View Full Version : MARSOC a better way?
I have read all the threads pertaining to the role of MARSOC here on PS.com and know it has been discussed ad nauseam but I found this a while back and just remembered it. It's a bit too late for these ideas to be implemented but I thought that it was worth sharing. Not trying to beat a dead horse just trying to share the way I wish it had gone down.
Self Edit 3/2/09: It occurred to me that the way I titled this could be misconstrued in a manner that would lead people to believe that it's intent is to say that MARSOC is a better way. Instead I should have titled it "MARSOC done a better way?"
I have read all the threads pertaining to the role of MARSOC here on PS.com and know it has been discussed ad nauseam but I found this a while back and just remembered it. It's a bit too late for these ideas to be implemented but I thought that it was worth sharing. Not trying to beat a dead horse just trying to share the way I wish it had gone down.
Then why did you post it? We have beat this to death and it should lay where it is from my perspective.
Just my 2 cents
Then why did you post it? We have beat this to death and it should lay where it is from my perspective.
I thought that Major Simmons paper would be interesting from an academic standpoint. Perhaps I was wrong but I found it to be thought provoking and worth reading.
I thought that Major Simmons paper would be interesting from an academic standpoint. Perhaps I was wrong but I found it to be thought provoking and worth reading.
I did read it and it was not a bad read but as stated this horse has been beaten to death and this is an SF Board and your post has no relation to our force other than to re-open an old debate on why or why not to have them. They are here and an intelligent man looks forward and hope's the errors are corrected and they become a good working force and that they find a good mission that they can do and become good at it.....
Just my 2 cents.......
Dozer523
02-17-2009, 08:25
I have read all the threads pertaining to the role of MARSOC here on PS.com and know it has been discussed ad nauseam but I found this a while back and just remembered it. It's a bit too late for these ideas to be implemented but I thought that it was worth sharing. Not trying to beat a dead horse just trying to share the way I wish it had gone down.
That is a great word. Look it up.. Leave the nasty horsey alone!
The Reaper
02-17-2009, 09:09
Atilla:
You are a guest here, yet you seem to look for opportunities to be contentious.
Please consider your status and topical relevancy before starting additional threads on topics already thoroughly covered. If you feel that the article has relevance, put it on the appropriate existing thread. This is neither marines.com nor MARSOC.com, and your continuation down this track will be seen as trolling.
Have a very SF day.
TR
Atilla:
You are a guest here, yet you seem to look for opportunities to be contentious.
Please consider your status and topical relevancy before starting additional threads on topics already thoroughly covered. If you feel that the article has relevance, put it on the appropriate existing thread. This is neither marines.com nor MARSOC.com, and your continuation down this track will be seen as trolling.
Have a very SF day.
TR
TR,
It was not my intent to be contentious. I recognize I am a guest here and did not mean in any way to step on toes, either now or in my previous involvement on PS.com. I considered attaching the article to the existing thread but as there are more than one I was not sure which would be best. I miscalculated and began a new one. I hope you will chalk it up to "good initiative, bad judgement". I am not trying to advertise or recruit for the USMC on the contrary I am here because I have found that the Marine Corps does not provide for my goals in wanting to help "liberate the oppressed" by working for, with and through, indigenous populations. My purpose for being here is to gain as much information as possible to aid me in the pursuit of the job you hold and the personal pride that comes with said career. I was trying to contribute not as one who thinks he is on the same level as you QP's especially in your own house, but as a guest with something he thought was interesting to add to the table.
My only intent was to put this position paper out there among professional men of arms who have made the study of warfare their life's work and who would enjoy Major Simmon's position from an academic standpoint. I apologize for ruffling feathers and I am a little embarrassed at having done so, as I never like to overstep my welcome.
Proceeding back down from the ridge line so as not to skyline myself further.
Atilla
Self Edit: The reason I thought that you gents would appreciate this paper was that it is written by a Marine Major who is saying the exact same things you gents are; that the Marine Corps should not be used for FID purposes and that its role should utilize it's expeditionary nature, something it has always been good at. That this expeditionary trait would be of great benefit to SOCOM and would not embarrass the USMC by trying to mimic the capabilities of an organization that has sixty years head start and an organizational commitment to the ideology necessary for such missions. I thought that if I explained my rational for thinking some of you gentlemen would be interested that I might not look so badly as I retreat from said ridge-line.
Personally, and although it is certainly posted in the wrong place as it is germane to existing forums and on-going discussion, I found this paper to be a pretty good synopsis of the discussion...and this paragraph is--IMO--the 'nucleus' of the discussion.
This extended discussion of definitions was important because much of the debate that surrounds the current and future special operations capability within the Marine Corps is really about terms. One view is that the Marine Corps cannot conduct special operations, because it has no special operations forces. Others claim that MEU (SOC) and Force Reconnaissance are the Marine Corps’ version of Special Forces. As the joint doctrinal definitions show, none of these claims are accurate. SOF, SO, and SF are distinctly different. They are precise terms and organizational leaders should use them precisely. They are inter-related, but one is not a requirement for the other. For the issue of force contribution, the key fact is that based on the definitions above, the Marine Corps does not need to create any new units in order to conduct special operations and thus contribute to USSOCOM.
I've just added this document to my research files. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I started reading the paper, but stopped after the author's statement that the USMC in its entirety was an "elite" organization, and that the concept was accepted widely enough that it didn't merit further examination. Maybe I'll try again later when I have more time and tolerance for unfounded parochial chest-thumping.
I started reading the paper, but stopped after the author's statement that the USMC in its entirety was an "elite" organization, and that the concept was accepted widely enough that it didn't merit further examination.
JMOO--but I think you should finish reading the monograph.
You have to get a couple of pages past where you stopped to realize he's talking more about the "culture" of the USMC--as viewed in general by the public and the Marines themselves--as he explains "The few, the proud, the Marines" point-of-view and the problems of creating an 'elite' within a unit which considers itself to be an 'elite' type of unit to begin with. He doesn't argue whether it is or isn't--he merely cedes that 'perceptual' argument to get on with his own arguments in support of his thesis.
I found the document of worth as it reminded me of similar problems--both perceived and real--associated with the creation of certain sub-units within SF, the SOF community, and the creation of USSOCOM itself.
FWIW--I pretty much agree with P.X. Kelly's arguments. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Thanks for the heads up, Richard. I'll give it another go.
I'll give it another go.
Hey, I had the same 'gut' reaction when I first looked at it and had to reread those 4 or 5 pages a couple of times before I decided to go on and finish reading the thing. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
02-20-2009, 12:22
Richard & Razor, I don't know, some how I think we've beaten the s*#t out of discussing MARSOC. I have to agree with SH_BHT we should just let it lay......:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
NousDefionsDoc
03-01-2009, 09:53
Uh guys, this isn't beating the same dead horse. For those that haven't read it, might want to do so before commenting. The Major is advocating putting all MEU (SOC) under SOCOM control. That is not the same thing there is now.
I know and you are right but they rotate and stand up and stand down and this is not a force that is in a permanent state. I think we have beaten the horse ref USMC Assets as SOCOM SOF assets in any shape or form. Also it is dated and was not the way the Corps or SOCOM went.....
MARSOC is what we are living with and that is reality as of today.
Just my 2 cents
I think we have beaten the horse ref USMC Assets as SOCOM SOF assets in any shape or form.
I'm not too sure about that one...especially as the budget shifts and if USSOCOM remains fiscally in better shape than many other MACOMs. And never forget how the ego of one person looking for ( *?* ) can gain support and drive an organization's growth in ways never intended or foreseen. The SO and Intelligence communities have both experienced this, as well as the bureaucracies overseeing them, and now there are those within and without who are openly noodling the idea of a resurgent OSS. And who knows where all this will lead.
JMHO - Never say never...and I don't think this seahorse is quite dead yet.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm not too sure about that one...especially as the budget shifts and if USSOCOM remains fiscally in better shape than many other MACOMs. And never forget how the ego of one person looking for ( *?* ) can gain support and drive an organization's growth in ways never intended or foreseen. The SO and Intelligence communities have both experienced this, as well as the bureaucracies overseeing them, and now there are those within and without who are openly noodling the idea of a resurgent OSS. And who knows where all this will lead.
JMHO - Never say never...and I don't think this seahorse is quite dead yet.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You have a good point ref money but the Corps are slow to make change.....so the money may be safe.......
Backwoods
03-08-2009, 18:04
Personally, and although it is certainly posted in the wrong place as it is germane to existing forums and on-going discussion, I found this paper to be a pretty good synopsis of the discussion...and this paragraph is--IMO--the 'nucleus' of the discussion.
This extended discussion of definitions was important because much of the debate that surrounds the current and future special operations capability within the Marine Corps is really about terms. One view is that the Marine Corps cannot conduct special operations, because it has no special operations forces. Others claim that MEU (SOC) and Force Reconnaissance are the Marine Corps’ version of Special Forces. As the joint doctrinal definitions show, none of these claims are accurate. SOF, SO, and SF are distinctly different. They are precise terms and organizational leaders should use them precisely. They are inter-related, but one is not a requirement for the other. For the issue of force contribution, the key fact is that based on the definitions above, the Marine Corps does not need to create any new units in order to conduct special operations and thus contribute to USSOCOM.
I've just added this document to my research files. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard,
I haven't had the chance to read the paper posted, but did your quote come from that paper??
EDIT: Never mind. I found it in the paper.