View Full Version : Special Forces Recruitment problem solved!
CarreraGT
03-29-2006, 09:36
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189421,00.html
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Usama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.
In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding Al Qaeda's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn...
The article goes on to quote numerous Democrats who are now claiming that the Democratic party is the "real national security party"...
ANYWAYS- All of you QPs that have been suffering long, back-to-back deployments should take heart and vote Democrat- it seems that they have a plan to instantly double the ranks of the SF community!
If you had only listened to "the real national security party", we'd have Bin Laden in a cage by now... :(
The Reaper
03-29-2006, 09:49
I'd like to see their plan to eliminate OBL (what, more cruise missile attacks?) and to double the size of SF.
Again, lets review the rules:
SOF Truths
Humans are more important than Hardware.
Quality is better than Quantity.
Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced.
Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.
I believe the last Dem POTUS, named Clinton, IIRC, eliminated TWO SF GROUPS, and considered the elimination of Third Group.
TR
I really don't think they can accomplish much more. 18X contracts are already going out like candy, and lots of them can barely make it through OSUT. If you try to mass produce professionals such as these more than we already have, eventually the degradation of quality operatives will negate the purpose. As for spies, I'd love to see them penetrate the middleast. The fact that we haven't done much since Desert Storm should tell you something. Not that it can't be done, but certainly not on any massive scale atleast any time soon. Don't believe the hype.
TFM
Team Sergeant
03-29-2006, 10:43
I believe the last Dem POTUS, named Clinton, IIRC, eliminated TWO SF GROUPS, and considered the elimination of Third Group.
TR
And it is because of Slick willie's cowardly response that OBL attacked the U.S. and was allowed to continue to be a living part of the gene pool.
More SF does not equate to more dead terrorists.
TS
I love hearing how "THEY" are going to double the size of SF!! The funny thing is..."WE" who are responsible for the selection process have actually been selecting less in the past 7 months then they did in the past two years and by my math, that is less then "DOUBLE"!! Maybe "THEY" have a different pipeline then "WE" do!
Daver sends....
I really don't think they can accomplish much more. 18X contracts are already going out like candy, and lots of them can barely make it through OSUT. If you try to mass produce professionals such as these more than we already have, eventually the degradation of quality operatives will negate the purpose. As for spies, I'd love to see them penetrate the middleast. The fact that we haven't done much since Desert Storm should tell you something. Not that it can't be done, but certainly not on any massive scale atleast any time soon. Don't believe the hype.
TFM
I know I don't believe any of the hype since I see the results on a daily basis. Doubling the size of SF would be almost impossible as well. First, there are not enough qualifying individuals out there unless we let in anybody who is breathing and has heard of SF....that I promise you won't ever happen. Second, when the dems talk doubling, they are talking out their asses....they might mean doubling when you add in CS/CSS folks but not operators and we all know that as important as support soldiers are, they are force providers who don't go thru the rigorous selection and training process that we all did. Finally consider this...only 10-15% of the US population is eligible to enter the Army...that number is dropped to 1/10th of 1% of those 10-15% who might be eligible to enter SFAS. Historically, SFAS only selects 43%....my math is not perfect but added up, only those select few will ever be true SF soldiers and that is why in my humble opinion "THEY" will never be able to double our numbers.
Sorry about the long winded reply!
Daver sends....
The Reaper
03-29-2006, 16:19
Dave:
I think that you may have identified a way for the Dems to actually double the number of SF soldiers.
The population of this country is roughly split between Republicans and Democrats.
Based on my quick survey, approximately 95% of all SF soldiers are Republicans or Independents.
If the Dems can actually find sufficient numbers of loyal party members ready to get their asses (or those of their kids) off the Hempfest, protest, and welfare lines, and into the pipeline, we can double the number of SF soldiers before President Bush leaves office, and reduce unemployment in the process.
I am sure that Teddy, Harry, Hillary, Barbara, Diane, Nancy, et al will be more than happy to send their progeny to pay the piper, along with several thousand of their loyal constituents.
"Hey, Teddy, that doesn't look very much like a push-up to me. Get your fat ass down and your belly off the ground."
Those not selected can serve in the Infantry and take care of their recruiting woes.
Just a thought.
TR
Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!
"Hey, Teddy, that doesn't look very much like a push-up to me. Get your fat ass down and your belly off the ground."
TR
:D
The dems have a plan....wow! Uh huh, we've heard this now for years and years. Know what I hear? The "waaa waaa whhhhaaa waaa waaah" jibberish sound from the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons.
I believe the last Dem POTUS, named Clinton, IIRC, eliminated TWO SF GROUPS, and considered the elimination of Third Group.
Wait you have to think about Hillary Clinton's stand. When she was in the House.
La casa blanca... "mi casa blanca es su casa del whote"
She never wanted to see a uniform person/ member when she would walk around the White House. But now (and other DEMS) she is all about the military and the support of.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hillary-soldier.htm
So now these "people" are saying how great the military is. Most of them have never served in the military, but tell the military how to/should get bigger.
Now the military (DoD) SWC, USASOC, USASFC all look to see how "we" can "up" the numbers for the force. Wait isn't the force smaller, but why is that?? DEMS maybe.
Maybe we should add:
Dereliction of Duty : The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security, by Robert Patterson to the recommended reading list.
Finally consider this...only 10-15% of the US population is eligible to enter the Army...that number is dropped to 1/10th of 1% of those 10-15% who might be eligible to enter SFAS. Historically, SFAS only selects 43%....my math is not perfect but added up, only those select few will ever be true SF soldiers and that is why in my humble opinion "THEY" will never be able to double our numbers.
This is so true, you just can't make SF or "special people". Just like new initiatives, why do we need more special people when we have so many other units out there. I was never good at Math, I guess others weren't either. :D
VG
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2006, 22:16
Dumbasses
Warrior-Mentor
03-30-2006, 13:22
Dick Nixon had a secret plan (http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prestapes/e1.html) to get us out of Vietnam...
Now the Dems have a plan to double SF?
Why don't they just annonce they have a secret plan to get us out of Iraq?
I won't put a link here...but Google "democratic plan to get out iraq" and see what comes up...more rhetoric...:rolleyes:
Sinister
03-30-2006, 16:42
The Democrat Solution might be a combination of different things:
Mandate elimination of restrictive selection criteria (water down the standards to graduate more);
Mandate opening SOCOM combat positions to all genders and orientations;
Mandate USSOCOM accept and fund Marine MEU-SOCs.
See -- easy!
Mandate opening SOCOM combat positions to all genders and orientations;
I guess that means democrats could essentially join. :D
The Reaper
04-03-2006, 18:01
One of the best analysis and analogies I have seen.
TR
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06092/678571-108.stm
Jack Kelly: National security, Democratic style
A strategy in which slogans triumph over substance
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The mood in Washington has been sour lately, so many were grateful when the Democrats in Congress provided a little levity Wednesday by issuing their national security strategy.
Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).
On Feb. 3, the Defense Department issued its quadrennial report on defense strategy. It was 92 pages long. The Democrats' plan -- "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World" -- is six pages long. Half of these repeat in Spanish what was said in English. And there is a cover page in each language. So the actual "plan" is just two pages long, presented in bullet points in large type, with plenty of white space between them. Party elders must have burned the midnight oil for months to produce this opus.
The first pledge Democrats make is to "Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary."
This would be a welcome change from past Democratic practice. A majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against the B-2 bomber, the Patriot missile, the M-1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, ballistic missile defense and virtually every other weapon system that brought us victory in the Cold War, the Gulf war and the march on Baghdad.
The plan doesn't say by how much Democrats would like to increase the size of our military. But after the press conference at which the plan was unveiled, an aide said Democrats would add 140,000 troops to the active forces and National Guard.
Again, this would be a welcome departure from past Democratic practice. When President Clinton took office, there were 17 divisions in the active U.S. Army. When he left office, there were only 10.
But since an aide also told reporters the plan doesn't commit Democrats "to any specific increase in defense spending," it is unclear how Democrats plan to pay for a larger, better equipped military. Perhaps Teresa Heinz Kerry could make a donation?
In the section on the War on Terror, Democrats pledge to "eliminate Osama bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaida, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban."
Since eliminating Osama bin Laden isn't exactly a radical departure from the policy President Bush is pursuing, Democratic stress on this objective suggests they think they could be more successful in obtaining it than the president so far has been. But the Democratic "plan" provides no hint of what Democrats would do differently to catch bin Laden.
Perhaps what Democrats have in mind is to build a time machine, and go back to February 1996, when Sudan, where bin Laden was then residing, offered to turn him over to the United States, and the Clinton administration refused to take him. Where's H.G. Wells when you need him?
Democrats pledge to "double the size of our Special Forces." This indicates Democrats don't have a clue about what it takes to make a Green Beret or a Navy SEAL. The average idiot knows what would happen to the quality of play in the NFL if it were expanded overnight from 32 to 64 teams. Democrats have yet to figure this out.
Democrats pledge to "increase our human intelligence capabilities." Again, this would be a welcome departure from past Democratic practices. A robust human intelligence capability was all but obliterated during the Carter administration. Our humint capabilities were partially rebuilt by CIA Director William Casey under Reagan, only to be sandbagged again in the Clinton administration.
President Clinton met more often with Monica Lewinsky than with his CIA directors, one of whom was caught mishandling classified information. And perhaps Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., could explain how shutting down the NSA intercept program will improve intelligence gathering?
The Democratic "plan" consists of slogans, not substance. Most simply restate what is already U.S. policy as if it were a dramatic new insight. What little is new is idiotic.
Hassan Abbasi is the national security adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad. Mr. Abbasi thinks George W. Bush is an aberration, said Amir Taheri in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.
"For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of [Iranian officers] with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of 'running away,' leaving Afghanistan and Iraq ... to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies," Mr. Taheri said.
Nothing in the Democrats' "national security strategy" suggests Mr. Abbasi is wrong.
Party elders must have burned the midnight oil for months to produce this opus.
Excellent find TR.
While the subject matter is extremely serious, and the analysis resonates with clear truth...that statement above actually made me laugh.
This is not exactly on point, but more fuel for the fire. The whole thing about Hilary not wanted military uniforms in the White House is pretty much public knowledge. This fact is mentioned in the book Deriliction of Duty, which was written by the Air Force officer who carried the nuclear football during a portion of the Clinton Administration. Probably the most bizarre story this gentleman relayed in the book was about Al Gore.
On his first day on the job, he happened to enter the elevator at the same time as the vice president. He immediately said good morning sir, to the VP. He said Al Gore looked at him, turned and looked straight ahead, saying nothing. As you can imagine, the guy was blown away.
During the next week, it happened again, with the same results. After that, he never said a word to the VP. I mean how much of an ass must Gore be not to even acknowledge this gentleman?
It reminds me of the Yankee game John Kerry attended during the last campaign. During one inning, Kerry sat next to a soldier. As the camera settled on Kerry, he never once said anything to the soldier. The next inning a good looking young lady who assisted in the campaign sat next to Kerry. He was all over her. Ok, so he's not gay. But what a sh... bag.
Now some may say that focusing on these two innocuous incidents is trivial and petty. I believe it speaks volumes about these two politicians and the party they serve. Thats why the info TR posted is not suprising. With them it's all form over substance. A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot and we're going to double the SF.
Best bs line yet. Sharon Stone said Hilary is too sexy to be elected. Too sexy. The hits just keep on coming.
Democrats grasping at straws again. God help us come next election. It seems they can't make a firm unwaivering stance on anything except what they think people want to hear. They have yet to produce a sound plan for anything since the last election, and they continue to make empty promises. They were all up in arms about a total withdrawl from Iraq not too long ago, yet they plan to beef up SF, Intel, and everthing else. Pityful.
Mud Puppy
04-13-2006, 14:00
The Democrat Solution might be a combination of different things:
Mandate elimination of restrictive selection criteria (water down the standards to graduate more);
Mandate opening SOCOM combat positions to all genders and orientations;
Mandate USSOCOM accept and fund Marine MEU-SOCs.
See -- easy!
just like they have done at BCT/IET. You forgot the "stress pass". As a training BN XO stated " after 2 or 3 years of mentoring these people you are trying to remove will make good soldiers"... Not on MY watch
Off soapbox back to lurking
Great Post TR, Nice article
One of the best analysis and analogies I have seen.
TR
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06092/678571-108.stm
Jack Kelly: National security, Democratic style
A strategy in which slogans triumph over substance
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
In the section on the War on Terror, Democrats pledge to "eliminate Osama bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaida, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban."
Since eliminating Osama bin Laden isn't exactly a radical departure from the policy President Bush is pursuing, Democratic stress on this objective suggests they think they could be more successful in obtaining it than the president so far has been. But the Democratic "plan" provides no hint of what Democrats would do differently to catch bin Laden.
Perhaps what Democrats have in mind is to build a time machine, and go back to February 1996, when Sudan, where bin Laden was then residing, offered to turn him over to the United States, and the Clinton administration refused to take him. Where's H.G. Wells when you need him?
If I remember read once that in the 1994 or so the Clinton Admin had yet put out their NSC report or in a DOS Foreign policy on Terrorism that listed the Terrorism states that we were concerned with. UBL was never listed, he stay off any reports until just before the Cole bombing. Most within the CIA and FBI looked at him as a "leader".
Also the FBI was put in the lead for CT by the Amin; the CIA had FBI agents within the CT Center but the laws that stopped a lot of info exchange are now change.
Keep in mind that the WTC had been bombed by Yousef.
Democrats pledge to "increase our human intelligence capabilities." Again, this would be a welcome departure from past Democratic practices. A robust human intelligence capability was all but obliterated during the Carter administration. Our humint capabilities were partially rebuilt by CIA Director William Casey under Reagan, only to be sandbagged again in the Clinton administration.
President Clinton met more often with Monica Lewinsky than with his CIA directors, one of whom was caught mishandling classified information. And perhaps Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., could explain how shutting down the NSA intercept program will improve intelligence gathering?
Clinton pick Woolsey as the Director for him. Becuase of Common Roots. BS - just Yale law was all. They were both anti- war protestors for the Vietnam War, just like Lake and Clinton.
Also Clinton never sat down with his Director, correct me, but for like two years or so.
In the 80's, Woolsey was a arms control negotiator who used Satellites, so he became to believe that America's Spy Statellites Capabillity had decayed or something. Under him we up our SIGNET Capabillities not our HUMMIT.