The Marine Corps and the FID Mission?

[John T. Fishel]

But (there is always a "but") Ken, the norm is for the regional COCOMS to control SOF in their AOR through their SOCs. USSOCOM, as we said in that other thread, is an odd duck. It has service like responsibilities (Title 10 type authorities for accessing, training, and equipping) and, when so directed by the NCA, employing SOF. It was the degree to which that took place that engaged my discussion with Dave (less than Barry McCaffrey and I thought).

Dave, on the name game, Bill Flavin at PKSOI has a slide he developed from one done long ago by Bill Olson (former DASD SO/LIC) called The 100 Names of LIC. I have my own version which I would be glad to share with anyone who sends me an email address in a PM.

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

Truth in lending – I am an SFA aficionado. The reason for that is that although we possess the premier FID resources in the world (the guys in the funny green hats and some of their compatriots), we suck at developing foreign security forces. The reason is that we have elected to take an ad hoc approach that is neither efficient nor effective.

There are a couple of related issues here, but they probably ought to be dealt with separately.

1. Who will be doing FID in the future, and I think that Dave Maxwell has some good insights on that subject, although we will not be able to continue business as usual ante bellum. See below.

2. Who will provide the expeditionary forces needed for inconvenient operations around the globe, and I firmly believe that USMC will be that source. The heavy metal bands in the Army will ultimately get their way and withdraw themselves to deterrence-based locations in order to train on higher risk, but less likely scenarios.

Dave and I disagree on the utility of continuing the FID construct as currently defined. One part of the issue I have is in the narrow construct of that definition and the resulting problems in execution. The second part is in the Army-internal struggle to cope with FID as a mission.

According to JP 1-02, the “Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,” FID consists of action programs to free and protect a society “from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency.” The hint to the operative feature is the word “internal” in the name. To make matters even more complicated, the United States does not believe that military forces should be charged with maintaining that internal order, rather police and police-type forces. But wait, there’s more – then, in section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act, we preclude U.S. military from training police. The current National Defense Authorization Act gives us some exceptions to that rule, but exceptions are, by definition, ad hoc. Therefore when we train military forces to conduct internal defense missions, that’s FID. But what if we’re developing them to be alliance/coalition partners or peacekeepers? What if there is no insurrection, subversion or lawlessness at home? What is that called?

The second part of my FID problem with the Army is the mutual admiration society of Army SF and Big Green. SF is VERY protective of THEIR (by legislation, yada, yada) mission. Big Green is happy to relegate, (perhaps even abrogate) all responsibility for FID-like missions to USASOC. The Army doesn’t even have FID doctrine!!! Within the Army only Special Forces possess that doctrine. All that works relatively well until major SFA missions like Iraq and Afghanistan crop up, or budget constraints force us to do SFA more efficiently.

Let the discussion continue.

[Ken White]

But (there is always a "but") Ken

Usually several, in fact...

the norm is for the regional COCOMS to control SOF in their AOR through their SOCs. USSOCOM, as we said in that other thread, is an odd duck.

Totally true on both, of course. Though I'd suggest that while SOCCent reponds in theater to CinCCent; they're really also responding directly (and probably more quickly, openly and honestly) to SOCOM thus one could say they're more SOC then Cent -- or something like that...

Yes, SOCOM is an odd Turducken (to use the Cajun vernacular). IMO it was a bad idea and even as Barbwire Bob sold it, it was poorly designed. No matter, it exists so it's the way we'll go forward.

I agreed with Dave and I also agree with Old Eagle, their and my differences are all minor and of scale, no more.

I suspect the Marines will take over the expeditionary effort and the Army will revert to the big war syndrome and attempt to revitalize the Weinberger Doctrine (unsuccessfully in the long term - it's too geopolitically limiting). He's correct in saying there's a lot of baggage in the way of the Army truly getting involved in FID. One example is that the Marines have, as Bill said:

...The Security Cooperation MAGTF concept is at the core of future theater engagement. It is not SOF, but full spectrum engagement.

an excellent approach but one the Army will not adopt simply because the Marines did it first (even though many in the Army have talked about that methodology for years).

The problem with all that is, as Old Eagle said:

Within the Army only Special Forces possess that doctrine. All that works relatively well until major SFA missions like Iraq and Afghanistan crop up, or budget constraints force us to do SFA more efficiently.

and as I said:

""* Emphasized to point out that there's only so much SOF, in any mid or larger sized commitment, conventional forces will have to do direct and combat FID.""

Sigh. Deja Vu all over again...

[sullygoarmy]

Old Eagle,
Couldn't agree with you more. While FID continues to be a useful mission set for the specialists in the field, the lack of FID applications to a large scale rebuild of Foreign Security Forces, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, leave us wanting more. I hate to sound new age, but we require, and continue to struggle with, a more holistic approach. While FID is part of it, we still continue to suck at developing Foreign Security Forces, especially the "soft" MOS troops so vital to longevity of Armed Forces and the security forces vital to internal security ranging from Police to Border Police.