Not so special: SOCOM's bid for independence is a mistake
Share with others:
While the federal government is under pressure to be more efficient with budgets and planning, Adm. William H. McRaven, head of the U.S. military Special Operations Command, wants an expansion of both his unit's independence and its scope of activities.
Americans greatly admire some of SOCOM's operations, particularly its elimination of al-Qaida head Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last May and its hostage rescue in Somalia in January.
SOCOM is subject to the Pentagon's regional commands, one each for Europe, the Far East and Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East and South Asia, and now North America. For SOCOM to carry out a mission in a given area it must have the approval of its regional commander and, in the case of overseas operations, the Department of State and sometimes the president.
Mr. McRaven wants more autonomy for SOCOM to operate, which would short-circuit the approval process and reduce the oversight of the Defense and State departments. He also wants to extend SOCOM's reach to training, liaison with foreign governments and intelligence collection. His officers are lobbying within the government, including Congress, to obtain approval.
SOCOM has 66,000 employees, double the number it had prior to 9/11. Its budget is $10.5 billion, two and a half times its size in 2001.
In spite of SOCOM's argument for greater efficiency and less bulky decision-making, the bin Laden case is an example of why it must not operate outside the normal chain of command. Even though there was reason not to trust the Pakistanis and draw them into the decision-making process, their fury at the operation and the importance of U.S.-Pakistan relations on several key fronts show the necessity for Mr. McRaven and the Special Operations Command to stay within regional military command and political guidance.
Washington is saying that no decision has been made yet about SOCOM's desire to branch out. In spite of the importance of the unit, the answer should be a clear "no."
First Published February 14, 2012 12:00 am
