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
    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.

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Reality do differ...

    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?

  3. #3
    Council Member Boot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Boot; 05-15-2009 at 12:38 AM.

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
  •