Talk:United States Special Operations Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Special Operations Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)