Ken, that's about what I expected and observed - a messy stew of multiple causes that reduces effectiveness. Golly, sounds like friction to me, just the sort of thing unity of command is designed to reduce.

My sense is that the walls between the 'conventional' and the 'special' communities need some breaking down. After all, some of what are considered traditional special operation missions can be (and are being) done by conventional forces.

An analogy could be made with what is happening between the maneuver branches. The new maneuver center at Fort Benning, though it is still taking baby steps, is supposed to reduce the cultural conflicts between infantry and armor. In terms of maintenance, gunnery training, and mounted maneuver, a mechanized infantryman has more in common with a cavalryman than he does with his light brethren.

I don't know the best ways to break down the barriers; I recognize there is a skill set, a mind set, and a culture that has to be preserved for effective special operation forces, but there has to be a way for the type of cross-fertilization the infantry enjoys. After all, Rangers can be airborne can be straight-leg can be mechanized. Maybe making SF a branch was a mistake.