# An Aviator will be next CG MARSOC



## tigerstr (Feb 26, 2012)

According to MC Times latest issue Maj. Gen. Mark Clark is expected to be the new Commanding General of Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, as part of a reshuffling of general officers in the Marine Corps. (not putting a link cause for now its in the subscription-only digital version).

General Clark ( full bio here ) is a *Naval Aviator* (Helicopter and Tilt Rotor Squadrons) with tours at ANGLICO and (multiple) Special Operations. Last positions, Director of Operations USSOCOM and Chief of Staff USSOCOM.

I am familiar with the "every Marine a rifleman" concept/theory and also with the fact that MEUs and other formations ( like the USMC itself right now) can be commanded by Aviation Officers, but to me it seems peculiar assigning an Aviator to a formation that has no aviation component whatsoever, (at least for now), and is still in its formative stage.

Your thoughts/comments?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 27, 2012)

He seems to have enough experience in senior SOF staff positions for the job.  If you look at his predecessors he looks much more qualified (with one exception).  LtGen Hejlik (according to his bio) had like one tour at SOCOM before taking up MARSOC.  I saw no SOF experience for MajGen Robeson (I don't know if his time with CJTF HOA counts or not).  MajGen Lefevre had 3 years at JSOC, and seems to have had the most experience of all these commanders.  So in comparison to tge previous commanders, he seems to have the chops for it.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 27, 2012)

He is also in a position to bring MC Aviation Assets into the fold, folks at AFSOC probably getting nervous


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 27, 2012)

SOWT said:


> He is also in a position to bring MC Aviation Assets into the fold, folks at AFSOC probably getting nervous


 
Thats the first thing I thought while reading about it. The essence of the MAGTF concept calls for an aviation element. There has been some debate in the Corps ,with some arguments against it, based on the costs involved. I think if USSOCOM would be willing to pay the extra bills, it could be done. And it would make a MEU(SOC) much more capable with SOF assets on board.

Guess we have to wait and see how it plays out.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Feb 27, 2012)

I'll hold back and see what develops news wise with this position, but I can't help thinking back to the history of operation annaconda where the overall commander of SOF forces was a aviator who the guys there (at least according to Pete Blabber) didn't think was the right person for a job like that and resulted in some ugly personality/operational clashes. First the commandant and now CG for marsoc coming from aviation? We need more hard fighting boots on the ground types like General Mattis in key positions!


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 3, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> I'll hold back and see what develops news wise with this position, but I can't help thinking back to the history of operation annaconda where the overall commander of SOF forces was a aviator who the guys there (at least according to Pete Blabber) didn't think was the right person for a job like that and resulted in some ugly personality/operational clashes. First the commandant and now CG for marsoc coming from aviation? We need more hard fighting boots on the ground types like General Mattis in key positions!


Aviators have successfully commanded Joint Sof Task Force's.  I think he was the problem, and would have been a problem regardless of background.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Mar 3, 2012)

Also keep in mind that he is not just a Naval Aviator but that he came from ANGLICO. Along w/Recon, ANGLICO & 3 other MOS communities were recognized by the JSOU as qualified to rate their own Special Operations Designator.

*Johnny Micheal Spann, the 1st CIA Operative killed in the GWOT, was a Marine Arty Officer recruited into the CIA SAD's Special Operations Group directly from ANGLICO.

ANGLICO's Marines have earned a seat at MARSOC's table along with Recon.


----------



## CDG (Mar 3, 2012)

SCCO_Marine said:


> *Johnny Micheal Spann, the 1st CIA Operative killed in the GWOT, was a Marine Arty Officer recruited into the CIA SAD's Special Operations Group directly from ANGLICO.
> 
> ANGLICO's Marines have earned a seat at MARSOC's table along with Recon.


 
I know an ANGLICO guy that has gone on to do some interesting work for DOS in the recent past as well.


----------



## Ravage (Mar 4, 2012)

Quite interesting.
The Regiments current CO has a Chem. Warfare background. He never commanded a combat unit in theatere as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong).
But, he seems to be the right guy in the right position. The Regiment is growing in it's capabilities. New training, new contacts, new experiances.
And he's not afraid to take the heap when the shit hits the fan.
If MARSOCs new commander green-lights new inictiatives that will insure the growth in the Commands capabilities, it should not be a problem that he's a fly boy.


----------



## AWP (Mar 4, 2012)

Guys on the ground will continue to make things happen regardless of who's running the show. It may be painful or not as efficient, but they will make things happen, that's the nature of their personalities. The real question is funding and that's when shiat gets real. In other words, how much money will go to aviation related ventures vice the ground component? We'll find out.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 6, 2012)

Gonna be interesting to see where that potential money might come from, especially given that the pentagon recently announced a drawback in orders/use of certain types of UAV's. I forget where it was I read the article, might have been cnn.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 6, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Gonna be interesting to see where that potential money might come from, especially given that the pentagon recently announced a drawback in orders/use of certain types of UAV's. I forget where it was I read the article, might have been cnn.


One Global Hawk Varient was cut, but the U-2 will "soldier on" and provide the coverage.

What other UAV's have been cut?


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 7, 2012)

SOWT said:


> One Global Hawk Varient was cut, but the U-2 will "soldier on" and provide the coverage.
> 
> What other UAV's have been cut?


 
I'm pretty sure that's the one that I read, I honestly wish I could remember where I read that article. I'm still to this day at a loss as to why the U2 is still in operation but the SR-71 war retired.....Aurora anyone? Gotta love a conspiracy theory


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 8, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> I'm pretty sure that's the one that I read, I honestly wish I could remember where I read that article. I'm still to this day at a loss as to why the U2 is still in operation but the SR-71 war retired.....Aurora anyone? Gotta love a conspiracy theory


The SR-71 was stupidly costly to maintain and fuel, and having a Mach-3 jet that can fly at stupidly high altitudes is not really necessary these days.  Now, as to the reason why the U-2 is still flying.....I dunno.  Probably less costly to maintain than the Blackbird and you can still put different sensor packages on it.  And it doesn't need to have ridiculous speed to avoid Soviet missiles and interceptors these days.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 8, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The SR-71 was stupidly costly to maintain and fuel, and having a Mach-3 jet that can fly at stupidly high altitudes is not really necessary these days. Now, as to the reason why the U-2 is still flying.....I dunno. Probably less costly to maintain than the Blackbird and you can still put different sensor packages on it. And it doesn't need to have ridiculous speed to avoid Soviet missiles and interceptors these days.


Sensor suite being developed by the Global Hawk wasn't working out so it was dropped.

SR-71- Sometimes fast is good, but RUMINT says the SR was retired because the CSAF (McPeek) was rejected by the unit.  
I suspect they had something else in the works, and that is why it went away.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 8, 2012)

Well either way, nothing ever as good as listening to the guy on the ground.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 8, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Well either way, nothing ever as good as listening to the guy on the ground.


They exist to give the guy on the ground info to keep him/her alive.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 8, 2012)

SOWT said:


> They exist to give the guy on the ground info to keep him/her alive.


 
agreed


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 9, 2012)

SOWT said:


> Sensor suite being developed by the Global Hawk wasn't working out so it was dropped.
> 
> SR-71- Sometimes fast is good, but RUMINT says the SR was retired because the CSAF (McPeek) was rejected by the unit.
> I suspect they had something else in the works, and that is why it went away.


 
Perhaps thats the case.  But as cool as the Blackbird was, pretty much every function it had can be filled by satellites and UAVs these days.  Not sure if that was the case in '93 though.


----------



## RockHard13F (Nov 5, 2018)

SCCO_Marine said:


> Also keep in mind that he is not just a Naval Aviator but that he came from ANGLICO. Along w/Recon, ANGLICO & 3 other MOS communities were recognized by the JSOU as qualified to rate their own Special Operations Designator.
> 
> *Johnny Micheal Spann, the 1st CIA Operative killed in the GWOT, was a Marine Arty Officer recruited into the CIA SAD's Special Operations Group directly from ANGLICO.
> 
> ANGLICO's Marines have earned a seat at MARSOC's table along with Recon.




I know this is a very old post, but could you direct me to a copy of the report from JSOU you are referencing? I'd like to see it as a reference for something I'm working on.

Thanks,


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 5, 2018)

RockHard13F said:


> I know this is a very old post, but could you direct me to a copy of the report from JSOU you are referencing? I'd like to see it as a reference for something I'm working on.
> 
> Thanks,


I would not hold your breath, he's not been on the site since May of 2012.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 5, 2018)

RockHard13F said:


> I know this is a very old post, but could you direct me to a copy of the report from JSOU you are referencing? I'd like to see it as a reference for something I'm working on.
> 
> Thanks,


I’ve been around for a minute and I’ve never heard of that study. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I will say it doesn’t sound particularly relevant or valid today.


----------



## RockHard13F (Nov 8, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I’ve been around for a minute and I’ve never heard of that study. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I will say it doesn’t sound particularly relevant or valid today.



I know this is off topic from the original thread, but since it has been dead for years...

I actually wanted to see the references study to examine the basis of determining ANGLICO rates among the SOF community,  since I feel like it might actually be _more_ valid today.

The active duty ANGLICOs just got back into the business of jumping officially, and now have a quota to send Marines through Fort Benning again.

The ANGLICO T&R also now includes HRST and small boat/scout swimmer operations- so while the community isn't MARSOC by any means, I'd think it is inching closer to SOF now than it was 5 or 6 years ago in any case.  

I'd like to argue for allowing ANGLICOs that have habitual relationships with certain other service units to attend those service's special skills schools/courses, which by policy we aren't able to do- so any references in support I'd welcome.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 8, 2018)

RockHard13F said:


> I know this is off topic from the original thread, but since it has been dead for years...
> 
> I actually wanted to see the references study to examine the basis of determining ANGLICO rates among the SOF community,  since I feel like it might actually be _more_ valid today.
> 
> ...


I think they send folks to airborne but they don’t have a jump mission. Jump mission equals paraloft and parachutes on the T/E. I also don’t really believe static line parachuting is a viable insertion method anymore honestly.


----------



## RockHard13F (Nov 9, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I think they send folks to airborne but they don’t have a jump mission. Jump mission equals paraloft and parachutes on the T/E. I also don’t really believe static line parachuting is a viable insertion method anymore honestly.



So this FY they have an actual quota to airborne school again, which means jump coded bics at the unit. They were sending people here and there on bic waivers for excess seats before- this straight from a conversation I had last week (week before? My op tempo is running my days together) with MSgt Brukardt at the Benning MARDET.

I am a reservist as of late, so my unit has always had a jump mission- but I was surprised that the Marine Corps brought back  jump billets to the active duty ANGLICOs without permitting them to go to freefall, which is were my interest comes into play here.  

The Marine Corps MMPS course is already hardly able to keep up with demand from Recon and MARSOC- but is the only approved MFF school for attendance by Marine Corps personnel.  Wouldn't it make sense for the Marine Corps to allow units like ANGLICO, dedicated to supporting other service, foreign, and SOF forces, to attend the MFF course of the supported service? This ideq came up when the CO of an Army SF unit asked me about the ability of FCTs to support his teams- he was blown away that we are not allowed to attend training that would enable us to infiltrate with them.

I agree with you, I think against any near peer foe low level static line is dated at best- we should be training free fall.


----------



## Hillclimb (Nov 9, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I think they send folks to airborne but they don’t have a jump mission. Jump mission equals paraloft and parachutes on the T/E.* I also don’t really believe static line parachuting is a viable insertion method anymore honestly*.



This. 



RockHard13F said:


> I'd like to argue for allowing ANGLICOs that have habitual relationships with certain other service units to attend those service's special skills schools/courses, which by policy we aren't able to do- so any references in support I'd welcome.



What other schools/courses would you argue for?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 9, 2018)

ANGLICO traditionally had the static line jump mission to conduct joint operations with Army airborne units for mass parachute insertions. The ANGLICO units may be adding jump billets to their T/O, but I doubt the cash strapped Marine Corps is buying structure to rebuild the ANGLICO paralofts. You can't claim a jump mission without personnel, equipment, safety structure, and training program associated with a paraloft.

The Navy and Marine Corps built our own freefall schools because the Army freefall school could not support our requirements. The Army is not going to open up seats to Marine Corps units without a service validated requirement for training. And money of course. Let's take that a step further. A school without sustainment is a waste of time and money. It's also incredibly dangerous. The Marine Corps would have to purchase the Army's freefall parachute, which I believe is still the MC-4) and train all of our riggers to pack this parachute. Keep in mind that ANGLICO doesn't rate any riggers or a paraloft at this point. 

The Air Force already supports the Army Special Forces community with TACPs and CCTs. The Marine Corps doesn't have the money to invest in freefall parachute programs for all of our specialized communities that could use them such as HET, EOD, and ANGLICO. Furthermore, military freefall school does not grant a unit a freefall capability. That takes months of follow on unit training that is frankly beyond an ANGLICO's capability, or requirement, at the moment and would take a significant investment of time, manpower, and money to achieve. ANGLICO's mission is to provide MAGTF commanders with a liaison capability and to plan, coordinate, employ, and conduct terminal control of fires in support of joint, allied, and coalition forces. That does not require a military freefall capabiltiy. In reality, very few special operations missions require parachute insertion. The kinds of missions that do require this kind of off-set infiltration probably exceed the baseline training of the individual ANGLICO attachment. As I mentioned before, the SF already have fully trained organic JTACs, USAF TACPs, and CCTs that already have advanced special operations and specialized insertion capabilities that can support their more sensitive and high risk fire support coordination requirements. If a SOF unit still really wants to jump an ANGLICO Marine into an operation, they can jump them in a tandem parachute system.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 9, 2018)

Hillclimb said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> What other schools/courses would you argue for?



I know you didn't mention this, but I think it bears mentioning in this conversation. The DOD can use static line airborne operations to deploy forces into an area without a suitable airstrip but I think we are fooling ourselves if we think they can do in a contested area. The muilt mission parachute system  (MMPS) offers a tempting military freefall alternative in the double bag static line configuration but personally I am not sure we should be jumping that configuration anymore because of safety concerns. You will hurt your pride and all your points of contact if you goon up your regular static line exit and landing, but you may kill yourself if you don't follow DBSL procedures correctly. Airborne operations, and military diving for that matter, are inherently dangerous operations and we have to ensure that we do these operations, and train for them, because of operations requirements and not operational desires.

Does ANGLICO send Marines to SERE? That seems like a valid operational requirement.


----------



## RockHard13F (Nov 9, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I know you didn't mention this, but I think it bears mentioning in this conversation. The DOD can use static line airborne operations to deploy forces into an area without a suitable airstrip but I think we are fooling ourselves if we think they can do in a contested area. The muilt mission parachute system  (MMPS) offers a tempting military freefall alternative in the double bag static line configuration but personally I am not sure we should be jumping that configuration anymore because of safety concerns. You will hurt your pride and all your points of contact if you goon up your regular static line exit and landing, but you may kill yourself if you don't follow DBSL procedures correctly. Airborne operations, and military diving for that matter, are inherently dangerous operations and we have to ensure that we do these operations, and train for them, because of operations requirements and not operational desires.
> 
> Does ANGLICO send Marines to SERE? That seems like a valid operational requirement.



I don't know about the active side re: SERE, but we do ostensibly send people to SERE on the reserve side. That said, I have been told I'm possibly the only person in my current unit who has attended SERE- and that was with my civilian government job.


----------



## RockHard13F (Nov 9, 2018)

Hillclimb said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> What other schools/courses would you argue for?



I'd like to see ANGLICO get quotas to the foreign advisor course (in line with T&R requirements to integrate with FSF, and to assist FSF in assault planning, terminal control, etc) and increased SERE throughput.


----------

