Excerpt;
In a May interview with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, SOCOM’s former deputy commander, suggested that SOCOM’s expansion is vulnerable to current budget realities, saying “the force is going to shrink — the general purpose force — therefore, there’s going to be less people to feed the special operations force.”
Kearney also said he worried about the effect on SOCOM if it continues to grow while the services — which provide forces to staff SOCOM — shrink.
“If we go to 72,000,” he asked, “is that sustainable given the service populations?”
Within that 72,000 number how much of the growth is in the big three of SOF: e.g., Special Forces (Green Berets), SEALs, and Rangers? (MARSOC is discussed below.) I think that there has been no growth in the "operational force" above the numbers of the 2010 QDR (and of course no growth in Special Forces since the 2006 QDR called for growth of 5 additional battalions, the last of which should have become fully mission capable in August of 2013 which illustrates how long it takes to grow the operational force). I would argue that most of the growth in the 72,000 number is in "enablers" - forces that support SOF but that do not go through any of the SOF training "pipelines" to produce the operational force. I think we should always be careful when we throw out that 72,000 number.
But LTG Kearney's point is well taken. We are not going to be able to grow the operational force as the services draw down (nor do I think we should grow it). But those who are "SOF lovers" who think that SOF is a panacea or silver bullet do not, I think, understand the true nature of US SOF in more of bigger is not always better.
V/R
Dave
Dave
No comments:
Post a Comment