SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Military Art & Science Applied > Doctrine & TTPs

Doctrine & TTPs Enduring doctrinal principles, what really works now (or not), and the TTPs that deliver them.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-13-2009   #1
Boot
Council Member
 
Boot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Default The question...

Ok,
So I have been to some conferences and such in the beltway and down in sunny Florida.
Can anyone explain to me what in their view is the dividing line between GPF and SOF. I read an article that was posted on this forum in which ADM Olson writes about why SOF are uniquely qualified for the Long War. I don't disagree with him on that, however I then read an article about two young Marines partnered up with Afghan forces by themselves alone and unafraid in the capacity as advisors. So I thought, well ADM although I don't disagree with you, that SOF have unique skill sets why is it that these two kids are doing it without specialized training?
So I ask again what do you think the integration between GPF and SOF will be? I have heard SOF types state that when its a potential combat situation then its an SOF mission. I cannot agree with that as OIF and OEF bear out mounds of data that run contrary to this.
The only thing I can see that is the dividing line is funding lines. Titles and authorities.
My fear is that the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine who are those GPF tasked with IW/SFA won't get screened and trained properly, which I submit, that individual is the building block of any effort. Invest in the man. Does that sound familiar?
I think you do screen individuals for Advisory type duty who are going to be the persistent engagement types, who are carrying out FID like missions or working very closely with FSF that have a national view. These are the forces we must invest in because send the wrong people, and it could cause more harm than good. Does the screening have to be a month long event in the woods. I don't think so. I have known Marines who can hump and run all day, jump out of high flying aircraft and lock out of subs, but I would NEVER want those guys partnered with FSF on their own. Great for DA type missions not soft missions. I doubt I will get much response to this, as I haven't in the past.

Boot


Boot

Last edited by Boot; 05-13-2009 at 02:13 AM.
Boot is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #2
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Hmm...

as an amateur (in the original sense of that word) in Marine history (US and CFM-Canada), I'd suggest that the two Marine kids - more likely grandkids to me - can do what they are doing because Marines are both general purpose and special operations oriented creatures[*].

They also have had combined arms for so long that they think it's a genetic feature. And can mix and match, shrink and grow, with reckless abandon (MAGTFs).

The GPF and SOF discussion(s) [re: GPF and SOF dividing lines, assuming that both of them are monoliths, which they seem not] is perceived by this detached and armchair observer to be primarily an Army thing. Although DoD Dir 3000.05, if executed fully, would affect all the services.

---------------
[*] marsouins - sea hogs, the marine mammal with the most brains, even though no one but themselves understand their language and habits.

PS: like the photo with kids on your personal page.

Last edited by jmm99; 05-13-2009 at 03:24 AM.
jmm99 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #3
selil
i pwnd ur ooda loop
 
selil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Belly of the beast
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
The GPF and SOF discussion(s) [re: GPF and SOF dividing lines, assuming that both of them are monoliths, which they seem not] is perceived by this detached and armchair observer to be primarily an Army thing. Although DoD Dir 3000.05, if executed fully, would affect all the services.

You are correct. Though the other forces would disagree they are not organized that way.
__________________
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
selil is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #4
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boot View Post
So I ask again what do you think the integration between GPF and SOF will be? I have heard SOF types state that when its a potential combat situation then its an SOF mission. I cannot agree with that as OIF and OEF bear out mounds of data that run contrary to this.
The only thing I can see that is the dividing line is funding lines. Titles and authorities.
My fear is that the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine who are those GPF tasked with IW/SFA won't get screened and trained properly, which I submit, that individual is the building block of any effort. Invest in the man. Does that sound familiar?
I think you do screen individuals for Advisory type duty who are going to be the persistent engagement types, who are carrying out FID like missions or working very closely with FSF that have a national view.
Good question - as I read it.

I think the difference between proper SOF and GPF forces is very to see when people are honest about intent and purpose. EG: Training, doctrine, and Description match the purpose of the forces they describe.

In the UK it is fairly easy to see who is SOF and who is not. Israel is the same, and they also have very strict rules and doctrine describing who is SOF and who is not.
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
William F. Owen is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #5
max161
Council Member
 
max161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 141
Default US has rules describing SOF too

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post

In the UK it is fairly easy to see who is SOF and who is not. Israel is the same, and they also have very strict rules and doctrine describing who is SOF and who is not.
Here is the legislation describing Special Operations Forces and activities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/167.html

§ 167. Unified combatant command for special operations forces
How Current is This?
(a) Establishment.— With the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, through the Secretary of Defense, shall establish under section 161 of this title a unified combatant command for special operations forces (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “special operations command”). The principal function of the command is to prepare special operations forces to carry out assigned missions.
(b) Assignment of Forces.— Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, all active and reserve special operations forces of the armed forces stationed in the United States shall be assigned to the special operations command.
(c) Grade of Commander.— The commander of the special operations command shall hold the grade of general or, in the case of an officer of the Navy, admiral while serving in that position, without vacating his permanent grade. The commander of such command shall be appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for service in that position.
(d) Command of Activity or Mission.—
(1) Unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, a special operations activity or mission shall be conducted under the command of the commander of the unified combatant command in whose geographic area the activity or mission is to be conducted.
(2) The commander of the special operations command shall exercise command of a selected special operations mission if directed to do so by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
(e) Authority of Combatant Commander.—
(1) In addition to the authority prescribed in section 164 (c) of this title, the commander of the special operations command shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, all affairs of such command relating to special operations activities.
(2) The commander of such command shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, the following functions relating to special operations activities (whether or not relating to the special operations command):
(A) Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics.
(B) Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for special operations forces and for other forces assigned to the special operations command.
(C) Exercising authority, direction, and control over the expenditure of funds—
(i) for forces assigned to the special operations command; and
(ii) for special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command, with respect to all matters covered by paragraph (4) and, with respect to a matter not covered by paragraph (4), to the extent directed by the Secretary of Defense.
(D) Training assigned forces.
(E) Conducting specialized courses of instruction for commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
(F) Validating requirements.
(G) Establishing priorities for requirements.
(H) Ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
(I) Formulating and submitting requirements for intelligence support.
(J) Monitoring the promotions, assignments, retention, training, and professional military education of special operations forces officers.
(3) The commander of the special operations command shall be responsible for—
(A) ensuring the combat readiness of forces assigned to the special operations command; and
(B) monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command.
(4)
(A) The commander of the special operations command shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, the following:
(i) Development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment.
(ii) Acquisition of special operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services.
(B) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the commander of the command, in carrying out his functions under subparagraph (A), shall have authority to exercise the functions of the head of an agency under chapter 137 of this title.
(C) The staff of the commander shall include an inspector general who shall conduct internal audits and inspections of purchasing and contracting actions through the special operations command and such other inspector general functions as may be assigned.
(f) Budget.— In addition to the activities of a combatant command for which funding may be requested under section 166 (b) of this title, the budget proposal of the special operations command shall include requests for funding for—
(1) development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment; and
(2) acquisition of other material, supplies, or services that are peculiar to special operations activities.
(g) Intelligence and Special Activities.— This section does not constitute authority to conduct any activity which, if carried out as an intelligence activity by the Department of Defense, would require a notice to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.).
(h) Regulations.— The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations for the activities of the special operations command. Such regulations shall include authorization for the commander of such command to provide for operational security of special operations forces and activities.
(i) Identification of Special Operations Forces.—
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), for the purposes of this section special operations forces are those forces of the armed forces that—
(A) are identified as core forces or as augmenting forces in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, Annex E, dated December 17, 1985;
(B) are described in the Terms of Reference and Conceptual Operations Plan for the Joint Special Operations Command, as in effect on April 1, 1986; or
(C) are designated as special operations forces by the Secretary of Defense.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of the special operations command, may direct that any force included within the description in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) shall not be considered as a special operations force for the purposes of this section.
(j) Special Operations Activities.— For purposes of this section, special operations activities include each of the following insofar as it relates to special operations:
(1) Direct action.
(2) Strategic reconnaissance.
(3) Unconventional warfare.
(4) Foreign internal defense.
(5) Civil affairs.
(6) Psychological operations.
(7) Counterterrorism.
(8) Humanitarian assistance.
(9) Theater search and rescue.
(10) Such other activities as may be specified by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
__________________
David S. Maxwell
"Irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge." T.E. Lawrence
max161 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #6
Boot
Council Member
 
Boot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Default

Max,
Your right we do have this; however I would submit that GPF has ans is doing some of this. Not just as providing security for SOF forces as they carry out their mission. I think that is a waste of GPF forces. I also have to question whether or not items (2), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (9) should be considered solely the purview of SOF. I have done some of that. An argument can even be made about DA; Some GPF do carry out DA.


Boot
Boot is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #7
Boot
Council Member
 
Boot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Default

I do believe that you can screen and select GPF and still be GPF for this type duty. Three examples I know of:

Marine Recon, Marine Force Recon and the US Army's Asymetric Warfare Group. All have a screening and selection process. In the case of Recon, they do get trained in skill sets commonly associated with SOF, such as Combatant Diver (this will test your manhood) and MFF to name two. I am not sure what the Army's AWG standard they are trained to.
I do know that Recon has traditionally had a screening and further assesment (RIP then Amphibious Recon School) and those who didn't cut it were dropped.
So there is precedent for this. It seems to me that there is resistance from sectors of SOF, in having GPF carry out some of these missions. I say take the lead like the SECDEF has directed, and help the GPF who will be assignned to this, screen, train etc...bring their standards up. I think they will find that some organizations are a lot better than they think and it wouldn't be that big of a leap to do this.


Boot
Boot is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #8
Surferbeetle
Council Member
 
Surferbeetle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,110
Default Well...

Boot,

Your point about the two young Marines who are getting it done out in the boonies is the definition of what tactical SOF is IMHO. Max161 brings up a key operational issue for SOF with the legislative background...no legislation, no funding, no officially sanctioned SOF forces. We need someone to chime in on the strategic definition of SOF...

Like most things it can be boiled down to the people who are involved.

SOF is people who are intuitively inquisitive about other cultures and languages, who intuitively understand that there is one than one path to accomplishing the mission, and who are able to use whatever skill set they have to advance the cause.

There are of course GPF who meet these criteria and from a management standpoint a SOF identifier, and some sort of vetting by training would be beneficial for when GPF forces have to cover down on SOF missions.

From my viewpoint DA is more a 'super-set' of GPF skills, but this defintion does not mesh with the legislation (j)(1).

Regards,

Steve
__________________
Sapere Aude

Last edited by Surferbeetle; 05-13-2009 at 02:53 PM.
Surferbeetle is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #9
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post

SOF is people who are intuitively inquisitive about other cultures and languages, who intuitively understand that there is one than one path to accomplishing the mission, and who are able to use whatever skill set they have to advance the cause.
My perception is that most SOF forces are men seeking to be physically and psychologically challenged to a degree that sets them apart from the vast majority of soldiers, and thus to make them eligible for the most demanding forms of military missions.

Additional screening will disqualify those who cannot learn sufficiently fast, or are unable to gain rapid understanding of problems based on available data.

I am not sure an interest in foreign cultures is implicit to most of the selection processes I have studied in any degree of detail.
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
William F. Owen is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #10
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default I agree with Wilf. Futher...

Having been around at the conception as it were and having seen Barbwire Bob scuttling around the halls of Congress, I'm very much aware of the law that created USSOCOM -- and the fact that it was deliberately delayed so it could develop some bypasses to the six months prior Goldwater Nichols Act.

Few points on the Law. The SecDef has the authority to move units in and out of SOCOM. Law also says that unless the Prez or secDef directs otherwise, all SO activities will conducted under command of -- not coordination with -- the Geographic Commander. Note that the list of activities at the bottom of the post of Max 161are not a list of Special Operations but a list of activiteis that can relate to Special operations.

That's a long way of saying that Special operations are what ever the President and /or the Sec Def say they are. Or, in many cases whatever SOCOM wants to say they are and the GPF allows them to get away with.

As far as I know, the PREVIOUS SecDef gave SOCOM an exception to being under CoCom command and I guess that's still in force. whether that's wise or not is very much TBD.

I watched the migration of many GPF 'mission sets' into the SOF arena during the 80s and 90s as the US Army lost its focus and adopted a training system that robbed commanders of time and choices. I have watched -- and cheered -- as the GPF has regained those minor skills in the last few years. We're supposed to be in this together...

Surferbeetle says:
Quote:
Like most things it can be boiled down to the people who are involved.
True. Today, many SOF missions are a result of that deteriorating number of mission capabilities of the GPF, a quest for dollars back in the 80s and 90s and some good -- and bad -- decisions. All people products...
Quote:
SOF is people who are intuitively inquisitive about other cultures and languages, who intuitively understand that there is one than one path to accomplishing the mission, and who are able to use whatever skill set they have to advance the cause.
True for CA and most SF, less true for all PsyOps and the DA types (JSOC, SEALs). All are needed but they do different things and the DA guys do not need the in-depth culture and language bit; though the other attributes apply.

I'll note that all those attributes exist in the GPF as well -- they're just under trained and under used. That is due to the fact that the Army for 25 plus years denied those things were important - all of todays Generals grew up in that time period. IOW, it's a situation that need not exist and should cahnge for the good of all.
Quote:
There are of course GPF who meet these criteria and from a management standpoint a SOF identifier, and some sort of vetting by training would be beneficial for when GPF forces have to cover down on SOF missions.
Condescend often?

How about forgetting management and concentrating on mission accomplishment, not 'vetting' but just training people properly for the jobs they may have to do simply because the numbers will always -- write that down, always -- in any MAJOR operation entail the GPF doing, as they have done and are doing today, some full spectrum missions. Not SO missions, just full spectrum of warfare missions.
Quote:
From my viewpoint DA is more a 'super-set' of GPF skills, but this defintion does not mesh with the legislation (j)(1).
DA is an infantry skill . Application of DA is an Infantry job, period. Application of DA for some missions can be Special Operations depending on several parameters -- but most in most wars, most such operations will not be SO due to the quantity. Nor should they be. Special can lose its meaning if one is not careful...

Boot said:
Quote:
So there is precedent for this. It seems to me that there is resistance from sectors of SOF, in having GPF carry out some of these missions. I say take the lead like the SECDEF has directed, and help the GPF who will be assignned to this, screen, train etc...bring their standards up. I think they will find that some organizations are a lot better than they think and it wouldn't be that big of a leap to do this.
Absolutely correct.

Calling basic military missions 'Special operations' when they are essentially basic everyday warfighting tasks pose the risk to the SO community of making them not special...

We will ignore what Boot says at some cost to the Nation and to people in ALL the Armed Forces.
Ken White is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #11
Surferbeetle
Council Member
 
Surferbeetle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
That's a long way of saying that Special operations are what ever the President and /or the Sec Def say they are.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Or, in many cases whatever SOCOM wants to say they are and the GPF allows them to get away with.
I am amazed at some of the rivalry between GPF and SOF that I see at times. We on the CA-side try to downplay things with some humor since we do not have the super-DA skills but its interesting nonetheless. On the civilian-side, when I need help with a special problem I call a specialist in that problem and its not an affront to my manhood to do so...it would be a good thing if we could do this consistently in the Army.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
I watched the migration of many GPF 'mission sets' into the SOF arena during the 80s and 90s as the US Army lost its focus and adopted a training system that robbed commanders of time and choices. I have watched -- and cheered -- as the GPF has regained those minor skills in the last few years. We're supposed to be in this together...
I would agree here as well, like most SOF I started as GPF and I find that I rely upon my GPF skills to keep me and mine alive, as well as most day to day soldiering issues. My SOF skills are reserved for a more narrow range of problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Today, many SOF missions are a result of that deteriorating number of mission capabilities of the GPF, a quest for dollars back in the 80s and 90s and some good -- and bad -- decisions. All people products...
Your USMC time is showing through and its a good thing. Fiscal discipline, everybody is a rifleman, la-de-da and everybody will get it done no matter what attitude...I can see through the sides of some their helicopters they use them so much...sheesh. Very different than the approach that I often see in the Army.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
True for CA and most SF, less true for all PsyOps and the DA types (JSOC, SEALs). All are needed but they do different things and the DA guys do not need the in-depth culture and language bit; though the other attributes apply.
DA is both a needed and a different beast and I suspect you know one or two more things more than do I about the need for a specialization in things other than the culture and language bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Condescend often?
Sometimes, although the vast majority of times its not intended (and it was not intended here) and a timely boot upside the head helps me to reset, thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
How about forgetting management and concentrating on mission accomplishment, not 'vetting' but just training people properly for the jobs they may have to do simply because the numbers will always -- write that down, always -- in any MAJOR operation entail the GPF doing, as they have done and are doing today, some full spectrum missions. Not SO missions, just full spectrum of warfare missions.DA is an infantry skill . Application of DA is an Infantry job, period. Application of DA for some missions can be Special Operations depending on several parameters -- but most in most wars, most such operations will not be SO due to the quantity. Nor should they be. Special can lose its meaning if one is not careful...
Ken/Sir - Let me be CA-centric here for a moment. Unlike some, I do not have a problem with GPF doing CMO or even CA missions...not all CA soldiers are CA...yet (this may/probably applies in other areas of SOF but I will defer on SF). Brainpower and skills uber-alles baby. I try not to get hung up on rank either, as long as everybody understands that since the highest ranking guy gets fried if it all goes bad the team will factor this into the equation. We had a USMC/USAR/ENG/LT-non CA type Electrical Engineer running electricity, which as it should be. I have also seen a Electrical Engineer with E-5 stripes being used as a driver...bad #### and unfortunately I didn't win that particular fight to get that changed. My experience then is that it would be beneficial to our efforts that folks holding these, and other 'special' skills sets, be consistently identified and properly utilized.

As a dirt and water guy I definitely believe in get-er done, and truly understand the difference between theory and real world application. I do find however that its faster and less painful when we have the right folks on the team. Either way, I still enjoy the work.

Best,

Steve
__________________
Sapere Aude

Last edited by Surferbeetle; 05-13-2009 at 06:03 PM.
Surferbeetle is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #12
Old Eagle
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rocky Mtn Empire
Posts: 473
Default Don't draw a line

There -- mansolved!

The truth of the matter is that we now need to develop more synergy between SOF and GPF than ever before. During the Army's recent Unified Quest war game, some SF participants actually admitted that. We're going to see SFA missions led by conventional organizations that are augmented by SOF, and other SFA missions led by SOF that are augmented with GPF, whether as SMEs or as force multipliers. Let's just get used to it. Nobody is trying to "steal" anyone else's thunder. War is a conclict between or among opposing sides, not a conflict or competition within our side.

The truth of the matter is that future requirements will outstrip SOF capability and capacity. We need to get used to working together. GPF should not be unilaterally conducting CA or CMO activities, but they should be enablers for the pros from Dover (Bragg). A little levening goes a long way. Same with the advisory roles that SF traditionally do. Gotta have a meaningful mix.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Old Eagle is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #13
MikeF
Council Member
 
MikeF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,177
Default You're wrong...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
Tell me I'm wrong.
Just kidding. We can start by giving SOF a seat on the JCS. Then, I'd recommend them to move from Tampa to Fort Bragg.

On the lower end, SF should consider allowing CF/GPF personnel with significant advisor time to slide into their ranks.

That's all common-sense to me until you throw in ricebowls, budgets, egos, and tabs...The simple things that get in the way of mission requirements .

Mike

Last edited by MikeF; 05-13-2009 at 10:23 PM.
MikeF is offline  
Old 05-13-2009   #14
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default Yes, yes and yes...

Surferbeetle:
Quote:
On the civilian-side, when I need help with a special problem I call a specialist in that problem and its not an affront to my manhood to do so...it would be a good thing if we could do this consistently in the Army.
True -- and most everyone in the Army does the same thing with no hassles -- until you get to a certain level of either ground in parochialism (due usually to an incident somewhere along the line; after that every perceived slight became reinforcement) or concern for flags and spaces. In the end, much of the discombobulation is really about those flags and space, not about manhood. Both sides, IMO are at fault but regardless of source, I agree it should go.
Quote:
not all CA soldiers are CA...yet (this may/probably applies in other areas of SOF but I will defer on SF).
I think it applies across the board. I spent 45 years being amazed at the number of people, including some quite senior people who didn't like or want to be in the Army (and the other services as well). I was also amazed at the number who really had no self confidence...
Quote:
Brainpower and skills uber-alles baby. I try not to get hung up on rank either, as long as everybody understands that since the highest ranking guy gets fried if it all goes bad the team will factor this into the equation.
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, some of those folks I mentioned: senior, don't really like the Army, more importantly those with no self confidence -- they think you and I are nuts and will fight for form over function.

Old Eagle:
Quote:
Tell me I'm wrong.
Can't. Target. Good shot!

Mike F:
Quote:
That's all common-sense to me until you throw in ricebowls, budgets, egos, and tabs...The simple things that get in the way of mission requirements.
Sigh. Too true...
Ken White is offline  
Old 05-14-2009   #15
Boot
Council Member
 
Boot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Then, I'd recommend them to move from Tampa to Fort Bragg.
Groan...Tampa is sooooooo much nicer than Fayetteville...

I say NOOOOO to that!


BOOT
Boot is offline  
Old 05-14-2009   #16
Boot
Council Member
 
Boot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
That's all common-sense to me until you throw in ricebowls, budgets, egos, and tabs...The simple things that get in the way of mission requirements

Well we don't have a tab problem in the Marines, now about those egos and ricebowls...



BOOT
Boot is offline  
Old 05-14-2009   #17
Uboat509
Council Member
 
Uboat509's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
We can start by giving SOF a seat on the JCS.
I used to believe this but I have come to reconsider this of late. If we did create a "SOF" seat at the JCS then experience tells me that the command will be dominated by JSOC and that means SF will continue to be the red headed step children of the SOF community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Then, I'd recommend them to move from Tampa to Fort Bragg.
Fort Bragg is already way overcrowded and there are more than enough major headquarters there now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
On the lower end, SF should consider allowing CF/GPF personnel with significant adviser time to slide into their ranks.
Selection is open to every qualified candidate.

SFC W
Uboat509 is offline  
Old 05-14-2009   #18
MikeF
Council Member
 
MikeF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
I used to believe this but I have come to reconsider this of late. If we did create a "SOF" seat at the JCS then experience tells me that the command will be dominated by JSOC and that means SF will continue to be the red headed step children of the SOF community.



Fort Bragg is already way overcrowded and there are more than enough major headquarters there now.



Selection is open to every qualified candidate.

SFC W
Uboat,

I'm an armor officer that has spent many moons with SOF and SF.

Relook what you stated and see if you want to change your words.

I have PT with a seal tomorrow morning. If you're words stand, I'll rebut them one by one.

I love you guys, but your wrong on this one.

And with my brain injuries, I have no dog in this fight

v/r

Mike

Last edited by MikeF; 05-14-2009 at 09:39 AM.
MikeF is offline  
Old 05-14-2009   #19
MikeF
Council Member
 
MikeF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,177
Default I'll try to explain a bit better...

And this is my opinion. It may change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
I used to believe this but I have come to reconsider this of late. If we did create a "SOF" seat at the JCS then experience tells me that the command will be dominated by JSOC and that means SF will continue to be the red headed step children of the SOF community.
The issue is not about SOF/SF. I don't think y'all will ever get along, and I never understood why you're under one command. Personally, I thought it was kinda similar to when they did away with specialties for infantry (Bradley grunt = airborne grunt). Just weird.

IMO, y'all need a four-star seat at the table. That's the only way to work within bureaucracies (ricebowls, budgets, egos, etc)...On the big army level, y'all have not done that well since 9/11. ADM Olson wears too many hats. Is he the Chief of staff of SOF, the CoCom of SOF, or equivalent of FORSCOM? He can't do all three jobs, and I think that's hurt y'all a bit.



Quote:
Fort Bragg is already way overcrowded and there are more than enough major headquarters there now.
True, but in some respects, it is the center of the universe. Seriously, well, you may be right on that one.


Quote:
Selection is open to every qualified candidate.
That's just not a true statement particularly with O's. I know you're probably laughing right now thinking we have enough O's, but you are missing out on some GPF company commanders who excelled working in patrol bases and FID.

Plus, some of the enlisted that would make excellent SF's simply don't want to go to school after 3-4 deployments.

Does it matter? I dunno.

Would you be better off if you found a way to integrate them? Probably.

Will it happen? Probably not.

I've tried to look at these issues from a neutral standpoint.

v/r

Mike
MikeF is offline  
Old 05-14-2009   #20
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default Just off the top of my empty head,

I'm inclined to agree with UBoat 509 so I'm looking forward to the discussion
Ken White is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for CJCS ODB RFIs & Members' Projects 16 02-23-2009 11:31 PM
The challenge of Institutionalizing Adaption - the question SASC did not ask SECDEF Rob Thornton Catch-All, Military Art & Science 9 02-11-2009 05:39 PM
Council New Members Examination SWJED Small Wars Council / Journal 40 10-01-2008 08:59 PM
Training for Small Wars SWJED RFIs & Members' Projects 0 11-02-2005 05:50 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation