| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Oversight of Special Operations Forces Requires Better Data, Watchdog Says | |
| 2022-10-12 | |
| [Defense One] The Department of Defense needs to centralize its data collection mechanisms and standardize terminology across its command-and-control structures to improve oversight of its special operations forces, according to a report released by the Government Accountability Office on Wednesday. Congress requested that GAO review the structure and organization of the U.S. Special Operations Command—or USSOCOM—in a House report that accompanied the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. USSOCOM, which is tasked with overseeing the special operations of all U.S. military branches, had 28 different command and control structures managing special operations forces across the globe in 2021. Which apparently, worked. GAO said in its report that oversight of USSOCOM’s different command and control structures was hindered by a lack of consistency and transparency surrounding collected data, since "it does not use standard terminology for this data, the data is not readily available and it does not maintain complete data." Basically they didn't understand "the stick was strapped." HuH?
"Need to Know" The lack of centralized data collection mechanisms like DCGS? , in particular, "obscure the understanding of how [command and control] structures are deployed in theater and thus the investments needed to bolster and support the force," according to the report. GAO noted that USSOCOM collects information about its different command and control structures "through ad hoc data collection requests" and often relies on other military commands "to collect and to present information to them." GAO’s report also found that data on the staffing of command and control structures was incomplete from 2018 through 2021, which hindered oversight of deployed special operations forces. In one cited example, the Naval Special Warfare Command was unaware that it had personnel deployed to the Joint Task Force Indo-Pacific team "until USSOCOM officials learned of the deployment when reviewing personnel reports, due to informal staffing assignments by [special operations forces] commanders." Good OPSEC GAO said using "a standard terminology and establishing a centralized data collection mechanism" would allow DOD to improve the transparency of the command and control structures of its special operations forces, which "would further enhance oversight conducted by DOD and other entities, such as the Congress." The report recommended that DOD work to ensure that military officials overseeing special operations forces "establish a centralized data collection mechanism or process to collect and to retain data on a regular basis" about command and control structures. Fix it until it's broke. It also recommended that the same officials develop a standard terminology to address command and control structures "whether through updated doctrine, guidance or other means." DOD concurred with both recommendations. Gotta have vaccinations, diversity, gender equality and measure sensitivity to gender disphoria. | |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #8 Oversight of SF requires being from SF. |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2022-10-12 23:52 |
| #7 Disturbing. I can't retch thru clenched teeth. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2022-10-12 17:17 |
| #6 tactics have not changed much since Vietnam. In the First of Eight Books of Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War some mention in Chapters XV-XVI is made of asymmetric cavalry clashes. "as our men were disconcerted by the unusual mode of battle" and "In the whole of this method of fighting...standards were little suited to this kind of enemy" It would seem that 'special operations' has a much longer history. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2022-10-12 17:05 |
| #5 "the stick was strapped" I don’t understand that, but I’m not meant to. Stick Strapped Effectively, "an interpreter[terp] jumped with the team". |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2022-10-12 16:45 |
| #4 tactics have not changed much since Vietnam. |
| Posted by: bman 2022-10-12 14:58 |
| #3 22 Lines Of Military Jargon That Only Service Members And Veterans Will Understand |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2022-10-12 10:03 |
| #2 /\ All true, but for a reason. The multi-national SOF effort in both Iraq and AFG was JPEL driven. I suspect you already know what three letter agency ran the JPEL along with all intelligence inputs, priorities, and production that drove it ? WIKI: The Joint Prioritized Effects List or JPEL is a list of individuals who coalition forces in Afghanistan try to capture or kill. The Task Force 373 is working through the list. According to the Afghan War Diary German troops listed Shirin Agha with the number 3145 and on 11 October 2010 German troops killed Agha. Coalition forces are authorized to kill or capture individuals named on the list.[1][2][3] According to a document from the 2010 Afghan War Diary the list has 2,058 names. That list provided the intelligence basis for a pace of some 90 night-raids per month in late 2009. With the exception of the initial phases and follow-on IED road clearing, city and village sweeps, DoD (big Army) played a supporting role. If it didn't support the JPEL, it generally didn't foking happen. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2022-10-12 09:39 |
| #1 ...Part of the problem is this: the SF units were - hands down, and no disrespect to the grunts who held down the terrain - the most effective units in the Af and Iraq. Unfortunately, that meant the demand for them increased exponentially, as did their funding and organization, all of which was classified. Put another way, a lot of what GAO was looking for never existed. Mike |
| Posted by: MikeKozlowski 2022-10-12 09:02 |