User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

Tuesday, 14 February 2012 06:00

Americans greatly admire some of SOCOM's operations, particularly its elimination of al-Qaida head Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last May and its hostage rescue in Somalia in January.

SOCOM is subject to the Pentagon's regional commands, one each for Europe, the Far East and Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East and South Asia, and now North America. For SOCOM to carry out a mission in a given area it must have the approval of its regional commander and, in the case of overseas operations, the Department of State and sometimes the president.

Mr. McRaven wants more autonomy for SOCOM to operate, which would short-circuit the approval process and reduce the oversight of the Defense and State departments. He also wants to extend SOCOM's reach to training, liaison with foreign governments and intelligence collection. His officers are lobbying within the government, including Congress, to obtain approval.

SOCOM has 66,000 employees, double the number it had prior to 9/11. Its budget is $10.5 billion, two and a half times its size in 2001.

In spite of SOCOM's argument for greater efficiency and less bulky decision-making, the bin Laden case is an example of why it must not operate outside the normal chain of command. Even though there was reason not to trust the Pakistanis and draw them into the decision-making process, their fury at the operation and the importance of U.S.-Pakistan relations on several key fronts show the necessity for Mr. McRaven and the Special Operations Command to stay within regional military command and political guidance.

Washington is saying that no decision has been made yet about SOCOM's desire to branch out. In spite of the importance of the unit, the answer should be a clear "no."

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by wmhjr, February 14, 2012 - 08:48 AM

Perhaps the author of this blog ought to do a little better job of investigating before speaking. First of all, the author completely fails to understand - and therefore totally misrepresents - the idea of oversight. In no way would separating SOCOM from CENTCOM, etc, reduce political oversight or the oversight of the Dept of State. The UCP (Unified Command Plan) allows for periodic realignment of forces necessary to encompass changing in the military and political environment.

SOCOM already operates far differently than traditional Unified commands. Their doctrine, logistical support requirements and other factors do not always seamlessly integrate into traditional forces.

While I'm not necessarily sold on giving further separation to SOCOM, I would also point out that the reason for increased budget and size is very simple. They have become far more frequently used and have been tasked with increasing operations and expectations.

The point is that the author of this who claims that the answer should be a clear "no" is devoid of the most basic understanding of the situation, and further - is deliberately or not - describing the situation with neither transparency or accuracy.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by Doggydaddy, February 19, 2012 - 07:21 AM

The productivity of any bureaucracy is generally inversely proportional to it's size. As the previous poster indicated, part of what makes Spec. Ops. "special" often makes them less than fully compatible with the rest of the force.

The viability of black ops is often time-critical. Obtaining concurrences from multiple organizations, each with it's own political agenda, it antithetical to rapid action.

Perhaps more autonomy for SOCOM is a bad idea; but the "perfection" of the current structure does not make it so.

And last but not least, Pakistani fury at the bin Laden raid should not be accounted much weight. They were lying to us, and by running that op., we put their duplicity out there for the whole world to see. It was much less patriotism or territorial integrity that fueled their rage than massive, unmitigated embarrassment. Our success meant they were either a) liars, or b) idiots. The Paks didn't like either option. Tough noogies! Does anyone really believe stroking the Pakistani government's ego was more important than taking out bin Laden? I certainly don't..............

• 
• +0
• 
•