Owning Battlespace

[jmm99]

from BW
....[1] there are the NATO SOF operating under NATO authorities; [2] There are US and certain coalition SOF that operate under OEF authorities; and [3] then there are the JSOC crowd ....

Each of these operates under a different charter, policies and end goals (to the extent these can be identified) at the policy-strategy interface. They also include some very different folks - "just stayoff our concrete".

Open-ended question (soft ball): how would a unified SOF command obviate the "problems" of three different commands (each following different policy objectives - where, in any probable case, military operational considerations will be subordinated to political and diplomatic concerns) ?

Regards

Mike

PS: Query whether use of a legal metaphor ("ownership") is appropriate - "ownership" means different things to different legal systems.

E.g., from my Japanese apartment-sharing genius in the 60s: Your common law concept of "ownership" is quite different from ours. Your "ownership" rice bowl has to be completely filled with incidents of ownership - even if you have to invent some to fill the empty spaces. We fill our "ownership" rice bowl with the incidents of ownership as we develop and need them - so, our rice bowl may be partially empty (to you).

I suspect different things to different people may also be something of a problem here.