# SOCOM Five-Year Plan:  Ideas Needed



## Marauder06 (Apr 9, 2012)

For a paper due at the end of the month, I have to submit a five-year plan written as if I were an adviser to the commander of SOCOM.  The professor to whom I am submitting the paper is ex-military and has a great deal of experience in SOF, so I'll be able to write this paper with a great deal more specificity than I would normally have to.  As part of my research for this paper, I am soliciting ideas for things that you would think the commander of SOCOM should consider *at the strategic level* when planning for the next five years.  Yes, I know the commander of SOCOM doesn't need me to plan a way a head for SOCOM for him; this is an academic exercise only.

Nothing related to SOF is "off the table" as a potential item for discussion, BUT... everything has to be completely UNCLASS.  Here is what I've come up with so far as potential items of discussion:

1) The pluses and minuses of SOF becoming its own branch of service
2) Establishing a centralized assessment, selection, and training program for all SOF enablers
3) Updating SOF doctrine to reflect F3EAD as the SOF targeting methodology
4) A push for continued emphasis on the SOF intel effort, possibly formally establishing EXINT as an intel discipline
5) More intra-SOF cooperation in training; consider consolidating training programs into "centers of excellence," more emphasis on crossleveling best practices between national and theater SOF
6) Greater emphasis on SOF/GPF cooperation, training, integration
7) An evaluation of whether the constant media attention on SOF forces (particularly the SEALs) is good or bad for the community
8) Expanding the civilian education program for SOF officers and NCOs

I have been out of the SOF community for almost two years now, so I'm not even sure where the community is on some of these issues.  If you have ideas for possible topics or thoughts about the ideas I posted above, I'd love to hear them.  I'm also willing to provide my .mil email address for individuals who would prefer not to make their ideas public.  Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2012)

Just spitballing:
- FID/ UW: Who does it, what core skills should be considered and/ or what training standard should be applied across the different services?
- Does SF really need 4 battalions per Group? Would it be better to add an extra company per battalion or ODA per company or just return to 3 line companies across 3 BNs for a Group?
- Communications: They should operate across SOF units as well as conventional units. I can think of one aspect which DOES NOT and I'm sure there are others.
- Thinking back to the Hitler CONOP video, is there any CJSOTF doctrine out there and if so how does it integrate the various components? Additonally, how bad is the CONOP process? Guys aren't making that video because they are bored.
- Long term effects of the GWOT and prosecuting OEF-A at a minimum for the next 5 years on top of other commitments like JCETs or core taskings.
- I know that units are taking on a great number of attachments on the enabler side and back in 2004 ODAs were taking conventional guys as ad hoc SOT-As. Does the MTOE need to change to reflect a new technolgy-centric form of warfare? UAV operators, more SOT-As, comm, logistics, etc.

Those are my random thoughts.


----------



## goon175 (Apr 9, 2012)

In light of the "draw down" happening, and the pressure of budget cuts that go along with that, a constant effort needs to be in place to continue retaining the best guys to stay in SOF. It is ever enticing for a guy with a bit of experience and training under his belt to say thanks, but no thanks when it comes time to re-enlist. Now, I don't think anyone specifically does it for the money, but keeping SDP in place and re-enlistment bonus's at an attractive level are two important things that can be done to help keep a really quality SOF capability. This should all be taken into consideration with the fact that SOF will continue to deploy regularly, whereas the conventional forces will see a dramatic drop in who and how often units deploy.


----------



## Scotth (Apr 9, 2012)

Granted I have no credibility on this issue but I will still spout off anyways.

The argument for an SOF branch has been suggested previously and there was obviously short comings in that idea.  Maybe change coarse a little and suggest an SOF only budgeting model.  Making the argument that the budgeting decision are best left in the hands of the people that have the real world experience to make those decisions.  Make the model include all branches of SOF including active and reserve components.  With the long term commitment to the GWOT and the need and dependence on SOF going forward it would make sense to have the budgeting dollars designed by and justified by the people most affected.


----------



## dknob (Apr 9, 2012)

I can only comment for 75th.

Retention is paramount. OIF is over, OEF is over for many guys.
- Right now, all those pre 9/11 Rangers NCOs are now CSM and SGMs in the 75th. They want things to go back the way it was before OEF/OIF. These dudes are driving out the 9/11 Batt boys - an entire different breed of Rangers. If we lose these guys, the Regiment and everything it's done in the past decade will leave with them.

- The 75th as a whole, realistically will not have a job here in the near future. Guys are going to jump ship because garrison life is fucking retarded. Do something to keep these guys in the military! Provide a special retention bonus for guys who make the successful transition from the 75th into SF or something. At the very least if we can't keep them in the 75th, lets at least keep them somewhere in SOCOM. Maybe give them a ton of promotion points for re-enlisting into SF and successfully completing the training (not counting the points you get for finishing SFQC and everything that goes with it.)


----------



## dknob (Apr 9, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> 2) Establishing a centralized assessment, selection, and training program for all SOF enablers


 
kinda like FLETC!


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 9, 2012)

dknob said:


> kinda like FLETC!


 
This FLETC?  http://www.fletc.gov/


----------



## dknob (Apr 9, 2012)

yup


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Apr 9, 2012)

I'd say retention is the biggest one across the board. With the war drawing to a close a lot of the guys who pretty much came up in a war time military are not going to want to stick around the peace time military. Like goon said I don't think anybody does this particular line of work for the money, but with the type of skills one obtains over the years with a SOF unit there are other lucrative opportunities on the outside. Some might say if I'm going to be board then I might as well be board not dealing with bull crap and getting paid. It's really simple math you can give a guy a $100k bonus for four years of service, which is only $25k a year, and retain all the knowledge schooling and money you've already invested. Or you can try to low ball him he gets out and now you spend a few million to start from scratch getting a basically trained and qualified soldier that has no SOF experience. Its pretty simple, as said above keep the bonuses and SDA's attractive, and make a guy feel like he's needed and not just another number.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 9, 2012)

Hitman2/3 said:


> I'd say retention is the biggest one across the board. With the war drawing to a close a lot of the guys who pretty much came up in a war time military are not going to want to stick around the peace time military. Like goon said I don't think anybody does this particular line of work for the money, but with the type of skills one obtains over the years with a SOF unit there are other lucrative opportunities on the outside. Some might say if I'm going to be board then I might as well be board not dealing with bull crap and getting paid. It's really simple math you can give a guy a $100k bonus for four years of service, which is only $25k a year, and retain all the knowledge schooling and money you've already invested. Or you can try to low ball him he gets out and now you spend a few million to start from scratch getting a basically trained and qualified soldier that has no SOF experience. Its pretty simple, as said above keep the bonuses and SDA's attractive, and make a guy feel like he's needed and not just another number.


Protect those same guys from Garrison Details, an ODA should not be picking/raking pine cones.  Rangers and others should get a pass on most Post Support Details as they will be the (for the most part)only folks still deploying.


----------



## 104TN (Apr 9, 2012)

The importance of cultivating a formal knowledge transfer process through deployment/redeployment and methods for the proliferation of lessons learned at various unit levels.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Apr 10, 2012)

I'd also say streamlining the procurement process. Maybe this is just MARSOC specific, probably not, but it should not take years to acquire a needed piece of gear once a need has been identified, especially when the equipment already exist.

For example we've been in Afghanistan for over 10 years. It was identified early on that with the ranges we were dealing with .308 and even .300 sniper rifles were not ideal and in some cases almost useless. Shooters identified that we needed to go to at least a .338 to reach out and touch someone. Here we are 10 years later and they're just now in the process of maybe getting a .338. The Royal Marines came to the same conclusion and it took them about a year to acquire and field a .338. Just an example, I'm sure you all have experienced something similar.

If a need exist and has been identified, especially in war time and especially in SOCOM, all the bureaucratic red tape needs to go away.


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2012)

Coming from a non-SOF background, just re-iterating the ideas others have brought up, some possible titles might be: "Retaining Superior SOF Personnel, Tactics & Techniques in A Post-War Environment", something to that effect.

Or maybe, "Sustaining a State of High Readiness Among SOF Personnel in Peacetime."


----------



## reed11b (Apr 10, 2012)

Any thought about addressing the "core" SOF missions? They are very Army-centric and may benefit from an evaluation. DA is extremely broad and could likely be split into several better defined missions. CA and MISO are both missions that are currently half conventional, half SOF. They should probably be placed in one realm or the other. Personel recovery as possible SOF mission? 
Reed


----------



## 104TN (Apr 10, 2012)

Could also be interesting to look at growth trends across USASOC vs Big Green and what that may mean holistically for the Army moving forward.

Do conventional forces become more specialized?
Does SOF units start being utilized as overqualified generalists...more?
Who is deployed as an expeditionary force?
Who is deployed for sustained occupation?
Where do those two roles overlap?
Should they?
How does the utilization of SOF units differ in reality (the above) from doctrine?
Should doctrine be updated or should the use of SOF units?

Just a couple more ideas.


----------



## Etype (Apr 10, 2012)

dknob said:


> Maybe give them a ton of promotion points for re-enlisting into SF and successfully completing the training (not counting the points you get for finishing SFQC and everything that goes with it.)


Promotion points are more or less point_less_ once you are 18 series. We had an E5 on my team get promoted last month, the cutoff for points was 15. 15 points.

We're having our own draw down problems-
Now, we have this language BS. After October, you pretty much have to have a 1/1 to wipe your ass, and there's no special allowances for different languages- so Spanish and French need a 1/1 just like Arabic and Chinese. A 1/1 speaker in a language like Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc is more or less worthless. I've never met a 1/1 speaker who could communicate effectively outside of BS'ing with someone who already liked him- you aren't going to TQ an illiterate Asian who speaks an ass-backwards country (or desert) dialect with a 1/1. Hell, even the cat 2 terps who are supposedly expert linguists have trouble with them. Since the cat 2s have been living in the US for a while and are usually well educated, they have trouble with "locals". It's like taking an English professor from Oxford and having him talk to a Cajun about catching gators.


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 11, 2012)

Etype said:


> Promotion points are more or less point_less_ once you are 18 series. We had an E5 on my team get promoted last month, the cutoff for points was 15. 15 points.
> 
> We're having our own draw down problems-
> Now, we have this language BS. After October, you pretty much have to have a 1/1 to wipe your ass, and there's no special allowances for different languages- so Spanish and French need a 1/1 just like Arabic and Chinese. A 1/1 speaker in a language like Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc is more or less worthless. I've never met a 1/1 speaker who could communicate effectively outside of BS'ing with someone who already liked him- you aren't going to TQ an illiterate Asian who speaks an ass-backwards country (or desert) dialect with a 1/1. Hell, even the cat 2 terps who are supposedly expert linguists have trouble with them. Since the cat 2s have been living in the US for a while and are usually well educated, they have trouble with "locals". It's like taking an English professor from Oxford and having him talk to a Cajun about catching gators.


 
I thought you Guys had a dedicated language training program?


----------



## Etype (Apr 11, 2012)

We do, but NO ONE is able to maintain a 1/1 in their target language, unless they are French or Spanish speakers.  I had a 1/1 in Arabic after school (only 3 other people in my class did, most of the other guys were 0+/0+ or 0+/1) and a year later I was down to a 0/0+.  I'd say 90% of the group is a 0/0 or 0/0+ in their language.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Apr 11, 2012)

Etype said:


> We do, but NO ONE is able to maintain a 1/1 in their target language, unless they are French or Spanish speakers. I had a 1/1 in Arabic after school (only 3 other people in my class did, most of the other guys were 0+/0+ or 0+/1) and a year later I was down to a 0/0+. I'd say 90% of the group is a 0/0 or 0/0+ in their language.


 
Yeah unless you use the language on the regular or its a romantic language like spanish or french you just can't maintain it. I could speak and understand a fair amount of Japanese when I left the island. Between studying it on my own and talking to the local chicks at the bars I got pretty good. Now I only remember a few phrases and and can understand a word here and there. 

Language is one of those things that sounds great in theory but unless your emerged in the culture and language your communication skills will be spotty at best. Maybe if they just stick to the big ones like stop, get down, where are the bad guys. At least that way everybody has a basic working knowledge and the school isn't damn near a year long.


----------



## Etype (Apr 11, 2012)

And it's general officers who get masters degrees on government time who are making the policies.  

We'll use my last 3 years as an example. between 4 PMTs (one being 6 weeks long, the rest 2 or 3), gryphon group, emerald warrior, individual schools, 2 months in Germany at JRTC, block leave, and an 8 month deployment- there's really not much time for me to sit down with an Arabic professor and obtain a college level understanding of the language.


----------



## Brill (Apr 12, 2012)

Uh, perhaps the difference is DLI vs SOLT but nevertheless, 35Ps are required to have 2/2. Some do, some don't. SOT-As (a duty position) have a lot of other tasks/responsibilities that are not language related.

We need more Pashto & Dari linguists to dump the terps.


----------



## Etype (Apr 12, 2012)

Yes, SOLT sucks.  The only requirement for the instructors is that the language they are teaching is their native language.  I would considered most of them illiterate in English.  I would never have used any of my language instructors as an interpreter- all the LN terps I've used have had better English.


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 12, 2012)

Etype said:


> We do, but NO ONE is able to maintain a 1/1 in their target language, unless they are French or Spanish speakers. I had a 1/1 in Arabic after school (only 3 other people in my class did, most of the other guys were 0+/0+ or 0+/1) and a year later I was down to a 0/0+. I'd say 90% of the group is a 0/0 or 0/0+ in their language.


 
I'm learning Arabic, need to practice, skype me 

On a serious note, what about quarterly refresher days/weeks?  I know op tempo dictates this but getting time in target language is required to stay proficient?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2012)

OK, I finished the paper, thanks for your ideas and input.  I'll redact it for PERSEC and post it here on the site in a couple of days.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Apr 30, 2012)

Would nuking that part of the world into a glass lake fall under SOCOM?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Would nuking that part of the world into a glass lake fall under SOCOM?


 
That COA was not addressed in my paper ;)


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Apr 30, 2012)

Geez...I guess I'll read it anyway when it's posted.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 4, 2012)

OK, here's the paper.  In order to keep it UNCLASS while still retaining the specificity necessary to satisfy the requirements for the class, I decided to write it as if I were the SOCOM J7/9 and were  responding to the directives of the SOCOM commander.  

Just so everyone is clear, I am *not* the SOCOM J7/9; I don't know who the J7/9 for SOCOM is, and I didn't even know what a J7/9 was before I starting writing this paper.  I'm not in SOCOM, no one at SOCOM asked me for my input, and this isn't being sent to SOCOM.  This is something I wrote for a class, hence the bold red print in the header and footer of the paper.  Nonetheless, I think it captures some of the things that the SOF community is talking about, and I'm posting it here for your information and comment.


----------



## Brill (May 4, 2012)

Someone stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (May 4, 2012)

I gave it a quick scan & found it very informative, especially for an outsider. I will read it over again in more detail once I finish this book I'm reading on the history of the Bill of Rights. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Salt USMC (May 5, 2012)

Good paper, but I recognized so many ideas and arguments from the SS forums that you should've listed this site as a source!


----------



## Marauder06 (May 5, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Good paper, but I recognized so many ideas and arguments from the SS forums that you should've listed this site as a source!


 
:) I get a lot of good information from our site.  I did actually cite Shadowspear and PS.com for an article I wrote on the enabler assessment, selection, and training program.  It is the only thing I have written & submitted that I haven't been able to get published.


----------



## Brill (May 5, 2012)

Looks like you left off the idea of moving the RC of SF from the Guard to Reserves.


----------



## policemedic (May 5, 2012)

Nice work


----------



## Viper1 (May 5, 2012)

Well done Sir.  I especially enjoyed the topic of having enablers/support go through an assessment and selection process.   Reminds me of a conversation we had a couple years ago at Ruby Tuesday's.  I was only able to skim the paper due to my location but did you mention that every other Army SOF unit conducts an assessment & selection for all soldiers assigned?


----------



## Marauder06 (May 5, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> Well done Sir. I especially enjoyed the topic of having enablers/support go through an assessment and selection process. Reminds me of a conversation we had a couple years ago at Ruby Tuesday's. I was only able to skim the paper due to my location but did you mention that every other Army SOF unit conducts an assessment & selection for all soldiers assigned?


 
Every other ARSOF one that has a direct-action mission as part of its core responsibilities.  Not sure about CA or PSYOP, hence the caveat.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 5, 2012)

lindy said:


> Looks like you left off the idea of moving the RC of SF from the Guard to Reserves.


 
I haven't researched that enough to make a solid case for it either way.  My initial thought would be to leave it in the Guard, though.


----------



## goon175 (May 5, 2012)

> My initial thought would be to leave it in the Guard, though.


 
I'm with Lindy on that one, having SF in the USAR as opposed to the NG makes waaay more sense. I have supporting opinions on this, but my wife says we have to go to dinner now....to be continued...haha


----------



## Brill (May 5, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I haven't researched that enough to make a solid case for it either way. My initial thought would be to leave it in the Guard, though.


 
In the Guard, the States have a say in pay and allowances whereas most actual course money comes from Army or other sources.  Point being, we can get travel & per diem money for a class but the State has, for us red hats, been unable to find the money for MI sustainment training.  The other fellas don't seem to have this issue however but they may: I'm just giving my perception.

Additionally, my skills as a 35P will never have a State mission.  Ever.  Unless Red Dawn occurs and then, we'll have other things to worry about rather than Title 10 vs Title 32 authorities.

I have not heard of similar type bullshit excuses related to pay issues with Reserve MI units.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 6, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I get a lot of good information from our site. I did actually cite Shadowspear and PS.com for an article I wrote on the enabler assessment, selection, and training program. It is the only thing I have written & submitted that I haven't been able to get published.


Agreed 100%.  This place seems to have a greater degree of thoughtful and competent posters than other sites.  
I'm trying to look for the article you talked about but I cant seem to find it.  Did you post it here?  I'd like to look at it because it probably already already refutes my argument.  See, I don't think having a SOCOM-wide assessment program is really the best idea.  I'm certainly no expert on the subject but I would think that each service's SOF would have unique requirements for their enablers that may not be addressed if you try to adopt a one-size-fits-all assessment.  Perhaps it would be better to direct each component's SOC to at least _have_ an assessment program in place.  That way, each SOC could tailor the assessment to the needs of their force, while eliminating the "Needs of the Army" assignments like you talked about.

As for the training piece, I can agree (to some extent) that it could conceivably be a SOCOM-wide program.  Especially with a field like Intel, a centralized training program could help standardize practices across the services and ensure that SOF intel guys are all on the same page.

Funny story: During my last Iraq deployment (Late 07 to early 08), there was an NSW squadron living on the same FOB as us, and their intel guys (A senior chief and an IS1) would come over every once in a while for a data dump or product support or whatever.  One day, the IS1 comes by and, with the most serious look I've ever seen him wear on his face, asks us if we have a GRG of Damascus.  I'll let you ponder that one for a minute.


----------



## DA SWO (May 6, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Every other ARSOF one that has a direct-action mission as part of its core responsibilities. Not sure about CA or PSYOP, hence the caveat.


 
4th POG had a TPT that was Ranger Tasked. Discussions with the team leader led me to believe they went on a LIMITED type of DA.  USASOC PA routinely puts stories out about this particular TPT (or is it MIST now?).



lindy said:


> In the Guard, the States have a say in pay and allowances whereas most actual course money comes from Army or other sources. Point being, we can get travel & per diem money for a class but the State has, for us red hats, been unable to find the money for MI sustainment training. The other fellas don't seem to have this issue however but they may: I'm just giving my perception.
> 
> Additionally, my skills as a 35P will never have a State mission. Ever. Unless Red Dawn occurs and then, we'll have other things to worry about rather than Title 10 vs Title 32 authorities.
> 
> I have not heard of similar type bullshit excuses related to pay issues with Reserve MI units.


 
States have a habit of stealing SOF training dollars and funding TAG directed crap.


----------



## Brill (May 6, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Funny story: During my last Iraq deployment (Late 07 to early 08), there was an NSW squadron living on the same FOB as us, and their intel guys (A senior chief and an IS1) would come over every once in a while for a data dump or product support or whatever. One day, the IS1 comes by and, with the most serious look I've ever seen him wear on his face, asks us if we have a GRG of Damascus. I'll let you ponder that one for a minute.


 
The highlight of my time there.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 6, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Agreed 100%. This place seems to have a greater degree of thoughtful and competent posters than other sites.
> I'm trying to look for the article you talked about but I cant seem to find it. Did you post it here? ....


 
It's probably buried in the "Professional Writing" subforum somewhere.  Here's a version I recently updated.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> It's probably buried in the "Professional Writing" subforum somewhere. Here's a version I recently updated.


This is also a very good paper.  Aren't those standards a little high, though?  Im not sure, but those look close to the standards for RASP (Correct me if I am wrong on this).  Is there a particular reason why you modeled it off of that?  I mean, you're trying to create Intel guys who can physically hang with SF, not make Rangers.  I wholeheartedly agree with the other assessment steps, however.

Also, I retract my earlier statement about individual services having assessment programs.  This definitely looks like something that could work across all of SOCOM, provided that you could get each service to buy into it.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 7, 2012)

The fact of the matter is that it'll weed out the weaklings, when everyone who's an enabler in an SOF unit will more than likely be required to fill a seat on an actual mission... and as such, even if it's not their primary job, a minimum standard of knowing that HEY we need a guy for this patrol and oh we need the intel capacity as well.... bam there you go, rather than being able to just straight up not rely on them basically at all for that.

Regiment softskills have been, can, and do get pulled specifically for all sorts of non primary MOS shit.... in combat. SF could use the same capacity when they need the extra manpower and have it already attached at the group level.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 7, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is also a very good paper. Aren't those standards a little high, though? Im not sure, but those look close to the standards for RASP (Correct me if I am wrong on this). Is there a particular reason why you modeled it off of that? I mean, you're trying to create Intel guys who can physically hang with SF, not make Rangers. I wholeheartedly agree with the other assessment steps, however.
> 
> Also, I retract my earlier statement about individual services having assessment programs. This definitely looks like something that could work across all of SOCOM, provided that you could get each service to buy into it.


 
Thank you for reading the paper.

I never went through RASP and I'm not sure exactly what their standards are.  I did go through other assessments/selections for other SOF units, I kind of used those experiences as a baseline.  I don't really think the standards are that high; in the PT test, for example, max is 300 points, passing is 180, my recommended standard is only 210.  Five miles in 45 minutes is a 9-minute-per-mile pace, that's kind of slow (even for me).  Footmarch 12 miles in 3 hours is a brisk walking pace, not really that hard either.


----------



## goon175 (May 7, 2012)

> Aren't those standards a little high, though? Im not sure, but those look close to the standards for RASP (Correct me if I am wrong on this). Is there a particular reason why you modeled it off of that? I mean, you're trying to create Intel guys who can physically hang with SF, not make Rangers.


 
The standards cited in the paper are not as high as the ones in RASP, you need 240 on the PT test (80 in each category), and the 5 mile has to be under 40 minutes. As Ranger Psych said, the 75th has each and every one of our support personel attend and pass RASP, meeting the same standards as the "main effort". Honestly, the physical standards Mara put in his paper are not ridiculous at all, there "shouldn't" be a single soldier in the Army who cannot meet them. But we obviously know that is not the case, and is a whole 'nother discussion.


----------



## Etype (May 7, 2012)

The standards noted are more or less what EVERY soldier in the 82nd is held to, not meeting any one of them is a negative counseling or a bullet on an NCOER- there's no reason every able bodied soldier shouldn't meet them.  As a standard to be held for enablers, I think it'd be great.  

I think the biggest take away from the enabler argument shouldn't be the negative implications of a poor enabler, but rather how much of an asset a good enabler truly is- especially at a VSP.  When you are doing VSO, a poor enabler is just another body to leave on radio watch and to wash windows at the VSSA.  A good enabler you can take on dismounted patrols, rely on to pull security at a patrol base, and all around trust just as much as the other team guys.  One point that I think most people can agree on, and I'm sure can be shown by statistics in both Ranger School and SFAS- people who are good at individual events (like PT tests) also do well on team events.  Barring a personality disorder, if you are a self-starter and can put in the work to keep yourself in shape, you will probably get yourself moving to help keep the team in shape as well.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 7, 2012)

Good points all.  Thank you for your input, gentlemen.


----------



## Viper1 (May 7, 2012)

I've spoken with about six or seven support soldiers on this very subject, from SSG to brand new PV2.  They all said that they would have welcomed going through a selection and assessment program as part of the process for working at Group.  For them, it would be a rite of passage and an increased sense of belonging within the organization.  For us, it would be a realization that our support guys can be counted on to do more than their MOS when called upon.

Sure six or seven Soldiers isn't a good statistic to base anything on.  But coming from within one BN is enough for me.


----------



## Brill (May 7, 2012)

As a support guy, there is not one SOT-A in my unit who is against a support A & S.  So, without rehashing a tired thread, where the F is the disconnect?  Speaking for all services 35Ps, Rangers have one for their linguists, Marines have their indoc for Radio Recon, Navy has one for their Tactial Info Ops; why do the guys in charge of the "no brainers" not have a brain?

Where's the resistance within USASFC?


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (May 7, 2012)

lindy said:


> As a support guy, there is not one SOT-A in my unit who is against a support A & S. So, without rehashing a tired thread, where the F is the disconnect? Speaking for all services 35Ps, Rangers have one for their linguists, Marines have their indoc for Radio Recon, Navy has one for their Tactial Info Ops; why do the guys in charge of the "no brainers" not have a brain?
> 
> Where's the resistance within USASFC?


 
Is there resistance? I've heard that the SOT-A course is becoming quite popular and is evolving (albeit slowly) into an A & S.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if Group does implement a selection process. By the time this would come about I would imagine SOT-A's would be in full swing. You could have everybody go through Group's and then 35p's would move through the SOT-A school.

Lindy, would I be correct in the fact that only SOT-A's are actually training on equipment/TTP's specific for their job?
If Group did start a screening process then open the SOT-A course up to the Rangers. It would definitely clue in new guys so they don't have such a "deer in the headlights" look when they get to their unit.

My .02


----------



## AWP (May 7, 2012)

The sad thing is that you could do an A&S for the SF support side "on the cheap." If you wanted to go a step further and make it a mini-RASP where actual skillsets are taught, so much the better.

The only guys who would complain are the dudes you don't want anyway.


----------



## Brill (May 7, 2012)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> Is there resistance? I've heard that the SOT-A course is becoming quite popular and is evolving (albeit slowly) into an A & S.
> 
> I'd be interested to see what would happen if Group does implement a selection process. By the time this would come about I would imagine SOT-A's would be in full swing. You could have everybody go through Group's and then 35p's would move through the SOT-A school.
> 
> ...


 
Well, they don't have dedicated instructors and funding is an issue (FOUNDRY picks up the bill for us) plus 18 days is just scratching the surface in my opinion for a selection and SIGINT training course (telecomunications, LAN setup/maintenance, commo, AND how SF work), so it's not officially official.  In my opinion, a SOT-A should graduate SFSIET and be able to operate independently...holy shit!  Just like a CCT, EOD, dog handler, or any other SOF enabler?  Novel fricken concept.

I also think that SOT-As should not be first tour duty assignments (no SOT-A babies) but we don't have that luxury yet.  Just like 18-series are rooted in 11B skills, we SHOULD be solid in our 35P skills.

I firmly believe that if a soldier is motivated to pass RASP I or II, he's motivated to keep up with technology and actually learn how/why those majik boxes do what they do and what to do if they don't do.  Hell, RASP would be good for us since we cannot go to SUT, which is only for SF candidates (I'm sure we would overload the course  (note: there are only 12 SOT-As per BN)).

OJT in OEF is a NG (No Go or National Guard, you decide ).

Venison in the headlights.  Pfftt...


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (May 7, 2012)

lindy said:


> Well, they don't have dedicated instructors and funding is an issue (FOUNDRY picks up the bill for us) *plus 18 days is just scratching the surface in my opinion for a selection and SIGINT training course* (telecomunications, LAN setup/maintenance, commo, AND how SF work), so it's not officially official. In my opinion, a SOT-A should graduate SFSIET and be able to operate independently...holy shit! Just like a CCT, EOD, dog handler, or any other SOF enabler? Novel fricken concept.
> 
> ...


 
_It is but it's a start and it's better than nothing. The course continues to evolve and like any new course it has it's growing pains. You expect somebody to be able to operate on their own coming straight from their AIT/A&S or whatever? I'd expect somebody to have an idea of how to operate but they are going to need to be mentored. Radio Recon Platoon does an indoc and then holds in-house training which I believe lasts 3-6months..I could be completely wrong on the timeline. We're simply looking at an indoc here in SFSIET. The fact that it exposes them earlier to SIGINT equipment/implementation than just showing up to their team without seeing it is a good thing, IMO. If nothing else it introduces a little bit of suck factor (other than the obvious of an indoc) of "holyshit I have to do all of this wearing this and carrying this house on my back?" You and I mean that in general terms can talk and talk till your blue to a brand new guy about this job and the lightbulb just doesn't come on until they are completely immersed in it.... They will get exposed to all of it, albeit briefly, but that's the point. It enables them to understand and then decide.."hey this is kickass, I really want to be a SOT-A" or "Umm maybe I just want to sit in a windowless room." _

_Without getting into specifics, the classes are tiny. You know the instructor/student ratio I believe. The small size makes up for the short amount of time that they have at this point. _


_Again my .02 _


----------



## Brill (May 7, 2012)

What the fuck is with the Eye-tal-icks? 



MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> _You expect somebody to be able to operate on their own coming straight from their AIT/A&S or whatever?_
> 
> Yes, it's called a Qualification Course.
> 
> ...


----------



## goon175 (May 7, 2012)

> I firmly believe that if a soldier is motivated to pass RASP I or II, he's motivated to keep up with technology and actually learn how/why those majik boxes do what they do and what to do if they don't do. Hell, RASP would be good for us since we cannot go to SUT, which is only for SF candidates (I'm sure we would overload the course  (note: there are only 12 SOT-As per BN)).


 
Not a terrible idea. I'm a fan of USASOC working together, and just taking RASP  and SURT out of RSTB and putting it under JFKSWCS, making Ft. Bragg the central training location for all USASOC soldiers. The 160th could run green platoon up there as well. You could send select pax (such as SOT-A guys) through phase 2 of RASP 1 to get a solid foundation of shooting, medical, SOF TTP's, etc. after they go through there own SOT-A specific selection course (thus why phase 1 of RASP would not be needed). Also, SURT would be there for all USASOC soldiers to use in preperation for Ranger School. Also, they could axe pre-rasp and just use SOPC as the prep course for both RASP and SFAS. Also, a huge benefit would be guys coming into USASOC getting a lot of exposure to other branch's of USASOC right off the bat, developing relationships early on that can benefit the mission years down the road.


----------



## reed11b (May 7, 2012)

lindy said:


> In my opinion, a SOT-A should graduate SFSIET and be able to operate independently...holy shit! Just like a CCT, EOD, dog handler, or any other SOF enabler? Novel fricken concept.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
A) What the F is SFSIET?
B) At ease on that NG crap, unless you mean the WA NG, then I agree.
Reed


----------



## Marauder06 (May 7, 2012)

lindy said:


> ...
> 
> Where's the resistance within USASFC?


 
USASFC "is" the disconnect.  USASFC has traditionally not been willing to make a significant, long-term, meaningful commitment to its enablers.  That's the reason there is not a program in place.


----------



## Brill (May 8, 2012)

reed11b said:


> A) What the F is SFSIET?
> B) At ease on that NG crap, unless you mean the WA NG, then I agree.
> Reed


 
A) Special Forces

B) It's your WANG, do want you want with it.  I don't judge.


----------



## reed11b (May 8, 2012)

lindy said:


> A) Special Forces
> 
> B) It's your WANG, do want you want with it. I don't judge.


SFSIET = Special Forces? I meant the whole acronym.
Reed


----------



## Brill (May 8, 2012)

reed11b said:


> A) *What the F is SFSIET*?


 


SF SIGINT (or Shortbus, Spacecadet, or my favorite "Seriously?" ) Initial Entry Training

The intent is to standardize training and reduce the burden of OJT when the soldier arrives at the MI Detachment.


----------



## CDG (May 8, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Also, they could axe pre-rasp and just use SOPC as the prep course for both RASP and SFAS. Also, a huge benefit would be guys coming into USASOC getting a lot of exposure to other branch's of USASOC right off the bat, developing relationships early on that can benefit the mission years down the road.


 
This wouldn't go for all guys.  As a prior service guy trying to go SF in the NG, I don't go to SOPC, I do all my pre-SFAS stuff with the unit I am trying to get into.  What would you recommend for that type of scenario?  Or is the small percentage that would apply to make it not really worth it?


----------



## goon175 (May 8, 2012)

If you don't need SOPC, you don't need it. But for the guys who do (initial entry with no prior military experience), it will consolidate two prep courses into one. Whether you wear a green hat or tan hat, gettin' smoked is gettin' smoked! same goes for land nav and other basic tasks covered to increase chances of succes. If you aren't an IET soldier and are coming from a different branch or another unit in the army, then you probably don't need to do it. That being said, I think it should be available if the soldier feels he needs it. For example, that high speed Sergeant from the 18th Airborne Corps' LRS that is going to SFAS probably doesn't need it, but the E-4 cook from the 3rd ID could maybe use a little refresher and do the course for his own benefit.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (May 8, 2012)

goon175 said:


> If you don't need SOPC, you don't need it. But for the guys who do (initial entry with no prior military experience), it will consolidate two prep courses into one. Whether you wear a green hat or tan hat, gettin' smoked is gettin' smoked! same goes for land nav and other basic tasks covered to increase chances of succes. If you aren't an IET soldier and are coming from a different branch or another unit in the army, then you probably don't need to do it. That being said, I think it should be available if the soldier feels he needs it. For example, that high speed Sergeant from the 18th Airborne Corps' LRS that is going to SFAS probably doesn't need it, but the E-4 cook from the 3rd ID could maybe use a little refresher and do the course for his own benefit.


 
Do you think ego would become an issue if left up to the individual to decide if they "need" it or not?


----------



## goon175 (May 8, 2012)

I don't think it will matter. It would be mandatory for IET soldiers (like it is right now for 18x'ers), and open to PS guys if they wanted it. Every guy trying out at SFAS or RASP knows where they stand, and if they let there "ego" get in the way, than I guess they can live with there ego back at whatever unit they came from.


----------



## CDG (May 9, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Do you think ego would become an issue if left up to the individual to decide if they "need" it or not?


 
Obviously I am not an SF assessor.  That being said, what I have gleaned from reading books and posts by the SF guys here is that the kind of guy who lets ego get in the way of a decision like that may not be the kind of guy SF is looking for.  There was a story related in "The Company They Keep" about an ODA that took some Marine MPs out on an overnight training mission.  Several of the Marines forgot, or chose not to bring, snivel gear and it got pretty cold the night they spent out in the woods.  One of the SF cadre also had forgotten his snivel gear.  Same mistake, but the disparity in how it was handled by each group was telling.  The Marines turned it into a dick-measuring contest by basically bragging about how cold they were.  The SF soldier admitted it was a stupid mistake and that he hadn't been comfortable.  The maturity needed to be able to admit a mistake and recognize that doing things the hard way unnecessarily is not something to brag about seems to be a trait many SF soldiers possess.


----------



## Loki (Jun 19, 2012)

I foresee many difficult times ahead for USSOCOM. Relative to Civil Affairs many changes have occurred since the separation of Civil Affairs funding was taken by the Big Army. Most of Civil Affairs is reserve. In fact the most experienced mature and qualified personnel in civil affairs in my opinion are within the reserve ranks. The active duty personnel are military personnel with a focus on military endeavors. Generally younger people with a greater focus on the military culture and still in the indoctrination phase make up the active duty personnel. The 96th CA was initially intended for short duration high impact with short sustainability. Then the Army increased the size of Civil Affairs within the active component. They the active portion were designed to be relieved by the reserve component which focuses on long term, sustainable and in-depth infrastructural development. Judicial, rule of law, courts, jails, water supplies, schools and many other things. Hence here professionals are needed with real life experiences that the Army frankly is incapable of instructing and providing the expertise. Most if not all of my NCOs and officers were college educated spoke several languages and were professionals. Many possess Masters degrees and at a least Bachelors even enlisted. Engineers, Doctors, Law Enforcement and Lawyers host of others. You cannot take a high school kid put him through some selection and whalla to compare with the reserve component. Now due to the size of USCAPOC competition for missions is increasing and money is short. The active component is still small by comparison however they are seizing the missions and the reserve components are being cut from missions we routinely conducted just 5 years ago. As the mission in GWOT expanded the active duty component increased in the last 3 1/2 years which is assuming more of the missions and money. We were very busy even before the war and now it will be a very different story. Still large share goes to the reserve due to the size of the mission and taskers for professionals. As an example JCETs even for CA forces are being cut from the reserves and filled with the active duty folks. This is due in my opinion to the size of active CA now. 

Comparatively when you look at the Rangers in the beginning of this they were under-tasked and had little to no work. Of course relative to what they were designed for and intended. They are now the go to guys for DA from my understanding from folks down range. Pretty much the same for NAVSPECWAR and the MARSOC units. That has all changed now these guys are very busy. But they are also doing some FID/UW, HA and other things besides DA. (_My knowledge of recent devleopments is from friends with some of these units in theater.) _

The SF guys when this began were the go to guys. They are more and more being tasked with more CA like missions. Which from what I'm told no one is happy about. I have even been told that the NAVSPECWAR guys are having to glad hand and build stuff now. Which is a whole other nut roll.

Point is; when this ends there is going to be some big changes in the mind-set and mission tasking. There will be fewer missions of any kind and many are now or feel qualified to do everything. The competition, money and taskers will be stretched. If the command fails to set responsibities. The result will be units under utilized and losing the pool of experts from all disciplines within SOCCOM. As a side note I believe that Commander McRavin has set the chess board for money, future operations and the security of his boys. He saw this coming and has prepared the battle space before the fight is waged. I think he has been brilliant in securing Naval Spec War for the future.

The real question is does the Army possess the forethought and will to prepare and transition smoothly back to a peacetime foot print, I don't think so! There is going to be allot "guns for hire" unemployed, under-used and de-motivated personnel opening gun schools and contracting very soon...

SOCCOM needs to get ahead of the curve and make a full effort to prepare.


----------



## goon175 (Jun 19, 2012)

The 403rd CA is one of the units I am responsible for up here, and I have been nothing but impressed every time I have dropped in. I have not had the highest opinion of other reserve units I have dealt with, but the 403rd is at or above the standard I see from regular army units. The CSM is the Syracuse PD's police chief, and that really speaks to the kind of experience you are talking about that can be found in the CA reserve units.


----------



## Loki (Jun 19, 2012)

goon175 said:


> The 403rd CA is one of the units I am responsible for up here, and I have been nothing but impressed every time I have dropped in. I have not had the highest opinion of other reserve units I have dealt with, but the 403rd is at or above the standard I see from regular army units. The CSM is the Syracuse PD's police chief, and that really speaks to the kind of experience you are talking about that can be found in the CA reserve units.


 
CA on the reserve side is a very refreshing and humbling group in general. There are some really amazing people in CA. Of course there are idiots everywhere representing everyone. However I loved my job in the Army and is was a fantastic experience. People really don't understand the inner workings of this MOS and make allot of assumptions. Even some of the people in CA are in it for the wrong reasons. I had young guys and others that wanted to be shoot em up action guys. At times there's a disconnect in the mind-set. That's what worries me about the Active CA having a greater role and taking so many missions. I know it sounds strange to the active duty guys but the real skills in CA my opinion are in the reserve not the active duty. The Army in general and SOCCOM recognizes that as well. Everyone I know is holding their breath to see what the future brings. The fact is they have over staffed active CA. Also Missions and skill-sets are being tossed around at will and up in the air. Where they land is anybodies guess. I have even heard rumor that the Marines will have a leading role in the future SPECOPs.


----------



## Etype (Jun 19, 2012)

The thing I remember most about the CA guys at the SOTF was the hippy civilians who wanted to feed and clothe Afghanistan as a whole- I don't even think their CA counterparts liked them.


----------



## Loki (Jun 19, 2012)

Etype said:


> The thing I remember most about the CA guys at the SOTF was the hippy civilians who wanted to feed and clothe Afghanistan as a whole- I don't even think their CA counterparts liked them.


 
Amennnnnnnnnnn!


----------



## goon175 (Jun 19, 2012)

speaking of changing mission sets, I am obviously very curious to the future of the 75th. It seems as though everyone in SOCOM has hopped on the FID bandwagon because they recognize that that is more than likely going to be the mission of choice over the next decade. The 75th being the one exception to this. Now, I have heard that there are some platoons that have been taken off of the DA target sets to strictly train the afghans, but I don't see the 75th as a whole embracing this. I of course could be wrong on that assumption.


----------



## AWP (Jun 19, 2012)

If I were king for a day I'd chop platoons from the 75th out to ODB's or maybe a company to a JSOTF as a QRF/ exploitation type element. The Rangers may hate it, but they'd probably rather be in country with the chance for something to do rather than back in garrison. Even with FID becoming the "new" COIN there's no reason to keep the 75th out of the picture, even if it isn't as active as they are used to.


----------



## Etype (Jun 19, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> If I were king for a day I'd chop platoons from the 75th out to ODB's


There aren't enough Commandos to go around, as they are a SOTF level asset.  One squad per ODA, or even a squad+ per ODB would be awesome. 

I guarantee you ODAs would raise MUCH more hell if they had more than 12 competent dudes to count on.  The uplift scraps (1 ID tankers, etc) don't really cut the mustard, especially when you only get a handful of them.  I would rather take 5 ALP with me than 5 tankers.

An ODA can be a good mortar team, a couple good machine gun teams, a good infantry squad, a couple good sniper teams, or a couple good infantry fighting vehicles... But it can only be one of those things at a time, and sometimes, a lot of times, you need more than that.


----------



## AWP (Jun 19, 2012)

Thank you for the perspective. I was thinking along the lines of the old Hatchet Teams or Mike Force. I think the concept is a viable one even if it needs some tweaking like you described. The bottom line is that the 75th shouldn't have to sit out anything as long as a two-way range is active even if the elements involved are small.


----------



## goon175 (Jun 19, 2012)

> If I were king for a day I'd chop platoons from the 75th out to ODB's or maybe a company to a JSOTF as a QRF/ exploitation type element.


 
I like the concept, but isn't that what CIF is supposed to be/do?

As far as Rangers liking it or not liking it, as long as it kept them busy guys would grumble but ultimately prefer it over garrison. There will always be grumblings... I remember when doing call outs was the hot new thing in Iraq and you'd think every Ranger got a swift kick to the nuts the way most guys reacted (including me). Turned out it wasn't THAT bad.


----------



## Loki (Jun 19, 2012)

goon175 said:


> speaking of changing mission sets, I am obviously very curious to the future of the 75th. It seems as though everyone in SOCOM has hopped on the FID bandwagon because they recognize that that is more than likely going to be the mission of choice over the next decade. The 75th being the one exception to this. Now, I have heard that there are some platoons that have been taken off of the DA target sets to strictly train the afghans, but I don't see the 75th as a whole embracing this. I of course could be wrong on that assumption.


 
I'm not there, not a Ranger nor do I have direct knowledge of current operations relative to the Rangers. Other than hearing from several pissed off friends with SF who have to meet and greet instead of hunting. However as of the next rotation my Nephew is deploying to train ANA and the National Guard still as is common knowledge (open source / no OPSEC concerns) training them. Now that is relative to the ANA not the ASF. Which is unchanged from 2005 to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jul 1, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I like the concept, but isn't that what CIF is supposed to be/do?
> 
> As far as Rangers liking it or not liking it, as long as it kept them busy guys would grumble but ultimately prefer it over garrison. There will always be grumblings... I remember when doing call outs was the hot new thing in Iraq and you'd think every Ranger got a swift kick to the nuts the way most guys reacted (including me). Turned out it wasn't THAT bad.


CIF works for the theater commands though I think currently they are still doing rotations. As for giving Rangers to ODAs, guys would probably have to be treated as part of the team. The moment you start treating them like bitches to be sent off to pull security on some sheep herders while you be superstars, you'll probably lose support from the higher ups in the 75th. Working with ODAs would be pretty cool if done right IMO.


----------

