Ken,

This was my daily drama as the Chief of the Special Operations Liaison Element (SOPLE, a NATO term adopted mid tour, began as a SOCOORD) in RC-South.

Personally, I think we need to evolve from traditional concepts rooted in Physical Battle Space, and adopt more effective constructs that take into account "functional battle space" as well.

As to "SOF," as you well know, that is a broad term. In Afghanistan there are what we called "the three tribes" all operating under distinct and independent chains of command, outside the control of the BSO, that are "SOF." In descending order of degree of BSO influence over, there are the NATO SOF operating under NATO authorities; There are US and certain coalition SOF that operate under OEF authorities; and then there are the JSOC crowd.

Probably more a conversation to have over a couple of beers than over the web, but I'll add more tomorrow, or field any specific questions.

In general though the BSO is left holding the bag and is always left responsible for whatever the SOF guys break (and benefits from what they do well, which is much more and less recognized). Ironically, the SF guys are arguably more frustrated by the efforts of the JSOC guys than the conventional forces are.

One incremental step to smooth this out would be to put all SOF under one set of authorities. That means compromise though. I would, however, open the door to a cleaner C2 lash up.

As to putting SOF under the BSO, it always sounds good, but it also always ends up in some tragic application of SOF to solve problems that are merely difficult and dangerous, rather than SOF-unique in the skills and capabilities required.