Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
Partly true as an 0-6 will command. But a GO has the training center and the SFA will fall under him. That is the same set up for the Ops Group and it has worked quite well.

Personally I would rather see an active and civilian component approach to the mission. Why? Because when an Army unit stands up with a civilian component (DAC not contractor) that is a statement of probable longevity.
That also addresses some of the issues regarding moving to Louisiana.

I agree with your point that giving SFA in total to the SF community will essentially remove it from the lexicon of the conventional force. I have long argued that the happy bridge between the two needs to be at the MiTT training with SF providing a significant core of instructors. Perhaps that will emerge here once this gets started given our SOF role.

Tom
Tom,

No real disagreement. But even a 1-star being the highest advocate for SFA training seems low to me given it's agreed upon import.

My earlier on SF wasn't meant to slight them - they're true pros at what they do, but so far I have seen little desire from SF to "outreach/integrate" with the evil "big army". So if they get TAA/SFA proponency in the Army, it will lose focus. Just as COIN will if the Army does the same to it.

I'm truly hoping for different, but expecting the worst.

Niel