PDA

View Full Version : SF History "What-If"


CommoGeek
06-07-2004, 06:26
To provoke some discussion of SF history, I thought I'd get (with a nod toward RL) a stick this morning.

Knowing that some members of this board lived it, and the rest of us have studied it, is there an incident in the last 40 years that IF IT FAILED woud mean the end of SF, or maybe a greatly reduced role and/ or capacity?

If White Star, MACV-SOG, the "A" camps, Son Tay, Desert One, etc. fails (huge loss of life, little results, etc.), how different is modern SF?

What can you talk about that you would change about SF, excluding Son Tay and Desert One? For example, some have heartburn over SF having a branch, others may want the Reserve Groups to return, perhaps involvement in El Sal (the limit of 55 pax)....

What would you like to see reversed?

QRQ 30
06-07-2004, 07:40
IMO Desert One could have been and almost was the end of Special Forces. Fortunately a General (CRS his name) saw that Special Forces had to be re-born and changed while maintaing the basic precepts of unconventional warfare. IHe saw failures as opportunities.

Making SF a branch was one of his projects. Until SF became a branch with it's own career field, SF soldiers were fair game for anyone in DA Assignments. As an example, it was common to raid the ranks of the SF 91B's.

Perhaps someone can recall his name. He was recently censured for remarks concerning Christianity VS Islam. IMO he can be considerd the "Father of Modern SF".

Has SF changed. Of course. If it didn't it would cease to exist. The mindset of SF hasn't changed. Those in SF today would have likely been SF fifty years ago and visa versa!.

None
06-07-2004, 08:30
If not mistaken, I believe that's LTG Boykin.

QRQ 30
06-07-2004, 08:41
Originally posted by None
If not mistaken, I believe that's LTG Boykin.

Das him!! Thanks:)

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-07-2004, 08:58
Gerry Boykin was a CPT during Desert One, I think the GO was GEN Moore but I am having trouble remembering what I had for breakfast this morning. Desert One, while a tactical failure, was a strategic success in that it resulted in Goldwater-Nichols and started the ball rolling for SF.

As far as successes, there are a lot of things that will probably never see the light of day. I know that there are folks here that know of successes and have participated in individual and team actions that have played roles that have had and are still producing results of national significance. SF folks have swayed governments, changed the courses of history, and have established liasions with foreign nationals that have allowed actions by our own country that would have not otherwise been possible without great expenditures of national treasure and lives. I have always thought that the one item of equipment that was missing from SF MTOEs/MTDAs were the wheel barrows that would have been helpful in carrying their balls around. Their impact has been profound, for instance, during the time of the USSR, the soviet's doctrine called for committing up to a division of folks to try and locate and destroy a single SFODA if they felt one had been deployed into their AO. The history of SF is as diverse as the individuals and the assignments that they have held. Again, for instance, I really do not think that you could write a representative story of an A Camp in SVN because each was so different than the other. Or an A-Team because each group has different orientations and environments. The history of SF is really about people and teams and it goes to the core of what makes up the SF soldier. I may be biased here, but I really do not think that SF has ever failed but I do think that there have been many instances where SF has been failed to be supported, properly committed and , unfortunately, poorly lead. Even during those instances they have been able to make chicken salad out of chicken.... well you know the rest.

Jack Moroney-standing in the shadow of great soldiers and good friends.

CommoGeek
06-07-2004, 13:54
Here's why I started this, and I was honestly hoping for more discussion on it.

SF is a fairly recent addition to the US inventory. Sure, SOF units on this continent predate our country's history, but the modern incarnation of SF ODA/B/C's is what I'm looking at and their missions. Unlike a relatively static branch like Infantry, Artillery, or Signal, SF is relatively new and fragile. We all know that DA loves SF and they hate SF. So, it stands to reason that if SF failed at some point that they could see a drastic reduction in funding and manpower (although from what I've read, it was pretty low to begin with in the 50's.).

My thoughts are that if SF doesn't do well publicly (private missions do matter, but Ma and Pa Kettle don't hear about those on the nightly news and as such they can't have an opinion about something that never happened) then the Army could well have sacrificed them. Remember that the Air Force thought in the 50's that the entire Army wasn't needed, that bombers and missiles would keep the Soviets at bay.

Even after the fantastic work by SF in SEA, Groups were cut in the 70's; everyone was cut but IF SF doesn't make a positive contribution do we see them reduced even further, maybe even along th lines of what Turner did to the CIA's HUMINT abilities? I think we would, but SF didn't fail and as an added bonus global terrorism reared it's ugly head.

Think of this thread as an historic AAR for the generations. Also, what went right?

For my time as a 90's part-time support geek, I do agree with cutting the 11th and 12th (or even the 19th and 20th instead) because the money wasn't there for all 4 RC SF Groups. Something had to give and my brothers in the 11th and 12th lost that round. Hindsight says we need them now, but before the reorganization, MOSQ was LOW in the Line Co.'s (60-70%) and we were several MTOE's behind in equipment. 4 hungry mouths needed to be fed, but there wasn't even enough bread for two so something had to go.....

To wit, SF is one of the more dynamic branches of the Army and as a result I think it was more fragile than we realize, especially in it's embryonic phase. The first 20 years were make or break.

Thoughts? (no, I'm not writing a paper for school)

brownapple
06-07-2004, 17:17
Things to consider....

First, SF was probably at its height during Vietnam. 2 reasons.
One was President Kennedy's support. The other was the relative lack of other Special Operations assets, so SF did missions that today would be executed by other organizations.

Remember, at one time we had:

1st Gp
3d Gp
5th Gp (which was huge)
6th Gp
7th Gp
8th Gp
10th Gp
46th Co.

plus 11th Gp, 12th Gp, 19th Gp and 20th Gp.

I am not suggesting these organizations were ever close to full-strength. Although I would be curious to see what the MTOE strength totals would be for those and what the actual totals were given that 5th Gp was far larger than a Group usually is.

In the early 70s, a huge amount of that simply went away. SF NCOs were assigned to ROTC assignments.
We had:

5th Gp
7th Gp
10th Gp
Det K.

and the 4 NG/RC Groups.

SF came very close to ceasing to exist then. Very close.

Roguish Lawyer
06-07-2004, 17:24
Originally posted by Greenhat
SF was probably at its height during Vietnam.

Not today?

CRad
06-08-2004, 23:44
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Not today?

Why not ask "Not the '80s?" when special Forces received an infusion of much needed funding? Two books that are very interesting to read side by side are Susan Marquis' Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operation Forces and Special Forces: The First Fifty Years

What we are seeing today is the media reporting what SF has been doing all along regardless of funding or press coverage. Which is why I ask why not ask "the '80s?" You could as easily ask any timeframe. Special Forces has been doing the job with or without funding and press coverage since its inception.

One could say SF's Hey Day was the Vietnam Era when it was called upon to go above and beyond, or the '80s when funding was better, or now when its the media darling. The truth is Special Operatons soldiers have been performing better than the rest for more than 200 years.

Sigi
06-09-2004, 04:39
Originally posted by CRad
Susan Marquis' Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operation Forces
I am currently reading this. Curious who else has read it and what they think.

I think she does a great job describing the early years, the thin 70's, and the increase in funds in the 80's. I am only on the 3rd chapter, but so far I like it.

TerribleTobyt
08-08-2004, 17:52
Originally posted by CRad
Why not ask "Not the '80s?" when special Forces received an infusion of much needed funding? Two books that are very interesting to read side by side are Susan Marquis' Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operation Forces and Special Forces: The First Fifty Years

What we are seeing today is the media reporting what SF has been doing all along regardless of funding or press coverage. Which is why I ask why not ask "the '80s?" You could as easily ask any timeframe. Special Forces has been doing the job with or without funding and press coverage since its inception.

One could say SF's Hey Day was the Vietnam Era when it was called upon to go above and beyond, or the '80s when funding was better, or now when its the media darling. The truth is Special Operatons soldiers have been performing better than the rest for more than 200 years.

In the early 80s, I was an instructor at SOT-D, whose "forefathers", for lack of a better word, was BLUE LIGHT. IIRC, BLUE LIGHT was a stop-gap kinda thingy until Delta got on line.

Folks, we had no budget, tho we had all the ammo and demo we could use. We, the instructors, maintained and refurbished S & K Range. We did it with alotta blood, sweat and tears. We got reject tires from Kelly-Sprinfield plant in Spring lake. We begged, borrowed and stole plywood, 550 cord, tools, target cloth etc.

My point is that, even back then, when budget money was tight, good ol SF ingenuity kept things afloat.

You FOGs remember back in the 70s when we routinely force-marched back from DZs after jumps, cuz there wasn't 'nuff fuel to truck us back from the DZ???

With the national and world-wide pub Spec Ops in general is getting, and the promise from The Prez, his opponent and Congress Critters for support for funding for Spec Ops projects, I gotta believe it'll be a cold day in hell 'fore SF and Spec Ops drops offa da map.

Later

Toby
1-2, RTG Caliofornia

Team Sergeant
08-08-2004, 18:23
Originally posted by TerribleTobyt
In the early 80s, I was an instructor at SOT-D, whose "forefathers", for lack of a better word, was BLUE LIGHT. IIRC, BLUE LIGHT was a stop-gap kinda thingy until Delta got on line.


Toby
1-2, RTG Caliofornia

I went through that course in the early eighties. It was a hell of a course! (I was a young SSG)

Toby, We used "wigs" on the final mission!

Team Sergeant

NousDefionsDoc
08-08-2004, 19:45
We, especially the foward deployed guys (I won't use the acronym), owe a lot to the SOT-D instructors that kept the school and the TTPs alive despite all the detractors. My Group CSM even told us in a meeting once, "There is no DA mission for SF." He was wrong, and he's gone. Thank you Toby.

I think a lot of what we consider to be negatives may actually prove to be positives if we look back objectively. What do I mean?

The fear and loathing that the rest of the Army showed for so many years banded us together like very few military organizations in history IMO. It has always been "us against them".

The constant attacks and attempts to get rid of us made us learn to adapt, improvise and overcome. Remember, "We have been forced to do so much with so little for so long for so many people we can now do everything with nothing forever for anybody." ? I truly believe this.

The people that were there truly believed in what we were doing and were there because they wanted to be. It wasn't "cool" to be SF a lot of times.

We learned to do many things very well in order to survive as an organization. UW, FID, DA, Strat Recon, ROTC, etc. There is nothing an A Team can't do given 6 weeks of preparation and the appropriate resources (or not).

Being disliked kept us from becoming liked and therefore 'appropriated'. I would rather do FID on my own than be a roadguard for somebody else's DA mission.

What Colonel Moroney said. I consider El Salvador to be one of those cases. Very little has been said about it but, there was an offensive in the capital once upon a time. There was a unit there made up in large part of former soldiers that had been wounded and now had been given "easier" duty. Their base was a rather craptastic facility located in a basin. The Gs infilled into the barrio above the base and used the gen pop for cover. One of the first mortar rounds hit the ASP. These troops, with their courage and the training provided by SF, not only held out, they assaulted the high ground several times over the course of several days. They didn't take the neighborhood back, they couldn't, they were all wounded and had very little ammo. But by God they didn't let those sons of bitches take their base either. A 7th Group Team managed to hold their own in a hotel in town at the same time, avoiding what could have been a tremendous international incident if they had been taken to the hills. And you can bet when the offensive failed, Gs all over Latin America were a little less enthusiastic about all out assaults. And before most of the damage was repaired, 7th Group assets were right back in there getting them ready for the next round. I have a very nice dirty old baseball cap in my closet with a code name handwritten in it from a Captain that died assaulting up those hills. I cherish it like very few of my personal possessions. Pairs of SF guys all over the country led and fought side by side with their little people to keep the country's critical points from being over run.

There is very little said about the SF contribution to bringing that communist ass clown Che down. But it wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for a small group of men ready, willing and able to put the Bolivians, who they trained, into a position to be successful. And believe me, that was strategic.

I have heard stories told over and over of SF guys giving up strings or seats to save a HN soldiers. Of SF troops bolting from cover to save their indig.

There are countless stories like this from every Group all over the globe.

While I have the utmost respect for conventional soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, personally, I think its much easier to be hard when you are surrounded by your own kind, with modern weapons, with soldiers that will obey a command instantly than it is to be with 12 or even 6 Brothers, outnumbered 20 to1 by the "good guys", knowing that there won't be a medevac and trying to keep the local Kurd commander from laying waste to an Iraqi police patrol because, even though they raped and killed his daughter, they're on our side.

What's my point?

If they ain't SF, fook 'em.

But then, that's just me.

PeteyMcPete
06-01-2006, 05:25
Id like to believe that there will always be a place for SF in modern warfare.

I do think that this will be the case.

BMT (RIP)
06-01-2006, 06:20
GIT 'R Done!!!

Clear,concise SF mission statement!!

Might offend the PC crowd.

BMT

QRQ 30
06-01-2006, 07:25
The earmark of Special Forces is adaptability. The operations in my day changed from primarily GW/Counter GW to stratigic recon to direct action combat.

As long as there are special missions to be pulled, there will be special men to accomplish them -- USASF!

x SF med
06-01-2006, 11:05
Toby-
In the early/mid 80's SOT-D used to pull 'casual' labor from the prephase / recycle groups at the Q - did it, lots of work, lots of fun, construction laborers and training aides - but we were also required to appropriate items from non SF/SOF areas for use in building some areas - a test of ingenuity? a gut check? who knows, but it exposed me to some of the absolute best soldiers I have ever seen, the best of SF the absolute cream of the crop.

Rather not talk about El Sal - wasn't there, but my ruck buddy from the Q was, first US advisor to give his all in that area, RIP Jimmy, you pushed me hard.

incommin
06-20-2006, 12:12
SF has changed. One could say that in the 60's it was a teenager and today it is an adult.

I remember hitch hiking back to Devens from the White Mountains of New Hampshire because our promised transport didn't show. I also remember hauling M-3 machine guns, AK's and M-16's in the trunk of my POV (thru the state of NY) on an exercise bacause of transportation issues.

I also recall whisky and rum in resupply drops. Whisky and C-rats.....

The point is that things have changed. Not better or worse. Just different.

SF wasn't like or understood by Regular Army commanders. SF teams made their units look bad. SF teams "borrowed" stuff. They wore a foreign cap. They didn't seem to fit into the big battle in the Fulda Gap that everyone was expecting.

Things have changed for the better now. Thank God that there will always be a well trained soldier standing in the door to do the work the regular Army can't do.

QRQ 30
06-20-2006, 12:58
SF has changed. One could say that in the 60's it was a teenager and today it is an adult.............



Things have changed for the better now. Thank God that there will always be a well trained soldier standing in the door to do the work the regular Army can't do.

Changed, yes. That is the earmark of SF "Adaptability".

The SF of the 60's was just a mature at SF today. Missions were different. The majority of the E-7 and above in my team were veterans of Korea and even WWII including vwterans of Merrill's Maurauders and othe classified units. IMHO It would be more accurate to say that a new generation has now reached maturity, and is staking over from the previous.

Gene Econ
06-20-2006, 19:19
Guys:

Interesting discussion. I can see just about when guys ETSd or Retired in terms of where the comments lead or end.

I doubt the Army ever considered eliminating SF. Certainly, some hated SF and some in power over the years from the 50's through the 70's would have liked to see SF eliminated. However, history indicates that this wasn't the case as SF never ceased. So I take with a grain of salt those who say how such and such CSA tried to eliminate SF but failed. Take my word for it, if a CSA wanted SF eliminated, it would have been eliminated.

The chances of SF being eliminated in the near future is very slim due to performance, USASOC with all the subordinate commands, and the existence of SF as a branch of the Army. Highly unlikely.

One guy commented that Desert 1 was the closest SF came to being eliminated. That is a first for me. As I can recall, Desert 1 was a Delta and Ranger operation. Also, Desert 1, combined with problems within the SO arena in Grenada and Panama seemed to generate a whole bunch of support for a badly needed overhaul of the C2 system, training, equipment, and ten thousand other things that had been neglected over the years. I also think that some in SF were so adverse to the idea of operating with conventional forces that some pretty important doctrinal and equipment issues were ignored. Perhaps Somalia was the final straw although that too was a Delta and Ranger operation. In very short order, a system was put in place that assisted in C2 between SO and the conventional side. Since then, both have come closer together.

One thing that hasn't changed is the basic SF doctrine. One thing that has changed is that the dividing line between the missions in SF doctrine is not so black and white anymore. The conventional side is experiencing the same thing and this will IMHO lead to a doctrine that will focus on initiative and mental agility more so than any cut and dry way to conduct a war.

I appreciate the analogy about high school verses grown up. I would put it as High School vs Graduate School. The SF guys are better trained, better equipped, in better condition, and I believe are extremely intelligent. I also believe that the SF schools are far more focused than before.

As for the future? I think that thngs will change as they must due to a changing way we fight. I can see the conventional combat arms side becoming ten times more agile and intuitive about how they fight and or succeed in missions. That is where they are heading by equipment, doctrine, and training.

I think that SF will see a stronger relationship with the conventional side although I do not see SF as being forced to change their personality or doctrine in the process.

Gene

incommin
06-21-2006, 05:15
Changed, yes. That is the earmark of SF "Adaptability".

The SF of the 60's was just a mature at SF today. Missions were different. The majority of the E-7 and above in my team were veterans of Korea and even WWII including vwterans of Merrill's Maurauders and othe classified units. IMHO It would be more accurate to say that a new generation has now reached maturity, and is staking over from the previous.


When I stated that SF was like a teenager in the 60s; it was not a knock against the personnel. I too had combat vets from WWII and Korea on my first teams. And they were the intelligentsia of the Army. I am well aware that the missions were different and the equipment was different.

My comment of SF now being an adult is form the fact that SF and special ops is sharing equal status or even a higher status among regular Army units, recognized as the force multiplier that it is, and no longer looked down upon by the rest of the Army's command staff. No everyone is wearing foreign French caps!

smitty
07-26-2006, 20:01
Initially the new SF branch was both a curse and a blessing.

SF finally got funding but the door opened for a lot of ticket punchers whos only loyalty was to their careers.

“And they copied and copied and copied. But they couldn’t copy my mind. So I left them sweating and stealing a year and a half behind.”
-Rudyard Kipling

Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-27-2006, 04:54
Initially the new SF branch was both a curse and a blessing.

SF finally got funding but the door opened for a lot of ticket punchers whos only loyalty was to their careers.



That is really a sad fact and it happened with all grades. Unfortunately it was more prevalent in the senior officer grades, especially with the grandfathering of those that were not qualified or even understood our business some of whom were exceptional troops in their own right but not in ours. The branch has suffered for it and still does today not only from those that have hung on that should be elsewhere but for the perception of those that are not SF have formed about SF's capabilities, limitations, and use. For them perception is still reality and many are in position to strongly influence SF's current and future roles.