Not particularly a surprise, but special operations appears set to do particularly well in this current budget cycle. And i will get to the good stuff in a minute. But first, allow me to rant a bit on NY Times' Walter Pincus, who's by-line adorns the article (linked below) that is the center of this post. He concludes the article thusly: When Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), the subcommittee chairman, asked whether the United States should provide additional support to opposition elements in Syria “that share our views and interests,” McRaven had responded, “Ma’am, I’m not sure there’s much I can add to that in this forum. . . . I’d be more than happy to talk to you in a little bit more detail in the closed session on what we’re doing.” That’s one problem with SOCOM’s growing role around the world. Its plans are discussed in open hearings, while its actual operations are described only behind closed doors. (emphasis added by me) NO KIDDING JACK WAGON! The degree of ignorance encapsulated in these last two sentences is stunning. It's really not that difficult to process or understand. However it is this incomprehensible bufffonery from the alleged "Newspaper of Record" that cause the entire idea of an informed public to be severely undercut. Of course the details of operations are not for public consumption. The very notion of secrecy is an inherent part of special operations. It is a herculean feat to find ways to publicly share appropriate budgetary information for the Congress in open session while protecting the operations these budget machinations fund. Did you think ADM McRaven was just going to blurt it out to satisfy whatever narcissistic need you have for the "juicy stuff"? Fact is, even if he DID explain operational details, the chances are you'd miss the salient details, report a half-truth, then accuse the USSOCOM Commander of misinforming the public. That seems to be the "J-School Way" of national security reporting. /rant off Ok.. to cases: The article descibes growth of USSOCOM in three ways: Money, Authority, and Mission. The money piece is not surprising. SOF is a "growth" industry and it requires significant resources to do correctly. (However, it IS worth noting that USSOCOM in total accounts for about 1.5% of total DOD outlays and has about 5% of all of DOD personnel. When you measure bang-for-the-buck, USSOCOM is cheap at even twice the price.) The "Authority" piece stems in large part from the recent change in command authority over the Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs). In the past, TSOCs were components (often the only joint component) of the various Geographic Combatant Commands. USSOCOM and it's Service Components provide personnel and units to flesh out the TSOCs (as do the Services writ large). However each TSOC is built differently and sub-optimally for their mission sets. The authority change (called assuming "Combatant Command") of the TSOCs enables USSOCOM to essentially "own" the TSOCs and then chop them back to their supporting Geographic Cmd under Operational Control (OPCON). The key advantage is that resourcing becomes uniform and falls under USSOCOM's 10USC167 "Service-like" budget authority. The Mission piece is the continuation and expansion of USSOCOM presence in embassys, then non-DOD interagency, and even in academia. The idea, i believe, is to create those necessary relationships early and build trust and confidence over time so that, when crises arise, the connections needed are already in place. Anyone familiar with SOF and USSOCOM knows that these are really important and the time/money spent up front more than adequately pays for itself in the long run. Now something that need to be reminded regarding the cutting of the conventional force. SOF draws its recruits from within the conventional force. SOF also draws significant logistics from conventional logistics sources. So as the pool diminishes in the conventional force, so too does the quality (and quantity) of SOF personnel. Something to bear in mind as the "budget wars" continue. Anyway the story, including a summary of testimony Q&A between ADM McRaven and members of the Senate Armed Service Committee, is here for your review. Click this link to read the story
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/BVTxTMjujbk/nyt-sof-wins-2014-budget.html
Posted
Apr 11 2013, 01:44 AM
by
BLACKFIVE