New Special Forces CIF Unit Stood Up In Response To Benghazi Attack?

 @JC2012  @AlexEnder 

JC.. the Army and SOCOM allows Active Duty CAG operators to compete in Best Ranger. 95% of the material at www.soc.mil consists of pictures of SF guys with their faces showing and most of the time their names in the caption.

There are airsofters out there that know about SOCOMs TTPs and SOPs - our military just like government is too transparent to hide anything aside from specific technologies and specific locations of missions.

Maybe the problem is on the inside.. and NOT the outside (SOFREP or other similar organizations)

@Canopylight @JC2012 @AlexEnder For real?

 @JC2012  @AlexEnder  @Canopylight Yeah, we will have to agree to disagree but you are also focusing on one mistake I made to the exclusion of all else.  In the absence of a time machine, there is not much I can do about that.  I think I provided a pretty clear example of "SOF gossip" and it differs significantly from 99.9% of what I write.  Frankly, I don't work for you and don't have to write to make you happy.  If you think I'm doing this to make friends, win popularity contests, and engage in an orgy of self congratulation, than it isn't working very well because I've made far more enemies by writing these things.

@JackMurphyRGR@AlexEnder@Canopylight

So, although we have little other reasonable option than to agree to disagree (pardon the cliché), I will never look favorably on proliferating important details and facts about our SOF units. I would ask that the editors display more caution in the rush to provide “timely” information at the expense of “accurate” information. You’ve acknowledged past mistakes in this regard, but “oops, sorry, I really feel bad about that” doesn’t cut it. Do better. As for reporting information regarding the operations of certain SMUs and agencies dedicated to gathering intelligence, tread very, very lightly. The comments that get posted and the suppositions and speculations made could very well expose sources and methods. While I understand your mission statement, I reject it because too often you have chosen “timely” over “accurate” and that, I’m sorry to inform you, is gossip. Here’s the definition; it’s pretty cut and dried. Gossip: a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others, rumor or report of an intimate nature, chatty talk.

I just flat out disagree with what your efforts to educate the masses through many of your articles. It is SOF gossip, whether you chose to accept that or not. You have not convinced me that much of the reason for your discussions is so you can play the role of special operator for the public.

That being said, I won’t interrupt your sleepovers and pillow fights any more… 

“Rough men sleep peacelessly in their beds at night because unabashed men stand ready to spread rumor on their behalf.”

 @Canopylight  @AlexEnder  @JC2012 Oh, I do.  One of them was pay for play on a US military base.  The MP's did a "catch a predator" sting in on-post housing after they found out about it and nabbed the dude with condoms and lube in his pocket when he showed up.  I'll keep the name and unit to myself.  The whole thing got covered up as you would expect.

 @JackMurphyRGR  @AlexEnder  @Canopylight  @JC2012 I don't know anything about underground homo rings, but SOF personnel definitely aren't saints.

 @JackMurphyRGR  @AlexEnder  @Canopylight  @JC2012 LOL.  Wanna bet?  I'm way past not believing...

 @AlexEnder  @JackMurphyRGR  @Canopylight  @JC2012 No kidding... SOF gossip?  You wouldn't believe the gossip we don't report.  Per Diem fraud, cocaine parties, underground homo rings, shit I could vent all day but I don't because it is just gossip and that is not the tone we are going for here.  Some of this stuff is so outlandish that people probably wouldn't believe it anyway.

 @JackMurphyRGR  @Canopylight  @JC2012 

Consider this a well informed if not official response concerning a unit CI and USASFC that nothing here violates any OPSEC.  Its not that some General said this to the press, its that, as mentioned, these locations and MTOE are public knowledge and published by the Army for all to see.  And while we all make mistakes in information as Jack has freely admitted to doing, none were made here and there aren't many out there publishing who have the background to make the judgement call as well as he does.

 @JC2012  @Canopylight  @AlexEnder Three trafficked women in a van with the same number of soldiers?  I'm not speculating on this.  They were not using prostitutes as sources.  Do you want me to elaborate on where they were heading to on the other side of that river and why you would never bring a potential source to that location?  I think it was the incident itself that broke people's hearts, not idle speculation on my part.  I was not gossiping and I'm sorry if you bought into a false narrative of the incident.  Unless you are transitioning and speaking of Moses.  I can only apologize for that so many times.

You keep asking why I write for this website.  Our mission statement can be found here: http://sofrep.com/about-sofrep-com/  I will let my work, both the good and the bad, speak for itself.

Ego and self glorification?  Please.  As I mentioned, if you have serious concerns then report it to the appropriate offices, CI, FBI, ect.  That would be putting your money where your mouth is.  Nothing will come of it because there are no breaches of Operational Security on this website, aside from the odd post that pops up in the comments section which we will delete.

 @JackMurphyRGR  @Canopylight  @AlexEnder You still never answered my question as to why you feel the need to lay all of this information bare in public. I am suspicious that this is all for self glorification and essentially just SOF-gossip. The fact that your only response to that question is a well-worded form of "someone else did it already, so the secret's out anyway" is a flippant "aww shucks" attitude that is disappointing. I don't give a flying fuck if General Mulholland or the USASOC news service said it first; be a part of the solution, not the problem. And the PA officers at USASFC, USASOC, and the various Groups are not all-wise and do-no-wrong. They are pressured to produce positive press about SOF mission and operations, and (sshhh, here's a secret) thay are not SOF soldiers; their ass is not on the line and never will be. These discussions have the potential (though the actual risk is small) of endangering operations. If you can't see that, you are literally too dumb to live.   As for Trevor Bast, you dug into the incident and gossiped about the purpose and possible incident with no common sense at all. I will simply say that unappealing people are the ones with info on bad people, and they won't meet with you in the Bamako Starbucks in daylight over a latte. Of course the incident looks suspicious; it's supposed to. But your needless speculation just broke the family's heart as they were scouring the internet for any information on their deceased son. This particular forum regarding the disposition of another SOF unit  led me to make comments in the vain attempt that you had an ounce of concern for the security of SOF soldiers still doing the job. Instead, ego, glory, and gossip win the day.

 @Canopylight  @JC2012  @AlexEnder Now I am starting to see where all of this is coming from.  What happened with the murder of Nic Moses, and the coverage I did of it continues to upset me.  I jumped the gun and made serious mistakes.  That said, I have been in direct communication with the family, offered my apologies, and we have put all that behind us.  I hope you can too.  Nic was a good guy and should be remembered as such.

I am not sure where you are coming from in regards to MSG Trevor Bast.  We republished some articles from mainstream media outlets.  In the meantime I have been investigating the matter myself.  Are you sure you want to go down this road with me?  I've sourced it and the truth certainly hurts.  I did not know Bast and I have no reason to believe he was a bad person, but the circumstances surrounding what what happened in Mali involve some things you may not want to discuss with me.  Your call on that.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Canopylight.  The CIF just isn't as high speed and secret squirrel as some members would like to think.  I'm not trying to degrade any soldier's service or unit, but you are taking this over the top.  I see no reason to pretend when this information has already been published.

If you have further concerns, please have your unit's Counter-Intelligence office contact me and we can discuss OPSEC and address any issues they may have with what I've written.  Not everything is a National Security secret.  I think the real reason you are upset is because of things I've previously written more than anything in this article.  Beyond that, we are an easy target for you.  If you took your case to General Muholland we both know how that would end for you.  I am open to criticism and have no interest in violating OPSEC that could endanger operations or soldier's lives.  That said, we do live in a country the values free speech.  Have your CI Officer contact me if you and your team mates have serious concerns.  At this time, I do not see your argument that everything is OPSEC as a valid one. 

Another avenue to have your grievances addressed is to call up to USASFC, if you don't work there yourself, and ask about me.  They do reporting on this website and on yours truly (which I take as a huge compliment) so maybe you can compare notes. 

@Canopylight @JC2012 @AlexEnder He's BTDT, I rest my case. And I will shut up.

 @JC2012  @AlexEnder Meant to say open source for years, not OPSEC.

 @JC2012  @AlexEnder Man, someone thinks they are more of secret squirrel than they are. Units that are truly under the radar stay under the radar. If you're not under the radar, it's because your units not that secretive. I don't pretend like the unit MTOE or equipment of a Ranger platoon is super secret because it's largely open source. There are things within the 75th that are and you see guys not talk about it. There was a time when I was told the fact we used Strykers was OPSEC. Come to find out Col. Clarke clearly said to a journalist that we were using them. When something becomes open source on the internet and the news of all things it becomes a silly game to pretend like it's OPSEC because as you said the cat is out of the bag. There are some things that are still quite secretive about CIF, but pipeline(SFARTAETC OPSEC really?), locations and obviously what General Muholland threw out there for this article are clearly not because they've been OPSEC for years. I'm sure there was a time you didn't talk about CIF at all, much like there was a time we didn't talk about glint tape or fast roping, but that time has clearly passed.

@StormR@JackMurphyRGR

Finally, that is a well-articulated and cogent explanation for the purpose of this forum. I agree that the public should receive accurate information. Unfortunately, I disagree with how much information should be made public. I don’t think Generals Mulholland and Hamm should have given as much detail as they did, so the amount of detail exposed here is a serious point of contention. The most I might ever find acceptable is the simple acknowledgement that the US military has “a unit designed to respond to crises such as the consulate attack in Benghazi.” And that is it; no more.

Off topic, but you bring up the sheep and sheepdog analogy. I don’t think it’s entirely accurate. I think the military as a whole plays the “sheepdog” role; they guard the sheep. I would suggest that SOF has more the role of “wolfhound,” to track the wolf, run him to ground, and eliminate him….

…by shooting him in the face.

And wolfhounds bite and chew on each other all the time.

 @JackMurphyRGR  @JC2012   Jack, few of us know the difference.  Remember the audience.

 @StormR  @JC2012 I don't think he has any problem with Rangers per se, but rather with some things we have written about SF.

 @JackMurphyRGR  @JC2012   And that's exactly my fear, Jack.  We are not only a country at war, we are a country extraordinarily tired of war.  Budget battles are coming up soon and it will be Sheep who make the decisions about funding and what far-flung places you all will be sent, and what support you will have while there.  And there has to remain a high confidence level.  There is a solid PR reason for the top military dogs to allow so much public exposure of SOF units - keeping us Sheep personally engaged and supportive means public support, which equates to financial support and a powerful voice in the decision-making.  I paid close attention to the SEAL vs SEAL fight that took place on Amazon and Brandon helped me shut it down.  The absolute worse part of it was the general public's comments to the SEALs, and the uneasy feelings it generated.  The public discovered that their 'heroes' had clay feet and were more interested in tearing each other down than in the original cause of the fight.  I do NOT want to see it replayed with Rangers.  If it were only confined to SOFREP, then fine...but this is the Internet and there is no confining that beast.  I know that it's not fair that you all are portrayed as super-human and above pettiness, but it is what it is.  As long as just ONE of you 'speaks' with the voice of SOF, you will be looked at by us Sheep as 'the' SOF.  Most of the SOFREP contributors are keenly aware of this - some are not and should be.   So, if you must do this publicly (and I suspect you will be forced to), you will be hampered by protecting the legacy and reputation of Rangers, and your opponent will not.

 @StormR  @JC2012 I don't mind having this discussion publicly or privately.  I will say that there are dimes I simply will not drop publicly so contacting me in private may allow for a more candid discussion.  Its all the same to me though.  We do have to be aware of blue on blue.  We saw this with the No Easy Day deal and again with the John Giduck incident where one group of SOF veterans turns on the other.  It ain't pretty.

 @JC2012  @JackMurphyRGR JC, since you responded to my comment about 'why do this on a public forum", I take that as an invitation for dialog with you.  I'm an openly acknowledged Sheep to you Sheepdogs, and that fact drives my perspective.  I do understand that most of you Sheepdogs have a considerable disdain for us Sheep and I understand that perspective.  We aren't in the fight and we don't understand what it takes to do the fight.  However, we Sheep, in fact, are voters and taxpayers and like it or not, are the 'push' for the decision-making.  Which means that you need knowledgeable, informed sheep to support the efforts of the Sheepdogs.  I was born in 1950 and came of age during the Vietnam war.  As a woman, I stayed home while the men of my family fought and yes, died in Vietnam.  I KNOW what happens when a nation - the sheep - does not support its warfighters or war.  The nation didn't even have the guts to call it a war at the time.  Our warriors fought on two fronts - home and abroad, and that must NEVER happen again.   You are, I'm sure, to young to remember any of this, but it shaped those of my generation and left us with an obligation to ensure two things - to be engaged and to support.  I came to SOFREP because my country is at war and because my Sheepdogs are fighting,  being wounded and dying there.  As far as I am concerned there is no separation between the flock and those who protect the flock.  What I learn on SOFREP enriches my decision-making skills - my vote, my letters to representatives, my discussions with others regarding these issues, and making sure that this time when the war-fighters come home it will be to a welcome.  It is not that I want information; I NEED information from an unbiased and realistic source.  In this age of Internet, picking out the gold from the fluff is a daunting task.  I can trust what I read here and I can trust those who make comments on what I read here.  As for your doing this publicly, it is distasteful for two reasons.  Jack was right - it makes you sound unprofessional.  And as a Sheep, I need to be assured that the Sheepdogs are highly trained, skilled and committed individuals.  And secondly, it sounds like a school-yard fight.  You wished to shame two men that you call brothers because they aren't acting the way YOU think they should be.  These are two men that had they stood by your side in combat would have protected and supported you, including being willing to die for you - as you would have for them.  There will be no one in your life that will understand you as much as those who have worn the uniform that you do.  I watched this happen with SEALs over the No Easy Day book and it was painful watching brother against brother, and it harmed not only the individuals but the reputation of the unit itself - including all that had gone before them.   This spat with Iaason and Jack could evolve exactly the same way if YOU insist on dragging us dumb Sheep into it.  Only this time, instead of generating a sense of distrust of SEALs, it will generate a sense of distrust of Rangers.   If you want to fight this out with them, fine - I encourage you to do so.  You all could learn from it.  But NOT in a public forum where you invite those you protect to take sides.  There is no winner in that scenario.  YOU are the face of the active Ranger and your words will inform our opinion and sense of security with Rangers.  Think carefully about that.

@JackMurphyRGR@StormR

This is a long response; bear with me...

To what purpose are you even attempting to dredge up details about CIF organization, operations, and deployments? If you think the information and details that are being discussed in this article and thread are not sensitive, you are a fool. Every detail is a piece to a larger puzzle; any soldier that has ever watched AFN has received that message. Apparently the editors/moderators for these “discussions” are arrogant enough to think that protecting information about the force no longer applies to them.

As for your confusion as to whether or not you should laugh or cry; you should cry. If I thought for a moment that anything I would say in public could lead to harm coming to another SOF brother in arms, even if the chances were miniscule and far-fetched, I would feel shame. The fact that General Hamm or General Mulholland released the information does NOT make it appropriate for discussion or conjecture. I fail to see how the information that they released is not an OPSEC violation. Your attitude that “someone else did it (even if it was a SOF General officer) so I can do it too,” is childish and unbecoming of a professional soldier. Don’t forget that General officers are politicians also; their job is to “sell” the military to the public, sometimes at the expense of the security of the unit.

The following information could compromise operational security: Force limitations and capabilities to stand up a CIF, mission and locations of CIF operations, duty station locations for CIFs, locations of US installations in Africa, training pipeline and requirements for CIF soldiers, and numerous other little “factoids” brought up in discussion. That this information is released for general consumption by military and civilian leadership is unacceptable. Don’t perpetuate the foolishness. Are any one of those details an “OPSEC violation?”

If you even paused for a second to think, then you shouldn’t be repeating it all over the internet.

The reason I did not approach either of the editors/moderators privately is two-fold. First, they created this discussion in public. This part of the discussion should be public so that everyone watching at least pauses to consider whether this forum is helping or harming our soldiers and their mission. Second, I truly want to know the purpose of this article and the discussion it was intended to create, even at the risk of coming across as 'rather unprofessional in this rant.' Why are two former SOF soldiers trying to make public detailed information about operational units and their mission set? Is it to honor the soldiers involved? None of my Teammates see it that way. On occasion, this forum does a very good job of honoring the fallen. However, on two occasions that come to mind, the articles and discussions were nothing short of a bloody abortion that questioned the integrity of the deceased (SFC Frederic Moses and MSG Trevor Bast), angered and disheartened their family, and made their colleagues violently angry at the moderators for the poor manner in which the incidents regarding their deaths were portrayed in an insensitive attempt to spread gossip. All of these discussions you perpetuated again lead me to ask the question: Why? To what end are you trying to bring all of this into public view and discussion? What is your mission statement for this exercise?

Now, everybody take two deep breaths and exhale. Please ask yourself if some of these discussions and speculations help or hurt our special operators. The fact that this forum is moderated by former SOF soldiers gives it credence and credibility that no other public forum or blog can boast. Similar public forums run by airsofters don’t have the street cred.

 @dm8471  @OndroRajkovic 10th Group is the primary group in Africa due to the re-allignment and while a single battalion still covers Europe with its own CIF in 1/10 the new CIF is coming from 10 Main.  This makes 10th the only group now with 2 CIF units due to covering two theaters, Europe being relatively minor though.

 @majrod  @Tweeder 

At one time TX ARNG had an entire airborne brigade, the 36th Airborne Brigade (formerly the 71st Airborne Brigade), as well as a Pathfinder Company (which was part of the 36th), a LRSC, and a separate LRSD that supported the 49th Armor Division. In addition to the reactivated airborne battalion, they've still got a LRSD, a recently formed activated a Special Forces company (IIRC), the newly activated SOD-A, and the TX Air National Guard also has a lot ground combat oriented units including a SOWT, a TACP, and the 204th Security Forces Squadron that specializes in providing ground combat training and airbase defense.

 @majrod  @Canopylight  Very good point. Both your responses have answered my questions. Thank you

 @Canopylight  Good point I hadn't considered that.

 @Tweeder

 @Tweeder  @Canopylight  @majrod Here's the thing about CIF, Ranger Batts, and Delta...they are all on-call. You just can't get that sort of readiness from a part-time unit or the proficiency in order to do the DA mission.

 @OndroRajkovic

 yes

 @majrod  So if I understand correctly what you wrote here - the CIF is actually Special Forces-based, kinetic mission-oriented force. Correct?

 @Tweeder NP.  Glad I could help in a small way.  I have a friend who's God know where right now that served in and later commanded in a CIF.  Without going into specifics the Delta and Ranger  missions are closer to what CIFs do.  The LRSD, Ranger companies have a different focus and don't hone in on the unique skills important to being a CIF.

As I'm sure you know a Guard SF unit was supplementing the libya embasy's security.  They do great work.  A CIF is just another type unit.  From Jack's veiled input and my friend's input.  There are standards for a CIF.  Their personnel and as always their commander and command directly impact how good they are or are allowed to become.

 @Canopylight As I said I'm out of my element and very cherry in my career so I'm just now getting a grasp for what it takes to keep a unit at full strength, much less a CIF type unit. More or less I was wondering if CIF experienced soldiers from the Guard could either augment manpower to their active duty counterparts or if one state from each NG SFG could support teams that could rotate or provide relief to other forward deployed CIF teams. IF it made sense that is.

 @majrod  I'm tracking you Sir. The reason I mentioned the NG sporting a CIF in lieu of Delta/ Ranger is because we already have 19th and 20th and wasn't sure if they could support a CIF..if it made sense of course. I know we used to have Ranger-type units, in Vietnam the Indiana Guard had the "Indiana Rangers" and we still have some states with a LRS unit. I just didn't know if that option was ever considered.

Thanks for both of your responses.