Special Operations Forces for the Decisive Decade

[Marauder06]

Interesting read, especially when you consider who the authors are. Probably useful for anyone in, or considering joining, SOF.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...9YudcwTFBDjSUG8FAU_aem_FkwBaxBZytHx94K4rnlelw

 

[Devildoc]

I am not sure there is much there that hasn't been said since the end of GWOT, and it kinda reads like a commercial. That said, nothing is incorrect, and I know SOF is pivoting to meet demands in areas previously threadbare, especially in the use of tech, robotics, and drones (UAVs, whatever we want to call them). I have heard discussions of the army and the Marines creating new SOF-centric MOSs to support these areas (18 series and MARSOC MOS respectively).

I am not surprised they touched on the 'people are more important than hardware' issue. I think they should continue to look at the entry aspect because they never fill the billets, as well as the retention part. Walk through Smoke Bomb Hill or Stone Bay and you hear a lot of grumbling and see people exiting the force. Again, not sure it's a new issue, but evolutionary for sure.

Like all the branches moving to new tech and new threats there is also a paradigm shift with SOF in the same regards, and I think it's be a while before we see what that product looks like.

Interesting article.

 

[AWP]

I'm a support guy decades removed from the game and even I know you can take a bunch of tech or words or software or anything and drop that into a team's lap. A fully plussed up ODA (12 people, ain't nobody got time for that!) will make "it" work because the process finds those people. Even a 60 IQ Bravo will learn to fly a UAV if needed. It might cost a lot, but I'm sure the Echo was busy with an unneeded Cisco cert at the time.

Can an 18B learn to fly a UAV? Yes. Should they? Ehh. That's SOF's way forward: Mission sets stack and people can only go so far. SFAS works for decade after decade because the community knows what it needs.

But please, don't give a Bravo a UAV. That's fucking stupid.

 

[Teufel]

TLDR: Congress please don’t reduce our budget, we are still doing cool stuff.

 

[Devildoc]

I'm a support guy decades removed from the game and even I know you can take a bunch of tech or words or software or anything and drop that into a team's lap. A fully plussed up ODA (12 people, ain't nobody got time for that!) will make "it" work because the process finds those people. Even a 60 IQ Bravo will learn to fly a UAV if needed. It might cost a lot, but I'm sure the Echo was busy with an unneeded Cisco cert at the time.

Can an 18B learn to fly a UAV? Yes. Should they? Ehh. That's SOF's way forward: Mission sets stack and people can only go so far. SFAS works for decade after decade because the community knows what it needs.

But please, don't give a Bravo a UAV. That's fucking stupid.

My conversations with the people at Bragg have been casual, just chit chat. Nothing secret of course. It appears right now a lot of the tech burden is on the echo, and the ones I have talked to said it was fine but the technology is growing so much in complexity and variety is getting very difficult to Master all of the echo duties with those that would be included. It was out of that there has been discussion of adding an additional MOS to the 18 series.

We know that on paper to ODA is 12 but the reality is a lot of ODA's deploy light just because they don't have the manpower. Gone are the days of the "Super ODA" but we also know they can be augmented variety of ways. It seems in my depleted and plebian state of mind you can augment the door kicker team or the support MOS who can do it, just as they have done with other skill sets and specialties.

I guess the point is at the end of the day comes back down to assessment selection and retention. If you're not getting the bodies in, some of that work ain't going to get done. Or it gets done at a cost of sacrificing other jobs.

 

[Box]

People are more important than hardware but they aren't buying into our narrative and recruiting is down - sooooo.....
....lets dump a metric shit ton of money into AIML

 

[AWP]

My conversations with the people at Bragg have been casual, just chit chat. Nothing secret of course. It appears right now a lot of the tech burden is on the echo, and the ones I have talked to said it was fine but the technology is growing so much in complexity and variety is getting very difficult to Master all of the echo duties with those that would be included. It was out of that there has been discussion of adding an additional MOS to the 18 series.

We know that on paper to ODA is 12 but the reality is a lot of ODA's deploy light just because they don't have the manpower. Gone are the days of the "Super ODA" but we also know they can be augmented variety of ways. It seems in my depleted and plebian state of mind you can augment the door kicker team or the support MOS who can do it, just as they have done with other skill sets and specialties.

I guess the point is at the end of the day comes back down to assessment selection and retention. If you're not getting the bodies in, some of that work ain't going to get done. Or it gets done at a cost of sacrificing other jobs.

@Marauder06 did this guy just make a case for a support MOS selection process?

Hear me out, humor me, what if there were dedicated SIGINT guys who could deploy with an ODA? What if an ODA needed a UAV operator or an extra commo guy?

I guess if my mom had balls she'd be my dad. Good luck, Support Company, I'm sure you'll figure it out and the gaining ODA will welcome you with open arms...

 

[Devildoc]

@Marauder06 did this guy just make a case for a support MOS selection process?

Hear me out, humor me, what if there were dedicated SIGINT guys who could deploy with an ODA? What if an ODA needed a UAV operator or an extra commo guy?

I guess if my mom had balls she'd be my dad. Good luck, Support Company, I'm sure you'll figure it out and the gaining ODA will welcome you with open arms...

The Navy does it. The Marines do it. Can't the army figure it out?

 

[Marauder06]

The Navy does it. The Marines do it. Can't the army figure it out?

"The Army" has figured it out. "Special Forces" is the only major ARSOF unit that hasn't cracked doesn't want to crack the code on selecting its support troops.

 

[Kraut783]

Lots of SOF support guys get attached to ODA's...be it PSYOP, SOT-A, TACP...etc. Can't the ODA get the specialty attached to them for the mission? or are you talking about support guys being permanently attached to an ODA, or ODB?

 

[Box]

I feel like I just transported down to the planet from the USS Enterprise.

Why cant SF guys blah blah blah support guys?
...seriously?

My ODA had a CATA's and TPT's assigned to the team as needed over 25 years ago -as well as other enablers whenever needed. I've had MID guys attached to the ODA. I've had mechanics driving my truck during deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The idea that "we" need to invent an MOS just so that a tech guy can have an 18Gadget MOS or an 18UAS or 18Hacker or 18 whatever comes next is just wasted man hours on programs that wont survive long term....
How many people remember how long that stupid fucking idea about "18Language" went over and how long THAT shit lasted?

So - lets say we get an new 18-Tech MOS - then what?

18D - hey tech guy, get over here and interface with this med program so I can do real time med care with the new high speed AIML diagnostics program,

18E - hey tech guy, get over here and get my new five layer super encrypted drogans decoder wheel up and running

18C - hey tech guy, what say you come help me with the bridging robot so we can move our stuff across the canyon

18B - hey tech guy, come help me do PMCS on my ED209 Mod.3 - it keeps killing all the elders when I take it to the shura

18Z - hey fucko, come help me animate these power point slides


...or we could do this thing called innovating - and actually EVOLVE what it is that our SF guys do - but that will never happen for SEVERAL reasons


1) "Innovating" in the US Army has to take place within the confines of the current political narrative or it will never get funded

2) Those crusty old civilians that do all the paper work will (and DO) drag their feet on anything that seems to break their idea of traditional SOF roles - because they know that the last guy liked monolithic Daniel Defense uppers - the current guy likes jail broke chinse drones, and the next guy is going to want Gisselle triggers in all of those new 6.8mm rifles we just bought - and the speculation is that the guy after him is going to want to change the name of the CIF - again

3) SF is getting more and more and more like an infantry squad in the 82d beefed up by enablers while the 75th gets more and more and more like old school autonomous SF guys

4) SF guys will continue to walk around "in uniform" with Black Tennis shoes, Bass Pro Shops Baseball Hat, porn star mustaches, and mirrored sunglasses, while bemoaning about nobody wants to uphold standards any more

5) Nobody wants to be the one responsible for completely redefining EXACTLY what it is an SF guy should be doing in the 21st century

6) Its a lot easier (and a lot more fun) to just buy cool shit to play with than it is to holistically restructure the way you do business




The following quote is often attributed to Petronius Arbiter - but even if it was actually Eric Cartman - it doesn't ring any less true with regard to the US Military...

“We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”​

 

[Devildoc]

I feel like I just transported down to the planet from the USS Enterprise.

Why cant SF guys blah blah blah support guys?
...seriously?

My ODA had a CATA's and TPT's assigned to the team as needed over 25 years ago -as well as other enablers whenever needed. I've had MID guys attached to the ODA. I've had mechanics driving my truck during deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The idea that "we" need to invent an MOS just so that a tech guy can have an 18Gadget MOS or an 18UAS or 18Hacker or 18 whatever comes next is just wasted man hours on programs that wont survive long term....
How many people remember how long that stupid fucking idea about "18Language" went over and how long THAT shit lasted?

So - lets say we get an new 18-Tech MOS - then what?

18D - hey tech guy, get over here and interface with this med program so I can do real time med care with the new high speed AIML diagnostics program,

18E - hey tech guy, get over here and get my new five layer super encrypted drogans decoder wheel up and running

18C - hey tech guy, what say you come help me with the bridging robot so we can move our stuff across the canyon

18B - hey tech guy, come help me do PMCS on my ED209 Mod.3 - it keeps killing all the elders when I take it to the shura

18Z - hey fucko, come help me animate these power point slides


...or we could do this thing called innovating - and actually EVOLVE what it is that our SF guys do - but that will never happen for SEVERAL reasons


1) "Innovating" in the US Army has to take place within the confines of the current political narrative or it will never get funded

2) Those crusty old civilians that do all the paper work will (and DO) drag their feet on anything that seems to break their idea of traditional SOF roles - because they know that the last guy liked monolithic Daniel Defense uppers - the current guy likes jail broke chinse drones, and the next guy is going to want Gisselle triggers in all of those new 6.8mm rifles we just bought - and the speculation is that the guy after him is going to want to change the name of the CIF - again

3) SF is getting more and more and more like an infantry squad in the 82d beefed up by enablers while the 75th gets more and more and more like old school autonomous SF guys

4) SF guys will continue to walk around "in uniform" with Black Tennis shoes, Bass Pro Shops Baseball Hat, porn star mustaches, and mirrored sunglasses, while bemoaning about nobody wants to uphold standards any more

5) Nobody wants to be the one responsible for completely redefining EXACTLY what it is an SF guy should be doing in the 21st century

6) Its a lot easier (and a lot more fun) to just buy cool shit to play with than it is to holistically restructure the way you do business




The following quote is often attributed to Petronius Arbiter - but even if it was actually Eric Cartman - it doesn't ring any less true with regard to the US Military...

“We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”​

If SOF just recruited and retained dudes maybe it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Marauder06]

Lots of SOF support guys get attached to ODA's...be it PSYOP, SOT-A, TACP...etc. Can't the ODA get the specialty attached to them for the mission? or are you talking about support guys being permanently attached to an ODA, or ODB?

Neither--I'm talking about support MOSs in SF Groups having an enabler assessment, selection, and training program like most (all?) other ARSOF units with a major direct action mission do.

 

[Devildoc]

Neither--I'm talking about support MOSs in SF Groups having an enabler assessment, selection, and training program like most (all?) other ARSOF units with a major direct action mission do.

I do not know how the Rangers or AF do it. I know Raiders have two sets of enablers (SOCS, SOCS-S) who have their own assessment and pipeline, and some sailors attached to NSW have something similar. The model is there.

I think it's a relevant conversation because the attached article specifically discusses "air defense, robotics, unmanned systems integration, information operations, and the integration of artificial intelligence", all of which are enormously resource intensive operations that require a specific type of training, not an add-on "skill identifier."

Does SF need an 18-series MOS just for this? Dunno; maybe, maybe not. But there is more than one way to skin this cat and the support/enabler MOS A&S pipeline is one way that we know works.

 

[Marauder06]

SF has a pretty good-sized contingent of support personnel. The problem is, they don't (or didn't, I've been out for a while) meaningfully invest in them. Like... at all. Organizationally (vs. individually) they seem to not even think of their support personnel as part of the team.

Because of that, I tell cadets going into support branches that if the only way they can get their foot in the SOF door is in the SF Regiment then do it, but otherwise do literally anything else. Literally any other unit.

I was never on an ODA so I'm not going to speculate too much on what is needed at that level. But it seems to me like each ODA has/should have an 18F and an 18Z, and anything that happens on the regular in these emerging fields, like UAVs, info ops, etc., can and probably should be handled by them. Anything irregular or niche, or super-specialized, should be retained at the ODB or higher. At the end of the day there is a limit to things that people can be really good at, so I think we should allow the ODAs the freedom to be really good at their core mission sets and task supporting elements as necessary.

 

[Cookie_]

I'd give my left nut to have an actual A&S program for enablers in group. It doesn't even need to be crazy, just something to weed out the kids who don't have the drive to preform.

It already unofficially happens through the "he's a good 25/35/91/68/92 series dude, I want him attached with my team" but that is a bandaid when we need stiches.

 

[Cookie_]

SF has a pretty good-sized contingent of support personnel. The problem is, they don't (or didn't, I've been out for a while) meaningfully invest in them. Like... at all. Organizationally (vs. individually) they seem to not even think of their support personnel as part of the team.

It's all based on "good dude" vibes for support. If you're an enabler in the BSC or the command team knows you? You can get schools.

In a FSC with a 18 series guy who cares about enablers? You can get schools.

Are you an E4 mechanic or commo kid who could greatly benefit the unit by going to follow on training? Kick rocks, nobody "knows you", so why waste money on you?

*This is based on what I've seen of my unit and others in person. I know other units are much better with their enablers, but I've only heard that second hand.

 

[Box]

Does SF need an 18-series MOS just for this?

UNfortunately, if one was subjected to that same monologues that I have to sit through, the answer from many senior leaders is currently, "Yes"
"Yes we do"
"...and I want it now"

As far as establishing a RELEVANT and effective A&S program for support guys - I'm sure that those who are serious about having a smooth running machine would love to have an A&S program like those that exist in other units - bu there are a few cultural and financial real world kinks blocking the progress...

1st and foremost, when we are already hurting for quality support folks, we don't have the wiggle room to 'get picky'
-to my point: USASOC has nearly as many paid parachutist positions as the rest of the Army - yet, we cannot get the Quartermaster center to "work with us" on a permanent career path for the Riggers. It is a multi-generational battle that is nowhere close to being won.

The process has been toyed with in the past. We tried to institute an identifier that would hopefully lock guys into the unit - problem is - funding is a thing and career progression is important. If people think the pyramid for SF guys gets steep at upper echelons - imagine trying to make E8 as a parachute rigger when the rigger shed NCOIC is an E7 and the company 1SG is almost always (99.9% of the time) going to be an 18 Series that needs a 1SG job to be 'Most Qualified' for E9.

We could have expanded our role in FID and created a much broader set of career options for the Combat Support and Combat Sevice support MOS community - but a couple of former 18A's that had risen to the GO ranks "created" the SFABs to do what SF guy SHOULD be doing when they aren't looking for excuses to conduct DA raids in Afghanistan.

Instead - we have SFG's AND SFABs zealously pursuing ways to justify their budgets and existence.
...which means there are very few dollars available to creat a gut check requirement for support guys in the groups

I cant speak for all of the groups - but there was a time when 3rd had a training program for the support MOS's but it was not a selction program - it was done after they reported in to the group.
Even that had it detractors - the same SDF guys that would piss and moan about the support guys "not knowing shit" were the ones at the front of the line to complain when the support guys were "shooting up all of our 9mm ammo"
...or fucking us out of time at the baffle range
...or just bitching about getting stuck on the detail to run the training for the support troops

There needs to be a sea change and a return to accountability before the problem will ever solve itself and as long as I copntinue to hear staff officers say things like "we arent going to tel;l the groups how to train" - well, that sea change aint coming any time soon boys

Whats the alternative?
...automated check out counters, jail broken Mavicas, and robot dogs.

 

[Devildoc]

UNfortunately, if one was subjected to that same monologues that I have to sit through, the answer from many senior leaders is currently, "Yes"
"Yes we do"
"...and I want it now"

The problem with establishing an A&S program for support guys like those that exist in other units has a couple of of real world kinks in it:

1st and foremost, when we are already hurting for quality support folks, we don't have the wiggle room to 'get picky'
-to my point: USASOC has nearly as many paid parachutist positions as the rest of the Army - yet, we cannot get the Quartermaster center to "work with us" on a permanent career path for the Riggers. It is a multi-generational battle that is nowhere close to being won.

The process has been toyed with in the past. We tried to institute an identifier that would hopefully lock guys into the unit - problem is - funding is a thing and career progression is important. If people think the pyramid for SF guys gets steep at upper echelons - imagine trying to make E8 as a parachute rigger when the rigger shed NCOIC is an E7 and the company 1SG is almost always (99.9% of the time) going to be an 18 Series that needs a 1SG job to be 'Most Qualified' for E9.

We could have expanded our role in FID and created a much broader set of career options for the Combat Support and Combat Sevice support MOS community - but a couple of former 18A's that had risen to the GO ranks "created" the SFABs to do what SF guy SHOULD be doing when they aren't looking for excuses to conduct DA raids in Afghanistan.

Instead - we have SFG's AND SFABs zealously pursuing ways to justify their budgets and existence.
...which means there are very few dollars available to creat a gut check requirement for support guys in the groups

I cant speak for all of the groups - but there was a time when 3rd had a training program for the support MOS's but it was not a selction program - it was done after they reported in to the group.
Even that had it detractors - the same SDF guys that would piss and moan about the support guys "not knowing shit" were the ones at the front of the line to complain when the support guys were "shooting up all of our 9mm ammo"
...or fucking us out of time at the baffle range
...or just bitching about getting stuck on the detail to run the training for the support troops

There needs to be a sea change and a return to accountability before the problem will ever solve itself and as long as I copntinue to hear staff officers say things like "we arent going to tel;l the groups how to train" - well, that sea change aint coming any time soon boys

Whats the alternative?
...automated check out counters, jail broken Mavicas, and robot dogs.

Legit question: when the Marines stood up MARSOC it baked these things in, and for them, it works. But it works largely on the fact that's the way it's been since its creation. Would SF have had an easier path to A&S and integration of support MOSs if this had been the case rather than how it's evolved and gotten to this point?

I wonder if MARSOC looked at SF and saw this as an issue, and conscientiously created its support pathways the way it did to mitigate it.

I totally get that all units need to evolve and have the latitude to evolve, especially in SOF where mission sets can change so quickly. I also understand human nature and psychology and understand the issues you bring up and how that is a friction point in being able to evolve.

 

[AWP]

I was never on an ODA so I'm not going to speculate too much on what is needed at that level. But it seems to me like each ODA has/should have an 18F and an 18Z, and anything that happens on the regular in these emerging fields, like UAVs, info ops, etc., can and probably should be handled by them. Anything irregular or niche, or super-specialized, should be retained at the ODB or higher.

I can't believe I'm going to defend the 18 series guys. @Box

By the time you add on additional duties over and above the SF MOS, those guys are pretty task saturated. If we look at what they must stay current on their available time is in the toilet.

ODB...unless the MTOE drastically changed the company "head shed" was a Major, a Captain, 1 admin, 1 CBRN, and 1 supply guy. SIGDETs chop 25 series to the ODB often enough it isn't unusual (I'm sure other MOS' are as well) and now we're back to some A&S program for enablers. Also...great, you have UAVs (this reminds me of the Group-level aviation assets and how that fed into the 160th's founding...what a shitshow), counter UAV's, and whatever else as well-dressed SF battalion needs to succeed. Do you house them at the battalion level? Group Support Company? "High demand, low density" and all that.

Ultimately, adding additional requirements means other requirements will fall by the wayside.

Musing in general, an ODA's size and composition was selected for a reason. Start adding attachments at the team level and now you have an understrength platoon to manage. By "manage" I mean "Manage to watch the SFABs do your core job while you write a CONOP for a DA mission that will be rejected out of hand."