The question...

[Boot]

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