Why SOCOM?
Got bottle I'm gonna use it
Intention I feel inventive
Gonna make you, make you,
make you notice
--Brass in Pocket,
The Pretenders
__________________
Why do we have Special Forces, and why did Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) devolve from this? How did they become 4-Star commands?
Do units that have 68,000 assigned personnel -- along with an unspecified number of civilian personnel -- qualify as “special”? If Special Operations Forces are so special and their missions classified, why do we wear flashy tabs and hats advertising our existence; shouldn’t Special Operations Forces (SOF) be all gash and no flash?
The Unites States Special Forces was modeled upon World War II's Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was modeled upon the British SOE. The OSS was a theatre asset responsive to the orders of the Allied Supreme Commander. Special Forces was just that: They were assigned missions outside of the traditional force structure.
SF worked with the State Department as part of a “Country Team”, in order to ascertain what was needed to benefit the host nation (HN). In addition to direct action, SF performed Foreign Internal Defense (FID), Internal Defense and Development (IDAD), intelligence functions and unconventional and guerrilla warfare.
The Rangers, Devils Brigade, Marine Raiders and Merrill's Marauders consolidated into United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance and the Rangers. Both specialized in direct action (DA), while performing some supporting intelligence roles, as well. Both are built on the British WW II commando model and are military in function, pure and simple.
So, how have the Rangers and USMC Force Recon come to be included under the rubric of SOF, which is other than simple DA? Ditto the SEALs, who morphed from the Navy’s Underwater Demolition Teams (UDTs) of WWII. The fleet simply does not need to send hired killers around the world. How did the killing of Osama bin Laden, for example, benefit the Chief of Naval Operations (other than making of him a Mortuary Officer?)
In Vietnam, SF were trained in and performed all the classic WWII OSS functions. The CIDG (Civilian Irregular Defense Groups) A-teams did Population and Resource Control (PRC), IDAD and FID. The Mike Force B-teams were DA, with some focus on intel gathering. All worked for the Theatre and Corps Commanders and were responsive to the maneuver commander’s guidance. All followed the chain of command and had a clearly delineated role.
Special programs like Studies and Observations Group (SOG) were DA, strategic intel and worked directly for the Theatre Commander. All used foreign troops under U.S. command, fulfilling the “force multiplier” SF mission.
All was fine until the failure of Desert Storm I, when it was decided that the Army needed an in-house special Air Force responsive to Special Operations’ needs; thus was created the 1st Provisional SOCOM. (It should be noted that in VN and before, SF had a prototype of SOCOM with the dedicate aviation units which had habitual relations with SF units like The Green Hornets (20th Special Operations Squadron; 20th SOS with SOG).)
The justification for the creation of SOF – SOCOM was the cry from SF commanders that Regular Army pogues did not understand SF capabilities, and therefore misutilized the assets. While that may be so, the current Special Operations empire has not ensured SF is used any better than it was in the bad old days. Instead of keeping SF special, it is now a miasma of cobbled forces and missions.
What does SOCOM do that any regular U.S. Army unit cannot do? The 10th Mountain, 24th and 25th, 4th and 3rd Division all fight just as hard as any SOCOM unit. Any unit can be special trained up for purposes in Iraq or Afghanistan. It appears SOCOM has ceased to be a war fighting organization and instead has become a series of small units focused on non-military operations.
It seems the one new thing for SOCOM is to serve at the beck and call of a president who wishes to order assassination strikes and avoid going through the National Command Structure.
In Ranger’s day, the military distrusted SF as being Central Intelligence Agency lackeys . It looks like the hens have come home to roost as SOCOM is now functioning as the military wing of the CIA.
Labels: JSOC, SOCOM, special forces, special operations command, special operations force, special ops
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:10 PM
24 Comments:
Ranger said: "It seems the one new thing for SOCOM is to serve at the beck and call of a president who wishes to order assassinations strikes and avoid going through the National Command Structure."
I think you hit the nail on the head with this observation, Ranger Jim! GSJ
The one thing I find interesting about this (since I'm never surprised at the ability of anything that is advertised as "elite" and "special" to suck money out of Congress) is the how it seems to show that the U.S. military now shares the "creeping eliteness" syndrome with places like pre-Freedom! Iraq, the Sudan, and Cambodia.
Third World armies have always done this crap. Their regular joes are pretty much trash; conscripted gomers who barely give a shit. So the regime has to create an "army within the army" to do the stuff they want, like brutalize the peons, steal stuff, and protect the elite. Even those guys often turn out to be just mega-gomers, so there has to be an elite-within-the-elite, and so on.
So you had the regular Iraqi Army, and within that the Republican Guard, and within that the Special Republican Guard, the RG commando units, and so forth.
The overall effect is to take the guys who could provide some decent leadership for the grunt units and concentrate them into the "special" units, essentially creating a hard core of semi-effective military organizations surrounded by trash.
The U.S. Army is better than that, but...it's been a long time since we faced a genuine peer enemy. How good ARE our line dogs today? Certainly in WW2 the long-standing complaint even in 1945 was that our regular infantry companies were pretty crap and needed a pantsload of artillery and other supporting arms to accomplish the simplest missions. I think that was exaggerated, but I also thing that we have no real idea whether the creeping eliteness has had the effect of robbing a hell of a lot of bodies who would otherwise be effective squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and first sergeants to make them into highly-paid door kickers.
Chief,
Using sof assets for anything other than force multiplyers is faulty application of the asset and concept of spec ops.
Door kickers should be e3's. lead by e5/6,s.
jim
Well, jim, we've pretty much had this discussion before. The USASF was "captured" by Charlie Beckwith's SAS-groupies back in the Seventies and Eighties and now has WAY more in common with the DA outfits like the 75th Infantry than it does with its old Jedburgh model.
And I think a lot of that has to do with our acceptance of ourselves as an imperial power.
Imperia don't lead undergrounds, or create partisan forces to conduct UW operations against their enemies. They create proxy armies and upgrade their foederati satellite states. They run rebellion suppression campaigns for those puppets, sending their Sonderkommandos to lead the door-kicking for the locals.
You don't need the "old" SF model for that; super-Rangers will do.
That said, I'm sure that there are SF teams still operating in SW Asia in the old MAC-SOG form, as LRRPs and strategic intel-gatherers. But the old SF model is really dead, and I think that the SOCOM organization is just formal acceptance of that fact.
I think it is unlikely that anything will change unless We the People demand that our country changes, and I see no evidence that that will happen in the foreseeable future. So SOCOM is here to stay, man...
Chief,
Socom/jsoc are here to stay b/c once 4 stars are pinned on to the CDR. there is never going back to the old rank structure.
I always say that Mc C should never had been more than a 06 and at a stretch 07.
Beckwith and the rif's killed sf. They also screwed us when they added the o.
jim
I don't agree with this in the least. For one, SOCOM isn't some big bad group of CIA mooks. In case you haven't been paying attention, the two have had some pretty big disagreements the past few years. They work together often, sure. And some of the operations they have cooperated in have been resounding successes. Yet that's not kosher to you for some reason.
Secondly, you complain about SOCOM units engaging in missions other than combat/war. Newsflash: a big part of special operations is doing stuff other than shooting bad guys. Sorry if that encroaches on your macho view of what the military "should" be. Things like FID and civil affairs can be game-changers just as much as any direct action mission, sometimes more so.
And your proclamation that the standard infantry divisions can do anything a SOCOM unit can is laughable. Show me a guy from 10th Mountain conducting hostage rescue. Show me him training up and leading rebels to overthrow a regime. Show me the 3rd ID taking down Bin Laden (with no support from the Night Stalkers or the CIA mind you, because apparently those guys are evil bastards, right?).
Anon,
Pls tell me the last time that FID/Idad/PRC/or Civil Affairs/Psyops have done anything of worth??
What game have they ever changed??
How did killing OBL affect the win column? We have lost all nation building wars to include VN/Iraq/Afgh-so where's the bacon??
If you bother to read my essays you'd see that oppose the MACHO that sof has become.Look at the selection process that insures only macho boys pass the selection. It's now a brawn scenario.
You say that there's more to SOF than killing, but then all u can hang your hat on is the body count of all the mooks that you've waxed.
My point is that sf/sof doesn't need a o-10 macom status.
Why don't you just admit that socom has become a politicians play thing?
When did socom become the worlds saviour?Take a good look around here in America, we need a lot of the things that you are trying to peddle in shit holes around the world.
I don't expect you to understand a word that i utter.
jim
Anon,
I'm confused- does Socom protect or destroy regimes.
What legitimate right do you have to enter a country and lead rebels against their gov't??!?
The same is true of protecting gov'ts from rebels.
Why are we up in other peoples asses smelling their farts.?
How does any of this sponsor democracy and freedom here in the good ole US of A??
jim
This isn't going to get anywhere because you're among the group that believes the U.S. has no right in other countries, which I believe is fundamentally wrong.
While I don't agree with the United States (or any other country for that matter) getting involved in everywhere for no real reason, there are plenty of cases (genocide, etc.) where I do agree that we should intervene.
What right do we have to enter a country and dismantle a regime? As much as anyone who doesn't want to see thousands of innocents murdered.
Unlike you, I don't see the military as a tool to merely sponsor freedom and democracy here in the US of A. We've got plenty of that already.
I'd love to hear what your idea of "winning" a nation-building war is. Please enlighten me. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't pleasant, but corrupt, murderous regimes were deposed in both places.
How was killing Bin Laden NOT a win? Al'Qaeda has been considerably weakened (not just by the the Bin Laden raid, mind you) over the past several years. Would this have been possible without getting involved and using SOCOM around the world? I hardly think so.
SOCOM and our government aren't perfect. Far from it. But the shit you're spouting is very close-minded.
Anon,
My idea of winning a nation building war is NOT TO GET INVOLVED in the first place.
If the war is so important then that is why we have regional powers, let them handle their own spheres of influence.
If this is unattainable then we have a UN for world problems-use it.
When the US leaders borrow 40% of every nation building dollar spent then something is essentially wrong in the equation.
, especially when that money comes from a repressive communist regime.
Simply said-you don't build other nations when yours is turning into a 3rd world shit hole.
jim
Anon,
[and just a suggestion that you might whip up a catchy handle to make it more interesting for both; they do that in the world of Cowboy shooting -- just choose a character who mimics your own admired behaviors.]
Per,
"... there are plenty of cases (genocide, etc.) where I do agree that we should intervene."
What right do we have to enter a country and dismantle a regime? As much as anyone who doesn't want to see thousands of innocents murdered.
This is mighty idealistic. Do you really think we (or anyone, much aside from Jesus)cares about "1,000's of innocents"? NO, as long as they're not our own, we'll take 1,000's in payback, thanks.
Per,
I'd love to hear what your idea of "winning" a nation-building war is.
IMHO, there is NO winning a "nation-building war". Why, just look at the good ole U.S. of A today ... do you think we're winning the nation-building war when you look at Detroit, South- or Eastside Chicago, etc.
Nations have to build themselves, and even then they may fail, based on the graft of the leaders. Q.E.D.
"My idea of winning a nation building war is NOT TO GET INVOLVED in the first place.
If the war is so important then that is why we have regional powers, let them handle their own spheres of influence.
If this is unattainable then we have a UN for world problems-use it."
But sometimes we SHOULD get involved. I'm all for letting local, regional powers and/or the UN handle things whenever feasible and necessary. But even in these cases, support from SOCOM and the U.S. military may be needed (look at Somalia in '93).
"When the US leaders borrow 40% of every nation building dollar spent then something is essentially wrong in the equation.
, especially when that money comes from a repressive communist regime.
Simply said-you don't build other nations when yours is turning into a 3rd world shit hole."
I'm sorry, but if you believe that the U.S. is anything close to a "3rd world shit hole", then you have an extremely... selective view of things. Even some of the worst living conditions in the nation are vastly better than what people in the REAL 3rd world shit holes have to put up with.
"[and just a suggestion that you might whip up a catchy handle to make it more interesting for both; they do that in the world of Cowboy shooting -- just choose a character who mimics your own admired behaviors.]"
Nice try with the deliberate baiting. I'd rather be seen as a gung-ho cowboy (which I'm not) than someone with zero compassion and sympathy.
"This is mighty idealistic. Do you really think we (or anyone, much aside from Jesus)cares about "1,000's of innocents"? NO, as long as they're not our own, we'll take 1,000's in payback, thanks."
Since when is idealistic synonymous with bad? Are you that pessimistic and cynical? Idealism has accomplished lots of good things in history. I don't see Jesus lifting a finger to stop it, so I suppose the duty falls to us lowly humans, eh? I fully realize my position isn't a very popular one and objectively I can understand why, even if I don't agree.
And apparently some people do care, as evidenced by peacekeeping/peace enforcement operations in the past. The kind of close-minded isolationism you're supporting isn't really feasible in today's globalized society, which only continues to become more globalized. As much as people would love to leave problem areas to their own devices and let thousands die, I don't think it's a sustainable practice in the long run.
"
IMHO, there is NO winning a "nation-building war". Why, just look at the good ole U.S. of A today ... do you think we're winning the nation-building war when you look at Detroit, South- or Eastside Chicago, etc.
Nations have to build themselves, and even then they may fail, based on the graft of the leaders. Q.E.D."
See above. I'm well aware of how bad living conditions can be in parts of the U.S. I've seen it firsthand. But I bet a lot of Rwandans would have traded places with those Detroit citizens in a heartbeat back in 1994, no?
Again, I don't support widespread meddling in the affairs of other nations in all but the most extreme circumstances, particularly because it can backfire. However, I think it's a necessary reality in today's world. Sometimes nations may need help building themselves, and that outside help could be what lets them ultimately thrive.
In any case, I'd suggest we just agree to disagree. We seem to be fundamentally at odds in our ways of thinking, so I really don't see this debate going anywhere.
Anonymous
Message flagged
Sunday, July 15, 2012 3:10 PM
Anon,
Welcome to you at Mc Donough georgia.
Yep we disagree, but that's what makes us Americans.
No we're not 3rd world yet, but we're heading there in a straight line of progression. We will bottom out and both of us may live to see it.
If Rwandans had oil we would've saved their asses.
You need to look at the stats of hunger and poverty in the US b/f you paint your rosy pics.
No i am real weak on compassion and see no benefit to solving problems in rwanda when i have frenchtown here in tallahassee. BTW the murder rate in chi/detroit/dc exceeds 3rd world shithole stats.How does that fit into your world view?
As a result of our discussion i'm gonna write an essay on NATION BUILDING SUCCESSES.Watch for it -It usually takes a week for me to cycle an article.
You got me and my inflexible mind working over time.
jim
Not quite McDonough, but nice try. I'm not sure what point you tried to prove with that, but nonetheless...
"Yep we disagree, but that's what makes us Americans."
Fair enough, and I respect your right to hold your own views, as I can objectively understand your perspective even if I don't agree with them.
"No we're not 3rd world yet, but we're heading there in a straight line of progression. We will bottom out and both of us may live to see it."
I don't deny that conditions in the United States have gotten rocky the past few years. But again, thinking that it's comparable in any real way to the truly horrific 3rd world shitholes (as you so eloquently describe them) is a flawed comparison at best.
I'm sure people had similar views during the Great Depression, arguably one of the worst periods in our nation's history, yet times got better, did they not? The U.S. is a capitalistic society, and any economist will tell you that capitalism inevitably faces periods of economic downturn. It's practically a cycle. Not saying capitalism is a bad system of government (I happen to be fine with it), but you're not looking at the whole picture.
"If Rwandans had oil we would've saved their asses.
You need to look at the stats of hunger and poverty in the US b/f you paint your rosy pics."
That's very possible, yes.
I have, and when compared to conditions so areas in Africa... color me unimpressed. I'm not saying that we should ignore problems at home, but believe it or not managing both issues is not mutually exclusive.
"No i am real weak on compassion and see no benefit to solving problems in rwanda when i have frenchtown here in tallahassee. BTW the murder rate in chi/detroit/dc exceeds 3rd world shithole stats.How does that fit into your world view?"
That's a very, very depressing worldview and I'm sad to hear that you hold it. It's yours to have, but in my mind it's that kind of isolationist, dispassionate view that prevents progress.
I'd love to see your source on that, what kind of 3rd world countries you're using as your example, etc.
You motivated me to do some Googling to research that claim of yours, and here's what I came up with. It seems that on average, roughly 17,000 people are murdered each year in the U.S. During the Rwandan Genocide, it's estimated that eight hundred thousand people were killed. And that's a somewhat conservative estimate: some organizations put the number closer to a million.
Doing the math, that's nearly fifty times as many deaths in less than one third the time. That's more than all Union and Confederate casualties during the Civil War combined. That's also greater than the number of Americans killed during the entirety of World War II. You may want to think about this before you decide to play the numbers game again.
"As a result of our discussion i'm gonna write an essay on NATION BUILDING SUCCESSES.Watch for it -It usually takes a week for me to cycle an article.
You got me and my inflexible mind working over time."
Best of luck to you with that, then. I may not agree with your views, but I admire your conviction at least. I may or may not get around to reading it, depending on my schedule.
Anon,
since u are hung up on nation building and seem to have Rwanda on your mind , why don't we go there?
R. was the result of white nation builders-specifically the Belgiques/Leopold and they used all the goodies that blow up your skirt,and this eventually led to a genocide.
Now my question is -why should i cry a tear for R when the Belgiques made the mess with their policies? Why don't they clean up after themselves?
Same for all the colonial shit holes. Let the French/Germans/English/Dutch make pretty?
Why is it on the US's back??
jim
The Rwandan Genocide wasn't a result of "nation-building". It was a result of colonialism by European powers. And no, those two are not the same thing. Colonialism was a terrible, terrible thing for all those involved.
I wholeheartedly agree that European countries should also pick up the slack when it comes to stopping genocides. However, they're our allies, so would a show of support really be such a bad thing? Besides, why is it the fault of the modern Europe? Should they and they alone pay the price of their colonial ancestors? The U.S. was approached multiple times during Rwanda and asked by the United Nations for assistance.
Mind you, they didn't ask for troops. All they wanted was the jamming of Hutu transmissions (easily within U.S. capability) as well as some APCs (not even crews to go with them). But America was still weary from Mogadishu a year before, so they avoided the situation like the plague.
It's not just "cleaning up European messes", it's doing the right thing and fulfilling moral obligations. Especially in the face of double standards, like Iraq or the Balkans. Why go there but nowhere else?
Morality is not the realm of foreign policy; these are non-parallel concerns.
Morality is the realm of the church.
This is a cmt i made on MILPUB .
Chief,
per your last cmt.
I hope i stay OT since this was our raw entry.
I have a guy on Raw ragging my ass about nation building, socom , etc... to include the Rwanda situation. Throw in a dash of morality.
Well here's my point-Take a total, whichever one blows up ur skirt.
_All the people killed by the US in nation building and Coin which is obviously a moral endeavor b/c Why i can't discover. How many dead in VN??I've read 2 1/2 million while we were there and the agent orange/clusterbomb deaths continue unabated. How many killed in Afgh and Iraq???
-Now compare this to the rawanda massacres/genocide.
Taken in this perspective Terrorism is childs play.
The ira are negligible compared to nation state violence.
Same same AQ.
jim
jim
Anon,
I just gotta ask-did you ever carry a rifle doing any of the moral nation building that you espouse?
jim
"Morality is not the realm of foreign policy; these are non-parallel concerns.
Morality is the realm of the church."
It's comments like this that scare the hell outta me. Just about everything, and I mean everything in life, needs to be guided by some kind of moral or ethic code. Because once you deal away with those pesky morals and ethics, it's a slippery slope. The Nazis were a perfect example of why government needs to have an ethical/moral foundation in at least some capacity.
"I just gotta ask-did you ever carry a rifle doing any of the moral nation building that you espouse?"
Blatant red herring/ad hominem, but I'll bite. No, I haven't. But I'm enlisting soon and who knows? Maybe I will.
Anon,
i hope you'll find morality in Socom.
If u volunteer, that is.
If we want morality let's elect the pope.Or the mufti of jerusalem.
The art on nation building will be called-the STING.
jim
Anon,
i'm not busting your nuts.
I get spammed and trolled continuosly, and i get rather pissy about it.
I feel that you are dealing in good faith.
You should think twice about enlisting.
jim
Anon,
I'm sure people had similar views during the Great Depression, arguably one of the worst periods in our nation's history, yet times got better, did they not?
There's your contention, but economics is not a science-it's all voodoo.
Just b/c the sun came out yesterday doesn't mean that it will tomorrow.
We'll see who is correct, and personally i hope that it's you.
I'm pessimistic all right.
jim
"i hope you'll find morality in Socom.
If u volunteer, that is.
If we want morality let's elect the pope.Or the mufti of jerusalem.
The art on nation building will be called-the STING."
As do I. I'll be the first to admit SOCOM is flawed, but I still see good in them. It is what it is.
And on the Pope comment: morality does NOT require religion. The two aren't mutually inclusive.
"i'm not busting your nuts.
I get spammed and trolled continuosly, and i get rather pissy about it. I feel that you are dealing in good faith.
You should think twice about enlisting."
Fair enough. It wasn't my intention to troll, I'm simply putting my beliefs out there. I've given it a lot of thought and I appreciate the concern, but I've made my decision.
"There's your contention, but economics is not a science-it's all voodoo.
Just b/c the sun came out yesterday doesn't mean that it will tomorrow.
We'll see who is correct, and personally i hope that it's you.
I'm pessimistic all right."
Economics are difficult to read, no doubt. But like in anything, it does have patterns that have proven themselves repeatedly over time. But that's all beside the point.
I actually consider myself a rather pessimistic person as well, for what it's worth. I guess I still have some idealism left in me, though.
Regardless, I guess that's the end of this conversation. I appreciate it being kept more or less civil. Good luck.
Post a Comment
<< Home