially sanctioned SOF forces. We need someone to chime in on the strategic definition of SOF...

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

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.

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.

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

Regards,

Steve

[William F. Owen]

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.

My perception is that most SOF forces are men seeking to be physically and psychologically challenged to a degree that sets them apart from the vast majority of soldiers, and thus to make them eligible for the most demanding forms of military missions.

Additional screening will disqualify those who cannot learn sufficiently fast, or are unable to gain rapid understanding of problems based on available data.

I am not sure an interest in foreign cultures is implicit to most of the selection processes I have studied in any degree of detail.

[Boot]

I do believe that you can screen and select GPF and still be GPF for this type duty. Three examples I know of:

Marine Recon, Marine Force Recon and the US Army's Asymetric Warfare Group. All have a screening and selection process. In the case of Recon, they do get trained in skill sets commonly associated with SOF, such as Combatant Diver (this will test your manhood) and MFF to name two. I am not sure what the Army's AWG standard they are trained to.
I do know that Recon has traditionally had a screening and further assesment (RIP then Amphibious Recon School) and those who didn't cut it were dropped.
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.


Boot