Navy Takes Over Military [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

View Full Version : Navy Takes Over Military

The Reaper

06-08-2007, 10:50

Looks like the Navy has almost all of the leadership positions.

Glad to see that they are the warfighters now.

TR

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279492,00.html

Gen. Peter Pace to Retire as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman
Friday , June 08, 2007

WASHINGTON — Marine Gen. Peter Pace will retire as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced on Friday.

Gates said while he intended to renominate Pace for another two-year term as chairman, after consulting with congressional leaders, the confirmation hearing was likely to be "a backward-looking and very contentious process."

"The focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past, rather than the future," Gates said at a press conference at the Pentagon.

Instead, Gates he will recommend that President Bush nominate Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of naval operations, as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I think Admiral Mullen will bring a tremendous perspective," Gates said.

Pace began his term in September 2005 as one of the nation's top two military leaders. Pace serves as principal military adviser to the president, Gates, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. Pace is the first Marine to serve as chairman.

Bush, in Poland after the close of the Group of Eight summit, thanked Pace for his service the past six years.

"President Bush appreciates General Pace's long and distinguished service to the country. He is an example for all our men and women in uniform and has been an integral part of the President's national security team," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Pace has been either chairman or vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the past six years.

Pace, a Vietnam War veteran, will turn 62 in November. He will leave his post when his term ends on Sept. 30, 2007.

FOX News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.

Snaquebite

06-08-2007, 14:32

x-factor

06-08-2007, 14:41

STRATCOM Commander is a Marine...figure that one out.

This is somewhat tangential, but might be interesting. The DNI is USN(R) and of the intel community's big four, all the directors are active duty military.

CIA - USAF
NGA - USN
DIA - USA
NSA - USA

The Reaper

06-08-2007, 14:42

To summarize from the other thread...

The Navy has SOCOM, PACOM, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, SOCEUR

The Army has EUCOM, SOCSOUTH, SOCPAC, SOCCENT
The Air Force has JFCOM and NORTHCOM

Unless any of this changed in the last few weeks and I missed it.

All the games in town are on the ground and we have nautical coaches in charge. Granted I was only an enlisted guy, but I don't understand this at all.

The SOCs are subordinate commands and do not count. Unless you want to bemoan the fact that so few are commanded by white side SF guys.

The Navy has, or will soon have CJCS, SOCOM, PACOM, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM.

The Air Force has TRANSCOM, STRATCOM, SPACECOM, JFCOM, and NORTHCOM.

The Army has EUCOM.

And we are fighting an almost exclusively ground war.

You figure it out.:rolleyes:

News flash:

The new Vice Chairman will be a Marine. Maybe the next Chief of Staff, Army will be a Marine as well. Not an Army guy within striking range of the top. I wonder if recent comments about the quality of Army leadership are not hitting home.

TR

Snaquebite

06-08-2007, 14:45

TR, Thanks for the correction....I know SOCs are subordinate...however, I was trying to list them all.

I can't figure it out...:confused:

Razor

06-08-2007, 14:47

To help those that don't understand the alphabet soup above:

Navy - 4 4-star ranks, 1 1-star

Army - 1 4-star, 3 1-stars

Air Force - 2 4-stars

Snaquebite

06-08-2007, 14:57

To help those that don't understand the alphabet soup above:

Navy - 4 4-star ranks, 1 1-star

Army - 1 4-star, 3 1-stars

Air Force - 2 4-stars

Got it....So....

USA + USAF - USMC = USN

Now I understand. Damn that was so simple. :D

Sorry to make light of it but what else can I do? Seems we're getting deeper and deeper.

The Reaper

06-08-2007, 15:00

And LTG Boykin retired today.

At least GEN Schoomaker, GEN Cody, et al came to see him off.

I think our bench is getting pretty shallow.

TR

Surf n Turf

06-08-2007, 15:14

And LTG Boykin retired today.

At least GEN Schoomaker, GEN Cody, et al came to see him off.

I think our bench is getting pretty shallow.

TR

TR,
Any story printed on the retirement --- I can't find one

SnT

The Reaper

06-08-2007, 15:56

TR,
Any story printed on the retirement --- I can't find one

SnT

Probably in tomorrow's Fayetteville Observer.

I doubt that he solicited media attendance, though some were there and were recognized.

TR

sg1987

06-08-2007, 16:36

TR,
Any story printed on the retirement --- I can't find one

SnT

Nothing printed yet - did find this photo from today....I'd sure like to have heard what he had to say!

http://news.soc.mil/

3SoldierDad

06-08-2007, 16:36

Glad to see that they (Navy) are the warfighters now.

TR

I'm curious - Why?

Could it be that we're preparing for an air and sea assault on Iran? - And, that we're simply putting things in order?

.

jatx

06-08-2007, 16:55

I'm curious - Why?

Could it be that we're preparing for an air and sea assault on Iran? - And, that we're simply putting things in order?

.

I like it, an optimist! :D

Trip_Wire (RIP)

06-08-2007, 18:15

lksteve

06-08-2007, 18:58

I'm curious - Why?

Could it be that we're preparing for an air and sea assault on Iran? - And, that we're simply putting things in order?nope...probably because some bean counter thinks it's their turn...

Kyobanim

06-08-2007, 20:19

Rock, Paper, Scissors

NousDefionsDoc

06-09-2007, 05:48

The Reaper

06-09-2007, 06:25

Well, since it is a done deal - can this be much worse than having the Fulda Gap Officers Protective Association in charge? At least the Navy doesn't have any tanks...

By the way, any guesses as to the branch of the POTUS new "War Czar"?:munchin

Yeah, but the Army doesnt have any multi-billion dollar carriers, subs, or Super Hornet programs to resource either.

I will grant that in OIF and OEF, the Navy was much better about providing CAS than the Air Force, which is probably still holding a 20% cut of the ATO for air to air missions there.

Time will tell, maybe the Navy can refocus the war on SOF and less on conventional operations.

Since the Navy is going to be running the Joint Staff, CENTCOM, and SOCOM, this war is about to get a lot bluer. One of my best friends is a former Navy aviation admiral, and he is one of the biggest SF supporters I know.

Best of luck guys.

TR

x-factor

06-09-2007, 06:54

By the way, any guesses as to the branch of the POTUS new "War Czar"?:munchin

Lt General Douglas Lute, USA. Former CENTCOM J3. He's a lifelong cav officer if I read his bio right.

http://www.jcs.mil/bios/bio_lute.html

CPTAUSRET

06-09-2007, 07:13

And LTG Boykin retired today.

At least GEN Schoomaker, GEN Cody, et al came to see him off.

I think our bench is getting pretty shallow.

TR

The whole thing is ff*cked up!

I have consumed a few cold ones w/Dick Cody...

Sweetbriar

06-09-2007, 07:53

I noticed from the historical list of past JCS chiefs that the Navy nod has come during a post-war period twice (Korea and Vietnam), and may give that appearance again, regardless of whatever Mullen's true position may be. From what (and precious little that is, I'm sure) I've seen of Mullen, jointness is all and it's not an Army game or a Navy game, but whatever is required.

Past JCS Chairmen
General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, 1949–1953

Adm. Arthur W. Radford, U.S. Navy, 1953–1957

Gen. Nathan F. Twining, U.S. Air Force, 1957–1960

Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, U.S. Army, 1960–1962

Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Army, 1962–1964

Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, U.S. Army, 1964–1970

Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, U.S. Navy, 1970–1974

Gen. George S. Brown, U.S. Air Force, 1974–1978

Gen. David C. Jones, U.S. Air Force, 1978–1982

Gen. John W. Vessey, Jr., U.S. Army, 1982–1985

Adm. William J. Crowe, U.S. Navy, 1985–1989

Gen. Colin L. Powell, U.S. Army, 1989–1993

Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, U.S. Army, 1993–1997

Gen. Henry H. Shelton, U.S. Army, 1997–2001

Gen. Richard B. Myers, U.S. Air Force, 2001–2005

Gen. Peter Pace, U.S. Marine Corps, 2005-2007

SFS0AVN

06-09-2007, 09:00

kgoerz

06-09-2007, 13:33

I don't either!

The reasons for having these assignments is pretty obvious. Career progression and ticket punching, good for them. Good for us because we need people of rank to fight the political battles. But, how else can this negatively or positively effect operations on the ground? Team or Company level?

CRad

06-09-2007, 18:10

Well, since it is a done deal - can this be much worse than having the Fulda Gap Officers Protective Association in charge? At least the Navy doesn't have any tanks...

By the way, any guesses as to the branch of the POTUS new "War Czar"?:munchin

You are talking about Gen Lute, yes?

He's a J-3 guy and Harvard Grad, that's good enough for me.

"In June 2004, he began more than two years as Director of Operations (J-3) at US Central Command during which he oversaw combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa...

graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1975. His first assignment was to the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in Bindlach, Germany, where he commanded C Troop. He received a master's degree from Harvard University and taught in the Social Sciences department at West Point."

CRad

06-09-2007, 18:19

Boykin article -

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=264554

Boykin retires after eventful career

By Henry Cuningham
Military editor
ADVERTISEMENT
2 Photos

Staff photo by Stephanie Bruce
Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin reflects on his career Friday afternoon on Fort Bragg.
Five days before Christmas in 1989, Jerry Boykin gave the order to fire into the headquarters of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

An AC-130 gunship opened up on the building, kicking off the nighttime invasion of Panama by U.S. forces.

“It was just sparkling, and all I could think of was, ‘Merry Christmas, Manuel Noriega,’” Boykin said. “That’s all I was thinking. This was a Christmas fireworks like you’ve never seen.”

On Friday, Boykin retired from the Army as a three-star general at Fort Bragg, ending a career in which he took part in some of the U.S. military’s most high-stakes, low-profile operations.

“They declassified today that I ran the task force that chased the war criminals over in the Balkans,” Boykin said. There’s still plenty that has not been declassified, he said.

Almost 30 years ago, the North Carolina native became an original member of the Delta Force, the secret counterterrorism unit at Fort Bragg.

He was a team leader on the 1980 mission to rescue U.S. hostages in Tehran, Iran. The mission ended with eight dead in a fiery explosion at an Iranian refueling site known as Desert One before the rescue team could reach its destination.

“I’ve never experienced a greater sense of failure,” he said. “I felt that we carried the burden of the entire country on our shoulders.”

Lessons from tragedy
At the same time, the failure provided the motivation for the military buildup under President Reagan that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, he said.

Boykin went on to participate in almost every U.S. military operation after the Vietnam War.

His hair is white, his manner gentlemanly, and the years seem to have mellowed him. He smiled broadly during an interview when he talked about satisfactions during his career.

“I consider myself to be the most blessed man in the Army today because I’ve been given so many opportunities to serve in a lot of places, but most of all with the best this Army can produce,” he said.

At Fort Bragg, Boykin has commanded the Delta Force and U.S. Army Special Forces Command. During his career, he worked with the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command.

“Think about it,” he said. “I spent almost my entire career serving in the best units this Army has.”

Boykin, who is 59 years old, will move to Farmville, Va., and teach at Hampden-Sydney College, a four-year liberal arts college for men. He plans to give speeches and do ministry and consulting.

“I’m ready to go,” he said. “I’m ready to move on, but my heart will always be with the troops, with special operations, and I hope to stay engaged.”

Center of controversy
Ironically, Boykin spent most of his career as one of the nation’s most unknown war fighters and then landed in controversies that made him one of the military’s most controversial figures.

He was commanding the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg in 2003 when he was selected to become deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

“One of the things the media never got right was I was never sent to Washington to locate or pursue high-value targets,” he said. “But because I had done so much of that in my career there was an assumption, fueled by rumors, that I was setting up a new unit there to locate all the high-value targets.”

Not even remotely true, Boykin said.

“I wish I’d been doing that,” he said. “It would have been a whole lot more fun than working with policy and budget and all of the tough things.”

Author Mark Bowden suggests in his book, “Killing Pablo,” that Boykin’s Delta snipers might have shot Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar in December 1993.

“I will tell you right now that the Americans did not shoot Escobar,” Boykin said. “The Colombians did. The Americans did not. Were there Americans on the scene? Yes. Americans were there, but they didn’t kill Escobar.”

Boykin, a self-described evangelical, was the center of controversy for speeches he made in uniform at church services. The Pentagon inspector general in August 2004 issued a 44-page report on his speeches at 23 religious-oriented events “which were perceived by outside observers as derogatory to the Islamic faith or otherwise ‘inflammatory.’”

“I have never cast the war in Iraq as a war between Christianity and Islam,” he said. “I’ve said just the opposite.”

The international war on terrorism is a contest between good and evil, he said.

“The war we need to focus on is the war on the streets of America for the hearts and soul of our nation,” he said. “We need to understand with the crime and the corruption and the drugs and the domestic abuse we are in a battle right here in America that is a spiritual battle for the heart and soul of our nation.”

RTK

06-09-2007, 18:50

Well, since it is a done deal - can this be much worse than having the Fulda Gap Officers Protective Association in charge? At least the Navy doesn't have any tanks...

By the way, any guesses as to the branch of the POTUS new "War Czar"?:munchin

He's an Armor officer who's spent most of his life in the Cavalry.

No offense taken....:D

NousDefionsDoc

06-09-2007, 21:34

Wouldn't being the J3 for CENTCOM from 04-06 also make him one of the principle architects of the response to the early insurgency in Iraq? And would being the Director of Operations, the Joint Staff since 06 also put in him that realm? I'm just guessing here.

So we all agree that he is the right guy for developing the "new" way forward?

x-factor

06-10-2007, 10:21

As long as we're asking rhetorical questions: is the creation of the "war czar" position even a good idea?

x-factor

06-10-2007, 10:41

When the executive branch creates a new office to oversee/coordinate an issue accross several different agencies/departments its colloquially known as a "czar". For example, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is known as the "drug czar." He's a Cabinet level officer, but doesn't really control anything himself but he has oversight/coordination/influence/etc authority over all the agencies having to do with drug policy (DEA, SOUTHCOM, various health agencies, etc).

Same thing with the "war czar." Its basically like they took the National Security Advisor and split him in half: Lute for Afghanistan/Iraq and Hadley for everything else. In that respect, he won't have any real power but he'll (ostensibly) have the authority of the President to get State, Defense, etc. to cooperate and coordinate with each other.

x-factor

06-11-2007, 14:17

More on the subject today in an LA Times article.

Pentagon watchers said the choice of the so-called sea services — including the Marine Corps, whose Gen. James E. Cartwright was chosen as the Joint Chiefs' new vice chairman — for the military's most difficult assignments was a testimony to the Navy's growing reputation as the most intellectually rigorous of the services.

"There's no obvious reason a Navy guy would be put in charge of Centcom, or why we would have two sea service people replacing two other sea service people at the top of the Joint Chiefs," said Loren B. Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based military think tank. "But the reality is that they seem to be able to work with big ideas and big political leaders better than the other services."

Full article at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-navy10jun10,0,4049769.story?coll=la-home-center

dennisw

06-11-2007, 18:34

"We can't have networks or platforms be the center of the universe. I want networks and platforms that put Sailors at the center of the universe. "I think the hardest part of this policy is going to be convincing Al Qaeda to get into boats. If that happens, I think this navy plan is a good one. However, back here on Earth, it does not make a lot of sense. Maybe someone in the food chain should read the intro to Dick Couch's book Chosen Soldiers.

Maybe the powers that be have forgotten that some of us have kids in harm's way and we don't have the time or the inclination for their political bullshit.

But the reality is that they seem to be able to work with big ideas and big political leaders better than the other services."

Here's a some novel bid ideas - Rear secuirty and bringing your f***ing radio with you! By the way, what big political leaders are they talking about? Sounds like the Navy is better at kissing bigger ass then anyone else. Sorry for the rant.

Airbornelawyer

06-15-2007, 22:21

"We can't have networks or platforms be the center of the universe. I want networks and platforms that put Sailors at the center of the universe. "
Here's one approach:

Airbornelawyer

06-19-2007, 15:17

Pentagon watchers said the choice of the so-called sea services — including the Marine Corps, whose Gen. James E. Cartwright was chosen as the Joint Chiefs' new vice chairman — for the military's most difficult assignments was a testimony to the Navy's growing reputation as the most intellectually rigorous of the services.
Other than this brief mention in the quoted text from x-factor's post above, it appears that we haven't also noted the expected new Vice Chief. It's not only Gen. Pace, but Adm. Giambastiani is also being sacrificed for the sin of being too close to Secretary Rumsfeld and too likely to be made a political target by Congressional leftists.

Gen. Cartwright, the current STRATCOM commander and expected replacement for Adm. Giambastiani, is a Marine aviator with, as near as I can tell from his bio and fruit salad, no combat experience.

So we go from a Marine CJCS and a Navy VCJCS to a Navy CJCS and a Marine VCJCS. The Vice Chief, by the way, has never been an Army general.

Also, I seriously doubt Gen. Cartwright's replacement as Commander STRATCOM will be Army, given STRATCOM's makeup and mission.

The Reaper

06-19-2007, 15:33

By law, the Vice Chairman has to be from a different service than the Chairman, so Giambastiani had to go. Rumor was that he had already put in his paperwork when the word came down.

I had no idea that the USMC had STRATCOM. How many launch platforms does the Corps have?

TR

x-factor

06-19-2007, 15:35

I don't think their air or arty elements have tactical nukes. To my knowledge the USMC is the only service that doesn't have any atomic weapons.

Airbornelawyer

06-19-2007, 19:08

STRATCOM's missions are not limited to strategic deterrence. Over the years, STRATCOM has expanded and absorbed a lot of other missions and commands. It took over SPACECOM in 2002. In 2003, STRATCOM took on global strike, missile defense, DOD information operations, and C4ISR. It also took over combating WMDs.

Unlike TRANSCOM, for example, which primarily works through its service component commands (Navy Sealift Command, AMC, etc.), STRATCOM seems to mainly wokr through its Joint Functional Component Commands. The commanders of the JFCCs are mostly dual-hatted with other agencies/commands:
The Commander, JFCC-Global Strike and Integration is also the Commander, 8th Air Force. This is separate from the Air Force component command of STRATCOM, the Air Force Space Command. JFCC-GSI/8thAF controls the bombers, while AF Space Command controls the missiles and rockets. However, the commander AF Space Command is also dual-hatted as Commander, JFCC-Space.
The Commander, JFCC-Integrated Missile Defense is also the Army component commander of STRATCOM, and head of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.
The Commander, JFCC-Network Warfare is LTG Alexander, the NSA Director.
The Commander, JFCC-Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance is LTG Maples, the DIA Director.
The Commander, JTF-Global Network Operations is the Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency.
The Commander, Joint Information Operations Warfare Command is also the Commander, Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency.
The Director, USSTRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction is the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
So STRATCOM has its fingers in a lot of pies. I'm not sure how command and coordination works, if it does. For example, the DIA Director would seem to be required to report to the Commander STRATCOM, but also to the DNI. I have no idea what DIA's relationship is to the Directorate for Intelligence (J-2) on the Joint Staff.

I still don't know how a Marine ended up in charge, though, since none of these agencies or missions are Marine Corps bailiwicks.

Shans84

06-20-2007, 02:25

So I guess this means we will have Hawaiian shirt day :p

longjon

06-20-2007, 10:11

I don't think their air or arty elements have tactical nukes. To my knowledge the USMC is the only service that doesn't have any atomic weapons.

Sorry for the quasi-hijack but the last MWWUs closed down in 93, IIRC. I generally don't pay much attention to the Marines but I had some friends with fathers serving in MWWUlant on Cherry Point and they had no idea what their dads did until the unit deactivated.

Razor

06-20-2007, 11:36

GEN Cartwright certainly did maintain a Marine style while at STRATCOM. Within a few months of arriving, he cut the manpower there significantly, forcing much of the bloated staff to seek gainful employment elsewhere.

The Reaper

06-21-2007, 08:02

The squid in charge of NORTHCOM wanted his slice of SOF. The current CG is reviewing the request.

Why? Should we be deploying SOF domestically? Are there enough SOF to support another command?

TR

Washington Examiner
June 21, 2007

Military Reviews Placing Special Ops On U.S. Soil
By Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military command in charge of protecting the homeland asked the Pentagon earlier this year for a contingent of special operations officers to help with domestic anti-terrorism missions.

Military sources told The Examiner that U.S. Northern Command, established at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado in 2002, requested its own special operations command similar to ones assigned to overseas war-fighting commands, such as U.S. Central Command.

A spokeswoman for NorthCom this week issued a statement to The Examiner saying, "This capability resides in every other geographical combatant command and would allow the commander of U.S. Northern Command to deploy these unique capabilities for homeland defense and civil support operations."

The request was approved six months ago by the then-commander of NorthCom, Adm. Timothy Keating, who has since moved to U.S. Pacific Command.

But now, the new NorthCom commander, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, is reviewing Keating's decision.

On Wednesday, Lt. Col. John Cornelio, a NorthCom spokesman, told The Examiner:
"U.S. Northern Command is currently reassessing our requirement for special operations forces to accomplish our homeland defense and civil support missions. While the initial request for a small element of SOF staff for planning and command and control purposes was requested under the previous commander, the new commander ... has not made a decision on this issue."

Keating's request to the Pentagon raised some eyebrows because of the sensitivity of deploying commandos domestically. Under U.S. Special Operations Command, covert warriors are playing a key role in fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas.

"The possibility for military operations in the U.S. is something that we have to plan for in the age of international terrorism," said Daniel Gallington, a former policy adviser to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Bush administration created NorthCom, one of the military's nine war-fighting commands, after the Sept. 11 attacks revealed deep flaws in the military's procedures for repelling an attack on American soil.

The idea of giving NorthCom a commando unit shows how the military increasingly looks at the U.S. homeland as a target for more terrorist attacks and how it may need elite counter-terrorism forces to deal with the threat.

lrd

06-21-2007, 15:27

This is one of the Admirals quotes
"We can't have networks or platforms be the center of the universe. I want networks and platforms that put Sailors at the center of the universe. "
I agree, things are about to get blue.
Keep in mind that ADM Mullen was speaking about the Navy. He has really pushed to get the Navy's focus back on the sailors. It's been good for the Navy.

Not to pound it into the ground, but there are also many Navy officers who have served and are currently serving 1 year disassociated tours on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Prowler squadrons are supporting SOF in Afghanistan.

Also, just to note: the incoming F/A18 program manager spent 3 years working with SOF. I can guarantee that he fully appreciates and understands what you do and has worked to support your mission in past the years and will continue to do so. Not to mention that alot of USSOCOM's communications support is provided by SPAWAR and NAVAIR.

Just my 2 cents. ;)

x-factor

06-21-2007, 16:06

The squid in charge of NORTHCOM wanted his slice of SOF. The current CG is reviewing the request.

Why? Should we be deploying SOF domestically? Are there enough SOF to support another command?

I would think that a fair amount of any potential SOCNORTH mission would be AFSOC elements in a disaster relief role. PJs did a lot of great work during Katrina, and there's potential to use Combat Controllers to set up makeshift airfields for relief operations, along with potential disaster relief applications for airborne ISR.

(EDIT - There's a lot of potentials in that sentence.)

The Reaper

06-21-2007, 17:34

Razor

06-21-2007, 17:47

Defense Support to Civil Authorities is one of NORTHCOM's two primary missions; the other is Homeland Defense, which involves "conducting operations to deter, prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories and interests within the assigned area of responsibility (AOR)". The referenced AOR includes not only CONUS and Alaska, but also Candad and Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico and 500NM off the coast of the entire AOR, all areas where SOF could ostensibly operate without domestic issues, such as posse comitatus. Further, SOF could operate against foreign entities attacking US interests in the AOR.

FWIW, NORTHCOM already has a small (read understaffed) SOF-related planning cell doing the work; making them a TSOC would simply put them on a level playing field with all other TSOCs, provide them with more funding than they currently receive, and with the increased manpower allow them to do the job to the level required.

Ret10Echo

06-21-2007, 18:21

Using SOF elements for disaster relief is a waste. I think that the use of the PJs and various other assets during Katrina response had much more to do with the geographical location of personnel and their availability.
DoD assets are generally those of last resort for Federal response anyhow with the exception of the Corp of Engineers and the obvious role they play.

Airlift capability would be primary, either for logistics or SAR. Additionally there may be some staging base/property access things that DoD could help with. From a security perspective it doesn't make any sense to bring in Title 10 assets that are subject to P.C. when the National Guard under Title 32 can get money from the Fed with the law enforcement capability.

Airbornelawyer

06-21-2007, 19:49

I would think that a fair amount of any potential SOCNORTH mission would be AFSOC elements in a disaster relief role. PJs did a lot of great work during Katrina, and there's potential to use Combat Controllers to set up makeshift airfields for relief operations, along with potential disaster relief applications for airborne ISR.

(EDIT - There's a lot of potentials in that sentence.)
Disaster relief is not NORTHCOM's primary mission. The mission of NORTHCOM is to:Conduct operations to deter, prevent and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and interests within the assigned area of responsibility;

As directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, provide defense support of civil authorities including incident management operations. Military operations in support of civil authorities is an "as directed" mission, not the primary mission. As a practical matter, it may be the case that such operations are the most visible ones performed, such as in Katrina, but they are not the core ones.

This is how NORTHCOM defines its core responsibilities:Deter aggression and coercion against the United States and its interests

Prevent attacks on our nation by detecting and interdicting threats early and at the safest possible distance from our homeland, in cooperation with our international and interagency partners and other combatant commands

Defeat enemies rapidly and decisively within the United States Northern Command area of responsibility

When directed, mitigate the effects of attacks or disasters by providing timely, effective support to civil authoritiesAgain, disaster relief is an "as directed" secondary responsibility.

Given the primary missions and responsibilities, is there a role for a theater SOC? It is pretty clear how NORAD fufills the "detecting and interdicting threats early" responsibility. How would, or how could, a SOCNORTH execute such a mission?

That's one question. Even if one assumes that there are missions within NORTHCOM's AOR whose accomplishment would benefit from an SOF presence, the other question is whether it would be necessary to have a SOCNORTH to plan or coordinate for such eventualities.

Airbornelawyer

06-21-2007, 19:50

I posted and then read Razor's post. He pretty much said what I was thinking, only much more directly and concisely. You'd almost think I get paid by the word.

x-factor

06-21-2007, 20:04

Again, disaster relief is an "as directed" secondary responsibility.

Yeah, I know but I wasn't sure how to comment on the primary missions without getting into classified and/or OPSEC concerns. I think I'm going to just fold this hand.

Razor

06-22-2007, 14:50

From a security perspective it doesn't make any sense to bring in Title 10 assets that are subject to P.C. when the National Guard under Title 32 can get money from the Fed with the law enforcement capability.

Keep in mind what comprises the entire AOR. That whole 500NM buffer zone comes into play, as does land infiltration routes and surveillance a la JTF-NORTH (aka JTF-6, with an expanded mission), as well as potential ground-based interdiction efforts anywhere inside the AOR. Operations can extend to outside the borders of CONUS, and outside the capabilities of the National Guard and USCG, especially when dealing with foreign threats (no domestic law enforcement issues to worry about).

afchic

06-22-2007, 15:16

My .02, so take it for what it is worth. I don't think NORTHCOM will ever get the SOF assets they are looking for, and I am basing this from a legislative perspective. There are many in Congress who are questioning why there is even a NORTHCOM. If you look up the House Armed Services Committee Hearing on 21 Mar 07, on the posture of NORTHCOM, STRATCOM, SOUTHCOM, and TRANSCOM, there were some very pointed remarks from Congressman Abercrombie of Hawaii to Admiral Keating on why his command existed.

I understand that if the Pentagon deems fit, it could happen, but I think there would be so much political backlash that it won't.

On a side note, if you read the HASC and SASC FY08 NDAA, both are advocating for the National Guard to have a four-star FO/GO that is now part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to be equal with all the other services. Additionally, there are many in Congress that believe if there continues to be a NORTHCOM, it should have a National Guardsman as it's commander.

The Reaper

06-22-2007, 16:57

Since we have way to many military unit types that we don't use, and not enough of the type we do need, like SF, maybe some one should do some mission alalysis and restructure the force to fit the requirements. :rolleyes:

I do not think that there are sufficient SF or SOF resources to meet another theater's requirements, with the planning, training, exercising, etc. that would be required. SF today is a high demand, low density resource.

All SF units are presently so tasked in CENTCOM that IMHO, the other theaters are being underresourced and underserviced, which may create further problems down the road.

TR

NousDefionsDoc

06-22-2007, 17:52

All SF units are presently so tasked in CENTCOM that IMHO, the other theaters are being underresourced and underserviced, which may create further problems down the road.
Couldn't agree more.

Razor

06-22-2007, 23:44

...there were some very pointed remarks from Congressman Abercrombie of Hawaii to Admiral Keating on why his command existed...

Spoken like someone that falls under the protection of PACOM. :rolleyes:

Airbornelawyer

06-23-2007, 00:48

OK, on a slight but related tangent:

1. When AFRICOM stands up on October 1, (a) will it be a 4-star billet and (b) will the Army get it?

2. Will there be a SOCAFRICA (I can't think of a good acronym)?

For the most recent background:

"New US Africa Command Not for Combat, Says Defense Official" - http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-21-voa68.cfm
...

U.S. officials have previously made clear that Africa Command will have a strong contingent of diplomats and aid officials, and will take a long-term, inter-agency approach to improving security, governance and development on the continent. But Ryan Henry went a bit further on Thursday when pressed at his news conference on whether Africa Command might end up overseeing increased U.S. military activity on the continent.

"This command is not optimized for war fighting," he continued. "We're optimizing it for engaging in security cooperation activities. And that's where the planning effort is going. The intention is not to use it for intervention in any African affairs."

But Henry says the command would be involved in emergency humanitarian relief efforts, as needed.

...

The Reaper

06-23-2007, 07:42

Airbornelawyer

06-23-2007, 19:19

If I had to guess, I'd imagine the initial step on October 1 would be to upgrade CJTF-HOA as the interim AFRICOM, in which case RADM James M. Hart would be the interim commander. He only assumed the CJTF-HOA billet this past February.

COL Patrick Higgins, the former 3rd Group commander, was recently nominated for his first star. I suppose he could be a candidate. Or BG Mark Phelan. They at least have Africa experience.

If the primary military mission of the command is international military cooperation, and the secondary military mission is humanitarian operations, they'll probably give it to a Marine or sailor.

Ret10Echo

06-23-2007, 20:52

Keep in mind what comprises the entire AOR. That whole 500NM buffer zone comes into play, as does land infiltration routes and surveillance a la JTF-NORTH (aka JTF-6, with an expanded mission), as well as potential ground-based interdiction efforts anywhere inside the AOR. Operations can extend to outside the borders of CONUS, and outside the capabilities of the National Guard and USCG, especially when dealing with foreign threats (no domestic law enforcement issues to worry about).

I understand the AOR...the comment concerning security was related to disaster resonse efforts (82nd in New Orleans). Getting USCG up to speed (shaking off the Department of Transportation attitude) will take some time but I think they are leaning in the right direction as far as transitioning to a better security force. You and I both have probably been through the Legal brief at JTF 6. Barring a Presidential Declaration (invocation of 706) how would you legally work? That puts us in a reactive position.

NORTHCOM works through the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and US Security. I don't think that will go away. The adjustment between ARNORTH , 1st Army and FORSCOM is already done. Not that a reworking would be attempted, but I have not seen very many command staffs deactivated.

What do you all think about the potential return of the Reserve SF? :munchin

The Reaper

06-23-2007, 21:39

What do you all think about the potential return of the Reserve SF? :munchin

Not going to happen.

The Army deliberately changed the Reserve to an almost exclusively combat support/combat service support role.

Might be a way to add Guard SF units and most states would likely be glad to have them, if they could fill them.

TR

Surgicalcric

06-23-2007, 23:36

...All SF units are presently so tasked in CENTCOM that IMHO, the other theaters are being underresourced and underserviced, which may create further problems down the road.

TR

I believe those problems are being created at this time Sir, largely due to the reason(s) you state above, and its only getting worse.

just my .02

Crip

Ret10Echo

06-24-2007, 16:39

Not going to happen.

The Army deliberately changed the Reserve to an almost exclusively combat support/combat service support role.

Might be a way to add Guard SF units and most states would likely be glad to have them, if they could fill them.

TR

SF group with a North American AOR.....

Manning remains a big question. We flirt with the "SOF can not be massed produced" rule and how the funding will take place to properly equip them.

The Reaper

06-24-2007, 17:08

SF group with a North American AOR.....

Manning remains a big question. We flirt with the "SOF can not be massed produced" rule and how the funding will take place to properly equip them.

Maybe MARSOC will take the job.

TR

Ret10Echo

06-24-2007, 17:16

That would be a great boost to the Coast Guard mission in addition to the land-based work. Probably be a good fit if they can play nice.... But I still see Posse Comitatus as a limitation for Federal troops in a Homeland Defense role.