I don't completely disagree with your statement above. I have over 15 years in Army SF, and over 25 associated with SOF in general, and have to say that some of the flag-level officers who "get it" the best don't have direct time in SOF. While some from the SOF community are focussed almost exclusively on the kinetic door-kicking aspects of Special Operations.
But where I think your observation falls short is two-fold. Your statement implies a static situation (and therefore a static solution). As the situation changes on the ground, the mental agility and predilictions required of the commander might change as well. Second, I think that this "post conflict" phase of the engagement there is the ~perfect~ match for a commander with SOF experience. And I don't just mean exposure to SOF, but actual experience in and with the units.
SOF doesn't obviate a capacity for and competence in good old-fashioned ass-kicking warfare; Army SOF are required to have at least one tour under their belt as a "regular solider or officer" before coming aboard. But it does extend the skill-set and (I would suggest) exponentially expand the conceptual approaches to conflict management in ways that traditional military training doesn't (or hasn't yet).
In my civilian life I pull-together teams of military, prior-service, civilian and others to do nation-building around the world. What I like about the SOF mentality is that their going-in position is to think out of the box. They recognize that if an off-the-shelf solution would adequately address a particular problem it'd have already been solved by other competent and respectable elements of our national power.
Thanks for the interesting debate.
LS
Bookmarks