I read this article this morning and thought I would raise the question here. I think my thoughts have changed slightly from what they were a year ago, based solely on recent cuts and mission ahead. I can see positives and negatives to both sides of the coin. If for some reason this was actually created, it would likely cause some crazy restructuring within SOF. I would have about a billion questions regarding the logistics, structure, missions, selections, etc though...
Even from an outsider's POV there are a lot of questions that come to mind. Support personnel How does the new SOF branch glean the support personnel needed for their missions? Do the mother branches have to give up everyone currently assigned in a SOF support/enabler role at the time of the change, or does each unit hold "try-outs" to come with them to the new branch? Does each unit get its own enablers, or are enablers a community asset that are moved around as needed? Enlistment Are dudes allowed to just enlist into the SOF branch for a shot? Or do they have to do mandatory conventional time and then transfer over? If they can just enlist, is there a SOF boot-camp program run as a kind of Selection Prep, or do guys enlist and then just head to Selection? Selection What do you do with guys that fail/are dropped from Selection courses? Do they automaticaly become enablers? Let them transfer to a conventional branch? Kick them out? What happens with those who fail a Selection and then want to try again down the road, but are now in a conventional branch? Units Does each unit still maintain its own Selection course? Or are there more general Selection courses (swim-based or ruck-based) with guys being "picked" or choosing which unit they want to go to? What happens with the SMUs? Are they also their own branch, or do they get folded under the new SOF-only branch? This is what I can think of off the top of my head..... It sounds like a great idea, but is it worth all the trouble?
Well you know, a totally new set of uniforms that are totally distinctive and different weapons are pretty cheap.
Furthermore he fails to take into consideration or at least fails to mention all the stuff you previously mentioned, and more...
Stay the same. A similar discussion happened up here and in a way it is it's "own" but it draws from all 3 main services for recruitment. From my perspective, I don't think it should be a direct entry job; you should have to do some time in a conventional unit to gain experience and maturity.
I know I'm on the outside looking in, but look at Poland. We created DWS in 07, and made SOF a seperate branch of the military shortly there after. Personel is porcured from other services. It's not perfect, but we are learning.
and the only way I see to read this paragraph is that he recommends getting rid of the Corps to establish a new SOF service.
I would actually take the opposite direction. For full spectrum ops type missions (i.e. Iraq, current Astan, etc) I think SOF needs more interaction with CF. I think the BCT’s should have separate SOF-TF (or even a small SOF element intergraded) within the BCT’s. I am not talking about SF, but more like a well trained Intel section, PSY/CA team and a well trained Ranger platoon (HVT’s, CT & HR type mission). This would allow BCT commanders the resources to run their own battle space without having several SOF units operating within his A/O. Any JTF Intel can come down to the BCT and that specific SOF attachment would have the ability to work it. I think it would bridge a lot of gaps and foster better results. For the small foot print ops (Philippines, Libya, Oman, etc) I would leave that up to SOCOM, JSOC, SF types. Allow them to pull over CF as they need them, etc.
What if our combatant commanders and the DoD used SOF units they way they were intended? A seperate branch only makes sense when you're dealing with assholes guys like Rummy and Schwartzkopf. I think I'm stupider for having read the article.
I found the article kind of amusing, because it makes an intellectually interesting proposal, based on a decidedly wrong and simplistic line of reasoning. But, IMHO, the fact that SOCOM now wants to be more involved in the HR side (promotions etc.) of SOF personnel, plus the delicate SOCOM effort to standardise some/most SOF training, across the Services, kind of begs the question "what could be next". On the other hand, all over the world, Services are separated by the domain they operate, (Land Sea Air). The USMC is an exception. They advocate operating at the "seams" and have always felt their existence is threatened. As an outsider I think that putting USMC under the Navy would not fly and that a fifth Service would be too much. But as long as we are in this line of reasoning (that steps on an awful lot of toes and traditions), I for one would find it far more interesting if the USMC was streamlined and merged with SOF. "A few good men" operating at the seams, with their own logistics/support and special assets (air naval) getting most of the small wars pie etc etc.
Combine Marine Public Affairs with SEAL Public Affairs?!?! There would be no room left on the airwaves or internets. Reed
Most people are familiar with the nightmare that standing DHS was, with its relevance/efficacy still very much in contention. This establishment of a new service may not take much more than changing the signs on the buildings, but I think the successes of SOF lie heavily in their ability to bend the traditional bureaucratic confines in the interest of mission accomplishment, with a pragmatic take on how they aggregate and utilize mission specific resources. The structural ambiguity, and the joint IC/SOF community's ability to manipulate it in their favor, is an asset, not a restraint. I agree with surgicalcric, it's certainly not a RAND white paper.
Perfect. I'm searching for the author and the most likely individual is this guy. http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/ Non-SOF Army Tanker who commanded in the battle of 73 Easting....which explains his "informed" opinion. Now he makes a living consulting and as a media "military expert."
I think they are one and the same, hence my response below: Fuck this guy, fuck 73 Easting, and fuck COL/ BGEN/ Whateverheisthesedays McMasters. I won't take away anything from what they did at 73 Easting, but after that? We have a serious problem when these guys are seen as the future of the US Army. The future? Take MacGregor. His book was noticed by the neocons. When Franks, Shinseki, and a host of others at CENTCOM and the JCS told Rummy 125k troops wasn't nearly enough, Rummy went apeshit. Why? Rummy believed that they could take and hold Iraq with as little as 75K? Why? Doug MacGregor. Rummy was so incensed that his generals told him 300k plus that he sent MacGregor to CENTCOM to talk some sense into them. They basically put the guy in a conference room and ignored him; I don't blame CENTCOM. A prime reason the US went in with as few troops as we did was due in large part to COL MacGregor's behind-the-scenes dicksucking he did on Rumsfeld's staff. So, the future of the Army is a back-stabbing little bitch of a man politician who couldn't even pick up a star despite being a favorite of the SECDEF and his posse? McMasters: What a trainwreck. It boggles my mind that one battle created so many "reformers" and now one of them knows what to do with our nation's SOF? I wouldn't wipe my ass with the Chicago Tribune as long as the port-a-johns had John Wayne toilet paper.
