This week, I'm asking for your help. I am interesting learning how y'all view SWC as a proponent. What have they done right? What are they doing wrong? What do you think they should being doing that they are not?
It has been my philosophy to post every anonymous comment I get except if it's commercial, SPAM, etc. If you would rather e-mail me then use ldietz@talgobal.com
Have a very good week.
Logo source: http://www.soc.mil/swcs/about.html
LDD
6 comments:
What do you want our help with, Dear Sir?
I understand you are seeking our input, and would like to know our opinions on the Proponent - but what is your intent?
Given recent developments, conversations, and discussions near SWCS - I would like you to clarify your endstate a little bit.
Thank you.
@Anon,
Over the years I've made many good friends in the community.
Sometimes I get asked to provide info, opinions, and or analysis on a number of subjects that are passed to the Chain of Command via informal or formal means.
Since I personally don't have a feel for how effective SWC is as the proponent these days and since the Blog reaches a respectable readership - many of whom do have primary data or opinions, I thought I would throw out the inquiry.
Hope this helps clarify.
Thanks for the clarification; but going to pass on this one...
Happy Holidays.
SWCS' failure as a branch proponent has been to allow the conventionalization of PSYOP. It has been to allow "IO" to infiltrate and take over the realm of PSYOP.
Talks to move proponency out of SWCS, formerly the DEPARTMENT of PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE, are simply evidence that SWCS seems to have lost its teeth, and are only concerned with the kinetic, ie, the more conventional, side of unconventional warfare (SF).
SWCS should aggressively retain proponency, and smack back the greedy conventional hands that want to exert control over a branch that they simply don't understand.
SWCS should invest significantly into rediscovering true psychological operations, to evolving it in a manner that allows for effective application against an enemy that is far more sophisticated in actual behavior change than we - whether its the Taliban or its China.
Moving the proponency from SWCS to big Army would spell the end of PSYOP, and 10 years down the line SWCS will wind up having to reinvent the wheel.
The real issue is whether PSYOP/MISO is SOF or GPF. Both, but not. PSYOP needs/should be trained to a GPF baseline (TRADOC), then those that support SOF go on to other training (SWC). And apparently, that is how it is going to be. enjoy
Ok slow your roll. SWCS problem is that the Doctrine writers don't understand PSYOP/MISO doctrine. Psyop is Irregular Warfare. The problem that is ongoing is that the End Users of the trained Miso Soldier are not directly involved in what training should be institutional (school house) and what training should be Unit trained. Look at it this way, you're a professional football team- right. You are going to invest in training if all of your players come from the same University!
Training development is not created in a a closet or in a clean white room with lab coats, training development must come from deployment experience, collaboration of NCOs and maybe PSYOP should consider a counsel of CSMs to come to an agreement on the direction of career progression. TRADOC already accredits SWCS for certain things. The proponency SWCS continues to improve, after 10 years of continuous war, the 'mad scientists' at USAJFKSWCS finally get it, that this ain't Vietnam, or your daddy's version of SOF. Now the training that goes on still requires user input from MISOG/CAPOC. Wouldn't it be nice to get some feedback ? How are we doing- cards from the folks that gain the trainees? The regional battalions are receiving soldiers trained that are so highly trained now that according to the POG ,'we're not sure what to do with them!'
Reserves?...... Crickets. Time to get one voice (sounds like IO) but the folks from CAPOC haven't weighed in on what training they'd like to get, I realize they do not have much time to train, CAPOC as a force enabler needs to collectively pull their head out of the 'he-man woman haters jump club' mentality, and start looking at the future. That has been the problem for the last 2 generations PSYOP, we have sat back on our laurals and said, yeah we were in Vietnam, the Gulf War, we're info experts, and now times have changed and come to find out that anyone can hand out newspapers for us or operate a bullhorn, where are the cultural experts in 7th and 2nd POG? What happened to the linguists, and analytical capability? How the heck are these guys going to go down range and call themselves experts, even in 82nd Div there are better cultural expertise and linguists, because of deployments and they recognized the needs. I say this to you Larry - What are the training needs for the force ?
Post a Comment