New SOCOM CG

Warrior-Mentor · 05-10-2007, 17:00

From: Brown Bryan D. GEN
Subject: New SOCOM CG

SOF Leaders - I am pleased to inform you that today at approximately
1300 hours the President will announce Adm Eric Olson has been nominated
to be my relief. Eric embodies all that is SOF and has been a unifying
force in the SOF community. He is a warrior who understands our
operational missions and the needs of the men and women who carry them
out. He also understands both indirect and direct actions and how they
will contribute to winning the war on terror. He knows programs and can
handle the title 10 issues with ease. He has been on the ground floor of
the growth of SOCOM in resources and authorities. He is the right
leader at the right time. Please join me in congratulating VADM Olson.
v/r Doug Brown

82ndtrooper · 05-10-2007, 17:27

I saw this on Michelle Malkins blog this morning. One of the readers, supposedly military,commented saying "It's proof that the SEAL community is the prominent SOF ground force in the war on terror"

**The Reaper** · 05-10-2007, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

I saw this on Michelle Malkins blog this morning. One of the readers, supposedly military,commented saying "It's proof that the SEAL community is the prominent SOF ground force in the war on terror"

No doubt.

Now SOCOM can drop any pretense of supporting anything other than infil platforms and DA and go for it.

After all, SF is just a bunch of housecleaners for JSOC.

TR

SF18C · 05-10-2007, 19:06

On a good day that is!

x-factor · 05-10-2007, 19:22

How is it that the DA crowd (generally speaking) has all the influence in terms of leadership and budget when SF is the largest component? Is it just because of six years of Rumsfeld's direction/priorities?

**Pete** · 05-10-2007, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

How is it that the DA crowd (generally speaking) has all the influence in terms of leadership and budget when SF is the largest component? Is it just because of six years of Rumsfeld's direction/priorities?

Boots cost a lot less than platforms.

You can oufit a lot of A Teams for the cost of a mini sub or fixed hull swift boat.

A dirty guy in cammies just ain't as sexy as a shiney new machine.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 05-10-2007, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

How is it that the DA crowd (generally speaking) has all the influence in terms of leadership and budget when SF is the largest component? Is it just because of six years of Rumsfeld's direction/priorities?

It is quite simple actually. DA shows immediate results where as UW & FID are long term actions that can last more years than any particular voting cycle where no one sorry politician or political party can benefit in terms of getting votes from their constituents. UW & SR also require close hold over the operations that no politician can get any mileage out of them without putting the players, the surrogates, and/or national (both ours and the target/host country) in jeopardy. Lastly, the complexities of both UW and FID take years to master, train for, and grasp that very few outside of the SF community have any clue as to what it really takes to plan and execute.

D9 (RIP) · 05-10-2007, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

I saw this on Michelle Malkins blog this morning. One of the readers, supposedly military,commented saying "It's proof that the SEAL community is the prominent SOF ground force in the war on terror"

I recall a certain incident involving a Tuff-book....

Oh well, one more Navy SEAL "lesson-learned" I suppose. One of these days the whole community may do itself a favor and circulate copies of the Ranger Handbook among themselves.

**The Reaper** · 05-10-2007, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

How is it that the DA crowd (generally speaking) has all the influence in terms of leadership and budget when SF is the largest component? Is it just because of six years of Rumsfeld's direction/priorities?

We are the largest because of the broad spectrum capabilities and global demand for SF. We speak the language, work to accomplish US objectives with the HN military, and live with the indig, keeping a low profile when we do it. Most Ambassadors would love to get more SF into their countries. Not sure they would say the same about a battalion of Rangers, Marines, or a couple of boatloads of SEALs.

JSOC does not have the peacetime engagement or FID/UW capability of SF. But they are the headhunters and have the ear of the bosses right now, so they are enlarging at huge expense. The problems in Iraq are largely the result of a misguided conventional effort, poor planning, political pressure without political solutions, and a lack of patience for the UW approach to the war.

Not saying we are better, just different from the "hammer only" DA options some of the other branches present.

At the same time, the other branches of SOF are loved by their parent services and/or SOCOM, and SF is not.

Just the truth as I see it.

TR

Books · 05-10-2007, 20:23

For the sake of accuracy, the exact quote from the Malkin blog is:

A military reader sends along a message from the current SOCOM (Special Operations Command) Commanding General: "He is to be relieved by a Navy SEAL, three star, who will add a fourth star with this promotion. Both of those things are firsts. Resounding evidence of the prominent role that SEALs have assumed during the War on Terror."

NousDefionsDoc · 05-10-2007, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

It is quite simple actually. DA shows immediate results where as UW & FID are long term actions that can last more years than any particular voting cycle where no one sorry politician or political party can benefit in terms of getting votes from their constituents. UW & SR also require close hold over the operations that no politician can get any mileage out of them without putting the players, the surrogates, and/or national (both ours and the target/host country) in jeopardy. Lastly, the complexities of both UW and FID take years to master, train for, and grasp that very few outside of the SF community have any clue as to what it really takes to plan and execute.

Beautiful.
DA-Microwave
UW/FID-Crockpot
Pols-"Is it soup yet?"

smp52 · 05-10-2007, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

It is quite simple actually. DA shows immediate results where as UW & FID are long term actions that can last more years than any particular voting cycle where no one sorry politician or political party can benefit in terms of getting votes from their constituents. UW & SR also require close hold over the operations that no politician can get any mileage out of them without putting the players, the surrogates, and/or national (both ours and the target/host country) in jeopardy. Lastly, the complexities of both UW and FID take years to master, train for, and grasp that very few outside of the SF community have any clue as to what it really takes to plan and execute.

Sir;

I don't have much faith in politicians who have a seat and elections to worry about. Obviously their interest goes as far as winning the next election. Everything else takes a back seat, but what about the senior military in the DOD and bureaucrats whose responsibility it is to prepare these politicians? Is there any effort on their part to educate congressman/senators about the capabilities of Army Special Forces? Or are there simply too many rice bowls and layers preventing the flow of such information?

From my limited reading, it seems time and time again SF is treated as an unwanted step child. I don't know if any other nation field units with the same mission as SF, but it seems we're definitely the largest, most developed, and have put considerable resources in mastering these abilities. Not to say time/money/effort hasn't bee put into SEALs, Rangers, Marines Force Recon etc. for good reason, but it's about achieving an objective. Keeping that in focus (winning), I would think it would naturally occur to those with information that Army SF is perfectly suited to wage the war we fight today and set other units (conventional and SOF) up for success in their fights.

x-factor · 05-11-2007, 00:07

To a certain extent, isn't all this the eggs arguing with the flour about the cake?

By that I do not mean to disagree with either TR or Col JM, but rather to put a finer point on it. Isn't it somewhat of a false distinction between DA and UW? Aren't both usually necessary to a mission? It was my experience (VERY limited compared to some of you men here) that most DA actions (no matter who carried them out) were built, at least partially, on intelligence gleaned through UW and FID activities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Not saying we are better, just different from the "hammer only" DA options some of the other branches present.

Reminds me my community's inane arguments over which INT is superior. The truth (at least as I see it) is that there is no intrinsically better INT and any one who advocates one doesn't really understand the business...its all just a question of context. As you say, its not about a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather whats the right tool (or combination of tools, usually) for the job at hand?

Also, I don't mean to get back to Rumsfeld, but isn't the imbalance towards DA a symptom of the same attitude that saw PSYOPS and CA moved out of SOCOM and the increased tasking of FID missions to regular Army brigades? And doesn't that attitude trace right back to civillian leadership who, after OEF, became enamored with special operations without really understanding them in the necessary depth? Are we moving towards a SOCOM thats completely dedicated to HVT hunting (in the narrowest sense)?

Warrior-Mentor · 05-11-2007, 01:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

Also, I don't mean to get back to Rumsfeld, but isn't the imbalance towards DA a symptom of the same attitude that saw PSYOPS and CA moved out of SOCOM and the increased tasking of FID missions to regular Army brigades? And doesn't that attitude trace right back to civillian leadership who, after OEF, became enamored with special operations without really understanding them in the necessary depth? Are we moving towards a SOCOM thats completely dedicated to HVT hunting (in the narrowest sense)?

Read PENTAGON'S NEW MAP or BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION by Thomas P M Barnett.

Or Search Thomas P M Barnett on YouTube.

He wrote Rumsfeld's manifesto...read it and you'll see the direction he's taken us and where he was going...

Ret10Echo · 05-11-2007, 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Read PENTAGON'S NEW MAP or BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION by Thomas P M Barnett.

Or Search Thomas P M Barnett on YouTube.

He wrote Rumsfeld's manifesto...read it and you'll see the direction he's taken us and where he was going...

I saw Barnett speak and then bought the book.....interesting read. I'm not 100% sold, but there are some good parts.

Interesting note concerning all this talk of DA and SEALS. This is an extract from a Defense Tech article posted on the 7th of May. Of note in the comments of the VADM to senators would, at least on the surface, indicate sensitivity to the issue of FID and UW and who is best at accomplishing that mission

The Title of the article is SEAL MISSION CREEP.

*****According to the report, it’s because the SEALs’ “most crucial mission” of training foreign militaries is causing a strain on the Teams, leaving them less time to train and sending veterans out of the service for more predictable – and lucrative – assignments with private military companies.

SEALs are stretched so thin and strained by the most vigorous deployment schedule in their 45-year history that defense experts warn about their readiness and ability to contain hot spots around the world. These days, nearly 90 percent of Special Forces deployments are focused in the Middle East, leaving other volatile areas unchecked.

Special Forces are needed to train small foreign units to quell terrorist threats within their national borders, Vice Adm. Eric Olson, deputy commander of Special Operations Command, told senators during an April hearing.
It's perhaps the commandos' most crucial mission, he said: "We know that we cannot kill or talk our way to victory."

Now, I understand that training foreign troops - what’s known in the spec ops world as “foreign internal defense” - to head off the rise of insurgencies and extremist alternatives is a mission for all commandos, including SEALs. But Army Special Forces was founded on this mission and is one of their key strengths.

That mission, coupled with unconventional warfare – raising insurgent armies and employing them to meet U.S. national security goals – have been the Green Berets’ stock in trade since the ‘60s.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003478.html