# SOF: A Separate Service?



## Boon (Feb 22, 2012)

I read this article this morning and thought I would raise the question here.  I think my thoughts have changed slightly from what they were a year ago, based solely on recent cuts and mission ahead.  I can see positives and negatives to both sides of the coin.  If for some reason this was actually created, it would likely cause some crazy restructuring within SOF.  I would have about a billion questions regarding the logistics, structure, missions, selections, etc though... 



> *It's Time to Make Special Operations a Separate Service*
> 
> If Americans learned anything from the colossally expensive use of large general purpose Army and Marine combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a low-profile mix of special operations forces and covert operators to find and liquidate anti-Western insurgent, terrorist, and criminal elements is a more effective and economical solution in the Middle East. Special forces are also far better suited to foreign internal defense missions than general purpose Army or Marine forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## CDG (Feb 22, 2012)

Even from an outsider's POV there are a lot of questions that come to mind.

Support personnel
How does the new SOF branch glean the support personnel needed for their missions? Do the mother branches have to give up everyone currently assigned in a SOF support/enabler role at the time of the change, or does each unit hold "try-outs" to come with them to the new branch? Does each unit get its own enablers, or are enablers a community asset that are moved around as needed?

Enlistment
Are dudes allowed to just enlist into the SOF branch for a shot? Or do they have to do mandatory conventional time and then transfer over? If they can just enlist, is there a SOF boot-camp program run as a kind of Selection Prep, or do guys enlist and then just head to Selection?

Selection
What do you do with guys that fail/are dropped from Selection courses? Do they automaticaly become enablers? Let them transfer to a conventional branch? Kick them out? What happens with those who fail a Selection and then want to try again down the road, but are now in a conventional branch?

Units
Does each unit still maintain its own Selection course? Or are there more general Selection courses (swim-based or ruck-based) with guys being "picked" or choosing which unit they want to go to? What happens with the SMUs? Are they also their own branch, or do they get folded under the new SOF-only branch?

This is what I can think of off the top of my head..... It sounds like a great idea, but is it worth all the trouble?


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 22, 2012)

This author is a clown who hasnt the slightest clue about what he is writing.


----------



## CDG (Feb 22, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> This author is a clown who hasnt the slightest clue about what he is writing.


 
Do you mind elaborating?


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm confused on how generating a new branch of the military would prove to be cost effective?


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 22, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> I'm confused on how generating a new branch of the military would prove to be cost effective?


 
Well you know, a totally new set of uniforms that are totally distinctive and different weapons are pretty cheap.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 22, 2012)

CDG said:


> Do you mind elaborating?


 


			
				article said:
			
		

> If Americans learned anything from the colossally expensive use of large general purpose Army and Marine combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a low-profile mix of special operations forces and covert operators to find and liquidate anti-Western insurgent, terrorist, and criminal elements is a *more effective and economical solution* in the Middle East.
> 
> Astan was won through conventional air-strikes utilizing SF teams to target enemy locations and strongholds. Iraq was a conventional war fought with conventional forces to include air. Not every country in the ME has the same scenario playing out as the two above. Taking options (COA) off the table based on the previous examples is a poor way to justify a separate branch and a RIF.
> 
> ...


 
Furthermore he fails to take into consideration or at least fails to mention all the stuff you previously mentioned, and more...


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 22, 2012)

Stay the same.  A similar discussion happened up here and in a way it is it's "own" but it draws from all 3 main services for recruitment.  From my perspective, I don't think it should be a direct entry job; you should have to do some time in a conventional unit to gain experience and maturity.


----------



## Ravage (Feb 22, 2012)

I know I'm on the outside looking in, but look at Poland.
We created DWS in 07, and made SOF a seperate branch of the military shortly there after.
Personel is porcured from other services.
It's not perfect, but we are learning.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 22, 2012)

more trouble and headache than it is probably worth.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 22, 2012)

> One way to establish Special Forces as a separate service is to *return the general purpose Marines to control of the Navy* while also permanently reassigning selected Army, Marine and Air Force units to SOF and SF control. This would *keep the number of service branches the same*. All of these proposed changes should be considered in the context of a new National Security Act designed to replace the JCS system with a unified national defense staff under a uniformed national defense chief


 
and the only way I see to read this paragraph is that he recommends getting rid of the Corps to establish a new SOF service.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 22, 2012)

I would actually take the opposite direction.

For full spectrum ops type missions (i.e. Iraq, current Astan, etc) I think SOF needs more interaction with CF. I think the BCT’s should have separate SOF-TF (or even a small SOF element intergraded) within the BCT’s. I am not talking about SF, but more like a well trained Intel section, PSY/CA team and a well trained Ranger platoon (HVT’s, CT & HR type mission). This would allow BCT commanders the resources to run their own battle space without having several SOF units operating within his A/O. Any JTF Intel can come down to the BCT and that specific SOF attachment would have the ability to work it. I think it would bridge a lot of gaps and foster better results.

For the small foot print ops (Philippines, Libya, Oman, etc) I would leave that up to SOCOM, JSOC, SF types. Allow them to pull over CF as they need them, etc.


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2012)

What if our combatant commanders and the DoD used SOF units they way they were intended? A seperate branch only makes sense when you're dealing with assholes guys like Rummy and Schwartzkopf.

I think I'm stupider for having read the article.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 22, 2012)

I found the article kind of amusing, because it makes an intellectually interesting proposal, based on a decidedly wrong and simplistic line of reasoning.

But, IMHO, the fact that SOCOM now wants to be more involved in the HR side (promotions etc.) of SOF personnel, plus the delicate SOCOM effort to standardise some/most SOF training, across the Services, kind of begs the question "what could be next".

On the other hand, all over the world, Services are separated by the domain they operate, (Land Sea Air).

The USMC is an exception. They advocate operating at the "seams" and have always felt their existence is threatened. 

As an outsider I think that putting USMC under the Navy would not fly and that a fifth Service would be too much.

But as long as we are in this line of reasoning (that steps on an awful lot of toes and traditions), I for one   would find it far more interesting *if the USMC was streamlined and merged with SOF.*

"A few good men" operating at the seams, with their own logistics/support and special assets (air naval) getting most of the small wars pie etc etc.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 22, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> I for one  would find it far more interesting *if the USMC was streamlined and merged with SOF.*


 Combine Marine Public Affairs with SEAL Public Affairs?!?! There would be no room left on the airwaves or internets.

Reed


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 22, 2012)

reed11b said:


> Combine Marine Public Affairs with SEAL Public Affairs?!?! There would be no room left on the airwaves or internets.


 
Yup, this Service would trully RULE!!!


----------



## M482012AN5 (Feb 22, 2012)

Most people are familiar with the nightmare that standing DHS was, with its relevance/efficacy still very much in contention. This establishment of a new service may not take much more than changing the signs on the buildings, but I think the successes of SOF lie heavily in their ability to bend the traditional bureaucratic confines in the interest of mission accomplishment, with a pragmatic take on how they aggregate and utilize mission specific resources. The structural ambiguity, and the joint IC/SOF community's ability to manipulate it in their favor, is an asset, not a restraint. 

I agree with surgicalcric, it's certainly not a RAND white paper.


----------



## Bloodline (Feb 22, 2012)

> What if our combatant commanders and the DoD used SOF units they way they were intended? A seperate branch only makes sense when you're dealing with assholes guys like Rummy and Schwartzkopf.
> 
> I think I'm stupider for having read the article.


 
Perfect. 

I'm searching for the author and the most likely individual is this guy. http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/

Non-SOF Army Tanker who commanded in the battle of 73 Easting....which explains his "informed" opinion. Now he makes a living consulting and as a media "military expert."


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2012)

beard0352 said:


> I'm searching for the author and the most likely individual is this guy. http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/
> 
> Non-SOF Army Tanker who commanded in the battle of 73 Easting....which explains his "informed" opinion. Now he makes a living consulting and as a media "military expert."


 
I think they are one and the same, hence my response below:

Fuck this guy, fuck 73 Easting, and fuck COL/ BGEN/ Whateverheisthesedays McMasters.

I won't take away anything from what they did at 73 Easting, but after that? We have a serious problem when these guys are seen as the future of the US Army. The future? Take MacGregor. His book was noticed by the neocons. When Franks, Shinseki, and a host of others at CENTCOM and the JCS told Rummy 125k troops wasn't nearly enough, Rummy went apeshit. Why? Rummy believed that they could take and hold Iraq with as little as 75K? Why? Doug MacGregor. Rummy was so incensed that his generals told him 300k plus that he sent MacGregor to CENTCOM to talk some sense into them. They basically put the guy in a conference room and ignored him; I don't blame CENTCOM. A prime reason the US went in with as few troops as we did was due in large part to COL MacGregor's behind-the-scenes dicksucking he did on Rumsfeld's staff. So, the future of the Army is a back-stabbing little bitch of a man politician who couldn't even pick up a star despite being a favorite of the SECDEF and his posse?

McMasters: What a trainwreck.

It boggles my mind that one battle created so many "reformers" and now one of them knows what to do with our nation's SOF?

I wouldn't wipe my ass with the Chicago Tribune as long as the port-a-johns had John Wayne toilet paper.


----------



## Brill (Feb 22, 2012)

Wait a minute...They're not already?


----------



## Bloodline (Feb 22, 2012)

I left a comment on the article. I'm not qualified to opine about the needs SOF because my knowledge of it is all second hand, and that was my point regarding his opinions as well.



> Why would a former tank officer think he know's more about Special Operations than the men of the Special Operations community? The inidividual components of SOCOM are full of warrior-diplomat-scholars who've spent the last decade fighting the GWOT and who've spent a career studying Special Operations at a Ph.D level.
> 
> Let's ask them what they need and not leave it to a tanker turned "analyst for hire."


----------



## 0699 (Feb 22, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> I found the article kind of amusing, because it makes an intellectually interesting proposal, based on a decidedly wrong and simplistic line of reasoning.
> 
> But, IMHO, the fact that SOCOM now wants to be more involved in the HR side (promotions etc.) of SOF personnel, plus the delicate SOCOM effort to standardise some/most SOF training, across the Services, kind of begs the question "what could be next".
> 
> ...


 
Bad idea.  Different missions and different skill sets required.

The Corps' primary mission is entrance from/in the littoral zones.  Everything else we do can be done by the Army.  IME the Corps gets asked to do things the Army does not because we can do it better, but because we can do it cheaper and with less tail.  Or at least we could; OIF taught us a lot of bad habits about spending money on "stuff" and logistics tails that will be very hard to unlearn.  Also, when we cross that beach/port/coast (whether by AAV, helo, CRRC, or LCAC), we land with everything we need to meet all parts of the threat spectrum; infantry, tanks, artillery, air, NGF, etc, etc.  We also have our entire logistics package that supports that entrance, intertwined and commanded by the MAGTF commander.  AFAIK, SOCOM units aren't designed to work that way, nor should they.

Combing the Corps and SOCOM will create a beast with too many missions.  And we all know what happens to an organization that tries to do too many things well.  Hell, Orville Redenbacher had advice for us; maybe if more of our leaders listened to him we'd be better off...


----------



## Manolito (Feb 22, 2012)

I think the entire military has room to change. I think one military with different sections is the answer. We use to see the planes for everybody developed for one service today they just change the landing gear to fit a launch and recovery from a carrier. We could have a branch called logistics. One called littoral landings and beach head securement. (Marines) Air division within that division if it flies it is yours including ship board aircraft. Heavy weapons section down to the 81mm mortart. Ground assault (Army) Special purpose operations. (Intel secret infiltration and operations) Food section. self evident. Just think of the expertise each section could bring to the table while being supported by the logistics branch who buys and supports one uniform available in summer and winter camo and not camo. Every piece of equipment has the same fuel filter, oilfilter, and air filter. boggles the mind. If it floats you guessed it the afloat section.
One general running the whole show supported by the specific sections required for the mission. No fighting no thirteen different intel departments not sharing their information.Just seems simple to me.


----------



## CDG (Feb 22, 2012)

0699 said:


> Combing the Corps and SOCOM will create a beast with too many missions.


 
Not to mention all the Sgt. Majors and Master Gunnery Sergeants dropping dead from aneurysms brought on by too much long hair and hands in pockets at one time.


----------



## Powder (Feb 22, 2012)

The idea is very intriguing BUT it would not work out in the end for many of the reasons listed above.


----------



## moobob (Feb 23, 2012)

The South Africans kind of have a version of this...


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 23, 2012)

I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't think it would work well.  It smacks of "SOF is awesome and can cure everything" bandwagoning, and it sounds like it comes from someone who has forgotten (or never knew) the 5th SOF Truth.  I also don't understand this part:



> Thus, it's time to make special operations a separate service. But Americans in and out of uniform must scale back their expectations regarding what such a service could achieve on its own.


 
It seems like the author is saying that if we made SOF a separate service, it would be  a less-capable force (which is why Americans would have to "scale back their expectations").  If that is the case, then why are we even having a conversation about this COA when it should be very clear to everyone who is keeping up with the topic that the expectations of SOF are only going to increase?

I have heard some good arguments for establishing SOF as a separate service, this was not one of them.


----------



## Scotth (Feb 23, 2012)

If your looking for a star on your shoulder or a senior NCO slot I think it's a helluva good idea.  When hasn't more bureaucracy been the answer?:-"

Nothing he says really changes how the military conducts it business.  It doesn't make the military any more lethal all it does is moves the same pieces around on the board and changes the org chart.

If he doesn't like the size of the foot print we had in Iraq and Afghanistan nothing he suggests will change that.  We currently have the capability to go in with a large or small foot print it is all a matter of strategy.  Creating a new service doesn't change that.  Changing that strategy starts at the top of the civilian leadership.

He talks about the declining military budget but then suggests adding more over head to the military.  I just don't get that?


----------



## dknob (Feb 23, 2012)

Wow what idiocracy. Since when does a Ph.D. and studying SOF make you a credible policy maker on such issues? Guy would be no different then an airsofter with a Ph.D.

A SOF branch would be such a mess.
For one the quality of the soldiers will undoubtedly be lowered as the process to chapter out or send the failures to a different branch would become such a nuisance and headache they will decide to just keep them.

The only changes that should happen in this community is a higher degree of liaisonship and some moving around of forces.
Some things that I would change:
- a full fledged CIA office within JSOC at Pope. (shit might even be one, I wouldn't know though)
- a Ranger Battalion in Fort Bragg.. we have such a symbiotic relationship with the SMU that I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet.
- 160th and all their forces at Campbell.. no offense to 5th Group, but it's not really a secret that a JSOC or Ranger overseas objective will receive 160th support before SF does because of the time sensitivity revolving the difference in operational needs. 160th needs to have a presence in Ft Bragg and less of a presence in FCKY.
- 160th is in WA with 2nd Batt, Savannah with 1st Batt, but not Fort Benning with 3rd Batt. I know the logistics would suck, but 3rd Batt and Regimental HQ should make the move to Fort Bragg as should major air elements from Campbell, preferrably 1/160th.

2 cents.
Feel free to disect


----------



## Boon (Feb 23, 2012)

dknob said:


> but not Fort Benning with 3rd Batt.


 
I say move 3rd to Hawaii for our years of suffering


----------



## dknob (Feb 23, 2012)

haha I liked Columbus. It grew on me.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 23, 2012)

Dknob I like your overall concept. It would take some energetic and forward thinking leaders to make it happen, but I think it would be well worth the move.

I have also wondered why Regiment doesn't colaborate more with SWCS when it comes to training, if 75th moved to bragg, how nice would it be for the ROC to have all the resources that SWCS has as far as conducting RASP, SURT, etc. All the medics that had to go to SOCM would already be right there as well. Again, it would be a bitch to accomplish, but I think it would be worth the effort. The move would also enable all the head sheds of USASOC to be in the same place.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Mar 3, 2012)

Seriously, who decided to put 3rd Batt and the 75th HQ in Benning? As for 160th in Lewis and HAAF, I don't think those guys actually ever flew Rangers. I believe 3/160th supports SF and SEALs. Not sure about 4/160th.


----------



## goon175 (Mar 4, 2012)

we did training with 3/160th regularly


----------



## Brian1/75 (Mar 4, 2012)

goon175 said:


> we did training with 3/160th regularly


Hum, the few times I asked around they were never from 3/160th...matter fact they scoffed at the idea though that I might be like confusing someone from 1/75 with 3/75. I'll be honest in saying they were just a bunch of dudes with black helicopters to me.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 4, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Seriously, who decided to put 3rd Batt and the 75th HQ in Benning? ....


 
Maybe the same people who decided to move 5th Group to Campbell instead of Ft. Bliss or Ft. Huachuca?


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 4, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Hum, the few times I asked around they were never from 3/160th...matter fact they scoffed at the idea though that I might be like confusing someone from 1/75 with 3/75. I'll be honest in saying they were just a bunch of dudes with black helicopters to me.


 
If you were flying around in anything smaller than a Blackhawk, chances are it wasn't 3/160 ;)


----------



## goon175 (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm just talking about training at hunter, not deployments. Going over to there place to do aircraft fam training, elevators, things like that. Main point I'm getting at, is that it wasn't totally useless having 1/75 co-located with 3/160th, as it provided good training opportunities that all the leadership had to do was ask. I have no idea who flew us around overseas other than the fact that they were from 160th.


----------



## Loki (Apr 4, 2012)

Nice pretty concept if elephants could fly... The guy that wrote this needs to put the dope down.


----------

