# Why is CA considered SOF?



## The Hate Ape (Aug 3, 2016)

I'm really curious about this because in my world only, that abbreviation is reserved to the likes of the more traditional groups.

We had a CAT attached to our MSOT two deployments ago and I didn't really notice anything spectacular about them. Most, with the exception of two, were out of shape and clueless on a strategic or tactical level - some were downright annoying.

This isn't a flaming thing but it has been on my mind - I see shit like CA and Psy Ops getting the SOF label, wearing cry gear and ops core helmets. Some of these guys came with M320s and had two different sets of nods, a few vests to choose from, the works. I respect that everyone has their own career but I can't help but question some of these outcomes. I saw it again when I was in Iraq and remain dumbfounded.

The only thing that's weird to me is that I didn't ask this question sooner. Hoping for a long-term CA guy to straighten this out.

R/

H/A


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

I agree with this assessment and would also extend it to PSYOPs. They fall under SOCOM, so that does it for us here on the site. 

CA used to be manned at least partially by older team guys, or at least 18D's. I think for a while there was only 1 company that was actually considered SOF.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 3, 2016)

The Tactical Psyop Team I worked with, was quick to toss the "we're SOF" stuff around, and most of us really didn't pay attention to it. But as far as their mission, I thought it was pretty cool, and they were out getting shot at with us, not wasting away on a FOB. I respect that. The CAT guys that worked in our A/O had long tabbers, not sure how many. But best I could tell,  they were about the equivalent of a "tactical community organizer" type outfit. Figuring out what the locals needed and getting those resources allocated, etc. Seemed like all they did were meetings with local community leaders. I have been told by other CA guys that their mission is alot cooler when working outside of war zones, like south America, Africa, etc.

I could care less why they are considered SOF or why they should or shouldn't be. At the end of the day, everyone knows who is going out hitting targets, just saying you are special whatever,  doesn't exactly impress the knuckle draggers of the military. As for the gear stuff,  I'm sure some super troop commander thought it was a good idea to make his guys look like door kickers.  

I remember the pictures rolling from Astan back around 01-02, everyone wearing drop rig everything. My BN commander went and ordered everyone a Blackhawk nylon drop holster for their M9's. Drop rigs suck, especially that old nylon crap, nobody used that holsterling except for the commander's.  Imagine the waste of money from 01-10, on stupid shit, because some idiot thought it looked cool.


----------



## Etype (Aug 3, 2016)

Civil Affairs used to be an SF mission, then a dedicated force was created.

When SF was first established, it fell under the Office of Psychological Warfare.

Fun facts.


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> This isn't a flaming thing but it has been on my mind - I see shit like CA and Psy Ops getting the SOF label,



Several years ago we split the tags along doctrine/ owning command, in part because our SOF members couldn't or wouldn't articulate their thoughts on who is what.

Where the CA and PSYOP (or whatever they are called) issue becomes sticky is the AD units fall under USASOC but the Reserve units fall under the Army Reserve Command. Those units are aligned geographically. I can't speak for now, but the CA and PSYOP guys in Afghanistan (particularly before the 05-06 reorg) fell under the CJSOTF.

About Us

It's an ugly topic and I feel a piece of my soul die whenever it is discussed. Not dinging you HA because this isn't on you, but in the past those screaming the loudest were the most silent when it came to a solution where our vetting was concerned.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 3, 2016)

My experience with the 95th is pretty good. Mostly older tabbed guys that were in Iraq with us during the invasion. After they set the stage, the reserve units began rotating through with varying degrees of a similar impression than you've had.

Interesting history though. Special Forces might not exist anymore if not for PSYOPS and CA.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 3, 2016)

On at least an army side, I'd expect that having a "S" identifier should be all that's need for a SOF label. I don't believe this is the intention though and SOF support is the label for all of the full time SOF guys that aren't tabbed or of course service specific "special."


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> On at least an army side, I'd expect that having a "S" identifier should be all that's need for a SOF label. I don't believe this is the intention though and SOF support is the label for all of the full time SOF guys that aren't tabbed or of course service specific "special."



Wel do you have to go through a selection course to get awarded an "S", or simply assigned to a unit and survive? Not to be a dick, but the S1 guy in group is not a SOF guy. They can get that identifier. In Ranger Batt where they also have S1 folks, they go through a rigorous selection, and are specially trained. that is why everyone for Batt is VER SOF, and those from other places are not. 

@Marauder06 and I have discussed this at length, he has better explanations than I do. 

In any case, this thread isn't about our vetting.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 3, 2016)

It all comes down to how you define SOF. We like to think of SOF as the most famous Special Operations units such as the SEALs, SF, Rangers, and PJs etc.  All these units require a rigorous selection process to join and we tend to think that it is a SOF requirement.  It is not.  The reality is that Special Operations are defined as, "operations conducted by specially organized, trained, and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military, political, economic, or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive areas." Meanwhile, special operations forces are, "those active and reserve component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized, trained, and equipped to conduct and *support* special operations."  That's all it is.  The joint definition does not mention a selection but it does mention that technically a SOF support soldier is in fact himself SOF.  Chew on that for a minute. 

Additionally, the special operations core activities are: "direct action, special reconnaissance, countering weapons of mass destruction, counterterrorism, unconventional warfare (UW), foreign internal defense, security force assistance, hostage rescue and recovery, counterinsurgency, foreign humanitarian assistance, military information support operations, and civil affairs operations."  To be honest there are numerous SOF units that can conduct direct action, reconnaissance and foreign internal defense missions.  There are very few units, however, that can support military information support operations and civil affairs operations like PSYOPS and CA can.  They also play a very important role in most of the other SOF core competencies.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 3, 2016)

Granted I've only been SOF for seven years, but I typically fall back to JP 3-05 and the typical JSOU classes for JSOTF level operations to define what Special Operation Forces is and how it actually fits into campaign level operations. I don't envy any of the forum overlords on the vetting process. I'm sure they deal with enough special snowflakes.

Back to OP, I honestly would only believe that soldiers working within 95th would be considered SOF for this board's standard, but then again, most of the ones I worked with were already long tabbed anyway. CA and PYSOPs definitely have roles to play within Special Operations, especially historically, but there is a clear conventional mission set for them also. I've interacted with CATs that were with conventional forces, although I honestly don't know who they were OPCON/TACON to then because I was too busy doing MSO.

I've seen teams pushed down to a (C)JSOTF level, but honestly the (C)JTF J9 would likely be where CMO is planned and executed under the JFC's guidance, not under the SOJTF line.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 4, 2016)

I think the SOF label for CA (and PsyOps) had me a bit confused a while back, since I'd been involved in combined action/civic action/FID/COIN etc. But I had the same question as the OP.



Teufel said:


> ... "operations conducted by specially organized, trained, and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military, political, economic, or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive areas"...



By that definition my unit in Vietnam, the 2nd Combined Action Group, would've fit in the SOF category.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 4, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> By _that_ definition my unit in Vietnam, the 2nd Combined Action Group, would've fit in the SOF category.



So you were in one of those platoons?!


----------



## Gunz (Aug 4, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> So you were in one of the Combined Action Platoons?!



Yes sir, two.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 4, 2016)

You are the sir in my eyes. Service aside, thank you for your bad-assery.


----------



## AWP (Aug 4, 2016)

At the risk of being an ass: Get the green tags and other interested parties together and come to a conclusion. Otherwise, the staff won't even remotely entertain any changes, to include within this thread.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> In any case, this thread isn't about our vetting.



THIS.

None of this thread was referencing the vetting on our site and was entirely in the realm of our community and to the military as a whole.


----------



## Brill (Aug 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> At the risk of being an ass...



About 11,427 posts too late


----------



## Teufel (Aug 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> At the risk of being an ass: Get the green tags and other interested parties together and come to a conclusion. Otherwise, the staff won't even remotely entertain any changes, to include within this thread.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that we change the green tag system in place here.  The verification system here allows user to easily identify who has earned their way into one of the traditional SOF units in an operational and support role.  I don't think there is any reason to change that.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 4, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I think the SOF label for CA (and PsyOps) had me a bit confused a while back; and since I'd been involved in combined action/civic action/FID/COIN etc led me to apply for an upgrade in the vetting process--since there was no such thing as SOCOM back then--which was politely and respectfully turned down. But I had the same question as the OP.
> 
> By _that_ definition my unit in Vietnam, the 2nd Combined Action Group, would've fit in the SOF category.



Modern Marine Corps Civil Affairs units perform very similar, if not identical, functions to Army Civil Affairs but are not considered SOF. USMC Civil Affairs could conceivably fall under the SOCOM umbrella via MARSOC one day.  This is not being currently discussed to my knowledge but it is possible. They would probably have to change several things about their organization to include the way they screen, select and train their people of course. I think you would be grandfathered into SOF if there were to happen.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 4, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Modern Marine Corps Civil Affairs units perform very similar, if not identical, functions to Army Civil Affairs but are not considered SOF. USMC Civil Affairs could conceivably fall under the SOCOM umbrella via MARSOC one day.  This is not being currently discussed to my knowledge but it is possible.  I think you would be grandfathered into SOF if there were to happen.



Question then. When USMC Civil Affairs deploy, do they execute a CMO mission in accordance with JP 3-57? Going back to actual execution of Civil Affairs role in any theater doesn't typically fall under any service specific Command. SOCOM doesn't have OPCON/TACON Army Civil Affairs.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 4, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Question then. When USMC Civil Affairs deploy, do they execute a CMO mission in accordance with JP 3-57? Going back to actual execution of Civil Affairs role in any theater doesn't typically fall under any service specific Command. SOCOM doesn't have OPCON/TACON Army Civil Affairs.



I'm not an expert but I believe that they do but they do so underneath the operational and tactical command of a Marine Corps unit, normally the MEF or MEB.  Who owns Army Civil Affairs at home and in theater normally?  They don't work for the TSOC?


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 4, 2016)

Teufel said:


> I'm not an expert but I believe that they do but they do so underneath the operational and tactical command of a Marine Corps unit, normally the MEF or MEB.  Who owns Army Civil Affairs at home and in theater normally?  They don't work for the TSOC?



I'm definitely not either. Likely depends on the theater. Was hoping someone that's actually CA would chime in, but my understanding is that they would be OPCON/TACON to the JTF or SOJTF. Up to the JFC's J9. Outside of a combat theater, you're probably right with it being either the TSOC or GCC. I've only ever seen one or two CA guys at TSOC levels... but if you've seen one TSOC, you've seen one TSOC.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 4, 2016)

I do know that Marine Corps civil affairs units fall under Marine operational commands (MEB or MEF) in theater.  They do not fall directly under the TSOC or geographic combatant command.


----------



## Etype (Aug 5, 2016)

To sum it up in laymen's terms without using doctrinal definitions, we could word it something like this-

CA may be classified as special operations because it seeks to achieve a military objective through atypical fashions.

This is what sets them apart from USAID and other NGOs.  Whereas non-gov't HA groups are just trying to feed people, CA is working to improve quality of life/infrastructure/whatever with the specific intent of making the focus group less reliant/trusting/beholden to/whatever on whoever the malign actor of the day is.

Soooo, the operations are special.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> To sum it up in laymen's terms without using doctrinal definitions, we could word it something like this-
> 
> CA may be classified as special operations because it seeks to achieve a military objective through atypical fashions.
> 
> ...



The issue with that explanation is that Army Civil Affairs are SOF and Marine Corps Civil Affairs, who perform a nearly identical mission, are presently not.  The short answer is that the services determine what units are SOF and SOCOM certifies them.  For example, Navy EOD and Navy divers both have very difficult pipelines that parallel some SOF units but are not SOF because the Navy has not designated them SOF in order to maintain them within the service.  The Navy assigns Navy EOD to SOCOM but still controls the career fields because they are not designated SOF.  Special Boat Units were not considered SOF until the Navy redesignated them SOF (SWCC) and added them to Naval Special Warfare.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> To sum it up in laymen's terms without using doctrinal definitions, we could word it something like this-
> 
> CA may be classified as special operations because it seeks to achieve a military objective through atypical fashions.
> 
> ...



That's like saying Bill Cosby just wanted sex through non-standard approaches...kinda true.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 6, 2016)

Just now saw this topic.  I guess I had not been paying attention...I was PSYOP and thought my tag of SOF Support was appropriate as we fell under Special Operation Forces umbrella, but we are there to support the mission and the guys at the tip of the spear. I didn't know there were CA or PSYOP members sporting green SOF tags.....

I remember running into some CAT/A guys (two) in Asadabad, they were both long tabbers in 18 series billets in CA.

In 2002 our PSYOP unit was under CJSOTF-A, parceled out and 3 man teams were assigned to ODA's across A-stan.  In 2003 the unit was assigned to a conventional unit in OIF I, it all depended on what was needed.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 6, 2016)

People like to beat up on active duty PSYOP and CA, but guess what folks, they're SOF both by doctrine and our interpretation of it here on SS.

I don't have my files in front of me so this is based off of memory.  SOF, by doctrine, are forces designated by the SecDef which are specially trained and selected to conduct highly specialized mission sets.  Basically, if you can draw a straight line from your unit to SOCOM, you're SOF.  This specifically includes active duty PSYOP and CA.  It gets a little murkier on the Reserve side of the house.  IIRC CA units in the Reserve component are not directly affiliated with SOCOM.

On ShadowSpear we are slightly more restrictive in choosing to whom we award the green SOF tag.  Specifically, we consider the "specially trained and selected" verbiage.  Support troops in some SOF units, specifically SF units, are neither specially selected nor trained in any meaningful capacity.  An assignment to Group, for a support type, is "needs of the Army." You can go to 10th Mountain just as easily as you can go to 10th Group.  Other SOF elements, such as the Ranger Regiment, 160th SOAR, and JSOC, have special training programs for both their ops types and their support types.  RIP/ROP/RASP (whatever it is now) for the Rangers, selection and Green Platoon for the 160th, and whatever they do for JSOC these days.

An example:  I'm an intel officer.  When I was in 5th Group, I was SOF support.  I got that job because my branch manager needed two MI captains there, and I was the first one to volunteer.  "SOF Support."  But in subsequent SOF assignments, I underwent selection and training programs and passed, thereby earning the "SOF" tag on ShadowSpear.

Other examples:  active duty career-field PSYOP and CA who completed their respective A&S = green SOF tag.  Support troops in PSYOP and CA = SOF support (as far as I know there is no A&S for support types going to PSYOP and CA units).  Ranger qualified, never served in a SOF unit, = Verified Military.  Support types in SF units usually = SOF support.  LRS = specially trained and selected, but no direct line to SOCOM and not designated by SECDEF as SOF, = VerMil.  Support troops in a SEAL unit usually = SOF support, again no A&S.

About the only exception to the above that I can think of is we grandfathered Force Recon in as SOF prior to the establishment of MARSOC, but I don't think we do that anymore.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 6, 2016)

Here is an interesting point though. the Navy's contribution to SOCOM is  Naval Special Warfare (SEALs, SWCC) but Navy EOD, divers and I believe rescue swimmers fall under the naval special operations umbrella but do not fall under SOCOM.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 6, 2016)

Are RRT's considered to be assigned to Force (SOF) or Fleet?
Reed


----------



## Teufel (Aug 6, 2016)

reed11b said:


> Are RRT's considered to be assigned to Force (SOF) or Fleet?
> Reed



That's another interesting question.  I would say that an RRT assigned to MARSOC is an invaluable SOF tool and is something we (the Marine Corps) should be making a lot more of.  I think that our SOF enabler support Marines are one of the most valuable contributions our service gives to SOCOM.  I believe that an RRT Marine in MARSOC is still SOF support and are not considered Raiders.  I could be wrong.  Personally I think we should be producing more intel/operator hybrids.  We do a decent job of that with some of our human intelligence programs (that I won't expand on here) but there is something to be said about specialization in support skills.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 7, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Modern Marine Corps Civil Affairs units perform very similar, if not identical, functions to Army Civil Affairs but are not considered SOF. USMC Civil Affairs could conceivably fall under the SOCOM umbrella via MARSOC one day.  This is not being currently discussed to my knowledge but it is possible. They would probably have to change several things about their organization to include the way they screen, select and train their people of course. I think you would be grandfathered into SOF if there were to happen.



Thanks for the reply, sir. Combined Action was a bit different as we were an ops unit who's primary mission was interdiction and killing of enemy forces through night ambushes along trails and infiltration routes. The down-time was spent in or near remote hamlets during the day, training our counterparts, developing rapport with civilians to cultivate sources of intelligence through medical treatment and other assistance projects; to counter Viet Cong intimidation and extortion with helpful acts and friendship and most importantly, backing up those acts by killing VC so civilians felt secure enough to cooperate. Statistically, even though our casualty rates were high, CAP units had a higher kill ratio than regular Marine and Army infantry units. The roughly 600 officers and men of the 2nd Combined Action Group, for example, accounted for some 3,300 EKIAs between 1969 and early 1971, more than the entire 101st Airborne Division during that time period. Westmoreland always failed to appreciate Marine Corps (and Army SF/CIDG) successes in this effective and unique approach to the war.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 7, 2016)

Don't get me wrong @Ocoka One , the Combined Action Program was the best strategy to turn around a losing war.  I'm convinced that Ho Chi Minh started massing troops on the North Vietnamese border to draw the Marines in the CAP platoons out of the villages and out into the bush.  It's really unfortunate you were not able to continue it longer than you did.  Westmoreland was a conventional officer running an unconventional war and the North Vietnamese Generals played him like a fiddle.


----------



## Etype (Aug 8, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Don't get me wrong @Ocoka One , the Combined Action Program was the best strategy to turn around a losing war.  I'm convinced that Ho Chi Minh started massing troops on the North Vietnamese border to draw the Marines in the CAP platoons out of the villages and out into the bush.  It's really unfortunate you were not able to continue it longer than you did.  Westmoreland was a conventional officer running an unconventional war and the North Vietnamese Generals played him like a fiddle.


I wonder how WestmoWestmorelandin regard to Giap's quote about American tactical victories being, "irrelevant."

Giap made a great point, what he failed to mention was the fact that US leadership is what made them irrelevant.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 8, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Don't get me wrong @Ocoka One , the Combined Action Program was the best strategy to turn around a losing war.  I'm convinced that Ho Chi Minh started massing troops on the North Vietnamese border to draw the Marines in the CAP platoons out of the villages and out into the bush.  _*It's really unfortunate you were not able to continue it longer than you did.*_  Westmoreland was a conventional officer running an unconventional war and the North Vietnamese Generals played him like a fiddle.




I bolded that significant sentence because it applies equally well to the SF Village Stability Operations (VSO) initiated in Afghanistan. This was a similar concept that began, like CAP, maybe too late in the war. The problem with VSO-- from what I've read (and CAP for that matter), is that it needed support from the top. Karzai, and some Big Army folk didn't like it or doubted its possibilities even though it started to show significant results fairly soon after implementation.

I don't know if any of our SS folk,  SF/SOF/CA were involved in the VSO program, but I'd sure like to hear their opinion.

Back around '04 or '05,  my association, COUNTERPARTS, was invited to MacDill to discuss our lessons from Vietnam with folks from CENTCOM/SOCOM. At the time our members were encouraged that our pool of knowledge--and we have many former MAT team officers, SF/CIDG people, Marine CoVans, combined action officers and NCOs--was being tapped into.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 8, 2016)

@Ocoka One
Possibly due to some of those meetings in '04/'05, our enterprise at SOCOM took a pretty active role in helping the specific sub-components on locations to get the best gain from VSO. Identifying specific locations based on some pretty complex geospatial models. We would take approx. six to eight weeks to develop these models with amplifying supporting INT, but it was still on the units to take advantage of these products.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 8, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> @Ocoka One
> Possibly due to some of those meetings in '04/'05, our enterprise at SOCOM took a pretty active role in helping the specific sub-components on locations to get the best gain from VSO. Identifying specific locations based on some pretty complex geospatial models. We would take approx. six to eight weeks to develop these models with amplifying supporting INT, but it was still on the units to take advantage of these products.



I guess it was around that time that the mission was morphing into the Hearts & Minds phase. The Special Forces VSO initiative had some pretty smart people writing the playbook, senior SF officers who looked at it comprehensively, who knew their history, who knew what it would take to make it work. Not only the teams protecting the villages, conducting FID and CA, but the structure of support and resources that stretches from the villages to Kabul to the DoD and DoS, into the NGO, commercial, academic, multinational spheres.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I guess it was around that time that the mission was morphing into the Hearts & Minds phase. The Special Forces VSO initiative had some pretty smart people writing the playbook, senior SF officers who looked at it comprehensively, who knew their history, who knew what it would take to make it work. Not only the teams protecting the villages, conducting FID and CA, but the structure of support and resources that stretches from the villages to Kabul to the DoD and DoS, into the NGO, commercial, academic, multinational spheres.
> 
> But, like Vietnam, the war was winding down, the politicians wanted to pull out, (the POTUS even gave a the Taliban the withdrawal date), and VSO, like CAP, died from lack of interest.
> 
> @pardus pointed out to me last year some COIN operations that worked, notably the SAS in Oman and some others, and made this bitter Marine a believer that Hearts & Minds campaigns _can_ succeed...but only if all the support pieces fall into place. And that is a very big order, especially for an impatient society like ours.



We were providing that level of support till at least 2012, and maybe similar support to other units heading that way a little bit after. They ended up being pretty cookie cutter as far as models go because just insert new data and then go from there. What was missing was the bottom-up communication and metrics for success. We can push that support down to the lowest level all day long, but if we have nothing to measure VSO deployments over time than the effort is almost wasted.

Honestly this is a common theme throughout other SOF deployments. MISTs and CATs have a horrible track record of communicating back to the TSOC and most of the metrics seemed to stay at the service component group level.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Aug 8, 2016)

Doesn't Radio Recon go through an A&S of some sort? 




Teufel said:


> That's another interesting question.  I would say that an RRT assigned to MARSOC is an invaluable SOF tool and is something we (the Marine Corps) should be making a lot more of.  I think that our SOF enabler support Marines are one of the most valuable contributions our service gives to SOCOM.  I believe that an RRT Marine in MARSOC is still SOF support and are not considered Raiders.  I could be wrong.  Personally I think we should be producing more intel/operator hybrids.  We do a decent job of that with some of our human intelligence programs (that I won't expand on here) but there is something to be said about specialization in support skills.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 8, 2016)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> Doesn't Radio Recon go through an A&S of some sort?



Yes they go through an indoc and many of them go to BRC (although not all).


----------



## Loki (Jan 23, 2017)

Hello all,
*
"Why is CA considered SOF?"*

Good question, I have asked myself this many times... ;)

_"In the Vietnam War, CA was more publicized than ever before with its phrase “winning the hearts and minds of the people.” CA’s greatest success was in working with U.S. Special Forces in South Vietnam’s central highlands and securing large areas of difficult terrain by winning the confidence of local tribes. Since there were no fixed battle lines, CA personnel had to stay in some places indefinitely. By 1966, each Special Forces A-Detachment in the highlands was augmented by a Civil Affairs-Psychological Operations officer (CAPO). The functions of CA and PSYOP were often combined. Three CA companies carried the burden of pacification, working with the State Department. CA assisted Vietnamese civilians by drilling wells, building roads and bridges to help market local products, setting up public health clinics and school buildings, and carrying out public education programs. The CA programs in the central highlands were, according to the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff at the time, “worth their weight in gold.” Overall, the effort to “win the hearts and minds” of the local people was hit and miss however due partly to the *fact that civil administration expertise in the Army lay within Army Reserve."*_

From the very beginning CA was part and parcel of SF in the US Army and became part of US- SOF as a result and the strategic objectives of the force / occupational field.  We work in small teams, outside the scope of local commanders with much independence of action many times, and must be able to adapt to changing circumstances rapidly. Some of our personnel support conventional forces as well and typically under the direct control of the theater or regional commander. Our tasking comes from many US government entities, we support all US Special Operations Forces jointly (not just Army).  CA even supports CAG and they have assets assigned, I'm told from reliable sources. We are further tasked with FID/UW missions as well as other supporting missions, as well we are assigned to US Embassies and specific regions for operations with and along side SF and others.

I served in CA and hold the identifier 38A (2002-2008). My MOS's were 11B, 38A & 37F.  Relative to CA, I was in the reserve forces and with the 426th FID/UW Airborne among others then additionally served with SOCCENT J-35 IO in Tampa as an active duty augmentee.

*Little overview and general knowledge *
During my tenure with the 426th FID/UW Airborne we had "Capstone" mission assignments supporting different commands and regions worldwide.  The 426th at the time supported 1st SFG and we had  / have many native speakers to support the mission AOR for 1st group. Our language school slots matched those assigned regions. We also had assigned several former 18 series SNCO as our team sergeants.  Our people went to DLI in Monterey Ca. at the time and occasionally Bragg.  We had school slots for language schools,  information security manager (SNCO /Officer),  foreign weapons, defensive driving, Airborne, Ranger, etc.  Many of our folks possessed higher degrees, were professionals in the civilian world and many even possessed PHDs. CA tends to attract academics, professionals and many former SF guys from my experience.  At that time we had to pass a PT test with 80% or better, complete a road march (6 miles, 45# ruck,  or 1 / 3rd your body weight in under 2 hours) do a water test and swim a designated specific distance. You must possess a GT above 110 and a ST above 100. Nothing too hard compared to when I was Infantry.  I worked with professionals who knew their bussiness and stayed in their respective lanes.  Currently CA falls now under the Army Reserve Command but once activated the funding stream comes from USASOC, my understanding now.  We are not shooters, nor enablers or "action guys" not our lane...  Later I became a Psyops team chief with the 7th POG and crossed over to that MOS.

*Personal thoughts, combat operations & reality*
I can honestly say this was the most interesting, rewarding, fun and the highest level responsibility  I ever had in the military.  I loved it in so many ways, really the best job ever! In fact given the choice I would rather be in CA than anything else including the Rangers or SF...I know, sick hun?!  I served in combat operations; I was assigned with the CJSOTF-A- 04-05 in Regional Command South. We relieved the 96th active duty CA out of Bragg on our arrival. Active duty CA (96th & 95th ) is assigned for short term initial operations to do short durations low sustainability operations, with a emphasis on data collection & general assessments to be handed off to reserve forces, reserves are mostly professionals, put in place to take over. They (the reserves) conduct long term high impact projects with a high level of sustainably and increased funding streams.

 Many times we had SF teams and Infantry supporting our taskers, yes they support our missions on occasion. And we also supported their taskers and mission directives.  I was a CAT-A Team Sergeant (8 personnel assigned broken into 2 four man cells) and operated at times completely independently within the battlespace and far outside the purview of superiors and command structures. We / I had autonomy of action and was able to effect changes within directives and influence our AOR.  Most of our taskers came directly from the theater command or above. We / I also worked with large sums of funds at times in excess of 200k local and was responsible for all funds distributed and what that money did. We / I oversaw funding requests and validated those requests for use of funds, for appropriate missions, to be given to different entities with specific needs and justification.  ODAs at times used us to facilitate their missions by using us to do assessments, speaking directly with the locals and our contacts in villages. We many times were a conduit between the locals and other types of US / Coalition personnel. We made intros and facilitated certain things through our influences in an area, we had high levels of trust within the communities. That was and is often leveraged to accomplish other things.  More often we were issued taskers from US Government entities for detailed assessments, of different locations and contact with our tribal folks.  Also we do after action assessments and provide money to compensate for loss by locals as a result of our justifiable combat actions. At times we work independent from direct military influences and outside the scope of local commanders, parallel to and not involved with their missions.

Many other missions we conduct put us into the US Embassies world-wide as individual or 2-4 man teams supporting folks.  In addition occasionally we operate in austere detached operations away from support and other US entities independently, occasionally with an ODA in a safe house or site.
*"1)*  The mission of the Army’s Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC) is to organize, train, equip, validate, and prepare Army Reserve Soldiers for worldwide support to regional combatant commanders overseas.
*2)* USACAPOC consists of 12,730 Soldiers, 4 Civil Affairs Commands, 2 Psychological Operations Groups and 1 training Brigade.
*3)* USACAPOC(A) is composed mostly of U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers in units throughout the United States, with its headquarters at Ft. Bragg, NC.
*4)* In the aftermath of war and natural disasters, USACAPOC teams help restore communities infrastructure by building roads, schools, medical facilities, sewer lines, etc., and follow up assessments to ensure progress for the future.
*5) * Civil Affairs Soldiers are responsible for executing 5 core civil affairs tasks; Civil Information Management, Foreign Humanitarian Assistance, Nation Assistance, Population Resource Control and Support to Civil Administration.
*6)* USACAPOC strive to support our nation’s objectives overseas by sword, deed, and word."

The first Civil Affairs company was commissioned in 1955, the 41st Civil Affairs company.  It is said that Civil Affairs was part of the Continental Army in 1775 with the invasion of Canada.   Lt. Gen Winfield Scott is considered the Father of the modern Civil Affairs units.

_"Civil affairs in WWII was successful in developing and instituting training programs, in deploying many small detachments specialized in installing the types of governance and infrastructure that were known to be in need of rebuilding, and in recognizing the end of military involvement in civil affairs when there was no longer interference from civilians or the need to support a military mission."_

BTW here's a link if your interested in joining...
CA Qualifications

Sorry for the long answer and fluff guys... Respectfully


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2017)

Great comprehensive post, @Loki .


----------



## NikNifSik (Aug 10, 2018)

Loki said:


> Many other missions we conduct put us into the US Embassies world-wide as individual or 2-4 man teams supporting folks.  In addition occasionally we operate in austere detached operations away from support and other US entities independently, occasionally with an ODA in a safe house or site.
> *"1)*  The mission of the Army’s Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC) is to organize, train, equip, validate, and prepare Army Reserve Soldiers for worldwide support to regional combatant commanders overseas.
> *2)* USACAPOC consists of 12,730 Soldiers, 4 Civil Affairs Commands, 2 Psychological Operations Groups and 1 training Brigade.
> *3)* USACAPOC(A) is composed mostly of U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers in units throughout the United States, with its headquarters at Ft. Bragg, NC.
> ...



@Loki ,
Sorry for dragging up an old post but I found some of it interesting.  You bring up USACAPOC and their mission multiple times, but it is my understanding that USACAPOC hasn't been considered SOF since the mid-2000s, is that correct?

I have worked extensively with the active duty component of CA and it seems to me their position in SOF is strictly tied to their ability to support SF goals and efforts. I do agree at times we help/support them with their "tactical" objectives, but it should be due to them strengthening our operational and strategic goals.  I have yet to see an ODA go and help a CA team that just wanted to dig a well for the purpose of getting water. We do it for what that well can bring us; water for a partner force, for a village we want to gain favor in, some type of secondary effect that strengthens a relationship. This is just an example, I by no means think well digging is all a CA team can do.

I hope this doesn't come off as an attack, I look at CA as a useful tool and when utilized properly they can do great things to complement our (SF) efforts. The problem that seems to happen, is CA personnel get wrapped up in being SOF, thinking that makes them "Operators".  We all have different roles in this thing, but self-realization is needed for the relationship to be at its strongest.  Even as a Warrant, I have sat CA CPTs down for not understanding their OE. That's not a beating of the chest, its just the reality, CA supports and goes through us when in Combat (not so much during peacetime operations out of an Embassy).

Any thoughts? Love a healthy discussion, especially if it can give me a new perspective.


----------



## Loki (Aug 10, 2018)

Dear Sir , Chief 

   Firstly much of what you said resonates with me on many levels.  It sounds as if some douchebag CA folks left a bad taste in your mouth.  I saw a lot of guys (specifically young active duty officers) working beyond their tasking. I can only speak to my personal experiences and missions. I have had my share of friction with officers, conventional forces, CA and SF guys. I found the active duty guys (CA) to have much less experience and flexibility in general. They arrive dig wells, grow beards and pass themselves off as some action guy operator. Most of these guys are not professionals, as in academic civilian real world professionals. The guys on my team and in general were academic real world working professionals. Experts in the respective disciplines...,Master degrees and even PhD level. Some were enlisted guys. One of my Sergeants (e5 type) spoke four languages, had a Masters and was a US state department foreign service officer. 

Some of the ODAs were bored in our AO and latched onto us as force pro. They were stuck on KAF and bored to tears. We also had others folks tag along to observe and gather insights, let’s say. Our taskers came from many places within the US government but none from the local command. Although we had requests for support from many. 

Nothing we did went through SF or the local Commanders. Other than Conops and 5ws sent through secured commos.  But they with regularity requested us to support them and authorize funds for all types of projects. These requests were from different funding streams which typically went through then 2 star threater commander. We came under the Command of a LTC and Col. directly. I reported to a Major and a LTC. When with US forces. I also supported French and Dutch SF among others. 

When assigned to support the CJSOTF I fell under their authority and command as an individual. Took orders, supported the teams assigned and paid their bills... 

I only can only speak from a SNCO level and as an ole has been.  I’m no longer relievant in the modern era of this posting. My knowledge is historical in context. But at that time a Chief, outside our direct command structure had zero influence on my operations as a Team Sergeant working a CAT-A. I don’t remember any CWOs or local Commanders ordering anything or telling my Col. how to conduct business. At least not that I’m aware of.... 

I get it, and understand your point, but narrow the brush your painting with Chief. 

No disrespect intended or implied 

Deepest respect


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 11, 2018)

Units in the US military are designated as SOF, or not, based on a determination of the Secretary of Defense.  So the short answer to the question "What makes USCAPOC SOF" appears to be, "because the SECDEF and Joint Doctrine says so": http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf?ver=2018-07-25-091749-087 (p. 214)

For as long as I've been in the Army (or for at least as long as I've been paying attention), CA and PSYOP (now known as MISO... or are they back to PSYOP now?) are SOF.  They are certainly both SOF now.  You can see it yourself on SOCOM's official site: https://www.socom.mil/ussocom-enterprise/components/army-special-operations-command


----------



## NikNifSik (Aug 11, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Units in the US military are designated as SOF, or not, based on a determination of the Secretary of Defense.  So the short answer to the question "What makes USCAPOC SOF" appears to be, "because the SECDEF and Joint Doctrine says so": http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf?ver=2018-07-25-091749-087 (p. 214)
> 
> For as long as I've been in the Army (or for at least as long as I've been paying attention), CA and PSYOP (now known as MISO... or are they back to PSYOP now?) are SOF.  They are certainly both SOF now.  You can see it yourself on SOCOM's official site: https://www.socom.mil/ussocom-enterprise/components/army-special-operations-command



Marauder06,
I understand what you are saying with SOF being a SECDEF designation, but that does not make those who serve in USACAPOC SOF.  I am not disputing there are CA/PSYOP in SOF.  There is an active component from each that falls under 1st SFC, which is under USASOC (the specific ones your second link talks about). Neither of which are in/under USACAPOC.  When I went to USACAPOCs site, it talks about working directly for the GCC, opposed to the TSOC. I did not see USACAPOC once claim to be SOF, but I did see the following under their capabilities tab: 
• 100 percent of DoD’s conventional PSYOP forces
• 95 percent of DoD’s conventional CA forces 
U.S. Army Reserve > Commands > Functional > USACAPOC > USACAPOC Units

My points are not trying to say CA is not SOF (thread topic), its that USACAPOC is no longer considered SOF. Similar to how we have 11Bs make up Ranger Regiment in a SOF designated command, we have 37s and 38s do the same.  But just as Rangers inclusion doesn't make ALL infantryman SOF, the same goes for CA and PSYOP.


----------



## NikNifSik (Aug 11, 2018)

Loki,
I appreciate the response.  I agree the reserve components can bring some outstanding levels of schooling and experience.  I personally have never worked with a reserve CA unit, so I am not going to try and speak of that command relationship.  When it comes to active components, they are usually assigned to an AOB, or down to the ODA.  When we have had them at the ODA level, they fall under the ODA.  I would never go to your COL and tell him how to do his job, but if I felt someone was a liability to my tactical operation as a GFC I would have the full backing of the command to make the decisions I wanted.  It seems the experiences we each have had have been somewhat different, but that's life. 
My point was to get clarification on USACAPOC, their current command relationship with SOF.  From my readings, it looks as if they are completely separate now doctrinally.  I do not believe that makes the efforts any less valuable or important.  I do not think the SOF title makes a unit better, I think their actions and accomplishments do. 

My prior post's reference of interactions was a just a personal one, with a CA team assigned to support my ODA's mission.  More times than not I have been impressed with the guys assigned to our team, those are the ones that have shaped my opinions.


----------



## Loki (Aug 11, 2018)

We agree in many ways...more than you know.


----------



## Loki (Aug 11, 2018)

USACAPOC was our parent command and still to my knowledge controls all CA deployments of reserve units. And as for competence of the active duty CA units I could argue that at length. 

As for USACAPOC my old CSM (Harry Bennett) went directly from a reserve Command to become the USACAPOC CSM. 

I don’t know currently how this works, but my primary SSI and our unit patches were USACAPOC


----------



## AHesitantWarrior (Sep 12, 2018)

Chief,  USACAPOC split from SOF a while back when the active component CA and PSYOPs guys were brought under USASOC.  Essentially, that is the official split.  Many people who were under USACAPOC during a time when they still had the SOF missions still work there, are formerly SOF (and arguably still SOF).

As to the other discussion - CA and PSYOP on active duty are SOF because yes, doctrinally the mission is SOF, but also because the Assessment and Selection is sanctioned at USAJFKSWCS.  There was a time in the active duty SOF CA units, there were many teams with guys that never had to go to selection, they simply went through a paper board and someone waved their wand and those guys went to a very short "Q" course for CA or PSYOP and then they were "SOF".  I'm sure if off forum over a beer, if you remembered the guys you were not impressed with from your CA experience with your ODA, they would have been from that time.  Both CA and PSYOP nowadays have a very legitimate selection, and training pipeline, and PMT for deployments.  Building legitimacy to the ilk of Special Forces is tough to do when the capability was forged into new units overnight in a crisis, so they have some serious catching up to do for sure.  I would argue that the end product SOF guy coming from a CA or PSYOP pipeline now may not impress you as much as a newly minted GB, but they definitely have some skills and capabilities, and they pass through nearly identical physical gates to graduate their Q courses.

Many folks had problems with the active SOF CA and PSYOP guys in the past.  I think many of the problems that caused that experience have been solved in the recent past, and both organizations have not only significant achievements on the battlefield, but they are fairly widely accepted by the SF regiment as they are training, deploying, and fighting alongside of them nearly everywhere now.  Three SOF CA guys that I had a personal relationship with were outstanding soldiers, well worthy of praise, and they died fighting in Afghanistan and other places, right alongside their SF counterparts.  We can probably drop the hate in the wastebasket by now.  Things have changed a lot.

I have no doubt there have been some terrible experiences with CA.  When I got to CA, I came from another SOF unit, and I had some bad experiences myself coming from a very real SOF unit to one that was fledgling.  In-selected guys running around in store bought operator kit, a lot of lame shit-talk, not a lot of proficiency in the basics.  I was upset with my career manager and a fellow medic who talked me into going over.  It took some time, but over time, I watched people self-select, retire, get kicked out, etc, and the unit slowly morphed.  When I left the unit, it was in pretty good shape, and that wasn't that long ago.  I'll go back when the time comes, and finish my career there, and I'll enjoy it because I know how far they have come.


----------



## NikNifSik (Sep 14, 2018)

*AHesitantWarrior
An informative response, appreciate it.  I agree the guys going through are getting better and better, and the guys getting attached are definitely as a whole pretty switched on.  Not sure if I totally agree about the gates being the same..... but I also don't believe they should be. I was fortunate enough to sit with a MSG who was running the PSYOP selection process a few years ago, and he gave some pretty good insight.  Seems like steps are being made in the right direction, and it's paying off. *



AHesitantWarrior said:


> but they are fairly widely accepted by the SF regiment as they are training, deploying, and fighting alongside of them nearly everywhere now.  Three SOF CA guys that I had a personal relationship with were outstanding soldiers, well worthy of praise, and they died fighting in Afghanistan and other places, right alongside their SF counterparts.  We can probably drop the hate in the wastebasket by now.  Things have changed a lot.



*No one is hating on these soldiers or claiming they are not heroes worthy of praise.  Being SOF, SF, or anything else does not make a death more relevant or less painful.  All US service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country have done more than I in my eyes.  At the same time, the camaraderie and in-house banter won't and in my opinion, shouldn't stop.  Its what keeps things fun. *


----------



## MrCatch22 (Sep 29, 2018)

NikNifSik said:


> @Loki ,
> Sorry for dragging up an old post but I found some of it interesting.  You bring up USACAPOC and their mission multiple times, but it is my understanding that USACAPOC hasn't been considered SOF since the mid-2000s, is that correct? . . .
> Any thoughts? Love a healthy discussion, especially if it can give me a new perspective.



Sir, I'm relatively new to CA, but felt I could perhaps chime in with some observations. You are correct that USACAPOC doesn't fall under the SOF umbrella. Technically, I don't know that all of active duty Army CA does either, but I'd have to look into the command relationships of the 83rd to answer that. Regardless, all RA CA now undergoes A&S as well as a Q-course. I understand that that is a relatively new thing, though, and the screening and training processes are doing great things for the branch (or so I'm told).

Sort of related to your comment but meant for all: The big things that I think might not be understood about SOF CA is that (1) we are a *ridiculously* tiny branch. (2) A large percentage of our missions are effectively unilateral (as in, not conducted ICW or ISO other MIL elements). (3) CA tends to run very long term shaping OPs, and also has a big focus on access and placement. We also conduct Civil Reconnaissance, which can also be a big point of contention because the term is very misunderstood. And finally, (4) another aspect to consider is one that I think confuses everyone in most of SOF, and that would be authorities. Put simply, a huge benefit that CA brings to the table is that we have greater FoM than other SOF elements in particular theaters. What this could translate to in a perfect world: an ODA in country X is restricted to a 50 km radius of location Y. Meanwhile, a CA team working in the same country has near-total FoM. If the two teams work together, the CA team can get the ODA somewhere they want to go. In turn, the CA team gains access to greater logistical support, security, etc. A lot of this probably goes without saying to many, but I've met quite a few folks who only know of CA filling a J-9 role or helping out an ODA. I would venture to guess that that is because a lot of what CA folks do ends up facilitating the missions of others, or is directly credited to others. Just part of the game, so to speak.

Finally, I saw some comments wondering about physical standards, so for those wondering about gates, we're currently sitting at 80/80/80 APFT, 40 min 5 MR, and 12 mile ruck in 3 HRs. I think the 5 MR is still a 45 min thing in the school house, though. To be competitive for promotion, APFT of 270+ is pretty much a must, and I think the average hovers in the 290s.


----------



## BK2004 (Nov 7, 2020)

NikNifSik said:


> Marauder06,
> I understand what you are saying with SOF being a SECDEF designation, but that does not make those who serve in USACAPOC SOF.  I am not disputing there are CA/PSYOP in SOF.  There is an active component from each that falls under 1st SFC, which is under USASOC (the specific ones your second link talks about). Neither of which are in/under USACAPOC.  When I went to USACAPOCs site, it talks about working directly for the GCC, opposed to the TSOC. I did not see USACAPOC once claim to be SOF, but I did see the following under their capabilities tab:
> • 100 percent of DoD’s conventional PSYOP forces
> • 95 percent of DoD’s conventional CA forces
> ...


I know this is an old thread, but the blinderpus divorce in 2006 created some confusion that is only just now becoming less so muddled. Tho I can’t speak for CA, PSYOP was codified into law as a SOF capability with what used to be known as the JFK Special Warfare Act portion of the Goldwater-Nichols Act and is further governed legally by the Smith-Munster Act. Meaning, essentially, that the entire regiment of PSYOP represents a special operations capability, with RC PSYOP taking the lead on conventional forces and AC taking lead on SOF activities. Both can do either. The new FM 3-53 in draft and to be released in a few months spells that out more precisely than previous iterations.

I hope that clears the confusion a bit. Thanks.


----------



## BK2004 (Nov 7, 2020)

BK2004 said:


> I know this is an old thread, but the blinderpus divorce in 2006 created some confusion that is only just now becoming less so muddled. Tho I can’t speak for CA, PSYOP was codified into law as a SOF capability with what used to be known as the JFK Special Warfare Act portion of the Goldwater-Nichols Act and is further governed legally by the Smith-Munster Act. Meaning, essentially, that the entire regiment of PSYOP represents a special operations capability, with RC PSYOP taking the lead on conventional forces and AC taking lead on SOF activities. Both can do either. The new FM 3-53 in draft and to be released in a few months spells that out more precisely than previous iterations.
> 
> I hope that clears the confusion a bit. Thanks.


Jesus. “Blunderous” and “Smith-Mundt”.


----------



## Arf (Nov 7, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Here is an interesting point though. the Navy's contribution to SOCOM is  Naval Special Warfare (SEALs, SWCC) but Navy EOD, divers and I believe rescue swimmers fall under the naval special operations umbrella but do not fall under SOCOM.




“Naval Special Operations” is something that recruiters are saying to articulate those rates needing to take the Physical Screening Test (PST) and go through a selection pipeline prior to earning their rate. I have seen them advertised as “Navy Special Operations,” but once they set foot into boot camp they are referred to as “Special Programs” at most.

EOD, Divers, and Aviation Rescue Swimmers (they branch off into multiple rates) fall under Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). 

There isn’t a “Navy Special Operations” other than Navy Special Warfare (NSW).


----------



## Arf (Nov 7, 2020)

Teufel said:


> The issue with that explanation is that Army Civil Affairs are SOF and Marine Corps Civil Affairs, who perform a nearly identical mission, are presently not. The short answer is that the services determine what units are SOF and SOCOM certifies them. For example, Navy EOD and Navy divers both have very difficult pipelines that parallel some SOF units but are not SOF because the Navy has not designated them SOF in order to maintain them within the service. The Navy assigns Navy EOD to SOCOM but still controls the career fields because they are not designated SOF.




This is correct and frustrating. EOD’s pipeline is incredibly difficult with a high attrition rate. However, after graduating, there is a huge variety of things that the EOD Tech can be assigned to. Sometimes they are assigned to SOCOM. Sometimes they sit on a ship in the conventional side waiting to clear mines and other explosives.

The Navy keeps them under Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) so it’s easier to distribute them to the needs of the Navy.

My experience so far is that my pipeline was just the tip of the iceberg as far as my training was concerned. The real training happened when I got to my Special Boat Team. In that light, I imagine the training you get at a SOCOM unit vs a conventional unit will be massively different. The problem is that an EOD tech could spend 4 years with a SOCOM unit and then be forced to sit on a ship for the next 4 years.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 7, 2020)

Arf said:


> This is correct and frustrating. EOD’s pipeline is incredibly difficult with a high attrition rate. However, after graduating, there is a huge variety of things that the EOD Tech can be assigned to. Sometimes they are assigned to SOCOM. Sometimes they sit on a ship in the conventional side waiting to clear mines and other explosives.
> 
> The Navy keeps them under Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) so it’s easier for them to distribute them to the needs of the Navy.
> 
> My experience so far is that my pipeline was just the tip of the iceberg as far as my training was concerned. The real training happened when I got to my Special Boat Team. In that light, I imagine the training you get at a SOCOM unit vs a conventional unit will be massively different. The problem is that an EOD tech could spend 4 years with a SOCOM unit and then be forced to sit on a ship for the next 4 years.


PJs also rotate between SOF and conventional assignments.


----------



## BK2004 (Nov 7, 2020)

Teufel said:


> PJs also rotate between SOF and conventional assignments.


Sounds like PSYOP, too.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 7, 2020)

Arf said:


> “Naval Special Operations” is something that recruiters are saying to articulate those rates needing to take the Physical Screening Test (PST) and go through a selection pipeline prior to earning their rate. I have seen them advertised as “Navy Special Operations,” but once they set foot into boot camp they are referred to as “Special Programs” at most.
> 
> EOD, Divers, and Aviation Rescue Swimmers (they branch off into multiple rates) fall under Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC).
> 
> There isn’t a “Navy Special Operations” other than Navy Special Warfare (NSW).


This the case now but I believe it was different before the Navy established NECC. I know when I joined, which admittedly was back when Full House was still on prime time, the Navy referred to some communities like EOD and Divers as special operations. I’m don’t believe SBU sailors were considered SOF back then either. @parallel would know more about that.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 7, 2020)

Teufel said:


> PJs also rotate between SOF and conventional assignments.


Sort of true and sort of not true? While PJs have assignments in AFSOC and in support of SOCOM directly in those assignments, Personnel Recovery is a direct tenet of SOF (under ‘direct action’). All those assignments should be considered ‘SOF’ assignments as well, even though it’s not for AFSOC. 

For instance- the last two Silver Star winners (Brunetto and Fisher) were both PJs assigned to SOF mission sets working at rescue units (38/58, respectively).


----------



## Arf (Nov 7, 2020)

Teufel said:


> I know when I joined, which admittedly was back when Full House was still on prime time,




I love this 😂😂😂


----------



## Arf (Nov 7, 2020)

Teufel said:


> I’m don’t believe SBU sailors were considered SOF back then either.




When it was a Special Boat Unit (SBU) it wasn’t a “closed rate”. Meaning that other rates like Quatermaster, Engineman, Corpsman would come to the SBU, go through a pipeline to be a part of the unit, and then possibly/probably be sent away to another after they did their time.

Whether or not they “fell under SOCOM” is actually a mystery to me, and I’ll inquire when I go back to work on Monday. I do know that they were created specifically to be the mobility and Maritime platform for SOCOM however.


----------



## Arf (Nov 7, 2020)

Sorry for kind of hijacking this thread. Could you explain what the difference between PsyOp and CA is? Also are SF commonly still integrated within those units and why?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 8, 2020)

amlove21 said:


> Sort of true and sort of not true? While PJs have assignments in AFSOC and in support of SOCOM directly in those assignments, Personnel Recovery is a direct tenet of SOF (under ‘direct action’). All those assignments should be considered ‘SOF’ assignments as well, even though it’s not for AFSOC.
> 
> For instance- the last two Silver Star winners (Brunetto and Fisher) were both PJs assigned to SOF mission sets working at rescue units (38/58, respectively).


Assignment between conventional and SOCOM  units then. You get my point. Personnel recovery isn’t a SOF mission when the 81mm mortar platoon does it from a MEU. I like that model and argued, unsuccessfully, that the Marine Corps should have done the same thing with the MSOBs and recon battalions when they built MARSOC.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 8, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Assignment between conventional and SOCOM  units then. You get my point. Personnel recovery isn’t a SOF mission when the 81mm mortar platoon does it from a MEU. I like that model and argued, unsuccessfully, that the Marine Corps should have done the same thing with the MSOBs and recon battalions when they built MARSOC.


Yikes. Yeah, I was tracking your point, sir.


----------

