Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: SOCOM and the CIA

  1. #1
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default SOCOM and the CIA

    Interesting article here. I can't say that I like the idea personally. I don't see this ending well.

    Special Forces soldiers and Central Intelligence Agency operatives could soon be moving seamlessly between the military and intelligence realms if Congress follows advice it received Tuesday.

    The special operations community and the CIA each would benefit from a much closer integration of their personnel, Roger Carstens, a recently retired Special Forces lieutenant colonel who is a non-resident fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Robert Martinage, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee.

    Martinage, who authored an 82-page report titled “Special Operations Forces — Future Challenges and Opportunities” that was published in November, argued for “increased institutionalized cooperation between the CIA and SOCOM [i.e. U.S. Special Operations Command], including hybrid career paths, so people could go back and forth between the two.”

    “Ideally, personnel should not only be able to move back and forth from CIA stations and SOF ground units, but also to compete for selected mid- and senior-level leadership positions in either organization,” Martinage said.
    SFC W

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Agree with you -- and so would several guys I know

    who left a Group to go to the Agency. Different jobs...

  3. #3
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default Ummm

    Any ODA's beating down the door to get an Agency guy on the team? IMO looks like another one of those survival tactics. HUMIT, well you guys can fill in the rest, will not go into details.

    I got a thought, why not utilize SF as the Agency's Ground Branch?

    I do believe I read/heard somewhere that McCain wanted to transform the 2 into some kind of hybrid organization, going back to the OSS days.

    I will stay with my initial assessment, survival.

    Lastly, why does everyone want someone else's piece of the pie? Everyone wants to be shooter nowadays.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not me, I'm opposed

    to violence....

  5. #5
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default Have heard

    others on here make reference to your wisdom through years alive, but will spare you any further remarks.

    For anyone who has a lot of time on their hands the entire report can be found here LINK

    And for those PowerPoint Rangers out there LINK
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Interesting, thanks for the link.

    Shooter oriented from the word go...

    He advocate more SF oriented to the Arab World and the ME/South Asia. he also notes that it takes time to build SOF people -- one presumes he's given some though to the facts that by the time his reorganization is complete, it may no longer be needed and that his total focus on the Islamic issue -- which is not our only problem -- may lead us into not being ready elsewhere.

    That's a shortsighted and wrong headed approach.

    I did get a laugh out of this quote:
    "Additionally, the 75th Ranger Regiment and 160th SOAR frequently operate under the control of JSOC."

  7. #7
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default See some things differently

    he also notes that it takes time to build SOF people
    He does but I took it to be tinged with sarcasm:

    What makes SOF special? The short answer to this question
    is: carefully selected, highly trained personnel that can conduct
    challenging missions that often exceed the capabilities of
    general purpose forces. However, the rigorous and lengthy
    selection, assessment and training required to create SOF has
    a downside: small force size. A truism within the SOF community is that special operators cannot be mass-produced.
    (Bold for my emphasis)
    I did get a laugh out of this quote:
    Quote:
    "Additionally, the 75th Ranger Regiment and 160th SOAR frequently operate under the control of JSOC."

    Oh, if only most knew what was truly happening within JSOC these days, goes back to my previous statement: Lastly, why does everyone want someone else's piece of the pie? Everyone wants to be shooter nowadays.

    I cannot agree with the shifting of forces focus as well. When one looks globally, Russia is awakening, Central/South America are running right up there with ME, so I personally do not see reorganizing focus as a good thing.

    Finally, many know my thoughts on MARSOC, and my belief that it was a money grab........still wondering about this....maybe someone can enlighten me.

    Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC)
    • MARSOC is a recent addition to SOCOM
    • Still not fully stood up
    – Currently at around 1500 personnel
    – Building to 2600
    • Will eventually consist of three primary elements
    – Marine Special Operations Advisory Groups (MSOAGs)
    • Formerly know as Foreign Military Training Units (FMTUs)
    • Focus on FID
    – Marine Special Operations Battalions (MSOBs)
    • Organized into deployable companies that focus on DA and CT
    – Marine Special Operations Support Group (MSOSG)
    Looks a lot like organizations already in existence.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  8. #8
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ODB View Post
    Oh, if only most knew what was truly happening within JSOC these days, goes back to my previous statement: Lastly, why does everyone want someone else's piece of the pie? Everyone wants to be shooter nowadays.
    Nowadays? This is hardly a recent phenomenon. Everybody wants to be John Rambo when they join SF. Most adjust to the reality of what we do. Some don't. Some don't have to.

    SFC W
    Last edited by Uboat509; 03-10-2009 at 02:13 AM.

  9. #9
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default Oh how true

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    Nowadays? This is hardly a recent phenomenon. Everybody wants to be John Rambo when they join SF. Most adjust to the reality of what we do. Some don't. Some don't have to.

    SFC W
    Find it funny when I ask a guy after his 4-5 years in the Army, why he is getting out and they reply "SF isn't what it use to be"......... We are our own worst enemy.

    What I was referencing in my previous post are those "color" guys.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  10. #10
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default As a retired SOCOM reservist...

    ..who is Air Force but enjoyed the purple suit world, I think the SOCOM/CIA interoperability is already there and works just fine.

    In days of yore (mid-1960s) the US Embassy in Karachi, Pakistan CIA In-coountry team was headed by a CIA pureist or careerist, but his Deputy was a retired Navy Commander (05) who had been a pilot.

    As the then USAF Liaison Officer for the US Base at Badabur, Peshawar, in the NWFP part of Pakistan (then West Pakistan) the National Secuity Council was our uppermost command structure. We had CIA involvement with our U-2 survelliance site associated with our base, as well as Army Security Agency involvement with our USAF Security Service communications (over the horizon communications intercept intel)... across the Arabian Sea in several North Africa nations we had related Naval Intel field sites (small, communications related) as well.

    History repeats itself, people are forever trying to feather and refeather their career and economic nests by various forms of mixing and matching. Nothing new here, really.

    I do like the role and good work which the Navy SEALS have as a key part of USSOCOM, but the Army and Air Force Special Forces play equally important integrated and inter-related roles also.

    You youngsters know today's structure and world of SF, etc. much better than us old coot retirees so I will shut down. But, history repeats itself, we hope for the good, but not always is that the outcome.

  11. #11
    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 George L. Singleton View Post
    ..who is Air Force but enjoyed the purple suit world, I think the SOCOM/CIA interoperability is already there and works just fine.
    I concur from the stand point it seemed to work just fine back in the 1960's and with the NSA as well. I know at least 3 old SOG guys who went to work for "civilian SF" and then went back on the Teams. Of course everyone knows the sad story of George Bacon!
    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

  12. #12
    Council Member Boot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default Marsoc

    Quote Originally Posted by ODB View Post
    He does but I took it to be tinged with sarcasm:



    I did get a laugh out of this quote:
    Quote:
    "Additionally, the 75th Ranger Regiment and 160th SOAR frequently operate under the control of JSOC."

    Oh, if only most knew what was truly happening within JSOC these days, goes back to my previous statement: Lastly, why does everyone want someone else's piece of the pie? Everyone wants to be shooter nowadays.

    I cannot agree with the shifting of forces focus as well. When one looks globally, Russia is awakening, Central/South America are running right up there with ME, so I personally do not see reorganizing focus as a good thing.

    Finally, many know my thoughts on MARSOC, and my belief that it was a money grab........still wondering about this....maybe someone can enlighten me.



    Looks a lot like organizations already in existence.
    I'm not a MARSOC apologist or even part of them. I did serve in Force Recon back in the 90's. From what I was told by some, one reason for MARSOC was to get the DA and more importantly Deep/Distant Reconnaissance specialty of Marine Recon. Also remember the Marine Corps back in the eighties opted not to send anyone to USSOCOM as it feared it would lose those assets to USSOCOM. Fast forward to the 2000's, Det 1 was tested under NSWG and was very successful however was DA not FID or the such. The Marine Corps had the opportunity to become part of USSOCOM and opted for it, so now you have MARSOC. We now have our SOF, which wasn't the case with Marine Recon as it wasn't a USSOCOM asset, even though Force Recon was pretty comparable to other SOF type organizations. I know from speaking to some there, they are constantly evolving and I don't think the final version of MARSOC has shown itself. Hope this helps.

    Boot

  13. #13
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default After a day to digest

    My initial thought was what are we trying to do now. But after thinking about this off and on all day, I started to come around. I can see the benefits on both sides, if (and that's a big if) both sides played together right. As I looked from a historical perspective, IMO the two have complimented each other quite well in the past and to some degree the not so distant past. May be more of the same issues all organizations are currently going through. Seems many think they are inventing some new great thing, only to realize it has exsisted before, but was forgotten. I'm still digesting the full report and may think differently afterwards.

    Additional thought is that maybe we aren't thinking a big enough change. Bring all of the services SOF and the National Level Assets into one organization. Part of the problem with multiple entities is the inner fighting and trying to prove their worth over the next, what if we did away with this issue? Might be too bold of a move and rub quite a few people wrong along the way, but would the endstate ultimately be more effective Intel/Operations?

    Boot, thank you for the historical perspective, sheds some of that light I was looking for.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  14. #14
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    This whole thing is a symptom of the idea that if one is good then two must be better. If closer cooperation between SF and all the various Intel agencies is good (and it is) then actually assigning ODAs to one or more of those organizations must be better (it is not).

    There is some discussion of this over at PS.com. BLUF while there is certainly overlap between what SF does and what the civilian Intel agencies do, they are not interchangeable. They have very different missions, very different cultures and very different pools of manpower that they draw from.

    SFC W

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default A peculiar historical perspective

    on original sin. "Once upon a time" , COL William O. Donovan, Coordinator of War Information was granted license by Pres FDR to create a full blown intel agency. Donovan borrowed a great deal from the British but concluded that having a separate intel collection/analysis agency (MI6/SIS) and covert action/paramilitary agency (SOE) was inefficient so he combined the capabilities in the OSS. This "original sin" was incorporated in the National Security Act of 1947 when the CIA was created. It has been, IMO, responsible for all sorts of mischief such as the Bay of Pigs, among other dumb ops.

    Fast forward: The Intel Reform Act of 2004 did not rectify the original sin. So, combining military SOF with CIA will likely compound the error. What needs to be done, IMO, is to separate CIA's paramilitary capability from the intel collection and analysis functions, preferably in a new organization that is civilian run, similar in function to SOE. I would also keep it separate from SOCOM although there could be much work done together under an OPCON authority.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  16. #16
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    on original sin. "Once upon a time" , COL William O. Donovan, Coordinator of War Information was granted license by Pres FDR to create a full blown intel agency. Donovan borrowed a great deal from the British but concluded that having a separate intel collection/analysis agency (MI6/SIS) and covert action/paramilitary agency (SOE) was inefficient so he combined the capabilities in the OSS. This "original sin" was incorporated in the National Security Act of 1947 when the CIA was created. It has been, IMO, responsible for all sorts of mischief such as the Bay of Pigs, among other dumb ops.

    Fast forward: The Intel Reform Act of 2004 did not rectify the original sin. So, combining military SOF with CIA will likely compound the error. What needs to be done, IMO, is to separate CIA's paramilitary capability from the intel collection and analysis functions, preferably in a new organization that is civilian run, similar in function to SOE. I would also keep it separate from SOCOM although there could be much work done together under an OPCON authority.

    Cheers

    JohnT
    Agreed, John T. We went through an episode of this in the 1980s. I researched and wrote about some of it in the 60s and again in the 70s in the Congo/Zaire. It also tends to give CIA its bifurcated personality although completely as part of that comes froom the clan side.

    Best
    Tom

  17. #17
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default Question

    "What needs to be done, IMO, is to separate CIA's paramilitary capability from the intel collection and analysis functions, preferably in a new organization that is civilian run, similar in function to SOE"
    Not all paramilitary covert ops should look like a raid by Delta Force. Sometimes- maybe often -the government might want a very quiet and unobtrusive operation that while requiring a limited use of paramilitary skills to be done quietly by people who have plausibly blended into the environment. That blending requires the sort of cultural/in-country familiarity of experienced collections personnel or diplomats.

    For that reason I'm not sure that rigid organizational separation is a great idea unless you intend to also slide ppl with the right experience into place.

    Sort of like they are talking about in the news article.

  18. #18
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default A free form comment

    Trial and error, whatever works, use it and do it.

  19. #19
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That's the American way, George; we're great at

    doing just that.

    That's why Winston noted "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have tried every conceivable alternative."

    OTOH, whenever we try to organize things, we generally screw it up -- ad hocery is what we do best.

  20. #20
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default Like to tap in to

    the experiences and knowledge here on SWJ.

    What would be the advantages to doing this and why?

    What would be the disadvantages to doing this and why?

    Lastly if you had complete control what would you do to reorganize our current system?

    Understand the limitations of open source, so may not be able to be to detailed, but looking to see different perspectives and experiences.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •