I watched SOF conduct what they called building partner capacity from their own isolated FOBs while "conventional forces" lived inside the ring with ISF. They would conduct DA and leave, screw up long established relationships, create problems for the broader force and yet get credit for being experts in this field. One must ask the question, "so, how has this model worked for the last decade?" Not so well. Kudoz to SOCOM for staying ahead of the game, now that the DA gig is almost over, they'll have to get back to FID. It is after all, their bread and butter. They should have been doing this all along now the conventional force can do their job, and they are a little unnerved by that notion.

What remains to be seen is the types of environments that SOF can operate independently in. During the GWOT SOF forces operated in a relatively permissive environment created by a large conventional force presence. ODAs in my opinion remain the premier FID force available to the United States. However I would be hesitant to commit them to an area that the HN has not been able to effectively control. Latent insurgencies, or even those in the beginning stages of guerilla warfare (where the HN can still provide adequate security for training) are completely different than supporting an uprising against an established leader (Syria) or even a declining HN potentially incapable of defeating an insurgent force capable of conducting a war of movement (Iraq?). Calling something special is not a pancea for survivablity considerations, even more important is the strategic/political impacts of underestimating the enemy's capabilities or over estimating our own.

All military departments contribute to partner capacity through exercises, exchanges, military sales, training etc. That should continue.  But impersonal, institution-solutions are not enough.

A vastly underutilized; effective, expandable, durable, politically viable and PERSONAL tool - The National Guard's State Partnership Program (SPP), should be greatly expanded.  In fact, it should be the principle inter-agency tool to expand partner capacity government-wide, not just within our partner's Ministry of Defense (MINDEF).  The SPP,  with it's established long-term relationships with over 50 countries should be unleashed to build the civilian and military capacity we seek. 

Over the last twenty-plus years, the national guard has worked directly with our partner countries.  They know each other professionally and personaly.  Not just the 'drank together and promised ever-lasting friendship' kind of relationship.  I'm talking about real friendships... the 'had dinner in each other's homes', 'attended their daughter's wedding' and 'helped their community' kind of personal friendships. 

OSD(P), State Dept., and the NGB should expand the SPP's authorities and funding to coordinate a Whole of Government (WoG) effort, with funding flexibility to access people and programs as needed.  Taking NSC direction and inter-agency review, the SPP should be used to apply state and federal expertise as appropriate.  Assigning capable civilians, officer's and NCOs to Coalition Capacity Construction Teams (CCCT) in partner MinDef, Service, Training and Special Ops HQs should focused on improving DOTML-PF capacity.  With extensive coordination and guidance from US Embassy teams, under the authority of the US Ambassador, these flexible civil-military teams have the potential to exponentially expand partner capacity in a cost-effective manner. 

I served as a Bilateral Affairs Officer in Ukraine from 2002 - 2004.  My colleagues and I observed many opportunities to both advance and withdraw US contributions to Ukraine which were not visible with Pentagon and EUCOM binoculars.

Unleash the SPP to engage US citizens, state agencies and civilian federal agencies in addition to DoD.  Give the NGB SPP the authority to apply the throttles of American citizen expertise to build partner capacity for sustainable and strong countries.  Freedom, justice and opportunity are key parts of what make America strong.  Why wouldn't the same qualities make our partners strong as well?

Rubberduckie6 - Yes you can just look at what the different elements of SOF have been doing for years in Afghanistan.  Good,  Bad and the ugly.  But this is dealing with outside the scope of warfare during combat theaters.  The key is the 1208 finding and titles that fall under them. Conventional Forces typically can't teach themselves IMO effectively,  yet be able to teach a standing Army or military force of a foreign country.  Conventional speaking,  a conventional "Light" Unit has more support and back side elements to keep that, say Infantry, Unit operating.  SOF elements are the example of LIGHT and don't need that much external support as a conventional unit does. This is what sets any of our SOF units apart from a  conventional unit.  A SFODA of 12 guys or a SEAL platoon of 22 can go into a country and train up to a Battalion Size Element.  Cross training this Battalion's Companies on Weapons, Medical,  Demo,  tactics,  planning and many other topics.  One can argue that a U.S. Army or USMC Infantry Company can do the same.  Well yes they can,  but look at the cost,  transportation,  housing,  logistics and everything involved in a Company doing a FID style mission. Yes  feasible and doable, yet not realistic in the eyes of the military or U.S. Embassy teams.

MtnGoat.....in your post you mentioned a 22 member SEAL platoon doing an FID mission similar to a SF-ODA. I was not aware that SEAL's perform those missions. I thought SEAL's did mostly DA and SR. Are the SEAL's AO language trained like the Army SF soldiers?

The U.S. Army says that SF units perform 7 doctrinal missions: Unconventional Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense, Special Reconnaissance, Direct Action, Combatting Terrorism, Counter-proliferation, and Information Operations. These missions make Special Forces unique in the US military, because they are employed throughout the 3 stages of the operational continuum: peacetime, conflict and war.

Carl - Yes SEAL have been going FID mission a VERY LONG TIME.  They are currently and have been conducting them now in Afghanistan.  Outside of OEF/OIF SEALs do train foreign countries military forces and waterborne and land based combat operations.

So you think that none of the other SOF elements can be used in,  as you say,  3 stages of operations?  Just think about for a minute.  So only break in case of war?  So SF is the only SOF under USSOCOM Command that can train foreign military?

No each services premier SOF units can all and do train foreign militaries around the world.