Understanding SOF Authorities
Special Operations Forces (SOF) and interagency activities go hand-to-hand in today’s operational environment. Understanding SOF authorities allow operators to articulate their operations with interagency partners. A military leader once described to me that understanding authorities meant you understood the "rules of the game.” The article, “Demystifying the Title 10-Title 50 Debate,” highlights the confusion over the “rules of the game.”
As future Special Forces Warrant Officers (SFWO), the regiment will look at us to be the experts in ASO, UW, and PE. When working in the JIIM environment, SFWOs need to be able to understand and articulate their authorities. Understanding and articulating SOF authorities will lead to greater confidence from interagency partners.
A common question asked by intelligence partners to SOF elements is, “What authorities are you working under?” A simple …show more content…
response of title 10 will not suffice. What intelligence partners are really asking is; who is paying for it, who has oversight of it, and who is responsible. When briefing missions in an interagency environment, SOF has to be specific; authorities are only half the requirement to operate.
SOF elements often request permissions from interagency partners to conduct operations in their designated country. SOF operators should tie their mission and authorities into the larger plan. More often than not, the plan will coincide with interagency operations. For example, SOF requesting permissions to conduct PE.SOF does this by stating their mission and the authorities it derives from (10/50, OPLAN, EXORD). Tying SOF’s mission and authorities into supporting the larger, interagency plan is accentual.
The debates over title 10 and 50 authorities occur at all levels. The core issues are over policy and operational activities. At the strategic level, congressional committees debate oversight and funding. At the operational level, military commanders and interagency leaders debate authorities and permissions. At the tactical level, individuals’ debate which organization is best suited to conduct the activities.
At the strategic level, congressional committees question specific activities to determine if it is title 10 or 50.
The primary reason for debate is over oversight and funding. The 9/11 commission recommended congress instead question that is funding the activity and exercising control. Congress has not enacted the recommendation continuing the debate.
At the operational level, military and intelligence operations appear similar in nature. Similarities lead to questions over authorities and debates into infringement into the other's charter. Debates over authorities at the operational level lead to inaction on the ground. I have seen SOF operations stopped because interagency partners did not have a clear understanding of SOF's mission.
At the tactical level, individuals conducting similar activities, debate which organization should conduct the activities. Operators at the tactical level usually put policy concerns to the side. However, SOF operators need to be as skilled as their interagency partners are when articulating their authorities and
permissions.
As future Special Forces Warrant Officers (SFWO), the regiment will look at us to be the experts in ASO, UW, and PE. When working in the JIIM environment, SFWOs need to be able to understand and articulate their authorities. Understanding and articulating SOF authorities will lead to greater confidence from interagency partners.
A common question asked by intelligence partners to SOF elements is, “What authorities are you working under?” A simple …show more content…
response of title 10 will not suffice. What intelligence partners are really asking is; who is paying for it, who has oversight of it, and who is responsible. When briefing missions in an interagency environment, SOF has to be specific; authorities are only half the requirement to operate.
SOF elements often request permissions from interagency partners to conduct operations in their designated country. SOF operators should tie their mission and authorities into the larger plan. More often than not, the plan will coincide with interagency operations. For example, SOF requesting permissions to conduct PE.SOF does this by stating their mission and the authorities it derives from (10/50, OPLAN, EXORD). Tying SOF’s mission and authorities into supporting the larger, interagency plan is accentual.
The debates over title 10 and 50 authorities occur at all levels. The core issues are over policy and operational activities. At the strategic level, congressional committees debate oversight and funding. At the operational level, military commanders and interagency leaders debate authorities and permissions. At the tactical level, individuals’ debate which organization is best suited to conduct the activities.
At the strategic level, congressional committees question specific activities to determine if it is title 10 or 50.
The primary reason for debate is over oversight and funding. The 9/11 commission recommended congress instead question that is funding the activity and exercising control. Congress has not enacted the recommendation continuing the debate.
At the operational level, military and intelligence operations appear similar in nature. Similarities lead to questions over authorities and debates into infringement into the other's charter. Debates over authorities at the operational level lead to inaction on the ground. I have seen SOF operations stopped because interagency partners did not have a clear understanding of SOF's mission.
At the tactical level, individuals conducting similar activities, debate which organization should conduct the activities. Operators at the tactical level usually put policy concerns to the side. However, SOF operators need to be as skilled as their interagency partners are when articulating their authorities and
permissions.