3
3
0
"the solution is not to give SOCOM more resources and more authorities and permissions. This will not fix the problem, in fact, given SOCOM’s penchant for hunting terrorists, it could make the problem worse (the problem being U.S. national security). If my theory on SOF is valid, and having a standing SOF organization paradoxically makes that organization less “special,” more bureaucratic and misaligned as to U.S. strategic priorities, then a thorough analysis of current requirements should be undertaken. If, as I have asserted, there is found to be a need for a specially selected, equipped, and trained (and, I’d add: “managed”, which is not what we do today) group of personnel, then what those personnel are required to do should be explicit and should not be redundant. Those forces should then be fenced for those explicit mission sets. Guiding those forces while deployed should be Interagency Task Forces, instead of regionally-aligned bureaucracies that serve as the final tours for most of their commanders, a way-station for star-chasing officers in search of a joint job, and a place to dig-in bureaucratic fighting positions for civilians who many, though definitely not all, are simply chasing their next GS level promotion or are content on just treading water until they retire for a second time."
What Can Be Done About SOCOM? | Small Wars Journal
Posted from smallwarsjournal.comPosted in these groups: 
Special Operations
Organization
PSYOP Specialist
Civil Affairs
Special Forces
Special Operations Organization PSYOP Specialist Civil Affairs Special Forces
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Disagree, SOF continues to be a low cost (in comparison to Ships and Airplanes)
specialized forces have to have overlapping skill sets because there aren't enough SOF units to be everywhere at once.
specialized forces have to have overlapping skill sets because there aren't enough SOF units to be everywhere at once.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
While I agree that SOCOM has some redundancies that can be reduced, I don't agree with the author's overall perspective on SOCOM. The premise that you can stand down everyone and then build them up as the need arises has been proven problematic time and time again.
I will agree with the author that some SOF units have strayed far from their original purpose. Navy SEALS need to stick with marine (water) operations. There is some redundancy issues also. Do we really need both 1st SFOD-D and DEVGRU? They both do the essentially same job.
What I mostly disagree with is his opinion that we could disband SOF air assets The 160th SOAR flies specialized aircraft and employ tactics that regular Army pilots don't train on. AFSOC does the same thing. AFSOC has very unique aircraft that are employed in unique ways that does not translate well outside of the SOF environment.
Maybe what needs to be changed is the way SOF is used. SOF are problem solvers on the tactical level. They should not be involved in strategic level strategy.
I will agree with the author that some SOF units have strayed far from their original purpose. Navy SEALS need to stick with marine (water) operations. There is some redundancy issues also. Do we really need both 1st SFOD-D and DEVGRU? They both do the essentially same job.
What I mostly disagree with is his opinion that we could disband SOF air assets The 160th SOAR flies specialized aircraft and employ tactics that regular Army pilots don't train on. AFSOC does the same thing. AFSOC has very unique aircraft that are employed in unique ways that does not translate well outside of the SOF environment.
Maybe what needs to be changed is the way SOF is used. SOF are problem solvers on the tactical level. They should not be involved in strategic level strategy.
(2)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
Like your point on the 160th. The other aspect of that is if you do not have it directly as a resource - you may not be the priority to get it from the conventional force commander..... because your taking away his assets for a mission set that is not his... and while it sounds like an item an agreement can be made on... think we all seen what comes next... --- again - Excellent Point!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I enjoyed the read Sir. Regardless, of length.
I was under the impression SOF were derived form SOF capable. For example: Marines from Charlie Infantry Company trained within their MOS and understood setting up perimeter protection, patrol... Those same individuals within Charlie Company that had 285, or better on their PFT could try out for Force Recon. (I realize Force Recon has had a name change and the Marine Corp has moved special operators into the inclusive SOF).
If standards are lowered for individuals to call themselves Marines and work inside the special operation capable environment, where do the SOF get their new members? The SOF PFT has not changed. But, the PFT to be Marine Corp Infantry has.
Is the goal to separate the sheep from the wolves? Knowing only a small number of sheep can pass the SOF PFT? Also, if Army Rangers go back to Infantry units, who will be called on the kick the enemy's arse? You can't have one Army Ranger leading 11 others in the Squad who are worried about their nails and expect to win. Regardless, how bad arse that one Ranger is.
To me, it would make more sense to make the United States Marine Corp Infantry PFT hard as hell. Ask Army Rangers to join Marine Corp Infantry and Infantry related MOS's. All other US military units can lower the PFT.
That way, there is a CORP (155,000 to 175,000) of individuals that special operators are chosen from. The PFT can be called Gender neutral and open for all individuals to try out.
Have a good day Sir,
M. Morris RVT
I was under the impression SOF were derived form SOF capable. For example: Marines from Charlie Infantry Company trained within their MOS and understood setting up perimeter protection, patrol... Those same individuals within Charlie Company that had 285, or better on their PFT could try out for Force Recon. (I realize Force Recon has had a name change and the Marine Corp has moved special operators into the inclusive SOF).
If standards are lowered for individuals to call themselves Marines and work inside the special operation capable environment, where do the SOF get their new members? The SOF PFT has not changed. But, the PFT to be Marine Corp Infantry has.
Is the goal to separate the sheep from the wolves? Knowing only a small number of sheep can pass the SOF PFT? Also, if Army Rangers go back to Infantry units, who will be called on the kick the enemy's arse? You can't have one Army Ranger leading 11 others in the Squad who are worried about their nails and expect to win. Regardless, how bad arse that one Ranger is.
To me, it would make more sense to make the United States Marine Corp Infantry PFT hard as hell. Ask Army Rangers to join Marine Corp Infantry and Infantry related MOS's. All other US military units can lower the PFT.
That way, there is a CORP (155,000 to 175,000) of individuals that special operators are chosen from. The PFT can be called Gender neutral and open for all individuals to try out.
Have a good day Sir,
M. Morris RVT
(1)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
The Marine Raiders of MARSOC in this discussion is actually one of those points I do agree with. But what it does not go into is the point that there are niches for it and we have not looked that way as of yet.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google