This one is courtesy of a comment made by Max Headroom.
The question is a simple one.
Were the SEALs given a mission in Somalia that would be better carried out by the Rangers? Or MARSOC?
Company and Battalion sized raids are I'm sure a Ranger thing...and I believe MARSOC specialty. Historically SEALs have had problems with large scale actions. Panama comes readily to mind. MARSOC is relatively new to SOCOM so I can see why their MIGHT have been hesitation to use them in the graveyard that is Somalia. But Rangers have been throat punching in that region for decades.
Why weren't they given the mission...especially considering the environment?
We can look at the makeup of the raid (SEAL Team 6 plus another detachment/team of SEALs providing support) and it appearing that air support was laid on for support so I would think that resistance WAS expected.
The SEALs have been accused of getting the "juicy" missions because of McRaven being in the command chair at SOCOM. Were the SEALs given a mission they were ill suited to carry out successfully? Would a Ranger Company/Battalion been a better choice?
Back in the day, SEALs were used when the mission called for in and out with a minimum of fuss. The kind of mission that Four to six members could achieve with a minimum of support. That was the idea. Sooo... what happened?
ReplyDeleteI think you are absolutley right that the Somali mission should be handed out to the Rangers. The fact that the SEALs had air support should have pointed to the need for a company. Hardly a "team-sized" mission.
Should we be going back to the days when the Seals were a legend and not media-show?
wow. you went there. and i agree. i think the SEAL culture is messing it up operationally. they appear to be so hollywood now that they can't operate properly. i don't know if it comes from the top and they're being fed into the meat grinder...or if they lost their off switch and don't know how to say no, we can't do that...but something is wrong in SEAL land.
Deletei think you're onto something with the contingency planning that had air support on standby. that should have been an indication to everyone that if worst case is this bad then we need a much bigger force.
let me leave you with this what if. what if the terrorist had been able to shoot down a helicopter. what then?
As usual, we don't have the real picture so I don't feel comfortable commenting on specifics but overall I think you are right in your general assessments regarding SOCOM. I feel the "War on Terror" has had a profound effect on how SpecOps is used. I agree with Patrick that Al-Shabab resembles more of an army than many of the other organizations that SOCOM has been up against. Perhaps doctrine will have to change to accommodate groups that have more territorial integrity and combat discipline.
DeleteBTW didn't anyone in the current administration see "Black Hawk Down?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Galrahn thinks it should have been the Marines.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/10/in-somalia-we-have-problem.html
I share his mindset that Al-Shabab is too entrenched, too heavily armed, and too prepared to be dealt with solely by special operations forces. This requires conventional forces to be done right - either using manned fixed wing USAF assets like F-15E's and B-52's, or on the ground with the Marines, or both.
I'd not considered a "black hawk down" event, but I did wonder they didnt book a B52 or a B1 over head.
ReplyDeleteSneak in if you can, rain down hell and go home if you cant.
Yes they should have sent a Ranger company, supported by a TF 160th CCA detachment in addition to fixed wing CAS. Or they should at least have done what is normally done, detached a Ranger company sized element to provide outer cordon security for the raid. Rangers routinely work with SEALs to provide a cordon so the SEALs can blow stuff up.
ReplyDeletei keep hearing that Rangers are used to support SEALs or SF but i don't understand why. they have everything in house to conduct the mission themselves...perhaps hostage rescue would be outside their realm but everything else they supposedly could handle. grabbing a high value target? that seems like something Rangers could do solo.
Deletedistract with ordinary forces, destroy with extraordinary forces.
ReplyDeleteThey could have had an MEU land, move inland and flush the rats out deeper into the countryside, where, waiting along predictable escape routes, SEALs (with Predator drones for air support) could have been laying in wait to ambush convoys. Sift thru the wreckage, find your VIP dead or alive, and off you go to the extraction point.
A lot of Rangers supporting SEALs comes from the intelligence community. Smaller teams means more compartmentalization. A small team gets the mission, puts in a request support for a company size element for security, and next thing you know the Rangers are pulling outer cordon for a snatch and grab. It's pretty much all personality and relationship driven as to why the Rangers spend more time supporting than being a supported unit.
ReplyDelete