SOCOM and the CIA

[ODB]

[MarSoc wasn't about money but a much more Powerful Motivator, Policy.

But later you argue:

You see the Marine Corps as a whole faced being BLANKED out of the whole Global Fight against Terrorism in any Proactive & Meaningful way. So It provided MOA's to Prove it could provide units that could play on SoCom's level & Rumsfeld forced the Merger b/c it was a good fit.

Got it they want in the fight and the GWOT funds.......

Its Policy that sets what is a Conventional Force, what is a Special Operations Force, what is a General Purpose Force... Its Policy thats says XYZ conventional units are Rapid Deployment Forces & can deploy immediately on the word of the President.

...It was Policy that the Marine Corps successfully used to argue to keep its SOF capable Forces fr/ being chopped to SoCom in the '80s. Arguing that unlike the other services the Marine Corps as a whole is listed as a GPF who's missions can border whats defined as S-O. Also unlike the other services, its SOF capable units are Totally integrated in the day-day Operations of the MAGTF on all levels.

At the time, a successful argument on the Grounds of Policy.

It was The USMC that found itself on the wrong side of Policy in the yrs leading up to MarSoc w/ a SecDef (Rumsfeld) set to write New Policy regarding SOF & their usage in the future of the GWOT.

W/out getting into the details, as some of you already know, that SecDef changed Policy & said that in Matters of the Pursuance of Terrorism the T-SOCs in each Theater Command would be the Lead Commander. ALL other Theater Deputy Commanders including the Theater Commander Himself were to be in a Supporting Role.

This was a major Policy shift for the Marines. Prior to this it was standard practice for the Theater Commander to use Marines, usually already on scene Forward Deployed on a MEU(SOC), as an In-Extremis(time sensitive) SOF until a SoCom/JSOC sponsored force, usually CONUS, could be assembled.

This POLICY changed w/ Rumsfeld who made all things Terror related strictly the Purview of SoCom's T-SOCs.

But for the Marine Corps the writing was already on the wall. This was already known to them since the opening days of A'stan when their MSPF's were constantly denied High Priority Missions & their highly trained Raiding Companies on the MEU(SOC)'s were often relegated to guard duty by the T-SOC who was mostly running & assigning the early missions.

Rumsfeld's Policy change, in I believe '06, would make that kind of tasking in the long run in Terrorism Assignments... OFFICIAL.

To add INSULT to INJURY after using the MEU ships & an empty Carrier as a Launch Pad & early Base of Operations, SoCom began looking into developing a FwdDep'd Composite SOF Strike Force that they hoped could be based on the MEU's ARG ships, much like the old SEAL Strike Plt.

This is where my heartache lies. Instead of developing a unit that would meet the needs that where identified above, a unit was created that would take the same role of units already in existence. Don't get me wrong, I scream daily where I am at, that we are not being utilized properly. This does not suprise me. We all have a role to play, unfortunately we do not play that role and think we need to play somebody elses role. We create units to have the same capabilities and tasks as units already in existence. We add other unit capabilities to units and mix match across the spectrum until no one knows who does what. I have no issue in the creation of capabilities that address shortcomings, but not to simply meet the changes in policy, money, whatever one wants to call it.

[George L. Singleton]

From only an arm chair nowadays I agree with your general observations about creating what we already have and could use in our forces structure.

It pained me to see the US Marine Reserve Artillery unit at the Bessemer, Alabama armory converted into what amounts to an MP unit for use in Iraq several years ago.

There was and still is a mission and need for Marine Corp field artillery. If the DoD wanted and wants MPs then use MPs or ask for volunteers to cross train to be MPs from all branches of the service, regular, reserve, and guard.

[COMMAR]

But later you argue:


Got it they want in the fight and the GWOT funds.......

No... nothing I explained above had anything to do w/funds, but had to do w/the USMC(as a whole, not MSOF) positioning itself, due to DOD policy shift, to remain the In-Extremis Force of Choice in lew of a SOF TF.

A very complex relationship, expecting no direct MAGTF relationship to the T-SOC's CT goals, but indirect in involvement thru 1) MSOC association & 2) improved relations due to the renewed USMC-SoCom Boards including planned institutionalization of USMC-SoCom/GPF-SOF Joint Training Excercises.

This is where my heartache lies. Instead of developing a unit that would meet the needs that where identified above, a unit was created that would take the same role of units already in existence. Don't get me wrong, I scream daily where I am at, that we are not being utilized properly. This does not suprise me. We all have a role to play, unfortunately we do not play that role and think we need to play somebody elses role. We create units to have the same capabilities and tasks as units already in existence. We add other unit capabilities to units and mix match across the spectrum until no one knows who does what. I have no issue in the creation of capabilities that address shortcomings, but not to simply meet the changes in policy, money, whatever one wants to call it.

Well thats the thing, they didn't re-create anything, b/c MarSoc as a whole & the MSOC's in particular (when complete) will provide an Fwd Dep'd Expeditionary capability unseen in Tier II SOF.

Which is something mentioned in SoCom's Official Report done on DET-1 by the JSOU & authored by SEAL LtCmdr Mark Divine.

This was the whole purpose of providing the DET in the Proof MOA. To pre-empt development of a composite SOF unit fr/being Fwd Deployed at sea, inwhich SoCom would've been Recreating the wheel.

The Corps was saying, "Hey, we already do that. If you need to see it, here's what we can do." Hence MOA Proof of Concept... DET-1.

The DET, which I mentioned before, was based off a MEU(SOC)'s MSPF a Mini Self-Sufficient/Contained Expeditionary Task Force comprised of DA/SR, Intel(HumInt & Sig) including a Deep Battlespace Strategic Ground SigInt capabilty (RRT), C2, Fires & Air Deconfliction, Support, etc.

The report stated the DET demonstrated a Direct Action & Reconnaissance capability on par w/ Tier 1 SMU's and that the MSPF regularly deploys w/ support only seen in SMU TF's.

Singled out was the Intel units, who while only comprising 3% of the Intel assets slated for the CJSOTF in Iraq during that 6mth time period provided over 29% of the CJSOTF's Actionable Intelligence.

etc, etc, etc...


But thats off subject...

SoCom liked what they saw, & the USMC saw an opportunity to dig into SoCom's MISSION pie(MAGTFs by assoc. w/MarSoc), NOT their MONETARY pie; & positioned themselves accordingly.







In other News:
This is a very complex issue that can't be viewed by down talking unit contribution as simply copying or not copying.


MarSoc's overall planned capabilities can't be gauged by missions run in A'stan to date...

B/C without its planned TF Enabler Structure in place(still growing) & w/its Global Transpo (ARG/MEU Ships), doing squares off the Kuwait coast b/c the MEU is dry docked as the Iraq Theater Resr'v; MarSoc's not in a position to take up its planned role as an Fwd Dep Expeditionary strike force & therefore seperate itself in your eyes.

It is however gaining valuable time learning its new command's(SoCom) Op Structure & TTPs before operating Independently in the near future.





W/that said, I'd say it'd be about another 1-2yrs before you see MSOC's doing what they were actually designed to do.