The Debate: Should Special Ops be its own separate service?

Not my debate issue but one that was held on the pages of US News and World Report's Debate Club.  It's to be expected.  SOCOM in general and SEALs in particular have been drumming up press lately.  Much to the chagrin of the old timers, this new breed of Special Operations personnel love the lime light.

The person putting forth the idea that Special Ops needs to be its own service is none other than Douglas Macgregor the guy that authored Breaking the Phalanx.

He's one of those persons that likes re-arranging deck chairs and trying out new ideas on actual forces without experimentation.  A bad mix in my opinion but he's become famous for his ideas.  To the article....

If Americans learned anything from the colossally expensive use of large general purpose Army and Marine combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a low-profile mix of special operations forces and covert operators to find and liquidate anti-Western insurgent, terrorist, and criminal elements is a more effective and economical solution in the Middle East. Special forces are also far better suited to foreign internal defense missions than general purpose Army or Marine forces.

In addition, a smaller defense budget is not only inevitable; it's a national economic necessity. Budgetary realities dictate a strategic shift toward more efficient and effective means of national defense, means predicated on a lighter footprint overseas with far fewer soldiers and Marines stationed on foreign soil.
Thus, it's time to make special operations a separate service. But Americans in and out of uniform must scale back their expectations regarding what such a service could achieve on its own. In a conflict with a capable opponent that fields effective armed forces and maintains a cohesive society, special operations forces can only operate on the margins in support of general purpose forces. Special ops is most effective in the developing world, where societies are weak and armed forces are ineffective or nonexistent. These are places like the Middle East, Africa, and most of Latin America, where capable air-defense networks, strong armies, and internal police forces are few and far between. In these settings, special operations forces can play a decisive strategic role.

There is also another reason why special operations should become a separate service. Operatives should be legally accountable for actions involving the train and equip mission, as well as direct action missions beyond America’s borders. Like all of the current services, a separate special forces service must not operate without regional combatant commander knowledge or permission anywhere under any circumstances.
One way to establish special forces as a separate service is to return the general purpose Marines to control of the Navy while also permanently reassigning selected Army, Marine and Air Force units to Special Operations Forces and Special Forces control. This would keep the number of service branches the same. All of these proposed changes should be considered in the context of a new National Security Act designed to replace the Joint Chiefs of Staff system with a unified national defense staff under a uniformed national defense chief.

I say let them do it.  But with a caveat.  66,000 people makes SOCOM as large as 3 US ARMY DIVISIONS!


No more leveraging off conventional forces.

They should be self contained and self sufficient.  Separate base, aircraft etc...

With a force that large they should be able to perform any mission short of an invasion without support of conventional forces.

This has been in the making for at least the last 10 years.  Time to make it happen.