Comments for Blog http://blog.warfarecenter.com Blog postings related to today’s world of conflict. Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:17:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Duffy Send – 26 Mar 12: The Best Doctrine Never Read…SOF FID by LongTabSigO http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2012/03/26/duffy-send-26-mar-12-the-best-doctrine-never-read-sof-fid/#comment-552 LongTabSigO Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:17:40 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=184#comment-552 My Law #2: you can't think outside the box if you don't know where the box is. You can't bitch about doctrine if you don't read it. Folks who come up with "new" terms for missions often have not looked up the existing manuals, applied the situation, and found out if there are any real gaps. My Law #2: you can’t think outside the box if you don’t know where the box is. You can’t bitch about doctrine if you don’t read it.

Folks who come up with “new” terms for missions often have not looked up the existing manuals, applied the situation, and found out if there are any real gaps.

]]> Comment on Duffy Sends 27 Jan 2012 – US special operations expanding as wars recede – Kim Dozier by LongTabSigO http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2012/01/28/duffy-sends-27-jan-2012-us-special-operations-expanding-as-wars-recede-kim-dozier/#comment-261 LongTabSigO Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:47:25 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=160#comment-261 Brother Duffy: Thanks for posting this; i was looking for it based on some lesser informed postings i saw and know Kim Dozier was doing some good, real-deal reporting. The part about this that has some on edge (and frankly, surprised me when I heard this) is that ADM McRaven is asserting "combatant command" authority over the TSOCs. This would be a stunning development, since it flies in the face of settled law and other agreements hard-fought-over through exercises and high level GO/FO meetings. The TSOCs have grown not shrunken in recent years. When i first got to SOCEUR it was 80-90 pax. Now they are well over 175 (i've heard more). And that's not counting components. Not sure ADM McRaven's job is to globally employ SOF. I thought the whole point of TSOCs was to enable the Geographic Combatant Commands to leverage the whole of SOF capabilities in support of Theater-wide objectives. If USSOCOM is asserting a role to operate outside of that control this brings back the dilemma that was addressed back in the Rumsfeld era. Looking forward to the dialog on this. This is critical to understand. Brother Duffy:
Thanks for posting this; i was looking for it based on some lesser informed postings i saw and know Kim Dozier was doing some good, real-deal reporting.

The part about this that has some on edge (and frankly, surprised me when I heard this) is that ADM McRaven is asserting “combatant command” authority over the TSOCs. This would be a stunning development, since it flies in the face of settled law and other agreements hard-fought-over through exercises and high level GO/FO meetings.

The TSOCs have grown not shrunken in recent years. When i first got to SOCEUR it was 80-90 pax. Now they are well over 175 (i’ve heard more). And that’s not counting components.

Not sure ADM McRaven’s job is to globally employ SOF. I thought the whole point of TSOCs was to enable the Geographic Combatant Commands to leverage the whole of SOF capabilities in support of Theater-wide objectives. If USSOCOM is asserting a role to operate outside of that control this brings back the dilemma that was addressed back in the Rumsfeld era.

Looking forward to the dialog on this. This is critical to understand.

]]> Comment on Duffy Sends: Security Breeding Complacency in Society by dmmaseoseoseoseo http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/07/26/duffy-sends-security-breeding-complacency-in-society/#comment-202 dmmaseoseoseoseo Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:21:24 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=64#comment-202 This is tough. Im not calling you out though, personally I think that its those that arent motivated to change. This is tough. Im not calling you out though, personally I think that its those that arent motivated to change.

]]> Comment on Should SF be a Joint Unit? by MisterWhite http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/10/25/should-sf-be-a-joint-unit/#comment-127 MisterWhite Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:27:00 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=117#comment-127 Members from other services can already 'go green' if they want to be SF. There was a C-130 pilot in my Q-course class; he wanted to be SF bad enough that he was willing to transfer services in order to do so. SF should not be 'joint'. Let everyone else join the Army, or they can aspire to their respective service's SOF units. Members from other services can already ‘go green’ if they want to be SF. There was a C-130 pilot in my Q-course class; he wanted to be SF bad enough that he was willing to transfer services in order to do so.

SF should not be ‘joint’. Let everyone else join the Army, or they can aspire to their respective service’s SOF units.

]]> Comment on Should SF be a Joint Unit? by JP http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/10/25/should-sf-be-a-joint-unit/#comment-126 JP Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:16:11 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=117#comment-126 People already do in service transfers, so that avenue sort of already exists, just on a rare case by case basis. If USASFC wants to market to the other services that their Os, NCOs and JEs will retain their rank upon transfer, then that would make sense. I remember a young Ranger who came back from CDQC with stars in his eyes and transfered to the Air Force to become a PJ. I don't recall if he had to go to INDOC, but pretty sure he did and then just joined a cohort that had already done CDQC and Airborne. The real issue is the other services; I think an active recruitment would be fought by the other services who would want to keep their own "best and brightest" for themselves: "Johnny Sealguy would be a great Green Beret possibly? Well, hell he'll make a better SEAL then. Piss off USASFC, he signed with us." Like NCAA letters of intent; you wouldn't be hiring career bench warmers, you want a unique mix of performance and drive. So do the other services. People already do in service transfers, so that avenue sort of already exists, just on a rare case by case basis. If USASFC wants to market to the other services that their Os, NCOs and JEs will retain their rank upon transfer, then that would make sense. I remember a young Ranger who came back from CDQC with stars in his eyes and transfered to the Air Force to become a PJ. I don’t recall if he had to go to INDOC, but pretty sure he did and then just joined a cohort that had already done CDQC and Airborne.

The real issue is the other services; I think an active recruitment would be fought by the other services who would want to keep their own “best and brightest” for themselves: “Johnny Sealguy would be a great Green Beret possibly? Well, hell he’ll make a better SEAL then. Piss off USASFC, he signed with us.” Like NCAA letters of intent; you wouldn’t be hiring career bench warmers, you want a unique mix of performance and drive. So do the other services.

]]> Comment on Should SF be a Joint Unit? by NF-18F http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/10/25/should-sf-be-a-joint-unit/#comment-124 NF-18F Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:02:42 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=117#comment-124 I think there is some misunderstanding... the question is specifically asking whether or not the recruiting aspect should be "joint" in a manner of speaking...as in, you wouldn't have to join the Army to go to selection, Q course, become SF etc. As to other components developing their own UW/COIN specific units...I would be opposed. I think there is some misunderstanding… the question is specifically asking whether or not the recruiting aspect should be “joint” in a manner of speaking…as in, you wouldn’t have to join the Army to go to selection, Q course, become SF etc.

As to other components developing their own UW/COIN specific units…I would be opposed.

]]> Comment on Should SF be a Joint Unit? by LongTabSigO http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/10/25/should-sf-be-a-joint-unit/#comment-123 LongTabSigO Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:53:51 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=117#comment-123 Short answer? No. Services man, train, and equip. Joint executes. "Joint" doesn't have forces. TSOCs are already the "joint" units, as are JSOTFs. They employ land, sea, and air units to achieve effects. The question is more properly asked, "Should other Service SOF components form UW units like Special Forces". Answer: They could. Apparently they are not interested. Short answer? No.
Services man, train, and equip.
Joint executes.
“Joint” doesn’t have forces.
TSOCs are already the “joint” units, as are JSOTFs. They employ land, sea, and air units to achieve effects.

The question is more properly asked, “Should other Service SOF components form UW units like Special Forces”.

Answer: They could. Apparently they are not interested.

]]> Comment on Debt Ceiling Falls on Military by NF-18F http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/08/05/debt-ceiling-falls-on-military/#comment-108 NF-18F Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:36:19 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=74#comment-108 I suppose if one had been sleeping for the past 3 years it would be possible to blame the size of the debt entirely on the Bush administration and the wars... which certainly did increase both the debt and the deficit. War on the other hand is a legitimate function of the federal government, so whether you agree with them or not, agree with the manner in which they were prosecuted or paid for or not, they are at least constitutionally viable expenditures. I blame each president for what they do, not according the letter next to their name on the ballot. Obama increased the debt in 2 years more than Bush did in 8, and Bush was fighting 2 wars. The strategy of blaming Bush for everything is about as counterproductive as pretending he did nothing to contribute to the debt. This latest debt compromise and the impending problems it will cause for national defense has heroes and villains on both sides, but for my money President Obama has considerably more to answer for. I suppose if one had been sleeping for the past 3 years it would be possible to blame the size of the debt entirely on the Bush administration and the wars… which certainly did increase both the debt and the deficit. War on the other hand is a legitimate function of the federal government, so whether you agree with them or not, agree with the manner in which they were prosecuted or paid for or not, they are at least constitutionally viable expenditures.

I blame each president for what they do, not according the letter next to their name on the ballot. Obama increased the debt in 2 years more than Bush did in 8, and Bush was fighting 2 wars. The strategy of blaming Bush for everything is about as counterproductive as pretending he did nothing to contribute to the debt.

This latest debt compromise and the impending problems it will cause for national defense has heroes and villains on both sides, but for my money President Obama has considerably more to answer for.

]]> Comment on Debt Ceiling Falls on Military by TW http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/08/05/debt-ceiling-falls-on-military/#comment-101 TW Sun, 02 Oct 2011 14:24:31 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=74#comment-101 If the Bush administration had passed a single tax to pay for the two wars it got us into, there would be no talk by the brass to cut anything. Under Bush the National Debt doubled and now Obama is getting blame for the debt, the budget cuts and cutting military benefits. Gentlemen, the House Arms Service Committee and the Budget Committee decides on all the appropriation bills; not President Obama. Go after the Republican leadership that spent this country into a hole while Bush was in office. If the Bush administration had passed a single tax to pay for the two wars it got us into, there would be no talk by the brass to cut anything. Under Bush the National Debt doubled and now Obama is getting blame for the debt, the budget cuts and cutting military benefits.

Gentlemen, the House Arms Service Committee and the Budget Committee decides on all the appropriation bills; not President Obama. Go after the Republican leadership that spent this country into a hole while Bush was in office.

]]> Comment on Losing Our Identity by NF-18F http://blog.warfarecenter.com/2011/08/04/losing-our-identity/#comment-97 NF-18F Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:58:41 +0000 http://blog.warfarecenter.com/?p=69#comment-97 I agree with Peter that we are in large part to blame for the shift, but I don't see how that could have been affected at the ODA or even AOB level. I agree with Peter that we are in large part to blame for the shift, but I don’t see how that could have been affected at the ODA or even AOB level.

]]>