Last point regarding my view on duplication of effort and space concerns for a MEU with both a MSOC and a FR Detachment on board.

My point is: Én most cases, there aren?t enough missions to go around for both a MSOC and an MSPF type of task-organisation in a MEU deployment (imagine SEALs being on board too, after IRAQ and STAN)

One of them ? in my opinion MSOCs, would be more useful elsewhere (conducting FID/UW for instance) .

Regarding space-slots: Éf you take a look at its composition,  The «new? MSOC replaces the DR platoon (FR) and the Recon Platoon of the MSPF pluse intel, RRT and other elements. But it no longer has a trailer ?security platoon, so it needs one (plus extra sniper elements) from the BLT, just like the MSPF did..

Don?t forget also that RRTs that where once part of the MSPF were assigned to MARSOC, and to my knowledge they have not been replaced with a unit of comparable special insertion ?BRC/LI skills on the MEU.

So, if you have both special mission units on board ((FR and MSOC) and they both have MEU (SOC) mission sets assigned, then a) you have to train these elements (security-sniper, intel, R&S etc) to operate with both units. And b) when they are both with MEU, who gets the mission?

If the MSOC no longer has the mission, then why should it be aboard the MEU?

It can deploy by other means.

If it has the mission, what will the FR platoon do? Being a back up just in case the MSOC is not on board, doesn?t  justify the duplication in training etc.

 Regarding space, I must add that it has been said that the ?old? style MSOC composition ( with trailer security platoon) stretched capacities ( everything the USMC uses from aircraft to tanks, vehicles etc. got bigger and heavier by the years) because of extra people ( about 70 more men), vehicles and equipment  .

 Even the new MSOC has about 35-40 men more than an old MSPF. Putting back another 25 of FR would again stretch capacities, although I admit this is not such a big issue.

 To conclude, I think the Corps WANTS to get back its MEU (SOC) capabilities full time and under its control. The fact that 31^st MEU is still such an example, and the 9 companies of MSOBs were cut to 8, (meaning it will remain this way for a time at least) emphasize just that in my opinion.

And the invention of the SC MAGTF with its more persistent and flexible capabilities suits them just fine. B/c again they will say that they provide a unique forward deployed UW/FID SOF capability, from a sea base ( Global Fleet Station- LPD etc) a forward point on shore, in conjuction with the SC MAGTFs assets.

 

HISTORY:

Here's alittle history to help.  Back in late 2001/early 2002, SOCOM was beginning to plan their long term strategy post 9/11.  It realized the necessity for a dedicated Forward Deployed Sea Based option for Rapid Expeditionary Special Operations.  After working w/the MEU post 911, they realized the MEU(as far as the ships & possible support if needed) was the Best platform for this. 

 

Their plans called for putting together a Composite SOCOM unit based of the MEU's ships.  So in '02 they signed 1 of many Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) to assign SOF to the MEU(the ships not the command), part of this was an overall plan to better intergrate USMC-SOCOM missions & capabilities.

 

To

So what does it all mean?  It means the USMC is not in a position to make strategy w/ even a slight tilt towards what MARSOC is doing.  The prob is ppl see MARSOC staffed w/ Marines, training & deploying together & see them as an integrated Unit.  When there not, they are an Interoperable unit.  Much more interoperable than any SOF/Conv unit b4.

But it must be understood, this was going to happen any way.  If not w/ a Marine SOF unit then the planned Composite SOF.  If that had happened the talk would be much different, they would train to be just as interoperable, but the talk would be much different.

 

It would be understood that they are, a sea based SOCOM unit riding w/the MEU.   Not as the Marine SO arm of the MEU. 

 

If that were understood there would be no talk of, maybe they should be w/ the SC.  B/c that would be benefitial to the SC, the USMC strategy.  But wouldn't do sh*t for the needs of SOCOM for whom they were created, who's needs are a FD Sea Based, Multi-Purpose, Self-Sustained Expeditionary Strike Force.

Your next statement might be yeah but they're moving into UW/FID, but 1) So is all of SOCOM, UW is how they plan to operate in the Future.   2) Sea Based, you could have started and been supported to conduct UW against the Taliban in a matter of hrs instead of weeks.  3) U Can't get to that level of UW until you put in 1000's hrs of FID to hone that skill.
 
So your next maybe, so yeah it makes more sense to deploy them w/the SC.  No, b/c then their primary mission & purpose would be compromised.

 

The MEU, although not designated for FID, splits their Units up to as many as 6 countries at the same time doing FID & it doesnt change their primary mission of Sea going strike force a bit.  What your suggesting would be like taking the MEU(SOC) permanently off the boats to make the SC MAGTF.  It wouldn't make any sense when they can support the SC mission fr/ Sea.

 

The same will be true of the MSOC once back at sea, it will split into many different directions while at sea performing FID, but that doesn't mean it should be grounded to perform that mission.  Especially when they can do it fr/the Sea, while the MSOAG command coordinates & sends teams fr/ HQ.

 

I get your points SCCOMARINE. You are probably right from the current doctrinal point of view. All I am saying is it might change a bit. When the whole MARSOC picture was painted on a USMC-SOCOM level, the Forward deployed Marinew forces (and Navy ships) were just MEU(SOC)s.

 

I am saying that if SC MAGTFs come to exist ( there is a current SPMAGTF-24 operating along the same lines in Latin America right now-with reserve FR elements on them), there will be six (instead of three)  forward deployed sea based forces at any time.   

Maybe all of them will be associated with some kind of MARSOC detachment (from MSOAG in SC MAGTFs case).

 

Maybe FR of some type willl be associated with just SC MAGTFs, like they are now with the SPMAGTF.

 

All I am saying is you cant expect a MSOC to be ready for MEU(SOC) DA/SR type of "first response" missions and at the same type be employed in full time FID missions of 60-90 days duration, while in deployment.

 

When a contingency happens they will need time to reaggregate, time that may not be available. MEU(SOCs) engage in episodic FID mostly in exercices with foreighn nations, but not in real FID. They kind of patrol the seas.

 

SC MAGTFs will be in a different style of ops and this is the reason they will have more persistent charateristics. These charateristics blend much better with FID/UW operations of the kind MSOCs will supposedly be doing in the future, along SF lines. B/c they require much longer time frames with foreighn units than a MEU(SOC) timetable allows for.

 

Maybe if they operate on 1:3 deployment/dwell ratios MARSOC MOSCs van keep up with 6 sea based forward deploed units. ( with a theoretical 3 MSOT detachment/MSOC per unit). IF they operate on a 1:4 ratio like SEALs  it just cant be done with current and projected numbers. 

 

I fully understand what you say about the MEU(SOC) losing SOF type missions if a SOCOM sponsored element is not on board. On the other hand if an element is SOCOM sponsored the MEU(SOC) commander loses control. Not an easy solution to this one.

I understand everything you've been saying, but I think you need to understand that to be used in that way would be supporting the MC's mission not SOCOM.

 

Thats why I say its most important to 1st keep things in context.  Like the MSOC, yeah they are picking up a lot of FID in order to hone a UW capability.  But to think that their end goal should be a land based FID/UW force is not keeping them in their proper context. 

 

Its easy to take them out of context b/c they are such a new unit their context hasn't been so clearly understood; clearly defined but not so well understood at a glance. 

 

For example, as you know their stated main role & mission designated by SOCOM is as a forward deployed, sea based strike force.  Lets look at the Navy SEALs, who've picked up just as much FID work as the MSOC's & are also being pushed to do more & use it towards a better mastery of UW. 

 

Using context you wouldn't for a second misunderstand their role as changing to being an FID unit, you would see it as simply picking up a skill/mission set not becoming a different unit.  Same is true of the MSOC. 

 

I see the SC MAGTF and the MSOAG's MSOTs working closely together but not linking MSOAG or MSOC Deployment cycles w/them.  No more than the SC would try to link Dep cycles w/ SF ODAs for FID.  Their Co-Op will be one of Field Expediency not structured policy.

 

 

It also must clearly be understood, when they say they're focusing FID they don't mean at the detriment of their primary mission.  To take them off the boats would totally defeat their purpose, making their secondary the primary.  They'll stay on ships and coordinate FID thru the MSOAG.

 

 

 

Not quite, its not that I think that the MEU lost some SOF type missions w/ a SOCOM element on board.

Its that the MAGTF operates in a full spectrum manner.  Every element designed to be totally integrated into MAGTF Ops to most efficiently accomplish whatever mission assigned.

 

Due to the nature of Marine Corps assigned missions (MEU, MEB, MEF, whatever) some portions of most Operations often require Special Missions capabilities to accomplish the overall task.

 

But not Special Missions for Special Missions sake like Special Operations units for SOCOM.  It requires a SM capability optimized specifically for MAGTF Operations. 

 

Like the 6 Harriers or 4 Tanks attached to the MEU, seemingly out of place in a Light Strike Force but totally intergrated & specializing in their roles, something an AF Sqdr or Army Tank plt attached for a mission could never be for the MEU.

 

They(AF&ArT) could be of only so much use to the MAGTF CO, who's Combined Arms movements call for elements to move f/support to supported fluidly, repeatedly, & precisely w/little guidance fr/ above.

 

This is something the MSOC also could never be for the MAGTF, it would require a level of specialization in MAGTF Ops that would be to the detriment of their SOF obligations.  Perform some missions for/with the MEU, yes, but be the MEU/MAGTF's answer for Special Missions, no.

 

The USMC will in my opinon rebuild their own, again it will be optimized for MAGTF Operations.  Probably once MARSOC and the Recon Community #'s have been settled.  

 

I also believe that it won't be redundant to have both on the MEU, no more so then when the SEAL Strike Plt deployed on the MEU.

I see what you mean . Ìy only point of differance is that MARSOC is turning much more into an SF type UW/FID organisation than the SEALs. You are right though on this: Nowadays a MSOB MSOT is like a reinforced FR Pl. with some FID training. BUT the way the training regimen evolves (on the SF path all the way) they will be much more UW/FID oriented than any other element of SOCOM besides SF.

So, since an SC MAGTF will be a forward deployment platform much like a MEU is, I see a point in them deploying with an SC MAGTF. b/c the way this MAGTF will operate is much more consistent with a UW?FID mission (longer time frames needed on the mission) than a MEU (SOC) timetable allows for.

 

But this is theory and maybe I am mistaken in this assumption.

 

Anyway, you got any news on SC MAGTF or DO concept?

Anyway, you got any news on SC MAGTF or DO concept?

 Anyway, you got any news on SC MAGTF or DO concept?

 

Fr/ what I've found out, DO was ready to be implemented starting of '08.  The DOIWG, DO Implementation Working Group, had already laid the ground work and put the process motion. The Commandant (CMC) had the final say but in the end chose to hold off on full implementation.

 

There were several reasons for this:

    1) In his opinion it'd be better to wait until Marines were removed fr/ Iraq en masse.  W/the majority of Marines bogged down in a Static conflict rotating 7on 7off to Anbar, it made no sense to train the BNs for Distributed Ops.

 

Also, the DOIWG plan calls for a few things to be in place to optimize DO's Tactical capability.  After review the CMC felt it best to try & wait to bring them further online:

    A) DOIWG recommends that all Sqd Ldrs of DO Sqds be SGTs w/ 5-7yrs of exp'.

    B) That all NCO's of DO Sqds attend Advanced Infantry Squad Ldrs Course.

HQMC has plans in place addressing both issues, but its projected to take 3-5yrs to grow to this. At about the same time the Corps is expected to balance out at 202,000 Marines.

    C) The DOIWG developed a PTP Certification Program, similar to that of the MEU(SOC).  A 6mth PTP thats Certifies every MEU Missions Capable b4 each Deployment.  This PTP would certify an INF BN Distributed Ops Capble b4 each deployment. 

 

Presently there isn't enough time to train for that type of Certification PTP.  But if Most of the 25,000 Marines are pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2009.  I think that you could see a 7-12,000man Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Afghanistan w/close to a 1:2 Depl to Dwell ratio.  If that happens I think that you could see some BN's w/DO capable Plts & Sqds back in Operation in A'stan again(DO Plt Jan-Jun '06 that was attached to Army's 10th MTN).

Very Good article ( missed it altogether at the time) and very good info on DO. Judging from info fragments that came my way recently,  you are 100% on the mark in all points.

Also saw some nice articles on Enhanced Company Operations in the Marine Corps Gazette, tell me if you want to post some info, although the main thing seems to be operations and intel cells at the company level plus more commo and associated gear. Also there seems to be some debate considering the SC MAGTF and a possible transformation of the MEUs themselfs in order to be more "phase 0 friendly".

 

By the way, in order not to hijack the thread (seems there will be a lot to comment on in the future about SC MAGTFs) I will soon start a new one about MARSOC-Force Recon. Hope we will exchange views on that topic too.