Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
quite clear the powers that be had not up to that point been willing to recognize the need for SOF leadership for such operations.
clarify in an objective sense what you mean by 'SOF Leadership'. Compared to what?

Notwithstanding your claim for Fridovich (which I concur with), what is it that you think SOF leaders will bring that big Army guys (such as Petraeus, Odierno recently,and further back Kitson) cannot? One of the best COIN thinkers I have ever met was a SANDF/ SADF Brig Gen who was a 'conventional' para.

If we go by the recent record of SF in Iraq, at least whilst I was there, I am even less sure why we would think that SF leadership is necessarily a 'COIN winner'. An overwhelming focus on DA, with a trg focus on indigenous units that will execute further DA, does not equate to COIN 'best practice' - it is, at best, only an element of it. Fridovich (and Krawchuk) pointed this out in an article about OEF-P in JQF in '06. Your doctrine (FM 3-24) confirms this view.

If the SF are the solution, why is it that one of primary LOO - develop indigenous capacity, has, for the most part been filled by a 'heinz variety' of elements from across the US services, rather than SF elm? (For god's sake, in Basra during Charge of the Knights I met a Navy O6 nuclear dude on a MiTT task ...). Why is the JCISFA at Leavenworth largely a big army org?

Please don't take this the wrong way - I am not at all critical of the SF or its efforts, I am just trying to understand why your posts suggest that the recent appointment reflects a 'SF' thinking triumph rather than , perhaps, the appointment of a good GO who has the confidence of the Secretary and others.

Cheers

Mark