Why is CA considered SOF?

The Hate Ape

The Hate Ape

MARSOC
SOF Support
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
602
Location
West Coast
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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,
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"...
Click to expand...

By that definition my unit in Vietnam, the 2nd Combined Action Group, would've fit in the SOF category.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

ni.ks9041990
Introduction - NS
Replies
14
Views
241
ni.ks9041990
ni.ks9041990
RackMaster
British departure means uncertain future for Alberta's massive Suffield military base
Replies
0
Views
113
RackMaster
RackMaster
Gunz
MajGen William Anders USAF
Replies
1
Views
207
Kraut783
Kraut783
R
  • Locked
Civil Affairs / 38B / CAAS / CAQC / SERE / Gryphon Group
Replies
2
Views
4K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Gunz
Aircraft Porn Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater C27Js
Replies
8
Views
785
Gunz
Gunz
Back
Top