SecDef To Decide Fate Of Special Operations Unit

NousDefionsDoc · 01-27-2005, 19:36

MarineCorpsTimes.com
January 26, 2005

SecDef To Decide Fate Of Special Operations Unit

By Gidget Fuentes, Times staff writer

OCEANSIDE, Calif. — The fate of the Marine Corps’ first special operations detachment rests with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will determine if the 18-month trial run will yield a permanent Marine place in the commando ranks.

Rumsfeld was expected to meet with Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee and Army Gen. Bryan D. Brown, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, this week to discuss the detachment’s future.

“Their joint recommendation is that SOCOM will say that we have no requirement for another unit,” said a senior Marine officer familiar with the ongoing discussion and who asked not to be named.

Marine Corps Special Operations Command Detachment 1, an 85-member unit based at Camp Pendleton, Calif., activated in summer 2003 and deployed last year to Iraq as part of a Navy special warfare squadron that included SEAL commandos.

Created as a two-year “proof of concept” force, the detachment was developed following a fall 2001 memorandum of understanding between the Corps and SOCOM intended to foster broader cooperation.

The memorandum was signed during Gen. James Jones’ tenure as commandant; Hagee is said to be less of a fan of the idea. And a less-than-supportive view from SOCOM — a command predominantly comprised of Army forces, could all but seal that fate, the senior Marine officer said.

“They want to make sure it stays Army green,” he said, adding that Brown “does not want us around.”

As originally envisioned, Detachment 1 would have grown into at least two other units that would operate jointly for regional combatant commanders. The unique team includes Marines from the reconnaissance, intelligence and Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Company communities, among others.

The possible tabling of the Corps’ SOCOM detachment comes amid continued high demand for special operations forces for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in the larger hunt for terrorists worldwide. There also is strong congressional interest in growing the number of special operations troops. The Army wants to increase the number of Special Forces soldiers by as many as 10,000, according to some reports.

Members of the detachment have continued training since their return from Iraq. Their combat deployment was touted as a successful tour, but could wind up in the “so what” category if the decision is made to scrap the detachment, a prospect that frustrates members.

“No matter what we did, it was irrelevant,” the senior Marine officer said.

Gidget Fuentes is the San Diego bureau chief for Marine Corps Times.

CPTAUSRET · 01-27-2005, 19:41

“No matter what we did, it was irrelevant,” the senior Marine officer said."

I really hope that isn't true.

Time will tell.

Terry

Basenshukai · 01-27-2005, 22:07

I know that the "the Army doesn't like us" answer can make some folks sleep better at night since they won't have to feel "irrelevant", or otherwise not as effective as other options. But, I don't think that the reasons for the unit not being continued are that simple.

Duplication of efforts might be one issue. Is it smarter to spend more money to stand up a costly elite unit, provide it with infracstructure, etc., instead of spending that same money expanding the existing programs of units that provide the same capabilities? In light of what the SEALs do (to include their SMU), it seems that they can fit the bill for what the Marine unit was created to do. If that's the case, spend those funds expanding the SEAL programs, for instance.

The men of that "proof of concept" were, I'm pretty sure, superb operators. However, in a world where dollars are not infinite and where existing SOF units are trying to expand their own existing programs (SEALs and SF teams attempting to fill to 100% of their MTOEs and trying to stand up new battalions / teams), decision-makers have a lot to think about. I don't think, in as much as I know that inter-service rivalries exist, that high-level SOF generals are just saying: "I don't like the way those guys roll-up their BDU sleeves ... deactivate the unit."

CPTAUSRET · 01-27-2005, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

I know that the "the Army doesn't like us" answer can make some folks sleep better at night since they won't have to feel "irrelevant", or otherwise not as effective as other options. But, I don't think that the reasons for the unit not being continued are that simple.

Duplication of efforts might be one issue. Is it smarter to spend more money to stand up a costly elite unit, provide it with infracstructure, etc., instead of spending that same money expanding the existing programs of units that provide the same capabilities? In light of what the SEALs do (to include their SMU), it seems that they can fit the bill for what the Marine unit was created to do. If that's the case, spend those funds expanding the SEAL programs, for instance.

The men of that "proof of concept" were, I'm pretty sure, superb operators. However, in a world where dollars are not infinite and where existing SOF units are trying to expand their own existing programs (SEALs and SF teams attempting to fill to 100% of their MTOEs and trying to stand up new battalions / teams), decision-makers have a lot to think about. I don't think, in as much as I know that inter-service rivalries exist, that high-level SOF generals are just saying: "I don't like the way those guys roll-up their BDU sleeves ... deactivate the unit."

You make a lot of sense to me, and if I had to allocate sparse funding I would do as you suggest.

Terry

RAT · 01-27-2005, 22:40

IMHO...

I can see the Highers in the Corps try and position this as say to Congress that the Corps is MEU(SOC) capable...

Why expand SOCOM when we have Marines that can do the job.

I don't think it is this easy of a situation I can just see the Corps trying to pull a fast one. They (Marine Corps) have never liked SOF (To included Marine Recon). I was hoping it was going to work out but looks like it isn't.

Oh well... Back to the Corps you bunch of prima donnas HAHAHA

RAT OUT!!!

**Roguish Lawyer** · 01-27-2005, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

You make a lot of sense to me, and if I had to allocate sparse funding I would do as you suggest.

Terry

Me too.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 01-28-2005, 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Me too.

That was the reason why the USMC got involved with this in the first place. You have to remember that USSOCOM has its own budget and there is absolutely no doubt that this is the reason why the USMC wanted to play in this arena. I am not taking anything away from the troops-USMC is good at what they do and have great troops, however they often see themselves in direct competition with the Army when it comes to light infantry for short duration operations. Look at what they call MEU(SOC), that really has only to do with one portion of the mission and that is DA/CT and not UW.

Jack Moroney

Blueboy · 01-28-2005, 07:00

Great thread. Like most SF soldiers, I have worked with USMC folks quite a bit in my time (Force Recon, MEU-SOC) and I have nothing but the highest regard for them.

But my question is this: What "value-added" does the USMC Det 1 bring to SOCOM? Do they fill some void in capability? This organization looks and smells like another SEAL team. If so, great---there's plenty of work for everyone. But if this is just a ploy by the Marines to grab a share of MPF-11 funds (considering that they refused to become part of SOCOM after the Cohen-Nunn Amendement in 1986), then I think the SOCOM leadership would be correct in cutting them loose.

QRQ 30 · 01-28-2005, 07:39

The Marines are good soldiers. However they were conceived as the Navy's Infantry and need to remain so. They do what they can to become a separate service i.e. their own air force. The Force Recon was conceived to fill a nitch in their own infantry operations. What they really want is to replace all other services, of course then they will no longer be the "Few and the Proud", just part of the mob.

They are shock troops, originally not intended for extended operations but to hold an area for other troops. They had best be wary. They may get what they want and then go the way of the Airborne Divisions in the Army/

37F5V · 01-28-2005, 09:18

I can only comment on what I have seen, and that is that there is a good deal of redundancy within the community. So much so infact that it leads in some cases to direct competition between elements within the command. Of the four I have had the priveledge to deal with, three of them seemed to perform quite similar functions down range (granted at different skill sets). It tended to turn into who could plan the quickest and whose "turn" it happened to be. As previously mentioned before I'm sure the Corps group are top notch, but not very neccessary considering the capable SOF at hand.

Then again I'm just a B.S. artist....

SgtUSMC8541 · 01-28-2005, 09:29

If you don’t mind a Marines take on this… a few of you have made some good points that I agree with, and others… well not so much.

QRQ30: The Marines are good soldiers. However they were conceived as the Navy's Infantry and need to remain so. They do what they can to become a separate service i.e. their own air force. The Force Recon was conceived to fill a nitch in their own infantry operations. What they really want is to replace all other services, of course then they will no longer be the "Few and the Proud", just part of the mob.”

I disagree with you completely. I do not see us “doing what they can” to become a separate service. For the most part we are. For the “air force” comment, we need to control our own air support. The Air Force does not have the ability to provide the direct and immediate close air support that we require. We would need the Air Force to hold a nearby air base to provide fix wing support and then an Army base to provide the rotor wing support. That does not make any sense when we can do it our self. Now if they are available, I would never turn down their great support. With that being said, we do not want to replace all other services. We don’t want nor need large bombers, we don’t need the large infantry “mob” (your words), same goes for destroyers and cruisers. There are times when a strong, aggressive, well-armed unit is required immediately. Armor, Infantry, Air (rotor and fixed) Reconnaissance and artillery are all there right now. Now for the Marines being in SOCOM. We don’t need to be (IMHO). Our MEU’s are SOC and that will allow us to complete the mission that are assigned to us. It would be nice to be part of SOCOM but we don’t need to be. The money would be nice, and the recognition. It seems as if some missions are not available to us because we do not belong to “the right club”. Now I might be wrong but I feel as if many Marines feel the same as I do.

So… to summarize. The Marines do not need to be in SOCOM. We are a redundancy to the capabilities that are already provided (and very well) by the other branches. The Marine Corps provides the United States a mission capable unit that no other branch can provide. The SOCOM does not need the Marine Corps to “improve” they can simply increase the numbers and training of the current units

QRQ 30 · 01-28-2005, 09:51

Quote:

For the “air force” comment, we need to control our own air support. The Air Force does not have the ability to provide the direct and immediate close air support that we require. We would need the Air Force to hold a nearby air base to provide fix wing support and then an Army base to provide the rotor wing support. That does not make any sense when we can do it our self. Now if they are available, I would never turn down their great support.

Don't you think the same could be said of the Army? Don't you think Navy aviators are as cabable of providing CAS for you as the USAF is for the Army?

The Marines, as all other services get caught up in the $$$$ game. I'm talking about the really high levels. I spent several months at the Khe Sahn Combat base and had all of the respect and sympathy for the marines. Here were superb offensive troops cooped up in a static defensive position.

Believe me, if the top level of the Corps could find a way to have a Dept of the Marines along with the other services they would.

SgtUSMC8541 · 01-28-2005, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

Don't you think the same could be said of the Army? Don't you think Navy aviators are as capable of providing CAS for you as the USAF is for the Army?

Believe me, if the top level of the Corps could find a way to have a Dept of the Marines along with the other services they would.

First, Yes I feel that Navy aviators do a great job, and Air Force does a fine job. The issue is more that the Air Force needs an air field to fly from. It is nice to know that a Marine unit can throw down some metal plates and then you have a platform for Harriers and Cobras to fly from. The units that are helping with the tsunami victims right now… if they needed support right now, one call and Harrier attack aircraft and Cobras are hitting targets and LAV’s and Amtracs are rolling. CAS is what Marine Air crew train for. For a long war or a large precision strike, then the Air Force is the way to go..

Now for a Department of Marines. Yes it would be nice to put all those Navy jokes aside, but truthfully, I think being part of the Department of the Navy is a good thing.... and those in the top level would agree. The positives of being Dept of Navy over the negatives of being on our own... we need to stay Navy (Don't tell any Marines I said that)

Edited to add a comment about the Army air support. The Army generally works in much larger units and has more overall support than the Navy/Marine Corps team. The Air Force can then provide the over watch needed as well as the CAS. (Maybe the Army should look into providing it’s own attack air support. Army A-10’s, Army Harriers) My .02 and worth what you paid for them.

NousDefionsDoc · 01-28-2005, 17:27

Here's what I think:
1. It is about money
2. The GWOT will be won by Spec Ops
3. Spec Ops in general is a very small piece of the money pie compared to the rest of the military and for the value added.
4. It is a mistake to get rid of any Spec Ops asset.
5. Can't we all just get along and kill terrorists?
6. I would suspect this is more a Navy "no" than an Army one.
7. If SOCOM is truly a joint command, the Jarheads should be included.
8. There are more than enough terrorists to keep everybody busy for the rest of our lives.

I say let 'em play.

QRQ 30 · 01-28-2005, 17:45

Airborne!! NDD.

I just took a little exception to the comment about keeping the green although they were talking about $$$ not Army Green.

As for aviation I don't begrudge the jarheads from having aircraft. Its more a thing of wishing we had ours. Are there any army aviators of grund troops who wouldn't love foe us to have A-10s, harriers and maybe even get the A-1Es back?

I hear the zoomies are dropping the A-10s because they aren't sexy enough. Tell them to throw them into the army pile.