Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rationalisation of US SOF
Dimitri    11/26/2007 10:22:43 AM
Looking at the variety of special operations forces maintained by the US and comparing this to those fielded by other nations, there seems to be not only many more of your personnel (that is only to be expected of a larger country), but many more different types of units. I offer as an example: the US maintains Special Forces, Navy Seals, CAG, DEVGRU, the Rangers and 160 SOAR, USAF PJs, USAF CCTs, USAF SOWTs and Marine Special Operations, as well as Coast Guard SOF, and SOF of various civil intelligence and domestic security & law enforcement agencies, such as SAD. Whereas in the same equivalent organisation the UK maintains the Special Air Service, Special Boat Service, and Air Support group. Until very recently the UK did not deem it neccessary to maintain a Special Forces Support Group (equivalent role to your Rangers), preferring to use Para battalions or Royal Marines in this additional role when needed. Additionally the Special Reconnaissance Regiment has only just been formed, instead certain Intelligence Corps personnel were used. Furthermore, looking at the British model, all these are becoming more and more streamlined and condensed into one organisation, known as United Kingdom Special Forces. The UKSF directorate was formed for increasing cooperation and indeed much of the selection and training is reputed to be carried out between both units. In the American example, do the Coastguard and the Marine Corps and the Navy all require their own individual SOF? Do you really require to set 'DEVGRU' apart from the main body of your naval SOF? Would it not make sense to consolidate into one maritime SOF organisation at least? Likewise with the Army Special Forces, CAG, and USAF Special Tactics. Are all these organisations so dissimilar that they must all exist in this fashion that encourages friction and noncooperation? As an example, I believe the counter terrorism teams of UKSF are made up from regular members; there is no separate distinguishable entity that at least is common knowledge (after all I am not in the SOF community!). I also believe if RAF personnel wish to serve with UKSF (except as helo crews) they effectively are loaned to the SAS - there is no separate air force special forces; and why should there be? The RAF does maintain a combat search & rescue organisation, and a parachute company with an airfield seizure role, drawn from its own infantry force; but it does not require hundreds of 'Special Forces' and their own organisations to maintain this capability. I think that the US has already conceded this point to an extent with the formation of an inter-service special operations command. However the image that I see is one of several factions within this loose umbrella, with units being created to satisfy some niche demand which may have been tackled by an existing unit or by an adhoc task force for that job only, but then these units become entrenched and touted by their respective service chiefs. Their particular niche may disappear and so they need to justify themselves; the result is a lot of organisations with a lot of overlap in common areas. I'm not asking you to imagine one organisation only, with no distinctions or sub-organisations between say Army and Naval SOF (although interestingly enough that might be what UKSF ends up as), but at least a rationalisation of what is in place now seems to be in order for increased cooperation, commonality, utility & unity; and discourse. I also respectfully ask, has the American great enthusiasm for SOF damaged the development of conventional forces at all? For instance, in fighting a particular problem you may raise an organisation or task force against it; whereas perhaps changing doctrine and operational level policies amongst your regular troops might have proved the better step. Additionally with so many SOF, you are pulling many of your best soldiers out of the regular forces. I understand wholly that you DO need units of the very finest standards for this type of work; but do you risk creating a culture where the best are taken out of the battalions and small unit leadership suffers for it? Respectfully yours, Dimitri
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
bob the brit       11/26/2007 10:36:10 AM

Looking at the variety of special operations forces maintained by the US and comparing this to those fielded by other nations, there seems to be not only many more of your personnel (that is only to be expected of a larger country), but many more different types of units.

I offer as an example: the US maintains Special Forces, Navy Seals, CAG, DEVGRU, the Rangers and 160 SOAR, USAF PJs, USAF CCTs, USAF SOWTs and Marine Special Operations, as well as Coast Guard SOF, and SOF of various civil intelligence and domestic security & law enforcement agencies, such as SAD.

Whereas in the same equivalent organisation the UK maintains the Special Air Service, Special Boat Service, and Air Support group. Until very recently the UK did not deem it neccessary to maintain a Special Forces Support Group (equivalent role to your Rangers), preferring to use Para battalions or Royal Marines in this additional role when needed. Additionally the Special Reconnaissance Regiment has only just been formed, instead certain Intelligence Corps personnel were used.

Furthermore, looking at the British model, all these are becoming more and more streamlined and condensed into one organisation, known as United Kingdom Special Forces. The UKSF directorate was formed for increasing cooperation and indeed much of the selection and training is reputed to be carried out between both units.

In the American example, do the Coastguard and the Marine Corps and the Navy all require their own individual SOF? Do you really require to set 'DEVGRU' apart from the main body of your naval SOF? Would it not make sense to consolidate into one maritime SOF organisation at least? Likewise with the Army Special Forces, CAG, and USAF Special Tactics. Are all these organisations so dissimilar that they must all exist in this fashion that encourages friction and noncooperation? As an example, I believe the counter terrorism teams of UKSF are made up from regular members; there is no separate distinguishable entity that at least is common knowledge (after all I am not in the SOF community!). I also believe if RAF personnel wish to serve with UKSF (except as helo crews) they effectively are loaned to the SAS - there is no separate air force special forces; and why should there be? The RAF does maintain a combat search & rescue organisation, and a parachute company with an airfield seizure role, drawn from its own infantry force; but it does not require hundreds of 'Special Forces' and their own organisations to maintain this capability.

I think that the US has already conceded this point to an extent with the formation of an inter-service special operations command. However the image that I see is one of several factions within this loose umbrella, with units being created to satisfy some niche demand which may have been tackled by an existing unit or by an adhoc task force for that job only, but then these units become entrenched and touted by their respective service chiefs. Their particular niche may disappear and so they need to justify themselves; the result is a lot of organisations with a lot of overlap in common areas.

I'm not asking you to imagine one organisation only, with no distinctions or sub-organisations between say Army and Naval SOF (although interestingly enough that might be what UKSF ends up as), but at least a rationalisation of what is in place now seems to be in order for increased cooperation, commonality, utility & unity; and discourse.

I also respectfully ask, has the American great enthusiasm for SOF damaged the development of conventional forces at all? For instance, in fighting a particular problem you may raise an organisation or task force against it; whereas perhaps changing doctrine and operational level policies amongst your regular troops might have proved the better step. Additionally with so many SOF, you are pulling many of your best soldiers out of the regular forces. I understand wholly that you DO need units of the very finest standards for this type of work; but do you risk creating a culture where the best are taken out of the battalions and small unit leadership suffers for it?

Respectfully yours,
Dimitri

Being that I can no longer be considered an expert in this area, I can't comment on the situation today. However, even in my days, the US had a number of SF units. What I can add to this thread is that it worked for them then [having multiple roled organisations in their own command sphere]. The seperate commands allowed each unit to have the focus it needed, and in having said focus, it allowed each unit to become very proficient and specialised at what they do. Whilst the
 
Quote    Reply

mough       11/27/2007 8:47:45 PM
Simple fact of them atter the Americans had reasons for so many different units, some good some not, because of Posse comitatus CAG have special dispensation to act on US soil, although that would also be the phibies HRT, the SEAL's are what they are although alot of their UDT work is now under Navy EOD who are semi SOF's while DEVGRU were basically a navy grab for tier 1 glory, force recon only exists as 2 reserve companies now, all the other FR guys are MARSOC, the Rangers yo yo between being considered SOF's and basically high speed infantry, SF does what SF does...which is basically everything, the AF STS's are vital because 1 the Army will not do the CSAR or CCT job to AF satisfaction and 2 they want in on the HSLD love fest, the LE units, swat ect and freddies all do different things most fed departments like ICE ect need a special unit they can call on when needed and not go htorugh burocracy
 
Quote    Reply

mough       11/27/2007 8:51:15 PM
BTW the UK is going down the specialisation route, thats why the SFSG/SRR were formed to take away some of the jobs the SAS/SBS wew doing, seriously do you need to be doing a DA mission with a squadron of SAS guys?...it's not what they were designed for but they were used like that in Astan, also the CO mission are SRR jobs now, the DSF is trying to get the SAS especially back to it's small covert roots
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       11/27/2007 10:12:00 PM

BTW the UK is going down the specialisation route, thats why the SFSG/SRR were formed to take away some of the jobs the SAS/SBS wew doing, seriously do you need to be doing a DA mission with a squadron of SAS guys?...it's not what they were designed for but they were used like that in Astan, also the CO mission are SRR jobs now, the DSF is trying to get the SAS especially back to it's small covert roots

well thank god they're getting back to the brick i was wondering what was going on [i know they're classed infantry,but please...]
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       11/27/2007 10:14:32 PM
Dimitri, much of what you wrote is valid criticism. However, there are a few things wrong with it. CAG and DEVGRU are not  CT sub units like the 22SAS rotations and the Australian TAG West. CT is one of their tasks, but both are similar to the SAS and SBS in that they focus on the covert side of SOF business. As Mough stated,  UKSF is having a change of heart and becoming more specialised, and 22SAS and CAG are becoming more and more similar. US Army SF has a few dedicated CT/CQB companies as well. I also believe SEAL team 8 to be the SEAL's CQB specialists. (Though I could be wrong about that). Also, The various government agencies in the UK do have similar units. I believe MI6 has a similar unit to the CIA's SAD.
 
I also understand your concern that SOF units siphon the best men out of the conventional military. This is generally only true for Army and Marine SOF's, where most hopefuls come from the conventional side. USAF SOF get's many of it's guys from basic training and tech school, and the US Navy SEALs, SWCC, and EOD get over 90% of their men from those with a SEAL/SWCC/EOD challenge contract or volunteers in basic or in A school. However, I am not completely sold that all the best men are being siphoned off by SOF. There are many in the conventional army who make fantastic conventional soldiers and are just not suited to SOF stuff. The problem with this is our youth. In the US Army, being a grunt in the regular army for your whole career is not looked at as desirable. We probably have a lot of yuppies in our ranks. These guys want to either switch to a different MOS (which is almost unheard of in UK and commonwealth armies), apply for OCS and try to become an officer, leave the army and get an education, or join an SOF unit, among many other options. But for a lot of us, the conventional army grows on us, and some of us choose to stay in.
 
The military does not create SOF units to deal with problems. They create them to fill a niche. It simply doesn't make sense to start specializing alraedy specialized infantry so they can perform some tasks that SOF can, and it wouldn't make much sense to have a Ranger or SEAL guard a checkpoint. Furthermore do to the smaller size of the United Kingdom, their method worked for them for a long time. But I also believe it had a lot to do with the fact that British regiments were protective of their personell, and didn't like seeing their guys go over to UKSF.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics