PDA

View Full Version : Better Crank It Up, Boss


NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 15:06
LOL

Kerry Wants 40K More Green Hats (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/04/kerry_seeks_doubling_of_us_special_forces/)

Razor
06-04-2004, 15:31
A perfect example of why he's exactly the wrong person to become commander-in-chief.

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 15:47
Originally posted by Razor
A perfect example of why he's exactly the wrong person to become commander-in-chief.

OK, but who is going to get this information out? Most of you guys aren't willing to talk about it. It's a devastating piece of information if you can find a reporter to run with it.

Kyobanim
06-04-2004, 17:16
Invite one of the commie loving bastards in here and tell em to use the search button. :D

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 17:56
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL

Kerry Wants 40K More Green Hats (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/04/kerry_seeks_doubling_of_us_special_forces/)

We already touched on this in another thread, but to repeat,

THERE IS NO WAY TO DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF SF SOLDIERS AND MAINTAIN THE STANDARDS!

We are taking kids right off the street at this moment to put into the meat grinder, and we still can't keep up with the losses. You let Kerry become President, and watch the real hemorraging start. They will have to implement a 4 year Stop Loss program.

Kerry probably figured that Special Forces handed out basketballs at the gym, and a Green Beret was created by handing out a hat.

TR

TR

Guy
06-04-2004, 18:30
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL

Kerry Wants 40K More Green Hats (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/04/kerry_seeks_doubling_of_us_special_forces/)

You can't 40K people to pass the swim test, much lest join the military in the timeframe he hopes to propose.

Maya
06-04-2004, 19:04
Typical liberal Democrat, promise the mass of sheep what they want to hear...then have it killed by your cronies while in committee. It plays really well on the liberal media, time passes, no follow through, blame the other guys for killing your patriotic noble attempt to support our troops.

They are liars...their mouths are moving.

Maya

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 19:31
Originally posted by The Reaper


We are taking kids right off the street at this moment to put into the meat grinder, and we still can't keep up with the losses. You let Kerry become President, and watch the real hemorraging start. They will have to implement a 4 year Stop Loss program.

TR

TR

I agree completely here. I may stay in beyond 20 years with the current administration, but I will deffinately not stay in if JK gets elected. I've spent 8 years doing liberal peacekeeping operations already.

Please dont speak of another accross the board stop loss.......that action would hurt recruiting as well as retention

I belive the number was 1/2 SF and 1/2 CA, so even 20 thousand additional troops at current production numbers, (with paralell courses running simultaneously) could take 20 years to produce......

Ambush Master
06-04-2004, 20:06
FIRST, I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS ASSHOLE !!!
You guys are mis-reading this, Kerry didn't say 40K SF.
Emphasis is mine.

"The new special forces units would be PART of a 40,000-troop expansion that Kerry called for last year and would come about through more aggressive recruiting, aides said, although there would be no new financial incentives to help the military fill its ranks. The new troops would not lead to more forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, Kerry said; they would replace troops, reservists, and guardsmen who have been on extended duty there. There are now 49,000 active, reserve, and Guard special-operations forces; Kerry's plan would add another


3,500 to 4,000 active-duty special forces."

But still at the current Training Production Rate, it would take quite a while !!

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 20:13
Originally posted by Ambush Master

Kerry said; they would replace troops, reservists, and guardsmen who have been on extended duty there. There are now 49,000 active, reserve, and Guard special-operations forces; Kerry's plan would add another 3,500 to 4,000 active-duty special forces."

But still at the current Training Production Rate, it would take quite a while !!

As I posted in antoher thread we nearly doubled our authorized POI "max class size" while I was out at camp mackall, and never saw that number of students.

IF, and thats a big IF, we could recruit the current quota into the pipeline, select the right ones, and train them to meet the established standard, it would take several years to meet the 3-4k increase in troops you mentioned.

Of course to meet this demand, the SWC will require additional instructors, which further decreases the number of operational guys.....

Its a never ending cycle.

mp

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 20:16
Originally posted by Ambush Master
FIRST, I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS ASSHOLE !!!
You guys are mis-reading this, Kerry didn't say 40K SF.
Emphasis is mine.

"The new special forces units would be PART of a 40,000-troop expansion that Kerry called for last year and would come about through more aggressive recruiting, aides said, although there would be no new financial incentives to help the military fill its ranks. The new troops would not lead to more forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, Kerry said; they would replace troops, reservists, and guardsmen who have been on extended duty there. There are now 49,000 active, reserve, and Guard special-operations forces; Kerry's plan would add another


3,500 to 4,000 active-duty special forces."

But still at the current Training Production Rate, it would take quite a while !!

Not to be disagreeable, but you are wrong, Sir.

3,500 roughly doubles the SF numbers, but it doesn't matter if he said 3,500, or 35,000,000.

We are putting everyone who has any possibility of successfully completing the course through the pipeline right now, even students with less than a 1% chance of success and kids off the street. We are still not filling the teams as fast as people are getting out.

You cannot get blood from a turnip, and you cannot make 3,500 more SF soldiers who meet the current standards of what remains, regardless of the additional resources dedicated unless you institute the draft and let us skim off the cream.

This is not my .02, this is factual.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 20:41
Originally posted by The Reaper
You cannot get blood from a turnip, and you cannot make 3,500 more SF soldiers who meet the current standards of what remains, regardless of the additional resources dedicated unless you institute the draft and let us skim off the cream.

Would substantially increasing pay for special operations forces help? Just a thought . . .

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 20:53
Originally posted by The Reaper

We are putting everyone who has any possibility of successfully completing the course through the pipeline right now, even students with less than a 1% chance of success and kids off the street. We are still not filling the teams as fast as people are getting out.

unless you institute the draft and let us skim off the cream.

TR

Too True.....

The recruiting standards expected of the kids off the street are higher than those of guys already in service. I belive that those high standards attract the right type of person from the start. Some dont make it, but the good ones do.

Once selected, everyone in the course is given the benifit of the doubt and trained accordingly. Still, the attrition rate is fairly high compared to standard US Army schools.

Even if a draft is instituted, the volunteer quality of the 18xers will be lost, as all will be forced into service. The same quality guys will show up, but a lot of time will be wasted on those who didnt desire to volunteer and persue this career on their own.

I've said "it cant be done" before, and ate me words, so I'll refrain from that......but we expanded to 5 active duty groups in the late 80s, and still havent been able to field full teams......the 18x program was supposed to fix that problem, but it will take years to evaluate the benifit of that........

I dont think it can be done......

mp

NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 20:55
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Would substantially increasing pay for special operations forces help? Just a thought . . .

Not the point - IMO, SF is already too big. The bigger you get, the less special you are. People start wanting to use in frontal assaults and crap like that. You lose focus on the mission.

It is 7th Special Forces Group, not the 7th Infantry Division or the 7th Ranger Regiment or the 7th Homosexual Tank Army and Queens Guards.

Less is more. As long as you get the cream like we are now.

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:00
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Would substantially increasing pay for special operations forces help? Just a thought . . .

Am I the only guy in SF not motivated by $$$?

Sure, I like good TDY trips, and incentives are nice, but......

What about ammo, ranges, good training oportunities, not being micromanaged in an Infantry BN, being able to train MY guys on MY SOPs, to MY standards.....

What about being a member of the only professional NCO force recognized as the best trainers in the world.......

mp

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:01
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

It is 7th Special Forces Group, not the 7th Infantry Division or the 7th Ranger Regiment or the 7th Homosexual Tank Army and Queens Guards.



what is it with medics and homosexual references?

mp

NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 21:03
The lawyer didn't mean to offend with the money talk - he's a lawyer and that's all they understand. We're training him though.

What is it with Team Sergeants and lost shot records? :lifter

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 21:05
Originally posted by mffjm8509
Am I the only guy in SF not motivated by $$$?

You certainly are not, but that's not the point. Today, you only can recruit those men who are willing to accept what the job pays. I would expect that there are potential candidates who presently do not choose this career in part because the financial rewards are limited.

Don't get me wrong. I know part of the greatness of Special Forces is that they are not motivated by money. But there still is economic reality and I would expect you would have a larger applicant pool if pay was doubled or tripled. Look at attrition to contractor jobs, for example.

Ducking for cover now. Just trying to have a discussion and I hope I'm not pissing anyone off. :)

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 21:06
Originally posted by mffjm8509
what is it with medics and homosexual references?

mp

ROTFLMAO at mp.

See, he who laughs last, laughs best.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :D

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 21:08
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
We're training him though.

What is it with Team Sergeants and lost shot records? :lifter

Wait a minute, my first lesson was that, no matter what,

NEVER PISS OFF A TEAM SERGEANT!

NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 21:12
See, he who laughs last, laughs best.

NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 21:12
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Wait a minute, my first lesson was that, no matter what,

NEVER PISS OFF A TEAM SERGEANT!

And the first thing EVERYBODY learns is NEVER PISS DOC OFF! LOL

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:17
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer

Don't get me wrong. I know part of the greatness of Special Forces is that they are not motivated by money. But there still is economic reality and I would expect you would have a larger applicant pool if pay was doubled or tripled. Look at attrition to contractor jobs, for example.

Ducking for cover now. Just trying to have a discussion and I hope I'm not pissing anyone off. :)

I've only had a few bourbons tonight, so I'm still incredibly hard to "piss off'......maybee later

I agree, that a great deal of our force is moving over to the private sector because we cannot compete with salary. We will never be able to compete with that. If we could, the security contractors would increase their pay. There is no way to win with money.

The way to win is to give the guys the training they want, support them in everything, and return the feeling of "special" to Special Forces......I have a few ideas about recruiting, that are rather shallow, but would attract guys over......

1) Close and fence all SF compounds. While this does little for security, it does add an air of mystery that guys on the "outside" will find attractive.

2) Authorize relaxed grooming standards for all SF. This is a huge selling point for our younger soldiers. If they see guys walking around looking "different" (read special) then they will aspire to be different themselves.

3) Do away with the current rank structure and adobt a GS level that promotes those worthy of leadership responsiblity at the unit level, and removes it from DA. This way company, battalion, and group commander could select the best qualified men to be in charge. Everyone else could perform thier function, and remain there if they so choose. This way, no more punching tickets to get promoted.....Commanders could select those who can perform today. A former Battalion Commander of mine wrote a paper at the War College with a similar suggestion for Jr commanders. I think this concept would be well adopted to all on the team.

BTW, I voiced this opinion to many at SWC while I was there only to fall on deaf ears. Many of these deaf ears are guys who were attracted by these exact things in teh late '70s as SF was expanded....

TR, I'm interested to hear your opinion on this...

mp

Ambush Master
06-04-2004, 21:19
Originally posted by The Reaper
Not to be disagreeable, but you are wrong, Sir.

3,500 roughly doubles the SF numbers, but it doesn't matter if he said 3,500, or 35,000,000.

We are putting everyone who has any possibility of successfully completing the course through the pipeline right now, even students with less than a 1% chance of success and kids off the street. We are still not filling the teams as fast as people are getting out.

You cannot get blood from a turnip, and you cannot make 3,500 more SF soldiers who meet the current standards of what remains, regardless of the additional resources dedicated unless you institute the draft and let us skim off the cream.

This is not my .02, this is factual.

TR

Not taken as disagreeable at all, we are on the same page.

As I closed my statement, it would take a VERY LONG TIME to fill the ranks.

Later,
Martin

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:20
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The lawyer didn't mean to offend with the money talk - he's a lawyer and that's all they understand. We're training him though.

What is it with Team Sergeants and lost shot records? :lifter

NDD,

I have forgotten (lost) a great many things in my carreer......and that is why I have tried my best to keep a group of guys around me that constantly keep me straight.......

but obviously our recognize my reference to 18ds and the HOMO jokes......

mp

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 21:21
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Wait a minute, my first lesson was that, no matter what,

NEVER PISS OFF A TEAM SERGEANT!

I can top that.

I believe that one of our Team Sergeants was a former medic.

Also, let me clarify something.

You are an SF NCO, Warrant, or Officer. You have served well and honorably for 20 years and lived within your modest means. You are at the end of your promotion potential, may be feeling the physical effects of a hard life, and are going to be put out to pasture by the Army in a few years anyway. You have nothing to prove to anyone.

Do you continue to serve the last few years in dead end staff jobs, possibly returning to the combat zone for six months every year, OR do you take your retirement pay and make a last trip into the belly of the beast as a contractor for one BIG score to set you up for life?

Everyone has a different situation, but I think that we are seeing an increasing number of guys doing the latter.

It isn't just about money, counsel.

TR

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:23
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
And the first thing EVERYBODY learns is NEVER PISS DOC OFF! LOL

Funny story,

Tom Collis, the medic on my team a few year ago was giving IV training and I was his subject.....
(ome of you may know Tom and his lack of bedside manor)
Anyway, like anyone not bothered by needles, I was harassing him all the way through....the stick, flash, cath in......no big deal. Not until he had secured everything, and gotten flow did he look at me........tell me to "fuck off" and throw the IV bag over his shoulder.....

btw, the tubing wasnt taped down....

OUCH!

mp

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 21:25
Originally posted by The Reaper
It isn't just about money, counsel.

I understand that and did not mean to suggest otherwise.

Glad to hear we have another bourbon drinker here.

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:35
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Glad to hear we have another bourbon drinker here.

Jim Beam Black

Cheers

mp

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:40
Originally posted by The Reaper
Do you continue to serve the last few years in dead end staff jobs, possibly returning to the combat zone for six months every year, OR do you take your retirement pay and make a last trip into the belly of the beast as a contractor for one BIG score to set you up for life?

Everyone has a different situation, but I think that we are seeing an increasing number of guys doing the latter.

TR

I agree, and I have contemplated it myself as I approach 20 years TIS. I have also always sworn not to leave as long as I am having fun in my current capacity. There are only a few jobs left that will allow me to do that, hopefully they will let me keep the one I have for quite a while.

I do know a few younger guys who are ETSing now, going to work for a contractor, with the intention of returning to the force in a year or two. They like the comraderie and lifestyle of the teams, but want to capitalize on an oportunity that may not be there if a Dem gets elected in '04.

mp

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 21:41
Originally posted by Ambush Master
Not taken as disagreeable at all, we are on the same page.

As I closed my statement, it would take a VERY LONG TIME to fill the ranks.

Later,
Martin

AM:

Since we seem to be losing more than we are gaining, it could take even less time to EMPTY the ranks.

mdp:

Novel ideas, but as long as we are under conventional control that isn't going to happen.

How about we remove promotion, schooling, and command selection from the services and give them to USSOCOM?

SF needs an extra 20 E-9s or O-6s, SOCOM has the authority to make them.

Agree with your comments about being mysterious or different attracting recruits. Works for The Unit.

I would also give every SF Battalion an indoor range adjacent to the arms room and convenient to the barracks and team rooms. You want to go shoot during lunch, you sign out your weapon and some ammo, and you bust caps. No ammo requests, no long term forecasts required.

Every Group should have a dedicated CQB facility for teams to train in.

SWCS should rotate MTTs to each Group location several times per year to conduct train-ups and refreshers.

Each SF soldier gets a GSA catalog for individual gear and equipment purchases, and a set amount to be used just for that. Teams get a larger amount, a lot larger for an extended deployment.

Max per diem is the rule, you live in a hole in the ground, you should get as much money as a guy in a four star hotel.

All Pro/HDIP pays are in effect and available. You are qualified and current, you can collect it.

160th SOAR will chop a composite company to each SFGA, or the equivalent in blade hours. SFGs gave up the aircraft that formed the 160th, but never see them in support. I was working in SFC one year when the blade hour allocation was announced. Hours available, 20,000. Number of hours for white SF, ZERO. Don't show up at the launch site to haul me in if I have never seen you fly before. And I want to see the same faces, regularly. AFSOC is very similar in terms of neglect of white SF.

Just a few personal ideas from me as well.

TR

Razor
06-04-2004, 21:43
Aha-ha-ha-ha! Yeah, that's Tommy. :)


On the O side of the house, I know a bunch of my peers decided to get out after their team time, as they felt they hit the peak of excitement in SF being a TL. Had I stayed, I know I probably would have been willing to trade longevity of my career (agree not to compete for O-4) for the ability to be on a team (or multiple teams) for 6-8 years, rather than the 1.5-3 you get now. Then you'd have Os on teams that actually have experience, and literally have given up their careers to lead SF guys on the pointy-end. The traditional route would still be available for guys wanting to be COs and above.

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:46
Originally posted by The Reaper
How about we remove promotion, schooling, and command selection from the services and give them to USSOCOM?

SF needs an extra 20 E-9s or O-6s, SOCOM has the authority to make them.


I would also give every SF Battalion an indoor range adjacent to the arms room and convenient to the barracks and team rooms. You want to go shoot during lunch, you sign out your weapon and some ammo, and you bust caps. No ammo requests, no long term forecasts required.

Every Group should have a dedicated CQB facility for teams to train in.

SWCS should rotate MTTs to each Group location several times per year to conduct train-ups and refreshers.

Each SF soldier gets a GSA catalog for individual gear and equipment purchases, and a set amount to be used just for that. Teams get a larger amount, a lot larger for an extended deployment.

Max per diem is the rule, you live in a hole in the ground, you should get as much money as a guy in a four star hotel.

All Pro/HDIP pays are in effect and available. You are qualified and current, you can collect it.

160th SOAR will chop a composite company to each SFGA, or the equivalent in blade hours. SFGs gave up the aircraft that formed the 160th, but never see them in support. I was working in SFC one year when the blade hour allocation was announced. Hours available, 20,000. Number of hours for white SF, ZERO. Don't show up at the launch site to haul me in if I have never seen you fly before. And I want to see the same faces, regularly. AFSOC is very similar in terms of neglect of white SF.

Just a few personal ideas from me as well.

TR

NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 21:52
I've said it before Boss, but I'll say it again, I want to be in your SF.

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:54
Originally posted by The Reaper
How about we remove promotion, schooling, and command selection from the services and give them to USSOCOM?

SF needs an extra 20 E-9s or O-6s, SOCOM has the authority to make them.


I would also give every SF Battalion an indoor range adjacent to the arms room and convenient to the barracks and team rooms. You want to go shoot during lunch, you sign out your weapon and some ammo, and you bust caps. No ammo requests, no long term forecasts required.

Every Group should have a dedicated CQB facility for teams to train in.

SWCS should rotate MTTs to each Group location several times per year to conduct train-ups and refreshers.

Each SF soldier gets a GSA catalog for individual gear and equipment purchases, and a set amount to be used just for that. Teams get a larger amount, a lot larger for an extended deployment.

Max per diem is the rule, you live in a hole in the ground, you should get as much money as a guy in a four star hotel.

All Pro/HDIP pays are in effect and available. You are qualified and current, you can collect it.

160th SOAR will chop a composite company to each SFGA, or the equivalent in blade hours. SFGs gave up the aircraft that formed the 160th, but never see them in support. I was working in SFC one year when the blade hour allocation was announced. Hours available, 20,000. Number of hours for white SF, ZERO. Don't show up at the launch site to haul me in if I have never seen you fly before. And I want to see the same faces, regularly. AFSOC is very similar in terms of neglect of white SF.

Just a few personal ideas from me as well.

TR

Sorry about that last one.....too quick w/ the mouse

Super Ideas, particurarly the indoor range from someone who likes to shoot, alot!

I like the idea about USSOCOM generating promotions, but DA promotes based on authorized slots, in the Army not in SF alone. There are x # of E-9s or O-6's in the Army and it takes congress to change that number. I've always favored a GS pay scale, with the guys who accept responsiblity and are placed in charge of units getting a little more....

mp

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 21:56
Originally posted by Razor
On the O side of the house, I know a bunch of my peers decided to get out after their team time, as they felt they hit the peak of excitement in SF being a TL. Had I stayed, I know I probably would have been willing to trade longevity of my career (agree not to compete for O-4) for the ability to be on a team (or multiple teams) for 6-8 years, rather than the 1.5-3 you get now. Then you'd have Os on teams that actually have experience, and literally have given up their careers to lead SF guys on the pointy-end. The traditional route would still be available for guys wanting to be COs and above.

Okay, Os can convert to WO (upon proper vetting) and remain on ODAs without loss of pay or benefits.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 21:59
Time for me to head home. Thanks for the education, gentlemen. A pleasure, as always. 'night.

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 21:59
Originally posted by Razor
. Had I stayed, I know I probably would have been willing to trade longevity of my career (agree not to compete for O-4) for the ability to be on a team (or multiple teams) for 6-8 years, rather than the 1.5-3 you get now. Then you'd have Os on teams that actually have experience, and literally have given up their careers to lead SF guys on the pointy-end. The traditional route would still be available for guys wanting to be COs and above.

Razor,

The former commander I was speaking of in my post was COL Tom Rendall. The paper he wrote suggested many things the Army has adopted, or is in the process of adopting, primarily the largest being E-Army U. Maybee not his complete idea, but deffinately one of his main points.

The other was to have officers decline conisderation for promotion to remain at the same rank, and mentor others. So if you are a successful commander (det or company) you would be given the responsibilty of mentoring those that come after you, and in the case of combat commanding in that situation as well.

mp

Razor
06-04-2004, 22:01
LTC R was certainly an interesting guy, wasn't he? Do you have a softcopy of that paper anywhere?

TR, I'm raising my right hand right now; feel free to add me to the rolls at your convenience. ;)

Ambush Master
06-04-2004, 22:05
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I've said it before Boss, but I'll say it again, I want to be in your SF.

We ARE on the same page !!! And, I want to be in your SF also !!

Later
Martin

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 22:13
Originally posted by Razor
LTC R was certainly an interesting guy, wasn't he? Do you have a softcopy of that paper anywhere?



I dont.....our 2 shop had it a while back and I read it then. I can inquire next week to see if it is still on file and make a copy for you.

btw, it is that paper that interesete me in the Anton Myrer book, "Once and Eagle" which I am sure you've read, and was tha basis for his paper.

It was intersting to read the paper, and the book......seeing the comparisons between the subjects in the book and COL Rs personall experiences while being our commander.

mp

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 22:14
Originally posted by mffjm8509
I like the idea about USSOCOM generating promotions, but DA promotes based on authorized slots, in the Army not in SF alone. There are x # of E-9s or O-6's in the Army and it takes congress to change that number. I've always favored a GS pay scale, with the guys who accept responsiblity and are placed in charge of units getting a little more....

mp

I understand how the system currently works and how inventory is managed.

I propose that an exception to policy be made and SOCOM be allowed to promote as required/desired to fill positions without regard to the strength and grade limitations.

When someone is proposing adding tens of thousands of new troops, what would the respective costs be for a few promotions to retain qualified personnel?

BTW, speaking of rapidly creating SF in times of crisis, when you lose a senior NCO, warrant, or officer, they are irreplacable in the short term. SF is not the 82nd, where we just plug in the new guy as a rifleman. That 18X or new E-5 will take years to gain the confidence of his teammates, competence, language skills, area orientation, cultural awareness of his AOR, specialty schooling, experience, etc., and a decade or more before the point where he can replace the Team Sergeant, the Tech, etc. (who are the ones leaving).

When I used to work in Latin America a lot, you could always spot the new kids on the teams, even those who were Hispanic and native speakers. They just stood out. Well, except for NDD, but he was an exception.

One of my main gripes when I worked at SOCOM was that the command constantly promoted themselves as "language trained, area oriented, cultural aware Special Operations Forces", when in reality, the only SOCOM assets who actually had those quals were SF and PSYOP units.

At one time, SF was over 50% of Active ARSOF (and the largest single component of SOCOM), doing over 80% of the OCONUS missions, with less than 10% of the budget.

Add another rule. No E-7s going through the SFQC anymore either. I forgot that one. It creates SF NCO leadership with no team time. And we have all seen what that can do for us. No thanks!

And to be a Company Commander or SGM, you have to have had an ODA in that Group. To be a Battalion Commander or CSM, you have to have had a Company in that Group. And to be a Group Commander, you have to have been a Battalion Commander or CSM in that Group.

Just some additional thoughts.

TR

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 22:30
Originally posted by The Reaper
I understand how the system currently works and how inventory is managed.

When I used to work in Latin America a lot, you could always spot the new kids on the teams, even those who were Hispanic and native speakers. They just stood out. Well, except for NDD, but he was an exception.

Add another rule. No E-7s going through the SFQC anymore either. I forgot that one. It creates SF NCO leadership with no team time. And we have all seen what that can do for us. No thanks!

And to be a Company Commander or SGM, you have to have had an ODA in that Group. To be a Battalion Commander or CSM, you have to have had a Company in that Group. And to be a Group Commander, you have to have been a Battalion Commander or CSM in that Group.

Just some additional thoughts.

TR

I applogize Sir, Of course you know how the promotion management system works. I inteded to post general information for the readers, not to incinuate that you didnt undestand.

Personally, I'm a fan of the younger guys......so long as they are mangaged to balance the teams with experience. They bring a dimension to SF that hasnt been here in some time. I'm lucky though.....I've got an equal amount of younger guys to experienced guys and they seem to counter common sense and fervor.........like I said before, I'm still having fun!

I agree about not sending E-7s through the course as well, nor E-6s selected for promotion. How do I rate a guy in that capacity? If I give him a good NCOER, and push for 1-1s then I'm setting the force up for failure by selecting a less qualified NCO to manage an A-team. If I dont do that, I may be railroading a phenomenal NCO that could easliy be an Infantry 1SG.
I dont like either option.

You've got some great Ideas.....and to reinterate what others have said, I'd like to work in your Special Forces.

mp

The Reaper
06-04-2004, 22:43
No apology necessary there, just QP qualified individuals with opinions freely exchanging them. Just wanted to clarify.

I agree about younger guys, but there has to be a nucleus of experienced personnel to rein these kids in, as you suggested.

I think that the 18Xers who make it are going to be hellacious Team Sergeants and Techs when they have 10-12 years in, all on ODAs.

Appreciate your and the other guys' kind words. Nothing special here, just 20 years plus of observing SF without any agendas, other than taking care of my people. It is OUR Special Forces, regardless.

Good discussion here, wish the right people read it and took it to heart.

TR

mffjm8509
06-04-2004, 22:57
Originally posted by The Reaper

I think that the 18Xers who make it are going to be hellacious Team Sergeants and Techs when they have 10-12 years in, all on ODAs.

TR

Imagine that........10 years in service, all in SF. I wish that was available when I enlisted in 1985. No such luck.....but the experience I gained in the conventional Army is an asset as well.

I think in the current operational environment, working with conventional forces as we are know, the right guys graduating the SFQC, with good leadership in thier first few years on a team, will prove to be some of the stronger Team Sergeants & Team Techs we haev seen in ages...

mp

brownapple
06-05-2004, 00:00
Originally posted by mffjm8509

3) Do away with the current rank structure and adobt a GS level that promotes those worthy of leadership responsiblity at the unit level, and removes it from DA. This way company, battalion, and group commander could select the best qualified men to be in charge. Everyone else could perform thier function, and remain there if they so choose. This way, no more punching tickets to get promoted.....Commanders could select those who can perform today. A former Battalion Commander of mine wrote a paper at the War College with a similar suggestion for Jr commanders. I think this concept would be well adopted to all on the team.


Why not just get rid of the "up or out" policy for all of the Army? It doesn't do anybody any good... not SF, not Infantry... nobody.

mffjm8509
06-05-2004, 00:38
Originally posted by Greenhat
Why not just get rid of the "up or out" policy for all of the Army? It doesn't do anybody any good... not SF, not Infantry... nobody.

Hmm,

As I look around my group I can see guys that should not be representative of Special Forces. So, I dont think "up or out" is the way I'd look at it.....at some level, someone needs to be looking out for the force.

I do belive that SOME individuals could perform at thier current level within group, (myself included) without further promotion and continue to be an asset to the force. However, at some level there MUST be a monitor that looks objectivly at perfomance to determine if individuals continue to contribute to the operational groups, or if they are better served in another capacity, or even retired.

...I stilll belive that Group, Battalion, anc Company Commanders should be empowered with the ability to determine who shows leadership potential (unlike all Infantry CSMs, which sat on the last MSG board). and select those individuals for promotion to the next level......Who is better to evaluate and reward performance?

we do it for Warrant Officers, why not for Team Sergeants & Sergeants Major?

mp

BMT (RIP)
06-05-2004, 05:59
I have heard these same ideas and arguements since Sep. '64. The old ASA controlled their promotions.

BMT
Jr. FOG