Should CAPOC leave USASOC?

[Mac]

Hypothetical question: should USACAPOC (Civil Affairs and Psy Ops) be separated from USASOC and integrated into "Big Army". As we are support for the SF mission, I was wondering how QP's felt about this. In your opinion, would both the Army and SF be best served with CAPOC going back to Big Army or should we stay assigned to and primarily support the SF mission?

[37F5V]

Not a QP but......
Word on the street is that CAPOC will dissolve with the CA assets becoming low-density within Mother Army. PSYOP is looking to become its own command within USASOC. Is it going to happen? I know that it has been briefed a few echelons up and is accepted as an eventuality here in PSYOP land. Is it a good thing? Who knows..... I guess it would depend upon your perspective. One of my greatest fears is to be pandered out as a low-density MOS. Now obviousley that is for personal reasons . However, if our intent is to serve specific supported units than I can see no better alternative than to do as they do and train as they train. In the long run I think it will benefit the soldiers (training wise), as well as keep that dumbfounded look off of supported unit leaders faces when you show up at their door step.
Oh yeah, this opinion holds true for both PSYOP & CA.....

Take it easy,

John

[MinerDiver]

Originally Posted by Mac

Hypothetical question: should USACAPOC (Civil Affairs and Psy Ops) be separated from USASOC and integrated into "Big Army". As we are support for the SF mission, I was wondering how QP's felt about this. In your opinion, would both the Army and SF be best served with CAPOC going back to Big Army or should we stay assigned to and primarily support the SF mission?

The issues that are coming into play for both Civil Affairs (CA) and Psychological Operations (PSYOP) are that they are ‘coming of age’. Back in the day when Big Army didn’t want these capabilities, the only home they found was in the Special Operations community. Now, as we see in Iraq and – well globally, is that we need to be able to influence a multitude of diverse groups and effect their behavior to either a supportive role, or one that is beneficial for combat. First of all, the PSYOPs community needs to integrate with Information Operations in the overall Effects Based Planning (EBP) process to focus EBP on the Information Domain and the military contribution to DIME option “Information”. They need to do this in order to coordinate and de-conflict various military activities involving information and/or Information systems with all military/civil activities affecting the Information Domain in order to achieve synergistic effects on will and capabilities. This isn’t saying SOF doesn’t need this capability – when in fact we do, but in the greater good of support they need to realize that they are a Joint asset / capability.
Now CA in my opinion is one of the most underutilized elements within the military. Here is a group of people, with money, rebuilding infrastructure, working with the locals… Anything you all see that you can leverage from this military element (besides money)? I would keep them with SF as a valuable asset that supports many of our missions.

[Mac]

You both have brought up alot of good points. I cant speak for the PsyOPs side of the house, but its looking pretty eventual on ours (CA). I agree that, if the support of GP BNs goes to line Div's/Corps/Theaters, and they get their WARTRACE, OK, but stick with it. You know how many rotations at JRTC, NTC, WARFIGHTER, etc, that we see different patches. We have a hard enough time gaining trust of AD units as it is, always supporting a different one makes it worse. Train as you (and with who) you fight, as much as possible. And yes, PSYRGR, I hate THAT look on a BN CDRs face when I show up in his TOC as much as you do.

SF has the ability to do these jobs as well, probably better, than us (they have and still do it...especially short term). They wrote the book, especially in low intensity/counter-insurgency/OOTW. But long term, it does take time, money and resources away from other things that they could be doing (DA, FID/UW, etc). So, who fills the hole? Does each Group get a wartrace, just like the rest of the Army? If so, it will probably be the AD assests. If so, expansion of those forces is a must, and to whom will they report?

As far as the integration of information distribution, Diver, I bow to your knowledge. Im not as well versed in our brothers in PsyOPs job as I probably should be. Id have to let one of them comment. For both CA and PsyOPs, I feel there are more similar aspects with the SF role, especially when dealing with foreign cultures and peoples, than with "Big Army", IMHO. Influencing peoples and governments, winning the locals trust and confidence, making the most with the least. Who knows how to do this better than SF?

[Floyd]

If they do move the reserve CA assets out of SOCOM what would become of 96th. I cant imagine the long tabbers there would be very happy about it.

[Mac]

Exactly....I cant see whatever CA element (AD or reserve) supporting the Groups not answering directly to SOC. I doubt that the long tabbers at the 96th would relish answering to anyone but SOC, or, even worse, a Reserve command, IMHO. Just cant see that happeneing. The only thing I could see is SOC maintaining a smaller, separate CA/PO element, but Im not high enough on the food chain to say.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Interesting dillema and discussion. My next question would be what becomes of FID? Thinking strategically, are they trying to build two militaries? One to blast and one build?

[The Reaper]

Riddle me this, Batman.

Why is the TO&E for the 96th completely different from every other CA unit in the Army?

TR

[tyrsnbdr]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Interesting dillema and discussion. My next question would be what becomes of FID? Thinking strategically, are they trying to build two militaries? One to blast and one build?

I have a similar question. What are the major differences between FID and SASO?

Both are strategic ops. SASO is much larger scale and done by conventional forces. SASO also includes population security.

FID: These are operations that involve participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization, to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency. (Quoted from the FID description page).

The second question: Will expanding CA and Pysops to help the conventional forces help the all important SASO mission? I’m not saying that we move the assets that are already in place. I’m say that we should stand up new platoons or companies for each Unit of Action.

NDD: I believe that the conventional army is already 2 Armies in one. We rolled into the 'stan, kicked some Taliban ass and then immediately went into SASO mode. Same with Iraq. We did the same thing in Germany and Japan and the list goes on. It’s the American Military way.

[Mac]

NDD- Short term, probably not much. SF will probably get the AD component for support for all missions, including FID. That should go on as before. The biggest problem I could see is numbers. Busy as they already are, even the current idea for expansion, I think, is low. They are supposed to be short term, then hand off to Rsrv CA. Long term could be the biggest problem. If they have to handle the whole SOC load, no Rsvr component will get experience in that aspect. All they will have done is Big Army, post-conflict reconstruction, disaster relief, etc.Then, if SF is forced to use them in a SO or FID/UW role, we start from scratch on the learning curve. A blast Army and a build Army? I think we are already there. The Army has taken on so many different roles in the Post Cold War era (peacekeepers, policemen, teachers, builders, politicians, UN responsibilities, disaster relief, and warrior) that we over extended ourselves, IMHO. Took on too much, too fast, while all the while , downsizing (Thank you, Mr. Clinton). Now were paying for it.
Again....just my opinion.


TR-Id say the major one is the MOS of the NCOs assigned (not 38A)?

Tyrsbdr- All conventional units (Div and higher). have CA support that is tasked to them. Even if those units werent available, alot of the conventional units have taken on CA tasks on themselves (using their internal engineer assests to do rebuilding projects, medics/docs for MEDCAPS, etc). The command elements in these units have to integrate CA missions in their training now, so the concept is there. The biggest problem I see isnt just expansion, I think its retention.

[Mac]

Tyrsbdr- Sorry, probably telling you something you already know. You probably have more experience integrating the CA attachment into the plan than I have carrying it out. No offense meant.

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by PSYRGR

Word on the street is that CAPOC will dissolve with the CA assets becoming low-density within Mother Army. PSYOP is looking to become its own command within USASOC.

i ended my career as a POG pogue...what the geniuses in the PSYOP community seem misunderstand is that SF is the best friend they have...they could survive as a subordinate command within ASOC, but they would have no chance outside the special ops community...when i was in 8th Battalion, the commander (an MP) hated the fact that we were part of the special ops community...he thought PSYOP would be better off on its own...the only folks that knew how to use us in Somalia were the Marines and SOCCENT...the rest of the folks there thought we were producing the Somali language version of the Paraglide...

[tyrsnbdr]

Originally Posted by Mac

Tyrsbdr- Sorry, probably telling you something you already know. You probably have more experience integrating the CA attachment into the plan than I have carrying it out. No offense meant.

Mac, No offense taken. I don’t know as much as you give me credit for and I’m always willing to listen to another professional talk about his job.

I am friends with the 2 NCO’s who used to be the CA/Pysops section for my division. One is an 18D who moved to do another job in the Div and one PCS’d to Bragg to continue his journey to be an 18D. Needless to say we never talked about CA/Pysops mission.

In the Unit of Action, there is the BSTB (BDE Special Troops BN) which houses all the Combat Support elements for the UA. There is 1 Signal Co, 1 Engineer Co, 1 MI Co, 1 MP Co, and of course HHC. I think there should be at least a CA Platoon in the BN w/ a staff section in the UA HQ. The staff section could already be there, I don’t know. My point is that this type of asset should be internal to the UA, just like everything else the UA needs to sustain itself. Maybe the answer is to treat CA like they treat Signal Officers: have the separate units, but have the Staff job like the S6 in the UA’s to help them complete the mission.

[37F5V]

[QUOTE=lksteve]i ended my career as a POG pogue...what the geniuses in the PSYOP community seem misunderstand is that SF is the best friend they have...they could survive as a subordinate command within ASOC, but they would have no chance outside the special ops community...[QUOTE=lksteve]

The idea I believe is to stay within the community as a PSYOP Command falling under USASOC. Basically USACAPOC without the CA..... Oh yeah, I'm sorry that you ended your career as a pogue.

Also as far as what I've "heard" about 96th. A certain COA keeps them intact IOT continue to function under USASOC. I don't think that my SF bretheren should be too concerned as a good portion of 96th is being filled with Inf. and other Combat arms types. SF seems to be calling their boys home. Keep in mind that this is all "word on the street stuff". I've been down at SWCS for over a year so at best I get to hear 2nd hand GFI's...


John

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mac

TR-Id say the major one is the MOS of the NCOs assigned (not 38A)?

Exactly.

And all of the 18s assigned there (Os and Es).

If they are needed there on AD, and I am not saying that they are, why do the Reserve CA units not have 18s assigned?

TR