Talk:United States Special Operations Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Special Operations Forces article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Raven

someone is obviously being misguided because there is such units as phoenix raven and task force 11 if this person takes them off again i'm advising an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.202.119 (talk • contribs)

Ravens are a sub-branch of the USAF SF's, but not really considered a unit themselves, rather a specialized detatchment. Phoenix was a program in Vietnam, not a unit. Please do not make threats to advise an administrator over your factually incorrect information. Swatjester 10:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix Raven is a Security Forces program run by Air Mobility Command, not AFSOC. [1] As such, it has been deleted BQZip01 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good reason to delete it. It's may be considered as a SOF because charged to a Counter-terrorisme mission - protection of AMC aicrafts. If it's just because Ravens are not under AFSO Command, why not suppress also TACP, or Recon and Force Recon because they are not under MARSOC. Rob1bureau 17:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
TACP does fall under AFSOC. They are generally assigned to the 21st, 22d, 23d, or 24th Special Tactics Squadrons and attached to Army/Navy SOF units for air support: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/tacp.htm. By your logic, Security Forces and Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel should be considered special operations, since they are both charged with counterterrorism missions (SF - base security, EOD - destroy bombs). Just because someone supports or has one of the missions of Special Operations, doesn't make them Special Operations.
As for Marine Force Recon Force, from the wikipedia page: "[They] have been recently integrated into the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and are now part of Marine Special Operation Battalions East and West. However, United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) won't be fully integrated into SOCOM until 2010." (see http://specialoperations.military.com/marine-force-recon/missions.html for more details) BQZip01 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. Well, I agree with your arguments about Ravens. About Force Recon, they were not integrated in SOCOM from 1987 to recently while being a SOF, so we should keep in mind that a SOF is not compulsorily under a "SOC". Otherwise, I didn't found evidence that TACP are under AFSOC, even in the page you have given a link to ; and the can operate with conventionnal forces or special forces as well. Isn't it a confusion with CCT ? Rob1bureau 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case, don't you think that USCG units and FAST should be removed ? And what about recon units for conventional forces (LRS, RSTA and airborne pathfinders) ? Maybe we may create three "levels" of SOFs : JSOC's SMUs, SOF, and something such as "special operations capable forces" Rob1bureau 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
TACPs are trained by and are assigned to AFSOC, plain and simple: http://www2.afsoc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123029059 Sorry about the previous link. While they are not exclusively assigned to Special Operations units, they are still AFSOC assets. Army Rangers are also considered Special Operations, but individual members may be assigned to regular army billets, but are subject to being called into a Ranger Battalion. This is for purposes of integration.
There is no need to create "levels," but there are many different roles of special operations forces. I was assigned as a communications officer for AFSOC for 3 years and was in what is now the 1st SOW. Was I an "operator," no. Was I in Special Operations, you bet, as were the logistics personnel, maintainers, personnelists, etc. Special Operations is not limited to SEALs, Rangers, etc, but are also supported by many otehr personnel. One person I once knew calculated how many military personnel it really takes for a bullet to reach a bad guy. The answer was something like a thousand with the last guy in the chain pulling the trigger. Some special operations forces are embedded with the regular folks. Others are supporting the guys at "the pointy end of the spear." Not everything is neat and tidy either. By Navy regulation, Underwater Demolitions Teams belong to both the Navy and SOCOM and ownership is cyclically rotated, but they are generally lumped in with SEALs for discussion purposes.
Upon further reading FAST should be removed. It is not special operations in the classic sense
As for the USCG, they are not exactly part of the DoD and we have to take this with a grain of salt. Given their unit descriptions, I believe all of these Coast Guard units seem to meet the criteria for Special Operations Forces. They serve as a link to the domestic policing role in the US and they work with the Navy and other units to secure out coasts. IMHO, some of these are analagous to Army Rangers and TACPs. However, let's not lose sight of the definition: a police SWAT team is not "special operations forces," but may be labeled Special Operations in their respective police forces. BQZip01 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Support Activity

Why having supppressed the Intelligence Support Activity from the list ? It is a SOF, because charged of support "on the ground" of conter-terrorist ops, and also sometimes tasked of special reconnaissance, foreing internal defense and direct action. Rob1bureau 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rob, please slow down while typing. Is your question "why is the ISA not on the list?" If so, yes it should be included as a component of JSOC. BQZip01 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't speak english fluently... Someone as removed the ISA from the list (see History, it is the modification "01:31, 8 March 2007 68.78.112.215 (Talk) (→Counter-Terrorist Units"). My question is why : "68.78.112.215" did that ? I don't see any reason to do it. I prefered ask it in order to let "68.78.112.215" explain his reasons, rather than directly re-add the ISA in the list. Rob1bureau 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TACP / Raven

66.69.1.232 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Syberphule (Former 1721st CCS (CCT) / Former 1/75 Ranger TACP) TACPs may be assigned to AFSOC however only specific units / personnel and not the career field as a whole. The majority of the field is assigned to Air Combat Command (ACC), Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) and US Air Forces Europe (USAFE) and supports non-SOF units. A very small percentage have any training in any of the SOF specialties (HALO, SCUBA, Airborne, etc.). And (according to folks in the 720th) they are not a "part" of that unit either. They may "play" with them and be a part of AFSOC but are integrated into the STTs they are not - only CCT, PJ and CWT are members. They do not attend the PJ or CCT Pipelines, AST or any of the other STS phases. Ravens are cops, and are not SOF forces in any way. They are specialized and have highly advanced skills comparable to civilian SWAT or Executive Protection teams but again, are not SOF.

[edit] What is the Special Amphibious Reconnaissance Corpsman (SARC)? What is their function?

I've been trying to find information on this unit but haven't been able to find much

[edit] There is a reason for not making links bold

Read Wikipedia:Lead, which states,

Bold title

"The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. Avoid links in the bold title words."

In my opinion the main reasons for avoiding links in the bold title words are that

  1. the title loses it's boldness because it turns blue, and
  2. it is hard to read when it is both blue and bold.

So quit reverting a helpful edit. 199.125.109.19 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered link

This link was listed as being in this article, and dead. I have found a new link, but the old one appears to have been removed, so I do not know where to put it, so I will post it here. Dean Wormer 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non SOF info

Why were the edits removing info about non SOF units reverted? The content that was changed or removed was factually inaccurate. Isn't less info better than wrong info? Outdawg (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Operations is not exclusively a military function (see SOF page). Loosely defined some of these units are indeed Special Operations, but certainly don't fall under SOCOM in any way. — BQZip01 — talk 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore a definition of the mission is certainly warranted. — BQZip01 — talk 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the United States Special Operations Forces article. So shouldn't DoD or USSOCOM's definition of a SOF apply to this article?

DoD's SOF definition "Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized, trained, and equipped to conduct and support special operations. Also called SOF. See also Air Force special operations forces; Army special operations forces; naval special warfare forces."

DoD's Spec Ops definition (DOD) Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations are applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and may include operations through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces. Special operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets. Also called SO. Outdawg (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Law enforcement does not conduct special operations. Some of the military units listed in this article do not conduct special operations. I removed them for that reason. Outdawg (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotta get some sleep, but short answer, no, we shouldn't confine ourselves to the DoD definition. While all of those in DoD are clearly special ops, by definition, the term "Special Operations" can also be used in a wider context (which the vast majority of the world also uses) to include those you deleted. I'm not saying that anything per se was done "wrong" but we shouldn't necessarily limit ourselves to a U.S. DoD-only perspective on the matter, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand what you're saying. We don't have to limit ourselves. IHMO, units that wouldn't normally be considered special operators in the U.S. Spec Ops community shouldn't be included especially when they don't meet what the U.S. government considers special operators. I just think U.S. government definitions should be used for an article specifically about U.S. SOF. If this article were not about U.S. SOF but of SOF in general I would have a different opinion. Outdawg (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken there. How about a disclaimer stating that certain elements are not formally part of the DoD-SOF, BUT fall under the international definition of SOF? We could simply parse those out into a different section? I gotta get some sleep. I'll catch you tomorrow. — BQZip01 — talk 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats sounds good. I just realized most of the subheadings were already linked to USSOCOM components before I started. I'll fix that now. Outdawg (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)