Talk:Joint Special Operations Command

Having lived on Fort Bragg myself, I know that the JSOC compound is definatly not located on Pope AFB.

It is located at Pope as well as at Bragg. (MARK S. 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Need to add a new unit to this list

The 75th Ranger Regiment's RRD Unit (Regimental Reconnaissance Detachment) has now been upgraded into a Tier 1 Special Missions Unit, and selection and assessment to it is now open to any member of the Army, you dont have to be in Regiment to try out anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.52.65 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it called RRC by now ? Rob1bureau (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is, my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.120.233 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Task Force Viking

So that Rob1bureau and I do not get into an edit war ... as per my cited source (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004solic/cleve.pdf) TFV reported to CJFSOCC (Combinded Joint Forces Special Operations Component Command.

Yes, but I havn't seen any reference that TF Viking is under Joint Special Operations Command, nor that TF Viking included elements of Special Mission Units. So it doesn't match what is said about TF of the JSOC :

“ The JSOC frequently create specialised "Task Forces" for his missions, bringing together Special Missions Units operators, other Special Operations Forces operators (mostly those listed above), and in some cases (such as many of the "numerical" Task Forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq), CIA operatives and/or foreign special forces such as British Special Air Service and other United Kingdom Special Forces and Polish GROM. Such Task Forces operate under command of the JSOC ”

.

All the best Rob1bureau 09:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

I don;t think the list of past JSOC commanders is correct. It doesn't match the biographies of several people. I'm going to work on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

JSOC and Blackwater

How Close Are Blackwater and JSOC?

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/how_close_are_blackwater_and_jsoc.php

JSOC - Americas Assassination Division

1:25: Former national security advisor Townsend says the lsit of authorized terror targets is less then one hundred. People who can be killed without a trial.

"These are individuals who either have blood of Americans on their hands or are plotting the death and destruction of Americans or American interests around the world", Frances Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz3K-TZS2kg

emacsuser (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Assassination squads?

MSNBC is reporting allegations by Seymour Hersh that the JSOC was operating special assassination squads that reported directly to the Vice-President's office. DarkAudit (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

References to the unit have been popping up in the last few weeks...

Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt:U.S. Halted Some Raids in Afghanistan The New York Times March 9, 2009.

Bob Woodward:Secret CIA Units Playing a Central Combat Role Washington Post November 18, 2001

Shaun Mullen:[http://themoderatevoice.com/27093/its-the-story-of-a-lifetime-or-maybe-not

It’s The Story Of A Lifetime. Or Maybe Not.] The Moderate Voice March 12th, 2009

Henry Cuningham:Obama sets date for end of U.S. combat in Iraq The Fayetteville Observer February 28, 2009

Kgrr (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The first article you linked to does talk about the JSOC, but never mentions assassinations or a connection to the VP. The second article was entirely about the CIA Special Activities Division, which is not part of the US Military and, although it sometimes coordinates with the military, they aren't commanded by the JSOC. The third article merely rehashes Hersh's accusation. Hersh has made some discoveries. He's also made allegations that weren't quite true. Might be wise to wait until there is corroboration. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'm just collecting what's out there. I'm clearly not an expert at military anything. Here is another link that mentions JSOC, but it's all Greek to me:

Χάρη Μπότσαρη:Αμερικανοί εκτελεστές υπό τις διαταγές του Τσένι ΘΕΜΑ Online March 13, 2009 Kgrr (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Here are some more about Osama Bin Laden hunters:

Task Force 121 likely to hunt Bin Laden in Pakistan Daily Times Monitor March 16, 2004

Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding Of Terrorists In Iran June 30, 2008

Seymour Hersh, Larry Jacobs, and Walter Mondale:“Great Conversations” event (MP3) University of Minnesota March 10, 2009 Kgrr (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• First link doesn't say anything about an "assassination squad" reporting to the VP. Second link doesn't work. Third link is Hersh. But I see any idea of restraint is thrown out the window. Instead this unsubstantiated claim is just added to the story. For all those who want to just believe that every allegation put forth by the media, then repeated by others, is true, I offer one word: Tailwind. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Hersh made this allegation during a speaking engagement, but has not published these accusations anywhere as of yet. "Hersh spoke with great confidence about these findings from his current reporting, which he hasn't written about yet" [1].

And those allegations have now been reported in the larger press. And as only allegations at present is why I brought up in here first. DarkAudit (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to get across here is that all the reporting in the wider press is reporting that Hersh made the allegation. Hersh hasn't published the allegation himself and has stated that he doesn't have enough evidence to do so. And his allegations are based on the old "unnamed sources" thing. Most reputable journalists will have corroboration of those sources before using them. Maybe that's what he is working on. But 15 articles all saying "Hersh said" doesn't really increase the credibility or the value. Reporting on reporting is lazy journalism. I appreciate that you want to discuss before adding contentious material. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the genie is out of the bottle, with the second level of reporting bringing in analysts such as John Dean to discuss the matter. Just his making the allegation has attracted more eyes to look at what happened. DarkAudit (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the article makes claims of an assassination squad based solely on the word of Hersh, who, by his own admission, is less than truthful when speaking. This seems to me to be well short of reliable sources and, as such, I am removing. Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That looks blown out of proportion. I'm putting it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.19.86 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Putting what back? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Covert operations in Iran

Nightshift, please don't delete entire sections. The whole $400,000 funding thing for covert ops in Iran under Bush is widely known. The New Yorker article I quoted "Preparing the Battlefield" is not an hour long video as you state in the change log. Perhaps you confused the article with the pop-up commercial that you have to x-off in order to see the article. The New Yorker magazine is mainstream, thus a valid reference. It's a covert action because we the citizens were never told about our soldiers actually being in Iran attempting to kidnap/render or kill people/high value targets. Furthermore, JSOC is clearly mentioned in the article if you really had bothered actually reading it yourself before deleting the whole section. "...the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials." I hope you understand why I reverted the section. Kgrr (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, the "entire section" was 2 sentences. Let's not use wording that makes it sound like a massive delete. Second, don't give me your attitude about "if you bothered to read it yourself". I DID read it. The fact that I mistakenly referenced your other Hersh video in the one line edit summary is not reason to start acting like you were personally attacked and throwing around terms like "BS". Maybe YOU should read wp:AGF for yourself. And I know what the friggin New Yorker is. I don't need your "education" about it. What the article doesn't say is that the entire amount of money you quote is solely for JSOC, which is the topic of THIS article, though you make it sound as if all the money is for JSOC . In fact the article never gives a specific amount (it says "up to") and doesn't tell how it was divided up. You are putting all your stock in Hersh's claims that are made based on his unnamed sources. There is little independent corroboration of his claim. Your second source merely references your first source and does so incorrectly (it says 400 million, when the first article says "up to" 400 million). The second article goes on to analyze the missions as "resulting in a pretext for intervention and paving the way for the ultimate goal of regime change before the end of term in January 2009". Guess what? It is March 2009. Bush is no longer in office and there was no attempt at "regime change". Whether you like it or not, Hersh has been wrong before and that's why I suggested a little restraint. You, however, not only ignored the suggestion, but didn't bother to try to discuss any of it. It appears to me that you are using the JSOC article as a wp:COATRACK to try to put forth Hersh's unsubstantiated claims (and those who merely parrot his words) about both Iran and Iraq. Even Hersh himself is saying that he is a year or two from having enough evidence to publish his claims. And, BTW, it is Niteshift, not Nightshift. Maybe I should start acting like you did and tell you that your discussion message is "BS", since you made a minor error in a response. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Niteshift36, Sorry about not stating your nick exactly. However, let's get some things straight here. *You* deleted an entire section of the article and you attributed your deletion as follows: "(→Covert operations in Iran: does "covert opns" mean JSOC? Can we find a better source than an hr long video? Removing until we can clarify) (undo)". I repeat your deletion *is* BS considering the source I provided was not an hour long video, it came from a reputable source - New Yorker Magazine. I have a big difficulty with WP:AGF on your part when the facts you present in the log are factually incorrect. If you made a mistake in your log entry, then I would have expected to see an entry in the discussion section. I did not. What you call "education" about it is my justifying why the section should be there and why your reason for deleting the section was incorrect. I'm fully entitled to justify why it should be there. And, for the record, I am not trying to WP:COATRACK JSOC. I believe all of the sections I have been adding (including this one on Iran) are being stated properly for both sides as I can find them. If you feel I'm cherry-picking facts, please feel free to balance the contribution rather than deleting the whole section as its being created. Kgrr (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again with the "entire section" bit. Yes, those TWO SENTENCES were then whole section, but you can't call it two sentences, you have to try to make it sound more drastic than it was. I've already said I misstated the part about the video. The video was from your other Hersh addition. So sue me, I made a mistake when I was tired and have now stated that I made the mistake TWICE. What else do you want? A pint of blood? The other point was correct. There is nothing in the article that says how much of the money goes to JSOC and how much goes elsewhere. You make it sound as if all of it is for JSOC. It is obvious you have a problem with AGF, since you chose to be insulting a second time, using the same insult to boot. Now you can whine (yes, I said whine) about "if it was a mistake"......guess what sport? I didn't catch the mistake until I revisited the article, after you has posted your insulting response. You've shown both sides? Really? Where did you do that in your entry about the assassination teams allegation? You posted Hersh's allegation and nothing else. So I'm going to plant a BS flag of my own, right on your claim that your sections are being "being stated properly for both sides". I tried to see if you would tone down your insulting demeanor. You clearly don't want to, which tends to make me believe that my wp:coatrack theory is on target. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Niteshift36 It only had two sentences. So what. It's still a material you deleted. Under WP:AGF, *you* would have been the one to not delete the work I had started. The second point about the 400 million dollars was never an issue in your deletion log. In fact, I would really love to know how much was spent and where it went. But you and I will never know. Kgrr (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Now you want to talk about AGF? After being uncivil on 2 seperate occassions? LMFAO. Yeah, maybe I should have skipped that and gone straight to suggesting you read wp:civil. Yes, I deleted it. You are so friggin hung up on this deletion log crap, not taking into account that there is a very limited amount of space on the edit summary to type the reason. I hit the high point and moved on. I'd suggest you move on in regard to this deletion log whining. I'll try to make this simple so maybe you'll finally get it. You make it sound like all the money goes to JSOC. Why can't you write it to reflect the fact that you, nor the media, know how much went to whom? Is that too difficult to do? I'm actually starting to suspect that your sole participation here isn't to discuss possible change, but to "prove" you are right. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pfffft. May I suggest *you* stop your pointless whining and arguing about civility and AGF. 1) We agree that you deleted the two line section on covert operations in Iran. 2) You made a mistake in saying it contained a video. I don't really care what your excuse was, I restored the section and added a note in the discussion page that started this "rant". In fact, I can understand how you accidentally deleted the section, thinking it was a big video presentation. I can also understand that you made a mistake somewhere. I have been completely ready to move on, but you insist in drowning in your endless rhetoric. Either way, I restored the section.

Now the Iran section is back and if I understand you right, you are still upset about that I "make it sound like all the money goes to JSOC." Let's discuss the sentence that really seems to bother you:

"Later, in 2008, Congress funded a $400,000 request from President Bush to escalate covert operations against Iran to destabilize the country's religious leadership, gather intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program and support the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations."

Show me where it says that the all of the $400 mil went to to JSOC. I have looked and have not been able to find a reference that says exactly where the appropriation went and how much was used and where. I too would like to know. If you find something, by all means add it.

Which of the following do you agree with? 1) The CIA is the only body that is authorized to perform covert actions. 2) Congress has oversight over where the CIA goes and how much it spends in the black budget. 3) JSOC is part of the military and depends on the CIA for intelligence. 4) JSOC does its own intelligence with Grey Fox 5) Bush claimed that the Executive branch alone has oversight over the Military. 6) Bush is in charge of the scope of the war on terror. 7) That scope is the whole world. 8) The Military is authorized to go where ever the commander and chief wants it to go. 9) Cheney was the Vice President and not the Commander and Chief. 10) Cheney was in charge of covert actions. 12) Iran has very little to do with 911 and Osama Bin Laden. 13) JSOC’s primary mission is believed to be identifying and destroying terrorists and terror cells worldwide. 14) JSOC normally is deployed in operations with a limited scope. 15) JSOC has been involved with covert actions. Can you back some or all of these with references? I personally don't agree with all of them, but I'm fine with understanding how all of the pieces fit together. Let the references speak for themselves. Kgrr (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Show you where it says that the all of the $400 mil went to to JSOC? I have a better idea: Show me where I said that was what it said. I didn't. What I DID say was "you make it sound as if all the money is for JSOC". Now what part of that confuses you? What part of that did I say "you said"? I said YOU MAKE IT SOUND like it all goes to JSOC. How can I discuss the wording when you FABRICATE what my position actually is? And yes, I'll stop discussing AGF and Civil because it is clear that you have no intention of being civil. I'm not even going to address the rest of your BS (since you seem to favor that term) because further discussion with a person who fabricates and refuses to be civil can only lead to a negative outcome for me. You'll go whine to some admin that is sympathetic to your coatrack efforts to paint JSOC as some sort of rogue babykillers and an excuse to keep complaining about an adminstration that is no longer in office. Your efforts are transparent. I won't even ask because I have no doubt you'll lie when responding since you've already begun lying about what I've said. Have you ever stopped to think, for a just one second, that if you had been civil and courteous from the start, that this entire exchange would have read much differently and been much more constructive? Don't bother answering that, it was rhetorical. I know you haven't considered the concept that you started out as shrill and insulting. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why don't you just drop your attack then and be civil? If you continue hounding me, I will simply resort to completely ignoring you. Got it?

Do you know that JSOC has been working hard trying to catch Osama Bin Laden with the very limited intelligence they've had. In fact, do you know, they were stood down in the late 1990's when President Clinton did not want another Mogadishu? I wanted to write that section yesterday, but did not get there.

Now for the last time, can we move forward? I have researched what preceded Congress funding $400,000 towards destabilizing Iran. No one has disputed that Congress wrote and passed a bill to de-stabilize Iran. So if I understand you now, you don't want to see that one sentence from Hersh's allegations in 2008? Cut to the chase and explain yourself. Kgrr (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Drop my attack? You mean responding to you the way you've responded to me? Then you talk to me like I'm your child with you're I'll ignore you "got it" crap. I know the history pal. I also know that we had bin Laden and Clinton refused to take him. Don't blame JSOC for not being able to find him. Try talking to people the way you want talked to. Otherwise don't be surprised when they respond to you in kind. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's it. I have nothing further to say to you. You are incapable of being civil. You are on iggy. Kgrr (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• You haven't had a single response to me that was civil, yet want to throw that stone. What a joke. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Assassination Team Allegation

I think I understand where Hersh is going. He just does not explain where the JSOC would be getting their intelligence from if they did not use the CIA. (He wants to sell his book of course).

“Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference.” Hersh2009

The C.I.A. is required by law to run everything by leaders of Congress (the Gang of Eight) using Presidential findings. “Finding” refers to a special document that a president must issue, although not make public, to authorize covert CIA actions.

By replacing the C.I.A. with the SSB, which operates under the Defense Department, they no longer need to go through the findings process to do intelligence work. The SSB is funded using “reprogrammed” funds that do not have explicit congressional authority or appropriation. Washington Post, 1/23/2005

JSOC together with the SSB can now run on clandestine missions solely under the direction of the executive branch (completely without the checks and balances).

Now what's not clear from Hersh's allegations is how all of this ties in with the Vice President and not the President.Kgrr (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing this whole section be deleted for WP:FRINGE. Its all base done one allegation from a notoriously unreliable source. CENSEI (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Actually, Sy Hersh has been a quite accurate investigative reporter. And, the New Yorker, the news magazine he works for, generally is also very reliable source. Hersh in turn has his reliable sources, but he will not disclose them. This is how the press works. Wikipedia is not about taking sides, it's about stating all the sides. Don't just delete what is being said in the mainstream news (CNN) just because you don't like that particular POV. Balance it out with references that says that Hersh's allegations are untrue, then put them side-by-side in the article. Let the reader decide.  kgrr ^talk 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hersh has been accurate. He has also been inaccurate. I think you forget that sometimes. Right now you have nothing but his say so as "evidence". He says he has "reliable sources". Peter Arnett said he had proof that the US used sarin gas in Laos. He felt he had enough evidence to make his case publicly. He was wrong. Hersh isn't even comfortable enough with the amount of evidence he has to actually make the charge. When he mentioned it in a speaking engagement, he quickly said he wasn't ready to go public with it. So far only Hersh is the one saying this. Everyone else is just repeating that Hersh said it. He's SHOWN no evidence. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would support that. Even the source (Hersh) regrets going public with it at this point because he doesn't feel he has sufficient evidence at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would rather you post your source in the article where he says now that he does not have sufficient evidence to back his claims.  kgrr ^talk 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I already have. It is in the article. He said he doesn't have enough evidence at this point to convince the most skeptical. You can read it how you want. I see Hersh as saying his evidence isn't concrete or complete enough yet to go public with. I'm sure you read it much differently. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keeping in mind that Hersh has only made this allegation in a speech and not in writing, this quote from Hersh might be of interest: Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.” [2]

Guys, on July 10, someone just deleted this section wholesale. Shouldn't this be undone???A.k.a. (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did that. I commented above without realizing that this section also covered the section as well. Here is what i wrote in defense of my edits :

As it stands, the article makes claims of an assassination squad based solely on the word of Hersh, who, by his own admission, is less than truthful when speaking. This seems to me to be well short of reliable sources and, as such, I am removing.

I stand by my edits and the logic stated here. The say so of a single guy is an exceedingly weak reed on which to stand, especially considering that he made these claims in a speech rather that a peer reviewed work.

If these claims have any real merit, it should not be hard to find someone else that verifies the claims that Hersch made. Bonewah (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with deleting it. 4 months later, the media has dropped the idea and Hersh still hasn't provided evidence or even made te allegations in writing. This is all based on a comment he said in passing and even he admits he can "fudge the truth"" when speaking. WP:RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

75th Ranger Regiment and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

As noted in the CRS report referenced on the page, the 75th Ranger Regiment and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment are believed to be a part of JSOC. The 160th is the ONLY Special Operations aviation unit and, logically, should be considered part of JSOC (as they are part of SOCOM and USASOC - see their respective official webpages). Col. North's work even states that 1st SFOD, DEVGRU and 24th STS are part of JSOC and "among others." Since the late 1980s the 75th and SOAR have not deployed outside of JSOC and it is simply not a matter of "if needed" for inclusion in JSOC. Even Delta Force (according to WIKI and photos of Gary Gordon from Delta Force) wears USASOC's patch (not JSOC's or even SOCOM's). So, if the 75th Ranger Regiment is not part of JSOC because they are under USASOC, then neither is Delta Force (since they too are part of USASOC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolau.kalani (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You've already been provided extensive documentation of The 75th NOT being a part of JSOC and all of your rebuttals, that I've seen so far, are anecdotal at best and are at worst a misunderstanding of organisational structures on your part. You've already run afoul of 3RR; you need to stop reverting Charlie Tango Bravo, he's bent over backwards to demonstrate the facts to you. You've also made nonconstructive edits the the 75th's Article which have tried to scrub historical defeats of the Regiment from the page. You're obviously not a Ranger, are you some wannabe or fan? I'm not understanding your uphill effort here. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The WP Policy that applies here is related to Original Research, it's also worth taking a look at the material around sources.

Note that the concepts of OPCOM and OPCON are pretty well established and it's very straightforward for a Task Element to be OPCOM one chain of command and OPCON another for day to day operations.

ALR (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the information out of the Regiment page because it was not constructive to overall flow of the document. It's like if I put operational details of the defeats of the Marine Corps on the Marines Corps pages. There are appropriate pages for the details of battles and wars - do you disagree? Otherwise, I could throw up a bunch of information on the Marine Corps page that, while true, is just unnecessary on the page. I STRONGLY suggest that you read Joint Publication 3-05 "Doctrine for Joint Special Operations." It may help you understand that the whole Joint Task Force concept puts units under a different command element than you originally thought. You obviously ignore the FACT that Delta is an Army unit just as DEVGRU is a NAVY unit (as evidenced by a significant amount of literature) - Do you refute this? Quite honestly, I don't care what the wiki page says, if you want it to contain lies it's fine with me.Paolau.kalani (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reread the Pub, there's nothing in it that supports your assertion. You're misunderstanding the Joint Task Force concept. You can put anything you want in a Task Force, it's a temporary operational command custom built to perform a specific function. It has nothing to do with the organisational structure of the participating units. I've been in a JTF. I worked with guys from all sorts of units and it had zero effect on my or my parent unit's status.

Also, I understand you're wrapping your brain in a knot as to why guys in Delta would wear a SOCOM or USASOCOM patch on their shoulder. Let me clear it up: Delta (or CAG or ACE or whatever iteration it is now) is a covert unit. There is no official unit patch and their existence within JSOC is not officially acknowledged. Putting a patch on your shoulder would hose that whole effort pretty well. So they wear SOCOM patches when they get their pictures taken or have to wear their alphas around. Okay? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly is my assertion? You've yet to clearly state that you understand what I'm saying - other than you are saying I'm wrong. If there is no "official patch," then why do they all wear an official patch of their respective branches? Are you arguing that Delta Force isn't an Army unit? What does ACE stand for anyway? or that DEVGRU isn't a NAVY unit? This is now the SECOND time I've asked and you've avoided the question. They wear SOCOM patches? Wrong, Gary Gordon and other "operators" from DELTA were wearing USASOC patches, not SOCOM for their photos. Not that it matters, you don't have any proof of your claims that they just wear the patches as "cover" - sounds like a wild guess; is that what wiki is about? If they were JSOC, wouldn't they just wear the JSOC patch since JSOC isn't exactly a secret organization? I mean, there are people in JSOC as support that wear the patch, couldn't they just claim that as cover? Here's another question for you: where do "operators" go to non-commissioned officer schools? JSOC? Simple logic suggests something isn't adding up here. Paolau.kalani (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, you're wearing me out man. Listen, you want to add that the 75th Ranger Regiment is part of JSOC then cough up a reliable source that flat out states "The 75th Ranger Regiment is part of JSOC." You won't find one, because it's wrong, and them's the rules. If you don't have one (and you don't) then stop wasting people's time; I don't care what does or doesn't add up for you. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you refuse to answer my questions. FYI, I've NEVER argued that the 75th or SOAR is a stand up unit of JSOC. You still aren't tracking what I'm saying or the route I'm headed. On to my next point. Now that you are intimately familiar with JP 3-05, and that you understand everything about Joint SPECIAL OPERATIONS Task Forces -not conventional JTFs- (e.g. TF 6-26 and others listed on wiki), you know: "SOF may be assigned to either US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) or a geographic combatant command" (JP 3-05, page III-1). That was a direct quote by the way. What was that about parent unit's status not changing? I mean, JP 3-05 (an official military document) seems to contradict your experiences. So, understanding that just about every task force since the 1980s has been organized somewhat similarly, you should be able to come to some reasonable conclusions. Not being sarcastic, but does that make sense? Paolau.kalani (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How is the following for proof?

"The task force, part of the Joint Special Operations Command, based at Pope Air Force Base, N.C..."

"The JSOC task force includes elements of some of the military’s most elite units, including: the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, sometimes called Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU; the Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, or Delta Force; the 75th Ranger Regiment; the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment; the Air Force’s 24th Special Tactics Squadron; plus elements from other even more secret units and intelligence organizations.

Sometimes referred to as “the National Mission Force,” the JSOC task force has been a constant presence in Afghanistan since late 2001. It has used several code names, including Task Force 11 and Task Force 373. A senior coalition officer requested its current numerical name not be published."

"The task force is led by JSOC commander Vice Adm. Bill McRaven..." "Underneath McRaven in the task force’s command structure is the 75th Ranger Regiment commander, Col. Michael Kurilla..."

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-haqqani-092010w/

What's that? The Commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment is ALSO number TWO in the chain of command of the "national mission force"? and the Task Force is "part of Joint Special Operations Command"?Paolau.kalani (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is amazing. You really won't stop with this will you? Again, that quote is indicating that Rangers sometimes work under JSOC. Not that the whole Ranger Regiment is part of JSOC. The 75th Ranger Regiment is AN ARMY REGIMENT. It is not a unit, like Delta or DEVGRU that is above the military chain of command and is a full-time component of JSOC. Similarly, SOAR is a REGIMENT and part of the Army, not JSOC. You can dig up all the obscure quotes that you want, but it's never going to change the fact that the 75th is not a part of JSOC. Rangers will work with JSOC and therefore be under JSOC command for those missions, but most of the Ranger Regiment is occupied with missions that have nothing to do with JSOC. It's like you're arguing that the sun revolves around the earth. You can argue all you want, and interpret official quotes as incorrectly as you please, but it will never change the fact that the 75th is not part of JSOC. EVERYONE knows this, even laymen; and the fact that you're arguing that one miniscule, cut and dry, overtly obvious point over and over (I'm sorry to say) makes you look really stupid. Again, I would refer you to the Army SOC chain of command, which is clearly explicated here. Charlie Tango Bravo (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to read the DIRECT QUOTES I listed from a credible source? WHERE does it say the Ranger Regiment "sometimes" work under JSOC? and Delta Force is an ARMY unit as evidenced by the very patches they wear (and their WIKI page). What is your point that the 75th is a Regiment? Just like TEAM 6 (or DEVGRU) is a TEAM. "Most of the Regiment is occupied with missions that have nothing to do with JSOC." REALLY? Is that why the COMMANDER of the Regiment is second in command of JSOC? or that in the better part of a decade the 75th has NEVER deployed outside of JSOC task forces (as evidenced by the reference I listed)? Like Col. Kurilla just sheds his JSOC clothes at the end of the day and puts on a Ranger uniform at night? You mean the USER created chain of command? You've already been warned once about even the implied use of a personal attack. Paolau.kalani (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The commander of the 75th is not listed as second in command of JSOC. He's listed as second in command of the JSOC task force: "Underneath McRaven in the task force’s command structure is the 75th Ranger Regiment commander…"^{[emphasis added]}[3] Since US task forces are not permanent assignments, participation in the task force is not evidence that the 75th is a permanent part of JSOC. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, however, I've never stated or meant to imply that the Regiment was a stand up unit of JSOC. "JSOC units include the Army's fabled counter terrorism unit, the '1st Special Operations Detachment - Delta.'" So, logically, "Delta Force" is not a stand up unit of JSOC either. The key word in the previous sentence is 'ARMY's'. Logic must be applied evenly, so if the 75th isn't a part of JSOC because it is Army, then neither is Delta Force because it is Army. All I've attempted to argue here is that the 75th and SOAR plays an integral role in JSOC and that JSOC doesn't have "stand up" units. In fact, Delta Force is listed as what is sometimes referred to as the "National Missions Force" (which also includes the 75th). There is nothing that indicates the 75th is a part of JSOC "If needed" as listed on the JSOC wikipedia page.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CODVISdxxssC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=JSOC+oliver+north&source=bl&ots=W4OUXsXRtH&sig=28hulDsIoIg9Ztmdq1NhElxpKsQ&hl=en&ei=M ZBlTd3WGsGC8gbwkOzTBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falsePaolau.kalani (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how to make this any clearer for you. I'm not going to try to explain to you staffing from different services because your circular reasoning seems impenetrable and I feel my time will simply be wasted. Instead let me simply restate that if you want to include any manner of phraseology tying the 75th to JSOC you will need to have a clear, verbatim statement in a reliable source, not in conflict with a preponderance of other reliable sources, to back it up. Period. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, show me what part of the next quote DIRECTLY conflicts with ANY other RELIABLE source, and I'll drop it. Remember, this means a lack of evidence elsewhere is not evidence. ""The JSOC task force includes elements of some of the military’s most elite units, including: the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, sometimes called Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU; the Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, or Delta Force; the 75th Ranger Regiment; the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment; the Air Force’s 24th Special Tactics Squadron; plus elements from other even more secret units and intelligence organizations." Paolau.kalani (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For the coffin nail to this argument:

Read FM 7-85 Ranger Unit Operations. (how is that for an OFFICIAL source?). The key point I am making here is the part of the title DURING WARTIME.

key quotes:

"Figure 1-4. Command and control of Army Special operations forces during wartime.

"(a) A theater joint special operations command (JSOC) is subordinate to the unified command to supervise the command and control, employment, and support of all US and allied special operations forces. The JSOC is a key element in the command and control of ranger units performing strike missions or special light infantry operations. (Option A)."

"(7) Requests for ranger units, from either US or allied commands, go through normal command channels to the CINC. The CINC, through the JSOC, is responsible for the employment of all special operations forces, including ranger units." Key word there is ALL special operations forces. By the way, those are DIRECT QUOTES.

http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/MILITARY/united_states_army_fm_7-85%20%20-%2098_june_1987.pdf

Paolau.kalani (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god dude. Operational command (such as with a Task Force or Combatant Command) and being part of a unit's T/O is not mutually dependent. I'm 100% done repeating myself to you. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god dude, where have I EVER argued that the 75th was a part of JSOC's T/O? I've only argued that the 75th is part of JSOC (not necessarily in it's T/O as you state I have said). Falling under OPCOM still warrants inclusion as "part of". Again, not necessarily in a hierarchical structure of authority or T/O. Repeating yourself and ignoring facts doesn't make you right and me wrong. Nor does twisting what I've said to fit what you want to believe.Paolau.kalani (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Operational command does not make you "part of" a unit. Ever. Marines who are on Embassy duty are not "part of" the State Department. DEA agents working SOCOM counter-drug JTFs in Afghanistan are not "part of" SOCOM or vice versa. Military Intelligence battalions assigned to SOCOM JTFs are not "part of" SOCOM. Air Force air crews assigned to the 82nd Airborne are not "part of" the 82nd Airborne. CCTs assigned to Special Forces Groups are not "part of" USASOC. Rangers assigned to a JSOC JTF are not "part of" JSOC. You've simply misunderstood what you're reading or you're using a definition of "part of" which renders it, essentially, meaningless. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Apples to Oranges. So you are saying JSOC task forces are not "part of" JSOC? Riiiiighhhtt....Paolau.kalani (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You must be trolling. That's the only way any of this makes sense. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Or the fact that you've managed to avoid ALL of my questions without answering probably means you are trolling. Does the DoS RSO have OPCON or OPCOM of Marines assigned to embassy duty? Same with any or all of the examples you've given. It's safe to assume by now that you won't budge at all on this issue even if the President himself says that the use of Rangers during war is at the discretion of JSOC since I've already provided an Army Publication that says the same thing.Paolau.kalani (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, you Googled Marine Security Guards. Ad yes, the RSO does have operational control over the Marine Dets. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

But the DoS doesn't have command and control authority of Marine Dets right? Or the DoS didn't command the USMC to provide Marine Dets. The MARINES' chain of command authorized the dets. The point I'm making with the excellent example you've provided is that only those in a chain of command can make those decisions. The USMC, not the DoS is the chain of command. Now apply that to the argument we are having. Paulao.kalani (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The SNCOIC in the embassy reports directly to the Regional Security Officer who reports to the Ambassador. The Marine's chain of command dictates they report directly to the State RSO not the USMC's Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. The State Department has OPERATIONAL CONTROL but the Marines are not part of the Department of State, they're part of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. Like the Marines at State the 75th is not compelled by JSOC to provide assets, the Army allows them to be used in JSOC taskings under JSOC command. They're OPERATIONALLY CONTROLLED by JSOC at times but they are part of USASOC. So yes, it does apply to the point I've been laboriously trying to make you understand just not the way you thought. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not at all what I asked now is it. Who AUTHORIZED Marine Dets to begin with? The DoS or the Marine Corps? Of course, the Marine Corps (or higher) did because it's THEIR forces. JSOC, as noted in FM 7-85, "Requests for ranger units, from either US or allied commands, go through normal command channels to the CINC. The CINC, through the JSOC, is responsible for the employment of all special operations forces, including ranger units." This EXPLICITLY states that JSOC dictates where the 75th goes (during wartime). Paolau.kalani (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Congress authorized it. Also, your conclusion is not explicitly stated. For something to be be explicitly stated it has to actually be stated. You know, by definition. You also seem to have gross misunderstanding of the function of both the CINC and JSOC. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Congress authorized it, but it was implemented through the USMC NOT DoS. Does statement say that the CINC, through JSOC, employs SOF or not?Paolau.kalani (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're infuriatingly and willfully obtuse. I have to step back for a time and let other editors deal with this because I can no longer resist the urge to be uncivil to you as I feel good faith discussion is wasted here. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you cannot just answer SIMPLE questions. Maybe if you answered them, we could come to a final answer on this subject. Here is another, even simpler, question: Is the 1st battalion 3rd marines part of the Department of Defense, part of the Department of Agriculture, or none of the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolau.kalani (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So what's the point of this?

I started a subsection because I wanted to break the thread of discussion and get back to the focus of the article. What does the classification of the 75th Ranger Regiment have to do with the article? Are we trying to state that it's a SMU under JSOC command and control? Are we trying to state that it's one of the support units that can be transferred to JSOC for command and support? Should it just not be mentioned in the article altogether? Ultimately, these are the three questions to be addressed:

1. What change should be made to the article?
2. What secondary sources—not primary sources published by the DoD—exist to verify the change?
3. If there are no secondary sources, what primary sources exist to verify the change?

Frankly, I hear a lot of going back and forth about the #3 question without any clear addressing of the #1 question. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)None, because (2)there aren't any and (3)none. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Regiment is not an SMU under JSOC (something I have never attempted to argue).

(1) Instead of the "If needed" in the JSOC wiki article, I believe it should say "During wartime" as is consistent with the Army FM I cited earlier. (2) Secondary sources include the FM 7-85 Ranger Unit Operations I mentioned previously. (3) Primary sources include Sean Naylor and the JSOC battles haqqani article I mentioned previously. Mr. Naylor was imbedded with JSOC units as part of Operation Anaconda and has written numerous articles about Special Operations Forces.Paulao.kalani (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

FMs are primary sources, the Naylor article may be considered a secondary source but it's uncorroborated.

I would expect to see something that explicitly states that 75RR is OPCON to JSOC in its entirety as opposed to per a specific requirement.

ALR (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncorroborated? You mean conducting research first hand via interviews and observations of combat is uncorroborated? Naylor published a book on the matter of Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan from this perspective. Are Milgram, Zimbardo, and Freud's studies "uncorroborated" as well?

The Field Manual I referenced has an entire section devoted to "Command and Control" The FIRST paragraph of the section following the figure "Figure 1-4. Command and control of Army Special operations forces during wartime" is as follows: "(a) A theater joint special operations command (JSOC) is subordinate to the unified command to supervise the command and control, employment, and support of all US and allied special operations forces. The JSOC is a key element in the command and control of ranger units performing strike missions or special light infantry operations (Option A)." Additionally, "Requests for ranger units, from either US or allied commands, go through normal command channels to the CINC. The CINC, through the JSOC, is responsible for the employment of all special operations forces, including ranger units." How more explicit do you need? The Command and Control section of an Army FM states that JSOC dictates where and how Ranger units are employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolau.kalani (talk • contribs) 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Would the change to "During wartime" be confusing, given that—at least from the civilian perspective—operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of a declared war? —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you make an excellent point there. I trust your judgment, I leave it up to you to determine if any changes are necessary, I just wanted to make the point that the 75th (and SOAR) are an integral part of JSOC operations since they are members of the JSOC task forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolau.kalani (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd throw in a comment about your edit. You stated that 1) Naylor "misstated" that the 75th and 160th are under control of JSOC yet I can count at least 3 articles by Naylor (who was embedded with a JSOC task force and published a new york times bestseller about it, it doesnt come much more reliable than that) that state JSOC controls both units (I'd say you're flat out wrong in that regard). 2) You said that the statement runs in direct contradiction to "official" org. tables yet the only tables I can find have been made up by wiki editors with no references. 3) What "extensive" third party sources state the 75th and SOAR aren't in JSOC? I can find plenty that directly talk about SMUs but dont explicitly state that the 75th and SOAR aren't in JSOC. 4) If you're serious about having a polished wiki page, you would at least entertain the thought (which you wont)... I can find plenty of reliable scholars (Naylor included) that state 75th and SOAR are controlled by JSOC, yet you can't find one that says they arent. Jeremy Scahill has also written on this subject as well. and just FYI, Naylor is a winner of the Edgar A. Poe Memorial Award and top 22 "unsung" writers - I dont think he'd appreciate you accusing him of misstatements that could be construed as libel. 75.111.97.117 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

GASP!!! Naylor strikes again in a published article. This best-selling author and Edgar A. Poe Memorial Award winner is just so much less knowledgeable than you right? My point is that I'm complying with wiki policy on this debate while you are ignoring reliable sourcing and unable to produce any information contrary. The best you can do is point to organization charts and say that because the 75th is in one chart it can't even be associated with any other organization. Yet again, I'm not arguing that the 75th/160th are "stand up" units of JSOC and its T/O (despite authoritative and reliable sourcing provided below) only that JSOC controls these two units while conducting operations OCONUS.

"People on all sides of the debate trace the priority SOCom gives to JSOC and its component units — such as the Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, 75th Ranger Regiment, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) and the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 — back to the failure of Operation Eagle Claw, the 1980 mission to rescue the Iran hostages that met disaster at a remote landing strip codenamed Desert One. The debacle eventually led to the formation of SOCom." http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/11/3049653/ 75.111.97.117 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Naylor's blurbs are so reliable he directly contradicts those statements (two months ago) right here. If you need more here is a report to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee which clearly shows the 75th as being part of USASOC, not JSOC. Here is a report from the Government Accountability Office that clearly shows (with pictures!!!) the organization (pg 17) at SOCOM and the Rangers place in it, i.e not JSOC. You're trying to take casual language from a Military Times staff writer and use it to override offical organizational publications by the Army. Quite simply you don't know what you're talking about. You've got this idea about the 75th that you just won't let go of whatever reason and it's incredibly tiring. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How is "also support" a direct contradiction? (i.e. as an employee of my company I support its mission). Vague yes, contradiction, no. Nice try. Again, simply because an organization is a part of one T/O doesnt mean it can't be associated with another. I can't understand why you dont realize that. (ie. Delta Force/ARMY compartmented element is associated with JSOC/USASOC/SOCOM) I mean delta force even WEARS the USASOC patch. How can that fact escape you? "Casual language" of a military times staff writer? Dont you mean a published author on the subject?(which you are not). Yeah because I know when authors submit writing to a journal (ie. the source I provided above), people just make whatever claims they want without regard to their credibility. But again, By your logic, because Delta Force isnt a part of any official org charts we must delete the entire page (completely ludicrous). Look, until you provide a source that DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY says otherwise, the current verbiage stays because it is accurate (controlled by doesnt mean part of T/O I thought you'd have figured that out by now). 75.111.97.117 (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a direct source which says that the 75th is part of USASOC, three in fact. JSOC is not a subordinate command to USASOC, they're adjacent commands under SOCOM. I even gave you a picture man, a flow chart. Delta guys wear a USASOC patch because there're not an officially recognized unit, they don't have official patches. Having your secret guys walk around in uniform with official patches approved under AR-670 for the command they supposedly don't exist in would be pretty stupid, huh? You're grasping at straws and looking for logical loopholes. My official source in its report to Congress CLEARLY shows that the 75th is not part of JSOC. You have the misconstrued nontechnical verbiage of a staff write at the military times, I have three official organizational documents, two of which are Congressional reports. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just realized part of the mistaken assumption you're working under that may be the root of your misunderstanding. You think Delta is part of JSOC and USASOC, which it's not. The Delta guys are not part of USASOC, that's much of the point of JSOC, to separate some Special Operations units from the command structure of their parent services and use them in a purely joint service environment. USASOC and JSOC are adjacent commands under SOCOM, refer to the chart I provided you. The 75th is part of USASOC, not JSOC, partly because it's a Army infantry formation, they want to move guys in and out of the unit and use it to seed leadership billets in other parts of the Army, particularly among the officer corps. Because the 75th is the largest formation in SOCOM they are often tasked to temporary Task Forces led by JSOC in order to provide muscle to the operations. Here's another military times writer explicitly identifying the 75th as part of USASOC. Do you understand now? TomPointTwo (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying the 75th is in USASOC? For the fourth time, I AGREE that the 75th is under USASOC!!! Again, your fundamental misunderstanding is that you BELIEVE that because the 75th/160th are part of USASOC it can't even be associated with JSOC. I've never made the claim that the 75th is part of JSOC's T/O (again, the fourth time i've had to explain this). The org charts you've provided show that ZERO units are under JSOC (so, since they are official sources we must delete Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 webpages according to your logic). FYI The Army FM provided to you earlier also shows that JSOC controls the 75th while conducting combat operations.

So, you think that the ARMY Compartmented Element is not part of USASOC? are you serious? Nevermind the FACT that when Shugart, Gordan and virtually every other delta operator has been killed they are identified as USASOC soldiers, your best explanation is that they are like aliens hiding among us? ACE was the units secret name, aka they didnt want anyone to find out, so why even put ARMY in it? But yet again, your source explicitly shows the 75th under USASOC (which we both agree), it doesnt explicitly contradict Naylor who was embedded with JSOC forces. As far as grasping at straws, i'm the ONLY one that's provided CLEAR evidence of my statements. Your claim is that because its in one org chart it can't even be associated with another. The truth is, until JSOC publishes a manual complete with orgs. and operating procedures, Naylor is the best insight we have right now. 75.111.97.117 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To counter your claim that Delta is NOT a USASOC unit I found the following: "The 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta is the U.S. Army's special operations unit organized for the conduct of missions requiring rapid response with surgical application of a wide variety of unique special operations skills." I think you'll notice also that the contact for the postings ALL have an ARMY email.

http://paraglideonline.net/pages/2006-pdf/11-23-06/05501A07P112306.pdf. A number of these recruiting postings have been posted at various installations. I am not claiming that Delta is not part of JSOC, simply that it is part of both. After all, according to SOCOM's official page, JSOC is a subordinate unified command, NOT a Unified Combatant Command. This is what the facts show, plain and simple. If you disagree, please provide sufficient references and update the Delta Force page to reflect not being included in USASOC.

But again, and according to FM 1-108, USASOC does NOT command OCONUS forces. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1-108/chapter2.htm 75.111.97.117 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit some of you guys need to fn shut your mouth and use your ears. The 75th is NOT part of JSOC, it is not FUNDED by JSOC, it does not have "authority" over the 75th in the same way USASOC does. I served with the 3rd Ranger Bn from 2003 to 2007. The reason why this gets so confusing - is because the 75th is ALWAYS "tasked" out to JSOC as JSOC brass has more "pull" then USASOC brass. We always work for JSOC and work with Delta and DEVGRU, but we are not part of JSOC and do not have access to their awesome bank accounts. The Rangers are the only action arm unit in the special operations community that "fights" alongside JSOC (The 160th is a support unit to the SOF community and not action arm). SF, the regular SEAL Teams, and the rest of the community really plays no part in JSOC. The Rangers are always part of the JSOC Task Forces - 121, 20, 145, and 626, etc. Somebody mentioned Task Force 373... that is NOT a JSOC unit, it is a "white side" task force made up of Special Forces, Navy SEALs, and other AFSOC elements. Hope it helps - now edit article accordingly.

Obviously, you've completely misinterpreted the entire argument. Not ONE person has claimed the 75th is under JSOC's "chain of command" organizationally. However, while deployed (OCONUS), USASOC does not control the 75th (as defined in FM 1-108 - USASOC does not control OCONUS forces). Hence, the 75th (or respective element) is "part of" the respective JSOC task force. I figured a fellow batt boy would know that. but then again, as a fellow batt vet, when was the last time the 75th deployed to combat outside of a JSOC task force? 1979 maybe? Either way, I think just about everyone that's been in this conversation is oblivious to the fact that JSOC is a subunified command (even identified as such on JSOC's website) and entails certain command responsibilities and limitations. If you look at other sub-unified commands like Alaskan Command, it should start to make sense. - Broken down: Alaskan Command isn't a "branch-like organization" like some (aka tompointtwo) mistakenly think of JSOC, but units are on "loan" to make up its whole from other branches. aka elements of the 1st Stryker BCT is "part of" Alaskan Command but gets loaned out to the respective command in Afganistan (and is "part of" that command) when deployed. The whole problem is that people forget the whole point of a sub-unified command is that it is made up from various elements of various branches to achieve command and control of those forces for a functional or area purpose. 75.111.87.3 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden dead, thanks to JSOC

I don't have clearance to edit this article, but JSOC is responsible for the killing and capture of Bin Laden. [** I would second this.. add this immediately if not sooner... as well as a link to the map to the town where it happened or an existing new wiki page on Osama and his death... it was strange to see he was in a town with hospitals and a golf course and so on]

We should edit this article to reflect that, as this article is probably about to get a ton of hits with people researching the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinesetrout7 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We will hold off adding anything on the killing until a reliable source can be cited identifying JSOC as the organization which conducted the operation. It may well have been a CIA SAD op or a joint op. Either way we need to wait. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ABC news is a reliable source. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me as long as it includes the "initial reporting indicates" caveat. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Note also the current text indicates JSOC "is credited with" not "performed" the operation. Can we replace the cite, or at least replace {{dubious}} with {{Verify credibility}}? Can we craft acceptable text here for a {{edit protected}} request? (sdsds - talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say replacing the present cite is the best choice, no additional tags required. Things will start to come quickly now. United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group and United States Navy SEALs are also going to need attention. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the best wording, replacing a citation from WorldNetDaily (not a reliable source) with a citation from ABC News (a reliable source) should be uncontroversial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Small Change

I recommend that the word killing before Osama be linked to the article Death of Osama bin Laden, in the way linked in this post. -Vcelloho (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Paco Charte (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Personally, I recommend the word "murder" be linked to the article in the above comment. Without due process, most of JSOC's activities involve murder. Thanks.Paco Charte (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Paco Charte (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)You should edit this article to reflect the truth. I have had numerous edits deleted (with proper citations in the correct format) which pertain to the murder of Al-Awlaki's son two weeks after the targeted assassination of AA himself in Yemen. Appropriately, I placed said edits/additions under the "Operations in Yemen" section. I want some answers as to why this is being summarily deleted/negated. This entire page seems to be HEAVILY slanted in a pro-military manner Paco Charte (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC) I will cite sources when my issue is acknowledged. Paco_Charte Paco Charte (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your source doesn't say it was JSOC. It mentions, in passing, that "special operations" officials...... Aside from JSOC, each branch has their own Special Operations command for starters. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Paco Charte (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)OK, so then it's a matter of establishing a better source? I think that in light of Scahill's book (mentioned earlier in the article) and the movie recently released, it's pretty easy to circumstantially tie the two together. I can provide links implicating JSOC until the proverbial cows come home. Further, whether it's JSOC (an admittedly secret organization or the CIA, until the government itself steps forward to differentiate in the case of these operations, your editorial logic here is shaky at best - and not sufficient to exclude stories with *probable* merit): http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-17/world/35279713_1_anwar-al-awlaki-ibrahim-al-banna-aqap, https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/25-9, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/03/jsoc-obama-secret-assassins, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all, etc. etc. etc. Paco Charte (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Without even looking at these yet (and I reject common dreams as a source), I didn't say it was only matter of sourcing. I said your source doesn't make the clear statement you are. So please refrain from your assumptions. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Paco Charte (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Let's just leave it at this then. I'm going to make the edit based on the sources that do *not* include Common Dreams (although you are not willing to go on record, even to tacitly implicate them as an unreliable source - saying way more about you than it does them) with respect to the fact that Awlaki's son was murdered by JSOC without due process and that Obama [to ostensibly include his advisory team] was trouble by it. I am not making any allegation regarding your own personal editorial stance on the matter, but if the edit disappears again without any record of it on the Talk page or without explanations in the "view history" section, I'm going to assume that it was you. Does that work for you, Sargeant?"Paco Charte (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sargeant? (sic) You'll assume it was me? Go one record? Listen sport, if you want to go the sarcasm route, you're picking the wrong guy. You can assume all you want, but it won't prevent you from being wrong or looking foolish in the process. As for the idiotic (yes, that's the correct word) conclusion that just because I didn't take time to go through the whole debate over Common Dreams, it somehow tells you something? I'll tell you what it should tell you..... that it's 1 am and I don't plan on taking the time to argue with a POV warrior over it. Considering that I haven't removed any of your edits prior to your little attack response, you might want to rethink your approach. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Paco Charte (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Further, I suggest that you actually read the articles to which I link before making a judgment. All four of them, three discounting Common Dreams, which apparently gives you heartburn, say exactly what I said. Namely, that JSOC was behind the assassination (i.e. murder) Awlaki's son, an American citizen, without due process --- and that the administration was embarrassed. Paco Charte (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• And I likely will read them when I have some time. But your attitude is quickly wearing thin. BTW, signing your posts at the start and end is ridiculous. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Paco Charte (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) If it annoys you' I'll do it every sentence. Paco Charte (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Are you talking to me about attitude, buddy? You're commenting behind an anonymous handle. Don't even get me started. I'm willing to go on record, with my own name and IP address, in order to set the record straight. Paco Charte (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) There's my name again for you, idiot. Paco Charte (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) And again.Paco Charte (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Please look for my edits when I've had a few cups of coffee in the morning, and if I have to I'll bring in the wiki editors at large to have a look at the situation we face here. Paco Charte (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm commenting on your attitude and your "if it annoys you" response adds to my case. I don't care what your name is or where in Texas you are. That's hardly the point here at all. For a WP:SPA to call me an idiot when he isn't even smart enough to figure out the signature process is laughable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

24.155.161.68 (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Then I'd ask who did remove the edits given that you were so quick to respond. Is this your mandate? I have screenshots, General. Would you care to look at them together in a non anonymous forum?

• The editor who removed it is in the edit history. You can see it. There is no need for a screen shot, the edit history shows it all. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey dude, there isn't a requirement for [sic] after the CORRECT spelling of "sargeant" [4]. Or are you implying that this is not your rank? Ha ha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, there's no requirement. I just wanted people to realize it wasn't me that doesn't know how to spell the word, just you. BTW, your link shows that the military rank is spelled "Sergeant" and that Sargeant is a town in Minnesota. Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Then please spell it correctly so that we can all have the benefit of your wisdom. Meanwhile, I'll be authoring a less 'objectionable' version of the original edit that I made and having it peer reviewed for posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, you can call me an idiot, yet aren't able to find dictionary.com? Or is it just laziness? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you're lazy and not stupid. Then again, you can't seem to figure out how to find the edit history, so I could be wrong on the laziness guess. And thus far, you're the only person who has found the current version objectionable. I don't, nor does the editor that removed your earlier edit. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Which is why someone has removed two subsequent replies to your allegation (above). Nevermind. I'll be around restating the facts as long as is necessary. You have my IP address and username. That's more than I can say about you or any of your other anoymous cohorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody has removed any replies in this discussion. Your edit in the article was removed by an experienced editor with over 5,000 edits over the course of 2 years, and most of them aren't in articles I edit. Seriously dude, look at the edit histories. I've never reverted any edit made by you under your IP or under your Paco account. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. 5,000 Wikipedia edits over the past two years. That's impressive. I guess that's tantamount to real press credentials or a history of exposing misdeeds of those who are in power. I truly stand in awe of this "editor" of the people and warrior for "truth". Let's just agree to disagree on what, exactly, JSOC is and what information needs to be public. I'll be around as long as I'm able to make sure of that. I truly aspire to adding "5,000 Wikipedia edits" to my professional resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• No POV warrior, I didn't say it was impressive or made him special. I showed it to illustrate just how far off base you were in trying to claim that I reverted your earlier edit. He has a long enough track record to show no significant overlap in editing. Are you simply unable to understand that I'm not the one who reverted you or are you just unable to admit that youir screwed up? Every time you click on the button marked "save page", you look more foolish. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand here? I'm fully willing to accept that you didn't make the initial (or any) edit. I accept that I was wrong in asserting that you made the initial edit/deletion. IF I didn't make that sufficiently clear that's one thing, but you still cited this guy's 5-Billion edits as some kind of creditable criteria to which I should have bowed down and accepted. Again...and again...I truly am sorry if I accused you wrongly of abusing an editor's privilege, but it doesn't change the fact that you fell back on someone's baseless credibility stats to justify why my original post (which, BTW, I will continue to re-post) was deleted. Also, you likely have my personal info with my Wiki login and anonymous IP info available to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• For starters, this is the first time that you've clearly stated you were in error. Second, you continue to misrepresent what was said. I never used his edit count as some criteria you have to pass. If I was going to do that, I'd have used my own edit count, which is considerably larger. Third, I don't know what info you think I have, but I don't have any info about you that every other Wikipedia editor has. Of course I don't know why that is an issue Paco, since you made an issue of how you edit under your real name and IP. Lastly, you should read WP:EDITWAR. Wikipedia is not about "I'll never stop because I'm right". That's classic edit warring and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that will not help you. Content disputes are settled by policy, guidelines and consensus, not who will stay the longest. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36: 1) Point taken re: policy, guidelines and consensus. I will abide by all of the aforementioned when steadfastly attempting to ensure that the correct version of the story makes it into this article. 2) You were the one who originally used the term "idiot" whether you want to acknowledge this or not. 3) "Sarge" is common, colloquial slang and I 'expanded' upon it to "Sargeant"; my bad - but it was strictly ad-hominem on your part to restate the word followed by [sic] and (tacitly) use that as a basis upon which to launch your mini-campaign to discredit me. 4) The only thing I'm willing to admit here is that I wrongly assumed you made the initial deletion. Thank you for pointing out that it wasn't you (oh, and again, that I misspelled Sergeant, Sarge.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did use "idiotic" to describe your incorrect conclusion. I don't deny that at all. I couldn't deny it because it's in the edit history. That is, however, not directly calling you an idiot, as you did to me. "Sarge" is a colloquialism of sergeant, not sargeant. It was not ad hominem to point out that it was spelled incorrectly. We're discussing a military article and it should be made clear that I did not spell the military rank incorrectly. Additionally, you were using (and still are) it in a pointed manner, so let's not pretend it was innocent. Whether you "admit" you incorrectly assumed I reverted you or not, it's a fact that is recorded in the edit history. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: penultimate change, i.e. deletion of statement and citation to Awlaki's son's murder by JSOC in Yemen - (24,765 bytes) (-581)‎ . . (Undid revision 562206734 by 24.155.161.68 (talk) not the relevant wiki page for that.it belongs on Yemeni_al-Qaeda_crackdown#U.S._drone_and_cruise_missile_attacks if anywhere - Undid. Absolutely disagree as his son had no ties to Al Qaeda and because the strike was without a doubt carried out by JSOC, the subject of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, please provide proof with citations (or direct me to the proper place to make this clarification request) that Awlaki (Sr.) was an "Al Qaeda member". There needs to be balance with respect to arbitrarily defining anyone targeted or killed by JSOC or CIA operations as members of a little understood orgainzation, especially because the U.S. government is unwilling to go on record in making such declarations - other than assassination without due process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Um, your own source calls Anwar al-Awlaki an AQ operative in the very first sentence: "In the days before a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last month...."[5]. Please also note that is calls it a CIA drone strike. You provided this source. The CIA and JSOC both control drones. You cannot, however, lump them all under JSOC. If it was a CIA strike, it was not JSOC. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see that my "own source" is heavily reliant on the information disseminated by the U.S. Government, then that is your problem, not mine. Again, I insist that any allegations that a person is "a member of Al Qaeda" be backed by objective, third party (i.e. not American Government press releases - which in the case of JSOC and the CIA are the only basis on which the major media outlets have to base stories due to mutually acknowledged extreme secrecy) categorizations of such. My source was not intended to classify Awlaki (Sr.) as a member of Al Qaeda, but merely to provide reference to the fact that his son was targeted and killed by the JSOC, whether the attack was launched from a CIA base or not. You're not operating in good faith here, and it should be obvious to anyone else reading. My question(s) still stand. Please direct me to where this glaring issue may be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.161.68 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good faith? Good faith would be familiarizing yourself with policies and guidelines before making allegations. Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say. We are NOT allowed to makes assumptions like you're doing. It's called original research and not allowed. If you'd like to challenge the reliability of the Washington Post, you can try your luck at the reliable sources noticeboard. Plenty of reliable sources call him an AQ member, including CNN [6], the NYT [7] , Boston Globe [8], the UK's Telegraph [9], NBC [10] and other top tier sources. You can't simply dismiss sources because you think they're relying on the govt. for info. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources you cited rely on anything other than the American government's statements to the effect that he was an Al Qaeda member. All of those sources also contain links to articles detailing his speeches on moderate Islam and visits to the White House after the events of September 11, 2001. I am beginning to think that you have an agenda which directly aligns with the U.S. government, objectivity be damned. Original research? Oh please. In that case I will challenge Wikipedia's obviously lacking framework for dealing with propaganda such as the like you're proffering here. Meanwhile, my objections to the classification of Awlaki as a "member" of A Qaeda stand. As do my edits pertaining to his son being targeted by JSOC.