conventional view of unconventional warfare

[GreenBeret65]

Th following is strictly my own personal opinion. I left the 8th SFG in 1965 for civilian life for reasons I thought were important at the time. Many times over the years I have regretted that decision. I am now making SF an important part of my life again after many years. I read a lot of material in the Drop and in this forum and the SOCNET forum and I think the "conventional military mind" still does not get it concerning the role of Special Operations in modern warfare. I do not get the "gut feeling" that they understand us or see the tremendous value in unconventional warfare. Please understand that this is only my personal opinion. I know I said that twice but I am not looking to get anyone upset. I am new here and I like to go very slowly and read much more than I post.

I also believe that in any military outfit you must have distinctions that recognize individual and unit superiority. All men may have been born equal; however, 46 years ago I believed that I and every "Quiet Professional" was different then and is different now today. I also recognize and give credit to all of our other brothers in Special Operations everywhere in the world..

I am sorry that this is so verbose and I hope the Moderator is not too upset with me. I will try to use less words in the future.

De Opresso Liber

The most important book that I believe I have ever read is "The Art of War"
Sun Tzu circa 500 BC

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I think the "conventional military mind" still does not get it concerning the role of Special Operations in modern warfare. I do not get the "gut feeling" that they understand us or see the tremendous value in unconventional warfare. C

There are many reasons for this and like the Fairbairn Knife this is a double edged blade. SOF has not done a good job in educating either the conventional military nor has it done a good job in educating the decision makers who write our national strategies. SOF is also its own worst enemy when it comes to selling itself or capitializing on its own capabilities when it comes to what its role should be and where the emphasis should go within the community. I think one of the biggest problems within, at least the SF community, is that because we operate, or are supposed to operate, on broad mission type orders leaving the execution decentralized to the lowest echelon possible most of those decision makers that would want to utilize SF in their primary functions can't come to grips that this is primarily a NCO run, lead, trained, and driven operation. You all have heard about the NCO being the backbone of the Army, well in SF it is the organization. It is very culturally difficult for some officers, especially senior officers, to understand that NCOs function in roles normally defined as "officer" roles. They advise, lead, and train every echelon doctrinally from platoon to battalion and in some cases beyond. I have to cut this short because because I have to go address the "present" mother nature left me yesterday before the wind starts to kick up and the wind chill hits the forecasted minus 30.

[incommin]

Two comments:
All men are not born equal! The only equality is that we are born by a female, all breath air, and we take up space. If anyone can provide more areas where we are equal, I would like to hear them. Certain men are drawn to SF. Those that make it are very much different from everyone else.

The big green machine has never understood SF and I doubt it ever will...... too many contridictions to the "regular army".

My .02

Jim

[bailaviborita]

I think the "conventional military mind" still does not get it concerning the role of Special Operations in modern warfare. I do not get the "gut feeling" that they understand us or see the tremendous value in unconventional warfare.

I agree. Having served in both areas, I find the leadership on the conventional side to be almost totally devoid of creativity or thinking out of the box. Wearing a watch cap when it is cold outside is usually deemed too unconventional to be an option to most of these units. With that mindset I fail to see how a UW situation can be approached by many of these units- when each AO has different factors and requires a different approach- indeed many times a different approach daily- a comformist and "hyper-uniform" attitude in my opinion is counter-productive.

Having said that, I fear that many leaders in SF are also woefully lacking in UW historical knowledge/attitude. I don't see many in SOCOM advocating a UW-centric and SOF-centric approach either.

[Joe-Boo]

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily;) .

Back to the regularly schedualed program.

[incommin]

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily;) .

Back to the regularly schedualed program.

I must be confused. I always thought that a "good NCO" looked, walked, talked and acted like a good NCO. That meant keeping the weight down, trying to max PT tests, seeing that his soldiers were trained, and disciplining soldiers when it was required. In fact, I learned that while I was in SF.

Jim

[Team Sergeant]

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily;) .

Back to the regularly schedualed program.

SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

Make no mistake; the collective IQ of the men of Special Forces is without peer in the US military, couple that with being “hard” and you have created the most feared men on the battlefield today. Why do you think Army Special Forces is the only unit in the military trained to live behind enemy lines?

“When I was a conventional Army LT” Please tell us what did you do in the Army? MOS?

Please don’t make comparisons between combat support soldiers, combat service support and combatants. Each of us has a job to do and one could not function without the other.

Also, IMO doing a 300 on the PT test and keeping a clean and squared away appearance speaks volumes for a soldier. I take it you’ve not learned that lesson? Were you in a combat unit?

TS

[Joe-Boo]

TS...since you asked...

I was an 11A, later a 12A which I believe now is a 19A. I left as a Captain...I am now an enlisted CCT.

If you would like a more indepth response or a DD-214 please PM me.

Please add the "Perhaps much of the" to my quote...it was only a thought to ponder, not a statement as you represented it. To further the discussion I was pointing out SOCOM...not SF in specifically. Actually, if you had a conversation with me you would realize that my remark was an indirect complement to your careerfield. The "hard" part of that post is meant to point out and relates to the FACT that you guys do not only focus primarily on physical prowess as assesment tool.

My point and "Experience" is related to what I had seen... as stated. To expound, I am talking about a NCOs that "hide" behind PT scores/ pressed uniforms and shined boots...often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence.

"Please don’t make comparisons between combat support soldiers, combat service support and combatants. Each of us has a job to do and one could not function without the other."

What comparison would that be?:confused:

"Also, IMO doing a 300 on the PT test and keeping a clean and squared away appearance speaks volumes for a soldier. I take it you’ve not learned that lesson? Were you in a combat unit?"

Since the test I take is harder than the Army's (yes, I have done both... tens of times) and I score in the "outstanding" range...I believe I have learned that lesson. :lifter


Incommin...

I ask you to re-read my original post and my response above.



Thank you both for your service.

[Team Sergeant]

TS...since you asked...

I was an 11A, later a 12A which I believe now is a 19A. I left as a Captain...I am now an enlisted CCT.

If you would like a more indepth response or a DD-214 please PM me.

Please add the "Perhaps much of the" to my quote...it was only a thought to ponder, not a statement as you represented it. To further the discussion I was pointing out SOCOM...not SF in specifically. Actually, if you had a conversation with me you would realize that my remark was an indirect complement to your careerfield. The "hard" part of that post is meant to point out and relates to the FACT that you guys do not only focus primarily on physical prowess as assesment tool.

My point and "Experience" is related to what I had seen... as stated. To expound, I am talking about a NCOs that "hide" behind PT scores/ pressed uniforms and shined boots...often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence.

"Please don’t make comparisons between combat support soldiers, combat service support and combatants. Each of us has a job to do and one could not function without the other."

What comparison would that be?:confused:

"Also, IMO doing a 300 on the PT test and keeping a clean and squared away appearance speaks volumes for a soldier. I take it you’ve not learned that lesson? Were you in a combat unit?"

Since the test I take is harder than the Army's (yes, I have done both... tens of times) and I score in the "outstanding" range...I believe I have learned that lesson. :lifter




SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

Again let’s hope that’s not true either. SOCOM is made up of smarter than average personnel.

Your post smacks of a sour grape attitude concerning some of the less capable NCOS’s in your conventional unit days. Tell me former 11A, 12A and 19A CPT, did you make a difference and remove these shirkers from our ranks? often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence. Knowing you were aware of their misdeeds I’m sure you as an officer took care of business. Or is it your intention to just complain about them?

You see unlike you had I known of individuals such as these rest assured they would have been dealt with harshly. During my days as a conventional infantryman we dealt with all kinds of individuals and those that did not pull their weight were either sent packing or given an attitude adjustment. Plain and simple.

From your post & Bio I assumed you were never in a combat unit therefore your comparison would have been in regards to support unit’s verses combat units. I stand corrected.


Since the test I take is harder than the Army's (yes, I have done both... tens of times) and I score in the "outstanding" range...I believe I have learned that lesson.:lifter
All that did was make me laugh.;) We train for combat, not the PT test....... a totally different mindset.

Team Sergeant

[Joe-Boo]

TS,

Again...my quote was "Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man". "

This is a thought that I hoped others might expound on. I agree...I would hope not...my point being assessment process by various career-fields.

"Your post smacks of a sour grape attitude concerning some of the less capable NCOS’s in your conventional unit days. Tell me former 11A, 12A and 19A CPT, did you make a difference and remove these shirkers from our ranks? often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence. Knowing you were aware of their misdeeds I’m sure you as an officer took care of business. Or is it your intention to just complain about them?"


Actually, yes I did. However, I found it pathetic that many higher level officers thought so highly of them. Which is one of several reasons I resigned my commission and worked my way into the SOF arena. I am not here to pass off a sour grapes attitude about these NCOs, I was hoping to gain some insight from you and others. This seems like a natural deviation that if you are going to talk comparisons about conventional and SOF forces and the conversation was turning (not by me), perhaps a discussion of NCO leadership traits might be in order. That was all I was doing.

I did not come here to brag, boast, inform, or necessarily share my past...you asked what my background (MOS) was so I told you.

It is you who brought up the PT test and appearance in reference to me...I only responded. I am glad you train for combat...join the club. My reference is about the Army PT test and the ST PFT I do now.

Is there a particular reason you are crawling up my 4th point with misquotes, mischaracterizations, and rudeness? Or is this SOP and I did not read about this on a sticky?

I fail to see what I did to deserve either of your responses or the tone you have taken. I came here as an ally and a fellow warrior who appreciates your careerfield..something that SF does not get a whole lot of ( though deserves)from the Army or SOCOM as of late, if ever. I offer confidence in you guys and compliments based off experience. What's with the work over? Do I owe you money?

[Team Sergeant]

TS,

Again...my quote was "Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man". "

This is a thought that I hoped others might expound on. I agree...I would hope not...my point being assessment process by various career-fields.

"Your post smacks of a sour grape attitude concerning some of the less capable NCOS’s in your conventional unit days. Tell me former 11A, 12A and 19A CPT, did you make a difference and remove these shirkers from our ranks? often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence. Knowing you were aware of their misdeeds I’m sure you as an officer took care of business. Or is it your intention to just complain about them?"


Actually, yes I did. However, I found it pathetic that many higher level officers thought so highly of them. Which is one of several reasons I resigned my commission and worked my way into the SOF arena. I am not here to pass off a sour grapes attitude about these NCOs, I was hoping to gain some insight from you and others. This seems like a natural deviation that if you are going to talk comparisons about conventional and SOF forces and the conversation was turning (not by me), perhaps a discussion of NCO leadership traits might be in order. That was all I was doing.

I did not come here to brag, boast, inform, or necessarily share my past...you asked what my background (MOS) was so I told you.

It is you who brought up the PT test and appearance in reference to me...I only responded. I am glad you train for combat...join the club. My reference is about the Army PT test and the ST PFT I do now.

Is there a particular reason you are crawling up my 4th point with misquotes, mischaracterizations, and rudeness? Or is this SOP and I did not read about this on a sticky?

I fail to see what I did to deserve either of your responses or the tone you have taken. I came here as an ally and a fellow warrior who appreciates your careerfield..something that SF does not get a whole lot of ( though deserves)from the Army or SOCOM as of late, if ever. I offer confidence in you guys and compliments based off experience. What's with the work over? Do I owe you money?


You now have my full attention.
Right now I've other commitments.
I will return to this discussion soonest.
While it must be difficult going from O-3 to E-3 your decision is yours and yous alone.
You've not yet seen me crawl up someones 4th point of contact.

Team Sergeant

[Joe-Boo]

"You now have my full attention."

Though I am flattered :o I can only hope you will re-read my posts now that you are not so distracted and see that I am only trying to contribute to this awsome forum.

"Right now I've other commitments."
"I will return to this discussion soonest."

No rush...;)

"While it must be difficult going from O-3 to E-3 your decision is yours and yous alone."

Actually it is E-5...however, thank you for the compliment, but it really was not that difficult on my part...the personnel guys did all the heavy lifting. (the paper ran out in the fax machine and they reloaded it):lifter

"You've not yet seen me crawl up someones 4th point of contact."

Though I am sure if I ever do, it will be eched into my mind forever.:eek:

Waiting to hear what I said in my original post on this thread to earn so much 1-on-1 attention.

[bailaviborita]

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily;) .


I don't know too many "SOCOM" forces who focus more on hard men than the smart man. The NCO's I've worked with in SOF are for the most part the most enlightened men I've worked with in the Army- as well as in civilian life. In my post (I assume you were responding to mine) I was making a comment about O's- and mainly about G.O.'s. When I was handed a book called "Killing Pablo" by the team sergeant on day 1 and hearing that everyone else on the team had already read it- I knew this wasn't your average army unit.

I'm not sure what most conventional O's think of what makes a good NCO- those around me value professionalism, competence, and a good attitude. I personally value competence- the rest is gravy. PT scores are usually indicative of other traits (high PT score/sharp image follows from high professionalism, competence, etc.)- so I would disagree that PT scores/appearance shouldn't be qualifiers. As for sacrificing troops to cover one's ass- you will find that everywhere: outside the military and in as well as in SOF. In fact, I'd say that most countries' armies are much worse than ours when it comes to that- so, I am curious: who are you comparing us to?

As to why you might be getting "attention" for your first post- I would think it was because you weren't really addressing the subject of the thread: conventional mindset of SOF and UW vs. SOF mindset of UW and reality of SOF. Then you started out by implying that SOCOM forces focus on being "hard" rather than "smart"- that alone would have gotten anyone attention on this board I would think. Then you went into a rant about conventional O's and unprofessional NCO's that seemed to imply that it was very prevalent in the Army. Again- I'd ask you if you think that is any different than other armies or other American companies/institutions and if so- which ones? I'd think you'd find it not so bad in the conventinal army when compared to other examples. The fact that you ended with comparing those O's to SOF O's ("not so much, but still there") again has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. How does that tie into the conventional mindset of UW and SOF?

[Joe-Boo]

Bailaviborita,

I see your points. Dually noted. I see, now, how my thought about SOCOM might have not been clear as to how it was written. I was only raising the proposition that UW, which I believe is SF centric, would require more "brains' and a focus on the "MAN". I poorly posed a thought that perhaps with much of the SOCOM forces are selected and/or assessed on physical/mental toughness and not necessarily though process evaluating or training. If true (which is why I was posing the thought...for enlightenment by you all), this may leave much of "SOF" ill-equipped for that job.

Rest of my post was not meant to down play the role of fitness or appearance...to the contrary I feel they are very important for both mission success and for establishing credibility. My point there related to how the "conventional military mind" does not have a grasp on UW or the employment of SOF.

Wearing a watch cap when it is cold outside is usually deemed too unconventional to be an option to most of these units. With that mindset I fail to see how a UW situation can be approached by many of these units- when each AO has different factors and requires a different approach- indeed many times a different approach daily- a conformists and "hyper-uniform" attitude in my opinion is counter-productive.


Your above quote is where I was beginning my though process. Reason being is that I have found that many NCOs that are focused on a conformist and "hyper-uniform" in the conventional Army tended to "hide" behind PT score, pressed uniform, and highly shined boots. As well, these leaders tend to be willing to through their guys under the bus to save their own reputation. Each being a sub-category of the last...not mutually inclusive. Perhaps "many NCOs" is an over-statement. However, that behavior occurred often enough for me notice a distinct pattern of common and recognizable traits.

As a way to recognize professionalism, it is my opinion, a lazy analysis. This is common with officers that are more focused on themselves than their men...from what I have seen. An "as long as the men look good, they won’t see my warts" attitude.

My response was an attempt to gain incite through discussion, nothing more. Unlike many of you who have been around longer than me, I was posing thoughts based off of observances for you to respond to. I was not making statements of fact.


Having said that, I fear that many leaders in SF are also woefully lacking in UW historical knowledge/attitude. I don't see many in SOCOM advocating a UW-centric and SOF-centric approach either.

I did not take your above quote as a statement regarding senior or General Officers...my bad. To me, this could have been O's all the way down the rank structure and non-team level SNCOs . That was why I gave my observation regarding dealing with O's that do not understand the very mission sets they are assigned to and the decisions they make due to that lack of understanding.

Thank you for the clarification.

[The Reaper]

Joe:

I have the privilege of having met you and worked with you.

Others here have not.

You are sending a tone and attitude in your wording which is, IMHO, not reflective of you as you really are.

Bear in mind that the internet poses many communication challenges, and reading between the lines, it appeared that you might be attacking NCOs, SF NCOs in particular.

That would not be a good idea on a board with membership like this one. Your experiences in the Mech Infantry are likely pretty far removed from those of an AD SF NCO. Food fights between new non-SF members on PS.com and admins are rarely decided in favor of the new member.

I would caution you to consider your wording in the future on this board, and look for potential misperceptions. Perceptions are reality on the internet, and the toes you step on may be connected to a foot that will be impacting on you in the future.

You may wish to consider whether it is wise to incite discussion when you are not well-known and there is large latitude for misperception of your intentions. I am sure that once people get to know you, and you them, the discussions may be more spirited with less vitriol. In short, your input is welcome here, just try to consider how it may be interpreted by others, and if you have stepped on any toes, or realize you are digging a hole, stop.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Joe-Boo]

The Reaper and all:

Understood

Not my intent, nor did realize that anyone would think I was attacking NCOs general or SF NCOs in particular. I look up to NCOs and particulary SF NCOs, which is why I tread into this domain... to learn, discuss and gain incite. I only ask that anyone who is still frustrated with me, please, re-read my first post with this in mind.

Thank you for your patience.

[TF Kilo]

Joe-Boo:

I can generally understand where you might be coming from... and I'm being specifically vague because I also generally don't understand your point.

I was never in SF.

I was in Ranger Regiment.

I also was in the Regular Army.


Uniformity, High PT scores, Uniform Maintanance are all factors in being a volunteer, paid, professional soldier, regardless of where you serve.

When a leader makes his sole determination of a soldier because of that, then that's an issue.

I was a NCO. I focused on the tasks and training that we had directly in front of us, as well as ensuring that everything I taught my men was able to have a windage and elevation adjustment where it would be on target in actual combat. Others didn't. I never got a 3 day pass because my fire team had the best shined shoes, or could cut paper with their creases. I did leave knowing that I had best prepared them for their task at hand, which was deployment to, effective operation in, and safe return from, iraq.

I admit, I smoked my joes. They hated my guts one day for the pain that we ALL endured (I participated in any group punishment, because somewhere in there lied failure of me to properly lead).

I also imparted every single mantra, creed, example, exercise, and tactical implementation of every piece of equipment that they had at their disposal, upon each soldier within my team and squad. I didn't hold back anything I knew, because if only I know it then it is useless at the point when someone else needs it.

I worked alongside Officers and NCO's who were mediocre, stellar, and downright worthless. I did what I could, to change those things. Sometimes my sphere of influence happened to actually overlap and work, sometimes it didnt.

Some leaders didn't appreciate why, how, or when I did things. When I explained myself, sometimes it clicked and they saw the light. Sometimes they went off muttering something along the lines of "F-ing Batboys". Either way, I still accomplished my mission.


SOCOM envelops many different aspects of bringing the fight to the doorstep of the enemy... SF sneaks in the back door, Rangers kick in the front door and leave a crater, others move in like fog and people just dissapear. Don't take for granted that there's not a significant level of intelligence within SOCOM, because in order to accomplish the missions that ALL of SOCOM are tasked with, you have to be able to think to effectively accomplish, and if you can't, then you are culled from the herd riki-tik.

I'd tread lightly on lumping any special operations unit into any broad category, because they didn't get into doing special operations by not having a generous smattering of nuts, brains, and brawn.

After all, too much brains gets you to be in a wheelchair Stephen Hawkings style. I'll settle for my IQ. LOL

[incommin]

Soldiers in the trenches see and work with their leaders every day. They have the opportunity of forming an opinion of an individual on what they see.....Sergeants Majors, and field grade officers see soldiers in the trenches on a limited basis; on a walk through the motor pool or walking a perimeter on an FTX. They too form opinions on what they see...... if the soldier or NCO looks and acts like a professional soldier and no adverse information comes across the desk.......that is the opinion that is formed.... The forest looks different from where you view it!

Jim

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

field grade officers see soldiers in the trenches on a limited basis; on a walk through the motor pool or walking a perimeter on an FTX.
Jim

Let's not generalize-it depends about whom you are talking and with whom you served. As you and I never had the priviledge of serving together please don't place me in this catagory.

[TF Kilo]

I concur with Mr. Moroney.

I had a CSM in Regiment who spent more time at our BFAFOB on patrols and "supervising" things than back in the rear with the gear. The BC also spent significant time at our location... and we were only 1 company out there. They spent a significant amount of time flitting about making sure things were as they should be, and getting us the things we needed when they weren't as they should be.

[incommin]

Let's not generalize-it depends about whom you are talking and with whom you served. As you and I never had the priviledge of serving together please don't place me in this catagory.


But we must generalize it! There is a big Army out there. And the farther one gets from combat units the more true my statement becomes. I served in battalions where 1SGT's and sergeant majors did not take part in morning PT... where the battalion commander only saw his soldiers at morning formations or when walking thru the motor pool.......

I once was told I should not to be with a platoon of mine who was cleaning the wash rack at the close of day.........said it was over suppression and it looked bad for the other senior NCO's.......

And I never had you in mind when I wrote that post....... SF and combat arms units are a total different ball game from support and combat support units (which make up most of the Army).

Jim

[Basenshukai]

One of the big problems that I have experienced in my small number of years in SOF is the lack of mentoring and "grooming" that exists in SF for its officers.

Although, SF is primarily propelled by the excellent NCOs therein, it must have a vangard of highly competent officers that see to it that the NCOs can do their best. Since I've been in, I've seen some tremendous leaders in SF. However, I have not seen a senior leader take specific interest in investing in any one detachment commander, for the sake of SF's future. I also think that the phrase "future battalion commander" on the OERs have become too common and lead to the problem I mention above.

I have also seen a tendency to completely close an advanced skills school to officers wholesale, as a unit (not regulatory) policy. The reason given is the usual "officers don't need to perform that function", or "officers don't get enough team time" to make it a worthwhile investment. Well, at some point in the future, an officer that is not schooled in certain aspects of our operations, that we can't mention here on an open forum, will be making huge sweeping decisions and prioritizing that which NCOs hold precious or ultimately important.

I'm personally sick of hearing senior SF NCOs lament as to how the MAJ or LTC, or even the GRP CDR is not properly giving priority to a particular aspect of our operations when it is usually these same NCOs that oppose sending officers to learn the TTPs and - ultimately - the importance of these very same aspects.

Bottom line is that people will usually approach that which they know. If all a commander knows is "kinetic" in nature, then he will lean in that direction above all things. It is also a mistake to treat detachment command like a revolving door for officers. Out of five team sergeants I had, only two took time to teach me like Mr. Miyagi thought Daniel (for lack of a better example). Many operations sergeants treat the detachment commander position as "summer help". While that may protect his own personal "kingdom" at that time, it will hurt the force in the future.

Last time I operated in the field, the officers and NCOs fought and died together (and that was less than a year ago). We are SF and we know better.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I have also seen a tendency to completely close an advanced skills school to officers wholesale, as a unit (not regulatory) policy. The reason given is the usual "officers don't need to perform that function", or "officers don't get enough team time" to make it a worthwhile investment. Well, at some point in the future, an officer that is not schooled in certain aspects of our operations, that we can't mention here on an open forum, will be making huge sweeping decisions and prioritizing that which NCOs hold precious or ultimately important.



I hear you and this is not a new phenomenom and although you probably do not want to hear this, I saw this as part of my responsibility, as you obviously do, to get this training any way I could. While getting a slot in an advanced program would have been nice it was not the only way to get up to speed. I have devoted many hours of whatever time I could during my years to ensure that I had those requisite skill sets and fortunately for me, when I was called upon to make those decisions ,I had all the tools needed to do so. I also recognized that those officers, for whom I was to have responsibility, joining my units needed to be brought up to speed and that was provided in house as needed-rank did not drive who performed required tasks- demonstrated performance did. Now I also fully realize that there are many hurdles in an officer's career that continually throw road blocks in the way of common sense, but that is the price we pay for our commitment to SF and believe me it is a lot easier now than it was before we had a branch. Then you had to balance not only your basic branch requirements but work in those other erodable skills that you hoped one day you would be called upon to exercise should you find a way to work your way back into SF assuming your decision to do so was not going to be taken out on your hide by your basic branch managers. You talk about revolving doors for A Team commanders, before the branch you had Bn Cdr who had no A-Team time-talk about folks not having the requisite skills to make decisions. There is no easy answer as you have found out, but there are ways to make it happen if you are willing to pay the price. I also realize that timing is everything and situations and command climates vary. I also realize that I was lucky, had good people, had access to many folks and information not normally available to others and took advantage of every opportunity to build those skill sets I saw as necessary. There was a price, I was on the Major's list twice, passed over for LTC once, but finished up okay and would not change a think except perhaps paid more attention to what my body was trying to tell me when my brain kept on telling me to keep pushing.

[Basenshukai]

Ultimately, we shape our future, whether personally or organizationally. On average, today's SF team has more combat experience and more requirements than has been the case for the last 30, or so, years. We need to ensure our future by grooming our own, whether they be young E-6s or O-3s. Ultimately, that's our future. My second team sergeant had a very important reason for believing this: He recruited me into SF. Three years later, I was his team leader. Only he can determine the wisdom of his "choice". But in the end we get what we invest in.

[The Reaper]

Exactly.

Every time I see a screwed up SF officer, I wonder what his team did, if anything, to help or hurt him.

My experience is that most ODAs will make any Det Commander shine, if he has a good TS and lets them do their jobs. There are exceptions to the rules, of course.

Most of the 18A requests we get are from officers who have worked with SF in the box. We do not have to recruit them hard, we just let them see us at work in a combat zone.

We currently get to pre-screen prospective 18A's records prior to SFAS, we evaluate and board them at SFAS, and have another six months to shape them before sending them to a team to get their real training for a couple of years.

What other branch gets to do that, and cherry pick Captains from across the Army, after they have had two or three years of report cards?

The current crop of Detachment Commanders should be among the best we have ever fielded.

TR