More Bureaucracy at JSOC?
by James Na ~ February 16th, 2006. Filed under: America, Geopolitics, Terrorism, U.S. Military, Washington Views. The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) that controls the nation’s elite “commando” type units will become a three-star command (h/t The Texican Tattler):
The Defense Department is accepting an independent report’s recommendation to raise the headquarters in charge of the military’s most secret units from a two-star to a three-star command and expand its array of flag officers.The structural changes in the organization, the Joint Special Operations Command, will give its chief more authority and influence in dealing with other leaders and give his headquarters greater ability to simultaneously command and control multiple task forces in the field, said several sources familiar with the report.
British junior naval officers used to toast “To a long war or a sickly season!” In the so-called War on Terror, the importance and size of the JSOC was bound to increase substantially. The question seems to be, however, will this make JSOC more bureaucratic?
Aye:
But some special ops officers worry that all the change will do is add an unneeded layer of bureaucracy over special-mission units, where short decision cycles are essential.“JSOC forces have done an incredible job” in the U.S. Central Command theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, a special operations officer said. “We have learned things and adjusted quickly.”
The biggest lesson learned, he said, is the “ability to flatten an organization. In the old days you had big headquarters that did everything. What we learned in the last couple of years is to push the enablers and assets down to the lowest levels.”
“But now that things are slowing down, we’re reverting to our old ways,” he said. “Everything that was pushed down is being brought back up and centralized — not what we want to do” in fighting al-Qaida around the world.
“The other issue is we’re raising the bar on who can do things. Before, majors and lieutenant colonels ran the show. Today, you cannot even make coffee unless you’re an O-6 or above.”
A field-grade Special Forces officer in the Washington area said his peers agreed with this view. “They’re all convinced that all this does is move everybody one step lower on the pecking order,” he said.
Nay:
Until a couple of years ago, JSOC only had two flag officers — a two-star commander and a one-star deputy. But even after the addition of a second one-star deputy, the headquarters has found itself stretched trying to command and control multiple task forces in different combat theaters, while retaining enough capability at Pope to respond to a no-notice mission such as a hostage rescue in Colombia.That’s why the Downing report argued for beefing up the top command structure, sources said.
“They have three now, and they’re overcommitted, they’re never together,” said the Washington source familiar with the report.
“It wasn’t really the lack of shooters that hampered JSOC, it was the command and control elements,” said the retired Special Forces lieutenant colonel. “JSOC had the shooters to handle three operations somewhere, but they only had the command and control to handle maybe two. You need a staff and a headquarters that can handle three independent operations.”
[snip]
“I don’t think it’s adding a layer, like adding a corps or division,” said the Washington source familiar with the Downing report.
“What it’s doing is providing a more global capability to have multiple joint task forces — a flatter organization spread in different places.”
In other words, although on paper there will be another senior officer layer between a special-mission squadron and the JSOC commander, in practice the extra senior officer(s) will probably be in another combat zone leading another JSOC task force, not slowing down the decision cycle for that squadron’s operations. Making JSOC a three-star command also will give its commander more weight in dealing with other U.S. and foreign leaders, special operations sources said. But another factor in the decision appeared to be senior leaders’ desire to keep McChrystal in command at JSOC while rewarding him with a third star for the job he has done so far.
Sources said McChrystal is highly regarded by both Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command.
“He [Rumsfeld] has a very close relationship with McChrystal and trusts McChrystal,” said the retired Special Forces lieutenant colonel.
“There is a very strong feeling that Stan in fact deserves his third star, but there is a need to have continuity of command [at JSOC],” said another special operations source. “So to achieve both, the simple solution is to give Stan his third star.” A former special mission unit operator said McChrystal is a popular commander who “has come a long way towards ‘getting it’ and letting the guys run the show on the ground.”
[cross-posted in Guns and Butter Blog]



February 17th, 2006 at 4:48 am
Gents, JSOC is not the entire special operations community. USSOCOM is the overlying command for special operations forces, members of whom come from all branches of the Armed Forces. When compared to comparable size units in the traditional uniformed services, having a 3-star commander seems to be overkill. Hopefully it is an authorized position (i.e., Congress pays) and it doesn’t come out of another organization’s hide. I’m certain it will work out. These guys are incredible professionals.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 am
For a long time, JSOC was the “real” special ops community in that they were the only ones reoutinely engaged in combat operations. The “vanilla” special ops community came (back in)to its own with the invasion of Afghanistan, and continues to prove its worth. The real point with the JSOC proposal is that the number of “shooters” will remain the same, but size of the staffers will go up. The SF community was criticized for exactly that after Grenada, when Pres. Reagan authorized an increase in special operations forces across the spectrum, which coincidentally saw the conversion of USREDCOM to USSOCOM. Our British counterparts chided us for “breeding staffs and paper pushers” at the expense of “rucksack carriers”. A lot of truth in that, as their community is far leaner, but joint operations do require a lot of coordination, or people die. It may seem that some SOF officers are grasping for more stars, but you may find at some future date that some JSOC operations were sidetracked, to the benefit of this nation’s enemies, because certain higher ranking Generals decided to engage in a turf war.