U.S. Spec Ops Head Wants More Control of Deployed Operators

[BMT (RIP)]

The head of U.S. special operations forces wants more control over his operators once they are deployed, according to two senior spec ops officials.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121203/DEFREG02/312030002?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

BMT

[JJ_BPK]

5000 to 1,, McRaven can ask,, but will probably not receive..

All those 4 star ball spikers,, PLUS barry,, not going to happen..

[Scott-O]

interestingly enough there has been initial planning (feasibility assesment) done to see if SOCOM should be considered a GCC-- Thanks for the great link to the article BMT. Surely what the article describes would be a much more palettable option to the 4-Stars already in command of a GCC, JJ you're right in pointing out they surely won't cede any authority/responsibility.

I know I personally am excited about the possibility of stream lining the whole TSOC model.

I think that SOCOM CDR is trying to use this to support his new "1/3 head on pillow" policy for all SOCOM PAX. Which is going to start limiting capacity for JCETs and PDPs (etc.).

My .02 :)

[The Reaper]

interestingly enough there has been initial planning (feasibility assesment) done to see if SOCOM should be considered a GCC-- Thanks for the great link to the article BMT. Surely what the article describes would be a much more palettable option to the 4-Stars already in command of a GCC, JJ you're right in pointing out they surely won't cede any authority/responsibility.

I know I personally am excited about the possibility of stream lining the whole TSOC model.

I think that SOCOM CDR is trying to use this to support his new "1/3 head on pillow" policy for all SOCOM PAX. Which is going to start limiting capacity for JCETs and PDPs (etc.).

My .02 :)

The stated policy is lip service, IMHO. He can't even keep our dwell above 1:1.

To make 1:3 happen, someone is going to have to pick up a lot of the slack, and we are flat out of people and time.

TR

[Box]

1:3 head on pillow policy...
...that is the funniest shit I have heard in decades.

Dwell time and "pressure on the force" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. We are still a military at war, and even through most of the 90's I was away from my pillow for almost 6 months out of the year.


A 1:3 dwell time would be nice - butterflies and unicorns are nice also.

[Razor]

interestingly enough there has been initial planning (feasibility assesment) done to see if SOCOM should be considered a GCC...

Scott, has any of this study been conducted by folks outside of SOCOM? I don't recall seeing it as a topic at any of the OPSDEPS or Tank sessions lately. As a GCC, SOCOM would need an AOR, and "the entire globe" isn't an option in that regard.

[Joker]

Scott, has any of this study been conducted by folks outside of SOCOM? I don't recall seeing it as a topic at any of the OPSDEPS or Tank sessions lately. As a GCC, SOCOM would need an AOR, and "the entire globe" isn't an option in that regard.

It is said that SOCOM will be named a Functionality Combatant Command with global responsibility and the T-SOCs will be COCOM to SOCOM and TACOM to the GCCs in the upcoming UCP.

[Pete]

Too many SOCs - not enough shoes.

[Joker]

Too many SOCs - not enough shoes.

And the ones we do have are getting very worn and tied.

Many commanders (at all levels) act like they are Pony Express riders. They ride the hell out of that horse for two years, jump off onto another horse which is a staff job or school where they get that break. What they don't realize is that there is another, rested hot to run, Pony Express rider jumping on that same tied horse. The horse doesn't get a break and most will not ask for one. The horse will break.

They must learn that you can only go to the well so many times before it turns dry.

[Scott-O]

Razor--I'm not sure at what level the studies were conducted, but I think it was from within SOCOM...

I do know that I've heard alot of the 'lip serivice' for 1:3 is 'to empower Battalion level leadership the ability to say no" which seems to make a great theory but...

I also know that until they provide us some sort of tracking tool-- there's no way for anybody at the head shed to calculate that metric with any sort of reliability. They would be able to get a general idea by looking at the playbook, but there's no way of knowing who did a team training that lasted three days without getting a BN SATB. Which of course also brings up the letter of the law, what constitutes a day away from the pillow? Is it any training past 1700? Any Night LFX?

It is said that SOCOM will be named a Functionality Combatant Command with global responsibility and the T-SOCs will be COCOM to SOCOM and TACOM to the GCCs in the upcoming UCP.

Joker I have also heard the same, and to add to I've heard that the push for it is to support the ability for SF to say no to certain taskings since there is absolutely no way to sustain the ever-increasing request for ODAs and provide SOCOM the authority to monitor all the 1/3 business.

[The Reaper]

Saying "No" has to start at USSOCOM.

So far, all I have seen is an irresistable desire to say "Yes" to any mission, regardless of the impact on the Regiment.

TSOCs and Ambassadors seem to pretty much get what they want.

TR

[Joker]

If you use Google-fu, you'll find several articles that explain the why.

A prime example is:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=983

Studies? JS and 4-bangers approved.

[Surgicalcric]

Maybe NGSF should be added back to the rotational schedule. :D

[abc_123]

Maybe NGSF should be added back to the rotational schedule. :D

Only after trying to get hundreds of individual augmentees from the NG first!