I believe I made a similar comment in another thread but I'll also mention it here: I like the theory of CT and SOF-centric approaches. However, aren't we placing too much on our SOF community and tasking them to the point where they are forced to abandon some of their core competencies, hence losing some of those core competencies?

Why can't we train our more conventional forces to take on some of those mission sets that are on the edge between conventional and unconventional? FID v. SFA seems to be an area we can really maximize the conventional side. I have rarely seen conventional force personnel establish rapport with indigenous forces at the same level as I've seen this accomplished by Army SF. But, let's face it, it's not magic - it can be taught and developed. In order to do so, our conventional forces must stop being the 'ugly american' and need to sit down, shut up, and take in what a lot of our talented SOF pax have to say, and importantly our conventional people need to check their rank and ego at the door. This "mental" side of the equation: putting yourself in the correct mindset, getting to the "act tactically, think strategically" side, rather than just trying to please your rater/senior rater, is where I see the greatest disparity in my limited time being in joint environments with conventional and unconventional units in the same AO. However, I see a great possibility for these talents and skillsets to be passed on by the SOF side to the conventional side.

This is not meant to be a probing question, but is there that much of a difference between some of our conventional units and SOF units in terms of executing some of these COIN and CT missions? For example, if 20 or so people are to go to a village and execute a raid in order to roll up some HVI, why can't those 20 people come from the 101st, as opposed to 2/75, or an ODA, etc?

My point here is that I see the issue of force-tailoring to be a recurring theme in the comments about the way ahead in Afghanistan. I also see that we are taking on great risk to our SOF community by continually stating that things need to be SOF-centric. Seems to me, if the approach needed is solidly supported and well founded, then we ought to be making sure we act accordingly by training the forces necessary and providing some long term protection to our SOF capabilities for the health of that community and the capabilities we'll assuredly need from them in the future.

I think we were on to something with the MiTT concept and it had great promise after some bad beginnings, but it seems we've pretty much abandoned that. It could have developed into an increase in capability and broadened the conventional force and provided some flexibility to the unconventional side - at least that's my opinion.

In the end, I think we have some bright minds out there that have or can identify the road to victory for our strategic purposes. But, as usual, we have some roadblocks and a general unwillingness to execute because it's either out of our comfort zone or just doesn't jive with the way we've been doing business. However, as the saying goes, if you do what you've always done, you're gonna get what you've always got.

Thanks to TDB for your previous response.