Yarborough vs Busse

Jackboots,
I am sure the "private" emails you got from Steve Dick and Bill Harsey are very interesting. How about instead of posting them, you forward them to a reputable member (not me) who can verify that they exsist?
 
Yes, there are several emails and they are quite interesting. I consider the sharing of Private emails as bad etiquette. My suggestion would be to contact them directly and request that they make their test results publicly known; here are their email addresses:

Harseyjr@cs.com

tacticalknives@tdn.com

The bottom line is they are not going to post any information here, as it does not exist or it is not in their possession :)

Cordially,

JB :)



Originally posted by Eric_Draven
Jackboots,
I am sure the "private" emails you got from Steve Dick and Bill Harsey are very interesting. How about instead of posting them, you forward them to a reputable member (not me) who can verify that they exsist?
 
Originally posted by JackBoots

It is clear to me IMHO :) that the GB knife is a Project knife with a new handle. Certainly, nothing new here.

A new handle is a new addition- it is not the same as a matter of fact it is substantially different


I do not consider the new knife to be some sort of Super Knife meant for Green Berets, it is an Award knife that is functional. I believe CRK is using the Green Beret Knife handle as a marketing ploy to sell their knife.

However, let's be honest and discern exactly what we are getting.

Thanks,

where is the dishonety from CRK that you are refering too?

JB

The magazine may have made a claim but the CRK website at http://www.chrisreeve.com/gberet.html makes no claim as to it being a superknife as you call it. The fact is that there is a connection , and an honorable one at that and they should be able to use the name of Green Beret unlike others who may connect a knife to an organization without any formal connection or justification. You may not like it and consider it a ploy but it does not change realty.
 
Through some of my contacts I am now confident that 100 knives were in fact considered. Lets speculate for a minute. You are the General in charge of the project, and you dont have to jump through all the hoops as you would if you were testing gear that would become standard issue to all troops. Say you go to the biggest knife store in the USA and buy 100 knives that are touted as combat, tactical or fighting knives. You dont have to test every knife, you can probably take 85 of the knives off the table that just dont fit the criteria.

That Harseys knife was chosen is not surprising at all to me really. Until you have held Bills knives you cant appreciate the workmanship and handling characteristics. If you know Bill personally you appreciate the knives even more!

You know when this knife was first released and I read the same article I was a little envious, as one of my goals is to supply soldiers with the best possible tools at a good price. The more I thought about it the happier I am that the Green Berets are getting that best quality knife, its about time! That a lot of people demand test results and manufacturers names is a little silly. As far as I know the knife was never advertised to be made by the lowest bidder, they just chose the best they could find using there specifications. Knowing that it isnt at all important to me what other knives were submitted. The Green Berets chose the one they wanted, a step in the right direction as far as our Military is concerned.

Congratulations Harsey and Reeves! :)
 
Rob, I have met you and also from your posts here I always looked upon you as a "Big Man" ( no matter what your stature actually is :D ) But I see you are actually ALOT BIGGER than that. You continue to surprise me and are way more wise and sophisticated than a man with a T.V in his TP should be !!!! Well DONE !!!!
 
One general point I would like to make is after reading a "special Projects" cat from cold steel and being made angry buy the hype n tripe claims. Chris Reeve and friends do not make or claim to make any outragious claims about performance/ability. The knives do the talking not over hyped sales pitches.

I honestly think the calm and relaxed willingness for owners and people with an eye for what is quality, not hype, is one of the reasons why CRK products are both loved by owners and reviled by non-owners.

There is regrettably a mindset where big claims are needed to impress little minds it seems and CRK do not make big claims over and over again. Thus one of the many:rolleyes: reasons for the how much? Questions! IMHO of course!

With regards to the GB Vs Busse in general. I have an eye on either a SatinJack or GB knife for a new fixed blade some point in the distant future as funds allow... To be honest as a CRKaholic it aught to be any easy choice, but I am open to opinions and like both knives a lot. I am certain however if I do buy a GB knife I want one without the serrations...:)

IMHO the nuclear tough stuff with Busse is a bit... Well 'camp' in my opinion, not in the outdoor sense but Carry on films camp! Its an in joke that ain't funny IMHO. Then again I'm not a rabid Busse fan and the comments by the representative of Busse I found a little disquietning, esp the way a respected formite (jki) and I am fortunate to say friend of mine was attacked. Not good form.

Busse knives it could be argued are the 'ultimate' tough production knives. The steel seems very good and the angles are set up for mega toughness even if a 'special steel' were not used. It could also be agreed that QC and general fit and finish are less important on such a strong knife and certainly as long as it is mega strong and tough, would be fair comment. Personlly in this price range I would expect a level of fit and finish on a par with a CRK model knife and that regrettably puts most non-custom blades out of the running.

With regards to the 100 knives question, it is a great shame that this type of claim is made and not backed up with real hard facts. IMHO this is a great mistake by CRK as if you are going to make or imply a fact or point of view on this scale. one must back it up with references and cold hard fact. I learnt this at University. I can make as many claims and statements as I wish here and try to back up with fact or experience, but at the end of the day I... no we all stand by our reputations and I do trust the honour and reputation of Chris Reeve Knives. I might have done this myself differently, but then hindsight is a easy vantage point and I don't own/run one of the truest and most respected knife companies in the world.

Thats my peace.
 
What was that saying back when I was in the 82nd?
"Your Alice pack can hold 90 lbs of equipment and gear.....theres always room for 90 more."

OK my question would be then, how can the military go and buy 100 knives for testing when for one the GB knife wasn't available yet? Maybe they looked at 100 knives but they didn't like what was available so they went in search of a custom maker. But I bet there was no torture testing or extensive evaluation done with the 100 knives.

Regardless, the GB knife is one sweet piece of gear that I am looking forward too in the future.
 
Originally posted by The General
With regards to the 100 knives question, it is a great shame that this type of claim is made and not backed up with real hard facts. IMHO this is a great mistake by CRK as if you are going to make or imply a fact or point of view on this scale. one must back it up with references and cold hard fact. I learnt this at University. I can make as many claims and statements as I wish here and try to back up with fact or experience, but at the end of the day I... no we all stand by our reputations and I do trust the honour and reputation of Chris Reeve Knives. I might have done this myself differently, but then hindsight is a easy vantage point and I don't own/run one of the truest and most respected knife companies in the world.

Thats my peace.

Would someone please show me where CRK makes a claim of the testing of 100? I have searched their forum, the magazine article and the original newspaper article and do not see where they made the claim. According to the newspaper article a Maj, Rudi Gresham made the statement, not CRK.I have not seeen CRK use the testing of 100 in and ad. Now if I am making something with/for someone else and I and others are told that testing was done and a third party claims it, why are you going to discredit me? I agree that CRK does not use Hype in the company advertising- nor when they talk about the products. HYPE- NO Pride -YES They stand on quality and solid design. Unlike others who rely on HYPE in all area's from ads to the way they speak CRK does not need HYPE. Look at all of the CRK ads and the press releases they make. Yes they do marketing but there is a big difference between solid and truthful advertising with pride and HYPE. I have not seen CRK do it, need it and I seriously doubt I will ever see it.....

BTW general you make the statement of
"you are going to make or imply a fact or point of view on this scale. one must back it up with references and cold hard fact"

before you agreed to jump on the "was there really a competition and we want proof !!! bandwagon" and IMPLY that they may have lied , What research had you done before you added to a "hey they lied" group, You make a bit of the fuss of CRK's rep as "one of the truest and most respected knife companies in the world" What about what your reputation as a teacher- would you not expect your students to research a bit before doing what you just have....

Now having said that I am not mad at ya' just frustrated by the people that just come out to stir up junk and then the others that get in and add to it. I guess that I really trust Chris and Anne after dealing with them for years and get tired of them getting attacked in this way. I guess it is good- I mean no one can beat up the products so they have to go after stuff like - hey you owe it to us to tell us about every test to choose this or that or how was this decision made. All they owe us is to put out the products of the quality they are known for and to continue to treat thier customers as they have. If that does not interest someone then may I sugesst that they go elsewhere? :eek:
 
BTW I meant to ad this to the last post- it has the reference to the "test" but it is made by major Rudi Gresham - not CRK





Chris Reeve Knives
Moderator

Registered: Jan 1999
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 517
So here's the scoop!

Several months ago, we received a call from our good friend, knifemaker Bill Harsey from Creswell, OR. Via legendary knifemaker, Ron Lake, he had been requested by U.S. Army Special Operations Command to design a knife for the US Special Forces, and Bill wanted us to manufacture the knife. Once he had a basic pattern, a very clean, no-nonsense knife, he and Chris refined the details from a manufacturing and function point of view. Prototypes were made and presented, and the selection process began. A myriad of military hoops were jumped! We received invaluable assistance from Bill Strang of Tactical and Survival Specialties, Inc in Harrisonburg, VA and it is through TSSI www.tacsurv.com that the actual sales will be made to the military.

The knife to the Green Berets will be known as the “Yarborough,” named for Brigadier General William P. Yarborough, former Special Warfare Center Commander. Beginning with the class graduating on August 23, each graduate from “Q (qualification) Course” will be presented with a serialized Yarborough. Also available to current and formers members of the U.S Army Special Forces through the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Museum Gift Shop, the serialized version is subject to USASOC approval.

Without the name “Yarborough” and non-serialized, the otherwise identical knife is available from Chris Reeve Knives, and will be available from your CRK dealer. It will be known simply as “The Green Beret” knife. Retail: $299.00

The specs:
Blade material: Crucible Steel’s CPM S30V stainless steel
Blade hardness: 55-57 RC
Coating: KG Gun-Kote ®
Handle material: OD Green Canvas Micarta
Blade length: 7 inches
Overall length: 12 3/8 inches
Sheath: Airborne DeLuxe model by BlackHawk Industries, Inc www.blackhawkindustries.com

This project represents some new things at Chris Reeve Knives! It is the first collaboration we have ever done; it is a different style of knife from those for which we are best known; it is our first offical association with the military. What is not new is our devotion to quality, to producing the finest military knife for the finest fighting men. It is an incredible honor to be making these knives – and we have been privileged to meet many outstanding people as project has moved along.

The knife in the picture - #0001 – is the very knife that was presented to Brigadier General Yarborough. The following is an exerpt from The Pilot, which is the local newspaper in North Carolina where BG Yarborough lives:

'Yarborough Knife':
First Copy Brought to Retired General
by John Chappell: Staff Writer
It's called the Yarborough knife.
That's the name written on it. It isn't just any name, and it isn't just any knife. Lt. Gen. Doug Brown hand-delivered the very first one to retired Gen.William Yarborough, for whom the knife has been named. From now on, the only way to get a Yarborough knife will be to complete U.S. Army Special Forces training.
Brown commands the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, headquartered at Fort Bragg, which includes Special Forces. Thursday afternoon, his command car pulled up outside Yarborough's Southern Pines home. Welcoming as he emerged were the general's son, retired Lt. Col. Lee Yarborough, and his wife, Ellen; retired Special Forces Maj. Rudi Gresham, who had served as the general's aide; and an old family friend, retired Col. Lee Mize, who won the Medal of Honor.
Brown presented Gen. Yarbor-ough with Special Forces Knife No. 001, the first "Yarborough Knife."
"It is a tremendous honor, General Brown, that you gave me the honor of this knife," Yarborough said. "You know, I tried to pass the Bowie knife, and it didn't make it. This will be an heirloom for my children and grandchildren."
Gresham told The Pilot that Yarborough tried to introduce the Bowie knife years ago for Special Forces soldiers to use.
"It never was authorized," Gresham said. "Later, we had what we called a SOG knife in Vietnam. General Brown got in contact with me and said he wanted to do something for General Yarborough. So, he called me and told me how he went to over 100 different manufacturers to find a knife that would be ideal."
The Yarborough knife is not for show. It is in deadly earnest, a working knife for a soldier.
Gresham said. "He has the first knife, and it says 001. Every student from now on that goes through the Q (Qualification) course will get one. It is only for Special Forces graduates. Retirees can buy one through the museum, but none are to be given ceremonially. The only person other than Special Forces who will get one is the
commander-in-chief, the president of the United States."
Gresham says many special features in the design of the knife are included to make it more useful under conditions encountered by Special Forces soldiers.
"When it gets wet, it gets sticky so you don't lose it," he said. "It is a working knife. It is one heck of a quality knife."
Mize told Brown that Yarborough had at last been recognized as the father of the modern Green Berets. "Sir, this is the least that they could do," he said. "I am honored to be here." Mize told The Pilot that Yarborough more than deserved the honor. "He is not only the father of the Green Berets," Mize said, "he is the one who brought us out of the Wilderness and brought us into the light. He has done more than anyone alive or dead for special forces."
As to Yarborough's reaction, Gresham told The Pilot, "He was overwhelmed."

So you can see it's been kinda busy round here...
Anne

Attachment: gb for bf.jpg
This has been downloaded 1324 time(s).
 
Originally posted by tallpaul
Rob, I have met you and also from your posts here I always looked upon you as a "Big Man" ( no matter what your stature actually is :D ) But I see you are actually ALOT BIGGER than that. You continue to surprise me and are way more wise and sophisticated than a man with a T.V in his TP should be !!!! Well DONE !!!!

I have to agree! I've read a lot of posts from Rob, although never met him, and you can tell he is a man with a lot of confidence in his own product that, he does not have to put down the work of others. He offers praise when a knife, or knife maker, deserves it. Plain and simple.....I like that in a person and wanted to say, it does not go unrecognized.
 
With regards to the 100 knives question, it is a great shame that this type of claim is made and not backed up with real hard facts.

I actually know the Reeves, Steven Dick, Bill Harsey and know the good Generals reputation so this is
hard enough facts for me!

I am pretty sure one of my knives werent in the pile due to the criteria of the US Govt. But really what good would it do anyone to release the info other than satisfy all our curiosities??
 
As I recall there was a US military super knife competition 10+ years ago and Mad Dog won the competition. All the competitors, criteria and test results were known. In fact, didn't MD build his reputation on this contest ?

Perhaps, the US military should have one of these Super Knife competions once every 10 years to allow any new materials and knife configurations to compete for the title of the BEST!

The TK Magazine seems to make the assertion this occurred, so fine, post the information in the public domain. Should not US taxpayers have the right to know what their money is being spent on ? The theory goes along with transperancy, cost-benefit and good government!!

For instance, a government official to pick the maker he wants for personal or financial reasons. This is why governments are 'suppose' to have an open bidding system. In other words, here is our criteria for a knife, now bid on it! But the caveat is we get to test your knife :)

Unfortunately, this system does not seem to have been followed here. The person that signed the procurement forms, may have stuck their neck out....why ? potentially for the reasons noted above :eek:

Regards,

JB :)


Originally posted by Rob Simonich
I actually know the Reeves, Steven Dick, Bill Harsey and know the good Generals reputation so this is
hard enough facts for me!

I am pretty sure one of my knives werent in the pile due to the criteria of the US Govt. But really what good would it do anyone to release the info other than satisfy all our curiosities??
 
Unfortunately, this system does not seem to have been followed here.

You are exactly right. However there is a perfectly good reason for this. Some special Military units have funds to buy whatever they want/need without going through all the red tape. This actually reduces costs in many cases. I know this because I am working on an 50 knife order for a unit that has one of them checkbooks. :)

Maybe Canada has way more red tape than we do, though that is hard to imagine.
 
Originally posted by JackBoots



Should not US taxpayers have the right to know what their money is being spent on ?

Yes WE as taxpayers do but but since YOU are canadian and NOT a US taxpayer,then you have NO RIGHT to DEMAND any explanation regarding ANYTHING done with OUR monies. I am glad you brought that up :D

you also said:

"Perhaps, the US military should have one of these Super Knife competions once every 10 years to allow any new materials and knife configurations to compete for the title of the BEST!"

Why don't you tell your gov't how to spend money- don't spend our taxdollars for us, our officials are doing a great job on thier own :rolleyes: !
 
It is to bad they did not do it like the competition Mad Dog won. Here is the link that confirms;

1) the knives tested;
2) the criteria; and
3) the results.


http://www.mdk.idv.tw/c_ataktest.htm


1992¦~Mad Dog ATAK

MEMORANDUM 4 May 1992

Fr: John Dudinsky, CNSWG-1/N8

To: LCDR Reynolds, CNSWG-l/N7

Subj: SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION FOR ADVANCED TACTICAL ASSAULT KNIFE, (ATAK)


1. Over the years, NSW has recognized that the initial issue knife, the MK 3,
is not suitable for the type of use that it normally is put to. Common
complaints were that the blade rusts easily, the tip of the blade commonly
breaks, the knife blade itself breaks, and the knife does not hold an edge.
Last August, the N8 department interviewed numerous NSW operators to
determine what characteristics a new knife should exhibit. Following is a
list of key requirements.

a) The knife blade should be 7" long
b) The knife should have a full tang
c) The knife should be of a field design, with one edge and no stress
risers (wire cutters, serrations, etc. . . . )
d) The knife should be corrosion resistant
e) The handle should be plastic, non-slip, with a lanyard hole
f) The knife pommel should be suitable for pounding.
g) The entire knife should be matt black in color
h) The knife should hold an edge, yet be flexible (Our requirement was
for an edge hardness of 62-63 Rockwell "C", with a hardness of 56-58
in the blade away from the edge)
i) The sheath should be fabricated out of KYDEX plastic

2. Starting in August, 1991, CNSWG-1/N8 started procuring commercially available
knives as part of an effort to identify a replacement to the MK 3 knife. The
following knives were evaluated during the period of August, 1991 to April, 1992.

1) Gerber LMF
2) Gerber Mk I
3) Gerber Mk II
4) Gerber Patriot
5) Glock 81
6) SOG Government Recon
7) Phrobis CUK
8) Buck Model ST
9) Mad Dog ATAK
10) Scubapro Titanium
11) Gerber Mk II CS
12) SOG Trident
13) Gryphon M30A1
14) USMC KA-BAR
15) USAF Pilot's Survival
16) M-7 Bayonet
17) Buck M-9 Bayonet
18) Gerber Tac II
19) Gerber BMF Survival
20) Buck Fieldmate
21) Buck Frontiersman
22) Buck Special 119
23) Buck Apache Bowie
24) Buck Vanguard-R
25) Buck Special Prototype 01
28) Buck ST0
27) Buck ST5
28) SOG Pentagon
29) SOG Nite-Tech
30) SOG Bowie
31) Blackjack Blackmoor Dirk

The RDT&E department has made every effort to evaluate all commercially available
knives that might satisfy our requirements as part of this evaluation.

3. The knives were all evaluated based on form, function, and cost by the N8 department
and by a number of operators from our component commands. Of these knives, three were
chosen for a final operational evaluation held on 13 April at ST-5. The knives
evaluated were the SOG Government RECON model, The BUCK ST model, and the Mad Dog
ATAK model.
The knives were subjected to a harsh series of seawater submersion, wet and dry chord
cutting, wood chopping and boring, a bending stress test, and a 3/4 inch multiconductor
electrical chord cutting test. Representatives from each SEAL TEAM and NAVSPECWARCEN
were present at this evaluation.

4) The MAD DOG ATAK was overwhelmingly voted on as the best knife of the test. Both the
Buck and SOG units experienced permanent deformation as a result of the bending stress test
(this test was carried out by wedging the blade between two boards and doing pull ups
with a 200 lb man - this is indicative of actual use if the knife was needed for survival
use). It should also be noted that the Mk 3 was also tested - it's blade broke in half
during this portion of the test.

5. As part of our work, we also determined that the sheath should be constructed of KYDEX with
noncorrosive rivets and of a design that is self draining and that utilizes no fasteners
to hold the blade into the sheath. The ATAK sheath satisfies these requirements and is
included in the price of the knife.

6. Due to the fact that NSWG-1/N8 has conducted an extensive and unbiased test which
identified the ATAK, as a successor to the Mk 3, it is highly recommended that the ATAK
knife be procured using other than full and open competition.


http://knifenut.idv.tw/
 
Originally posted by JackBoots
6. Due to the fact that NSWG-1/N8 has conducted an extensive and unbiased test which
identified the ATAK, as a successor to the Mk 3, it is highly recommended that the ATAK
knife be procured using other than full and open competition.


http://knifenut.idv.tw/

The "test" and results you just posted do not show the results of the testing- just an outcome. The quote above from your reference even states that there is NOT to be a full and open competition and infers that of the knives that originally were considered only a few were even tested in the limited way that they were. There is no supporting documentation really over an above what was given in the articles mentioned other than telling us they checked how it cut and could hang someone off the end... the only weight to the memo is it is from someone with a government title, really no different than the col, and maj references in the articles you seem to have trouble with now. I believe that the GB will handle all the things mentioned except for the conductivity issues. Since even your test recomended procurement without "open testing" then this latest procurement is at least on the same level of public release of information as what you demanded. You just answered your own concerns
 
tallpaul I see your points and agree my delivery was slightly off. What I ment to say was if TK or whoever made this claim and others backed this up then by not disagreeing with this argument there is a very very powerful argument that this is 'from the horses mouth' and as such is the next best thing to an actual press release. Now I am in no way saying any of this evaluation is untrue, rather that I would have made a more open statement about what testing or evaluations were made or ask the people involved to give some 'copy' before making any statements or claims! Simple fact is many people jumped on the bandwagon like you say tallpaul and my intent was to back CRK as I both respect and admire them, not harm them!

A simple clarification statement from CRK is often NOT made when it is DESPERATLY needed. They stand on there products, but sometimes need to stand up and clarify a little more forcefully and often. Thats my opinion though!

Oh and cheers Eric!:)
 
So, Jackboots, I'm curious, what is your actual beef with CRK?

Your original post seemed to be soliciting the opinions of others, since you didn't own the knives and couldn't comment personally.

After quite a few personal comments though, it would seem that "seeking the opinions of others" is about the last thing on your mind. Rather, to me it looks like an attack on a superb product/company created for an intent known only by you, generating heat, but very little light.

But, back to the knives. I do own both knives you speak of and I like them both very much, but for different reasons. It would be like trying to decide which of my kids I like the best. "Tests" could be devised where either knife might come out on top, but it wouldn't prove much. Unlike Frodo's ring in the "Lord of the Rings," none of us posseses, hidden in our pocket, the "one" knife to rule them all...it doesn't exist in the real world, (even though these would be "fightin words" to some.)

On another point: "Government testing". Many folks who have participated in the govt. procurement process know how easy it is for purchasers to get exactly the item they want by writing exclusionary specifications (if the funds are available in the first place). I hope you don't think that the so-called "testing" you reference actually yielded results that would establish or refute the quality or superiority of a given item. Some independent lab might accomplish this, but the government?

Even if some top-secret testing was actually done, if it was done like typical "gubment" testing, the selection of a high-quality tool such as the GB would likely be a happy, accidental exception to the usual, $800-hammer rule. (No offence intended to the excellent individuals who do their best despite a goofy purchasing system.)

So, why not let those of us who appreciate CRK's high standards of quality continue to enjoy his products? Since it would be almost impossible to identify that one, invincible super knife, I'll probably spend too much money buying too many knives from several different makers and enjoy each in its own time and place.

CRK certainly isn't the only maker of fine knives. My son is joining the military and I hope to acquire a Simonich knife for him based on the opinion of a soldier in the field right now.

So, buy a GB and a SH-E...you'll probably like both.

Mike
 
The entire article was interesting so I am posting it. The 'key' paragraph is the second last one. Note the 1987 law passed allowing the GBs to procure their own equipment!

-----------
JAN 06, 2003 THE WASHINGTON TIMES PAGE: A01
Rumsfeld bolsters special forces
Expands powers in war on terror

Rowan Scarborough, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved giving U.S. Special Operations Command unprecedented authority to plan and fight the global war on al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, administration officials say.

The Pentagon will give the command $7 billion to buy equipment and aircraft, and to accommodate 4,000 more personnel, two senior officials said. Some of the troops will be used to create battle staffs at Special Operations headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and at smaller Theater Special Operations Command, or T-SOCs, for regional theaters.

These staffs will plan and execute specific missions by Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and other commandos to kill or capture terrorists around the world. Currently, Special Operations Command (SoCom) lacks a battle-planning staff. Its focus has been to train and fund 47,000 personnel, who come under the authority of combatant commanders, such as U.S. Central Command or U.S. Pacific Command, when they go into action.

SoCom will have the authority to plan and carry out independent missions, most likely covert operations. Mr. Rumsfeld wants plans in place to attack al Qaeda operatives quickly, and is relying on SoCom, and its commander, Air Force Gen. Charles Holland, to do the job.

One official said that the war on terrorism will enter a new phase in 2003. The exact methods and outcome are not yet known.
"SoCom is being given the ability to do new things," said a senior administration official. "Exactly what they will end up doing is still to be determined."

Some of the new troops will bolster the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, or "Night Stalkers." Its low-flying Black Hawk helicopters carry commandos to and from battle.

Mr. Rumsfeld also authorized the transfer of certain intelligence assets to Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., home of Delta and SEALs who specialize in hunting terrorists. The assets are designed to locate terrorist targets so Delta-SEAL teams can attack them.

Since inception in 1987, SoCom has been what the Pentagon calls a "supporting" command. It provides warriors and equipment to combatant commanders, which then plans and directs their missions.
Under a new pecking order, SoCom becomes a "supported" command in the global war in certain circumstances.

One administration source said that the new arrangement will let Gen. Holland execute specific missions in the war on terror. For example, if intelligence identifies al Qaeda operatives in Yemen or Somalia, SoCom has the authority to devise a mission to get them.
"He will be the dominant commander for certain kinds of missions," the official said.

But in a regional operation, such as war against Iraq or operations in Afghanistan, special-operations troops will remain under the authority of the regional combatant command, in this case, the U.S. Central Command.

The officials say Mr. Rumsfeld's decision came after weeks of consultation with Gen. Holland.

Each combatant command has its own special-operations command. Those staffs also will get battle planners who will work directly with SoCom on certain covert operations.

Gen. Holland, who was described this summer by Pentagon officials as reluctant to intrude on the territory of regional commanders, is now said to be "enthusiastic" about his expanded authority.

Since September 11, Mr. Rumsfeld has searched for a way to have one command assume responsibility for the global war on terrorism and, in particular, against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization.
In June, he sent a classified order to Gen. Holland and Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.

In it, he ordered Gen. Holland to devise a counterterrorism war plan that would emphasize fast, covert operations.

He wanted Gen. Holland to set up a mechanism for quickly deploying SEALS and Delta commandos to attack terrorists within hours of their being spotted.

The plan also calls for making diplomatic arrangements so covert operators can enter countries quickly to carry out missions, and then make prompt exits.

Gen. Holland has presented several versions of a new war plan to the Pentagon. He is now getting the authority and assets to carry it out.

In November, Mr. Rumsfeld asked the Institute for Defense Analyses to conduct a comprehensive review of SoCom missions and organization. An IDA panel, which included some of Gen. Holland's predecessors at SoCom, recommended expanded power and budgets.
The study was to "redesign US SoCom to fight the war on terrorism," said an internal memo from Marshall Billingslea, the Pentagon's senior civilian policy-maker for special-operations and low-intensity conflict.

Gen. Holland oversees 47,000 covert warriors and support personnel. Through a 1987 law, the command buys its own equipment and weapons, instead of going through the Navy, Air Force or Army. During the height of the war in Afghanistan, for example, SoCom quickly bought a fleet of trucks and shipped them to Green Berets and other troops operating there.

To handle new demands of the anti-terror war, Gen. Holland requested to nearly double his $5 billion annual budget and boost personnel.
Pentagon officials say that in addition to the $7 billion in new money, SoCom's annual budget will be increased in fiscal 2004 from $4.9 billion to $6 billion.
 
Back
Top