# What's Wrong With SOCOM?



## CDG (Jan 9, 2017)

Small Wars Journal released a 4 part series on SOCOM.  I am working on reading all the parts, but wanted to post to start generating some discussion.  I am very interested in what some of the more senior/experienced members have to say.

What’s Wrong With SOCOM? | Small Wars Journal  (Part 1)

What’s Wrong With ARSOF? | Small Wars Journal  (Part 2)

What’s Wrong with the Rest of SOCOM?: WARCOM, AFSOC, and MARSOC | Small Wars Journal  (Part 3)

What Can Be Done About SOCOM? | Small Wars Journal  (Part 4)


----------



## Etype (Jan 9, 2017)

The first paragraph of the ARSOF article is bunk.

- Article states the 160th isn't a proponent of USASOC.
- USASOC has proponency over USASOAC which owns the 160th, which gives it the same relationship with the 160th that it has with either an SF Group (relationship through USASFC) or with a Ranger Bn (through regimental command).​- Author states USASOC's two subordinate commands are USAJFKSWCS and USASFC.
- USASOC's subordinate commands are USASOC HQ, USAJFKSWCS, USASFC, USASOAC, and the 75th Ranger Regiment.​- Article also states "JSOC units.". JSOC is a component command, which doesn't actually own the units, but has them tasked to it.

Some pretty big mistakes right out of the gate- not good for credibility.


----------



## CDG (Jan 9, 2017)

I noticed that as well, @Etype.  I thought maybe I had a wrong understanding though, since I do not serve in USASOC.


----------



## Etype (Jan 9, 2017)

CDG said:


> I noticed that as well, @Etype.  I thought maybe I had a wrong understanding though, since I do not serve in USASOC.


At least in the ARSOF entry, the bulk of the points seem to center on his definition of ARSOF- I'm curious where he got it from.

General Cleveland used ARSOF pretty extensively in ARSOF 2022, but never officially defined it as only referring to USASFC and USAJFKSWCS (at least not that I know of).


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 9, 2017)

I thought JSOC was a separate entity. Falling under SOCOM m, for funding, but outside of the command structure. I really don't know though. Never served there. Maybe @Marauder06 knows better?


----------



## CDG (Jan 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I thought JSOC was a separate entity. Falling under SOCOM m, for funding, but outside of the command structure. I really don't know though. Never served there. Maybe @Marauder06 knows better?



I thought this as well.  It has always been my understanding that JSOC is not subordinate to SOCOM.  That they are co-existing commands with separate missions.


----------



## AWP (Jan 9, 2017)

JSOC started out under SOCOM, but maybe that changed in the last few years? I'm too lazy to look it up, my inner white girl can't even.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 9, 2017)

I thought 'Robert C. Jones' comment in the comment section was better than the article.  Really hard to get through - so poorly written, so many ridiculous generalizations, and an almost total lack of any scholarship or journalistic standards.  Will have to wade through the other sections later but this reads as a dipshit CPT who thinks he's smarter than he is.  Probably hits a few relevant targets, but that happens when you set your cake-hole on full automatic fire and start spraying.


----------



## CDG (Jan 10, 2017)

I thought he didn't say anything that isn't already pretty well-understood.  A lot of it is stuff I have seen the members here talk about for years.  SF has been getting away from its core mission and doing too much DA, the SEALs don't put much effort into planning, SF Officers aren't allowed to hold the best assignments for SF because of DA blocks that have to be checked, etc.  I was hoping for something a little more insightful and incisive, but overall it was a disappointing series. I thought the author essentially compiled some easily found info, and tried to make it seem as though he had researched out all these previously unacknowledged issues.

On a side note, I am hoping @Hillclimb or @Stanimal will see this and comment on his musings about MARSOC.


----------



## Etype (Jan 10, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I thought 'Robert C. Jones' comment in the comment section was better than the article.  Really hard to get through - so poorly written, so many ridiculous generalizations, and an almost total lack of any scholarship or journalistic standards.  Will have to wade through the other sections later but this reads as a dipshit CPT who thinks he's smarter than he is.  Probably hits a few relevant targets, but that happens when you set your cake-hole on full automatic fire and start spraying.


He sounded, to me, like a Q-Course student at the Starbucks on Reilly Rd.  

You can usually find a young captain in there on his break from language school preaching to an NCO or another captain about his infallible take on the world of SOF.


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Jan 10, 2017)

I skipped straight to part III, his musings on AFSOC writ large and specifically it's participation in FID. The author displays a stunning lack of knowledge of the things he attempts to illuminate; I'll not be wasting my time reading the rest of the article.

In short, this guy needs a high five. In the face. With a chair.


----------



## CDG (Jan 10, 2017)

Raksasa Kotor said:


> I skipped straight to part III, his musings on AFSOC writ large and specifically it's participation in FID. The author displays a stunning lack of knowledge of the things he attempts to illuminate; I'll not be wasting my time reading the rest of the article.
> 
> In short, this guy needs a high five. In the face. With a chair.



I agree.  His casual dismissal of what the USAF does in the FID arena shows a lot of ignorance, and lends further creedence to my point about him not actually doing any research.  This reads like something copy/pasted for a college course, with just enough words changed to get it through turnitin.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 10, 2017)

Guy doesn't know as much about AFSOC as he thinks.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> I agree.  His casual dismissal of what the USAF does in the FID arena shows a lot of ignorance, and lends further creedence to my point about him not actually doing any research.  This reads like something copy/pasted for a college course, with just enough words changed to get it through turnitin.


or some recent retiree with a grudge against USASOC (guess he didn't get that GS job he wanted).


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 10, 2017)

@CDG him basically saying  "SF is doing too much DA" while getting away from its core mission, seems to be glossing over a very key point. One that I don't know that I agree with.DA is a doctrinal SF mission. Also almost none of our DA centric missions are undertaken unilaterally. We run commandos, or Iraqi SOF, or work with other countries SOF units on developing targeting. This is all well within the scope of our primary mission.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 10, 2017)

I think he may have hit on some things that are legitimate – and certainly some things that are conventional wisdom (to the extent conventional wisdom is relevant to a very specialized topic) – but offered zero insight, a lot of baseless conjecture, and spurious accounts on how they got that way.

Two examples stuck out to me in the first section – because I see them repeated other places – as indicative of his lack of knowledge.

1.      Organization X runs/hates/loves organization B – JSOC runs SOCOM, big Army hates SF, etc.

This is indicative of the kind of faulty logic people who don’t know shit love to apply to others – but never themselves.  Institutions rarely have human opinions or emotions.  You can certainly have organizational culture – but even then there’s a great deal of nuance and individual shifts.  All HQs have tensions that are natural in the prosecution of missions and the competition for resources.  But the idea that an entire organization is dominated by emotions – and anyone serving in it must toe the line – is ridiculous and insulting.  That’s especially true when most officers and a large number of NCOs move between organizations multiple times in their careers.  Must be dizzying to adopt a whole new set of prejudices and biases every time you PCS.

2.      The bureaucrats and bureaucracy run and ruin everything.

There are definite drawbacks to ‘bureaucracy’ in general – most notably as organizations become more complex the span of understanding and span of control for the people who lead them becomes more and more difficult – one of the reasons just being a PT stud, good at shooting people in the face, and good at coming up with memes doesn’t necessarily mean you’re qualified to run a complex organization.  But, the main reason HQs grow is because it is fucking complicated to run all the shit they have going on.  This dipshit undoubtedly gets paid, has his records in reasonable order, gets equipment, gets assigned missions, has the resources necessary to conduct that mission show up when needed, can communicate, has access to intelligence (or at least classified information), and the host of other things that help making shooting people in the face happen.  By and large for SOF it happens without CDRs having to expend a lot of energy – one of the reasons you can keep SOF formations light, they don’t get overwhelmed with staffs to do that kind of work.  Well, that shit doesn’t just happen magically.  Also, no matter how smart, fit, and savant-like in face-shooting a special operator is the intricacies of the pay process, procurement, logistics train, and all that shit doesn’t just magically appear in their brain.  All that stuff requires expertise and coordination – you know, all those fucking bureaucrats.

I’m all about some insights on organizational dynamics – how they build dysfunction and how to correct them.  I’m in a BDE that’s directly subordinate to an ASCC – but still gets ADCON direction from an MSC DRU and is in a GCC that doesn’t like to work with it’s component commands.  But, those are driven by organizational and structural requirements.  Not because as soon as somebody got promoted they decided which HQs they hated. 

Similarly I think the way organizations are structured, the training and requirements placed on leaders at each level, and the relative interoperability of processes are huge factors in getting to effective operation.  But just waiving your arm and saying something is useless takes you out of the argument because anyone who has any idea how shit works dismisses you as someone running your mouth about shit you don’t understand.

This dude definitely falls into that category in my book.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 10, 2017)

I am not in SOCOM, but I am knowledgeable enough to have recognized the errors in the articles.  Generally is looks like a bad rehash of a lot of what one can find in any number of articles or books over the past few years.  But the article was poorly written, poorly sourced, and because of those issues alone, have a hard time with the author's credibility.


----------



## Etype (Jan 10, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> "SF is doing too much DA"


This fella doesn't realize that if it involves a partner force of any type, it's FID, UW, or SFA.

I hope he got a failing grade for this paper-but since he's submitted it for publishing, I don't think he did.


----------



## CDG (Jan 10, 2017)

Etype said:


> This fella doesn't realize that if it involves a partner force of any type, it's FID, UW, or SFA.
> 
> I hope he got a failing grade for this paper-but since he's submitted it for publishing, I don't think he did.



That link brings up my member profile.


----------



## Etype (Jan 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> That link brings up my member profile.


Yeah, I don't know how/why I did that.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 10, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> or some recent retiree with a grudge against USASOC (guess he didn't get that GS job he wanted).



Based on what SWJ has to say about the author... "Sadcom via Happycom has spent more than 20 years in special operations and more than 29 years in the military."

I'd be inclined to agree.  Kind of sad that with all that (ambiguous) experience, he still sounds like ...


Etype said:


> a Q-Course student at the Starbucks on Reilly Rd.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 10, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Based on what SWJ has to say about the author... "Sadcom via Happycom has spent more than 20 years in special operations and more than 29 years in the military."
> 
> I'd be inclined to agree.  Kind of sad that with all that (ambiguous) experience, he still sounds like ...


Yeah, I read some more and was wondering if he was a Reserve CA Officer.
Bitter, what ever his background is.


----------



## AWP (Jan 10, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> "Sadcom via Happycom has spent more than 20 years in special operations and more than 29 years in the military."



I have 9 years as a support guy in a Guard SF battalion. That means I have "9 years in special operations" but in no way, shape, or form qualifies me to write that magnum opus of fail or posture like an expert. "xxx years in special operations" is a nice, broad phrase designed to give someone credence without providing any contextual substance.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 10, 2017)

AWP said:


> I have 9 years as a support guy in a Guard SF battalion. That means I have "9 years in special operations" but in no way, shape, or form qualifies me to write that magnum opus of fail or posture like an expert. *"xxx years in special operations" is a nice, broad phrase designed to give someone credence without providing any contextual substance*.



That's more or less what I read between the lines... someone who doesn't want the details of a "cool guy" claim to be examined.


----------



## Viper1 (Jan 11, 2017)

CDG said:


> Small Wars Journal released a 4 part series on SOCOM.  I am working on reading all the parts, but wanted to post to start generating some discussion.  I am very interested in what some of the more senior/experienced members have to say.
> 
> What’s Wrong With SOCOM? | Small Wars Journal  (Part 1)
> 
> ...



I'll read these this weekend.

  The pseudonym is unbelievable. It does not do well for his legitimacy or the legitimacy of SWJ. I've written under a pseudo before and it is a good technique if still on active duty; however authors have to be aware an unprofessional pseudonym can delegitimize an argument. MTF.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 12, 2017)

CDG said:


> On a side note, I am hoping @Hillclimb or @Stanimal will see this and comment on his musings about MARSOC.





Raksasa Kotor said:


> I skipped straight to part III, his musings on AFSOC writ large and specifically it's participation in FID. The author displays a stunning lack of knowledge of the things he attempts to illuminate.





DA SWO said:


> Yeah, I read some more and was wondering if he was a Reserve CA Officer.
> *Bitter*, what ever his background is.



Picked up a bitter/griping tone every paragraph, and had to stop reading after a bit. 

How he defined some of the SOF missions as if they were much simpler than they really are, makes me question his background some. His information also seemed outdated, lacked research/supporting evidence, and was more an anecdotal generalization of MARSOC; so i wont even bother addressing them. Sorry CDG.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I thought JSOC was a separate entity. Falling under SOCOM m, for funding, but outside of the command structure. I really don't know though. Never served there. Maybe @Marauder06 knows better?



Thanks for the tag brother.  Interesting read, lot of JSOC hate going on in those articles.

"What's wrong with ARSOF?"  ---> no selection, assessment, training and retention program for enablers.  Want to know why JSOC is so much better than you, USASOC?  Partly because they invest in the whole "spear," not just the pointy tip.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Mar 15, 2017)

CDG said:


> On a side note, I am hoping @Hillclimb or @Stanimal will see this and comment on his musings about MARSOC.



This author is not only the burrito-supreme of jackasses but his information is bum as fuck - the incident he's referring to is from Fox company back in the early days of MARSOC's existence which is a total bullshit play on media information vice actual fact. That requires a separate podium in itself.

MARSOC did not rise from the ashes of Force Reconnaissance, we were born of them (1st Force specifically); the most balls-to-the-wall members of that community were squirted into the SOCOM world, given a whole new pot of funding/new equipment/more spots in the middle east to do a ruck drop/all the weaponized assets a JTAC could dream for. Some of the most Valhalla driven motherfuckers on this side of the planet with decades of combined SOF experience made their mark - inflicting tremendous enemy casualties and running up even bigger bar tabs globally. Some of them still walk around here in my hallway, others are on the memorial wall - all of them have my utmost respect & adoration and none of them had an ounce of acceptance for anything but perfection in their line of work.

Those are the standards that were set here long ago that every man is reminded of today. There isn't a core task/capability in our mission essential tasks I haven't seen completed in a forward environment to that standard. If the author has 20years of SOF experience he spent at least 19 1/2 of them in a fucking supply warehouse.

The more I read, the more I wanted to challenge him to melee combat.

H/A


----------

