SecDef To Decide Fate Of Special Operations Unit

[NousDefionsDoc]

MarineCorpsTimes.com
January 26, 2005

SecDef To Decide Fate Of Special Operations Unit

By Gidget Fuentes, Times staff writer

OCEANSIDE, Calif. — The fate of the Marine Corps’ first special operations detachment rests with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will determine if the 18-month trial run will yield a permanent Marine place in the commando ranks.

Rumsfeld was expected to meet with Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee and Army Gen. Bryan D. Brown, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, this week to discuss the detachment’s future.

“Their joint recommendation is that SOCOM will say that we have no requirement for another unit,” said a senior Marine officer familiar with the ongoing discussion and who asked not to be named.

Marine Corps Special Operations Command Detachment 1, an 85-member unit based at Camp Pendleton, Calif., activated in summer 2003 and deployed last year to Iraq as part of a Navy special warfare squadron that included SEAL commandos.

Created as a two-year “proof of concept” force, the detachment was developed following a fall 2001 memorandum of understanding between the Corps and SOCOM intended to foster broader cooperation.

The memorandum was signed during Gen. James Jones’ tenure as commandant; Hagee is said to be less of a fan of the idea. And a less-than-supportive view from SOCOM — a command predominantly comprised of Army forces, could all but seal that fate, the senior Marine officer said.

“They want to make sure it stays Army green,” he said, adding that Brown “does not want us around.”

As originally envisioned, Detachment 1 would have grown into at least two other units that would operate jointly for regional combatant commanders. The unique team includes Marines from the reconnaissance, intelligence and Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Company communities, among others.

The possible tabling of the Corps’ SOCOM detachment comes amid continued high demand for special operations forces for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in the larger hunt for terrorists worldwide. There also is strong congressional interest in growing the number of special operations troops. The Army wants to increase the number of Special Forces soldiers by as many as 10,000, according to some reports.

Members of the detachment have continued training since their return from Iraq. Their combat deployment was touted as a successful tour, but could wind up in the “so what” category if the decision is made to scrap the detachment, a prospect that frustrates members.

“No matter what we did, it was irrelevant,” the senior Marine officer said.

Gidget Fuentes is the San Diego bureau chief for Marine Corps Times.

[CPTAUSRET]

“No matter what we did, it was irrelevant,” the senior Marine officer said."



I really hope that isn't true.

Time will tell.

Terry

[Basenshukai]

I know that the "the Army doesn't like us" answer can make some folks sleep better at night since they won't have to feel "irrelevant", or otherwise not as effective as other options. But, I don't think that the reasons for the unit not being continued are that simple.

Duplication of efforts might be one issue. Is it smarter to spend more money to stand up a costly elite unit, provide it with infracstructure, etc., instead of spending that same money expanding the existing programs of units that provide the same capabilities? In light of what the SEALs do (to include their SMU), it seems that they can fit the bill for what the Marine unit was created to do. If that's the case, spend those funds expanding the SEAL programs, for instance.

The men of that "proof of concept" were, I'm pretty sure, superb operators. However, in a world where dollars are not infinite and where existing SOF units are trying to expand their own existing programs (SEALs and SF teams attempting to fill to 100% of their MTOEs and trying to stand up new battalions / teams), decision-makers have a lot to think about. I don't think, in as much as I know that inter-service rivalries exist, that high-level SOF generals are just saying: "I don't like the way those guys roll-up their BDU sleeves ... deactivate the unit."

[CPTAUSRET]

I know that the "the Army doesn't like us" answer can make some folks sleep better at night since they won't have to feel "irrelevant", or otherwise not as effective as other options. But, I don't think that the reasons for the unit not being continued are that simple.

Duplication of efforts might be one issue. Is it smarter to spend more money to stand up a costly elite unit, provide it with infracstructure, etc., instead of spending that same money expanding the existing programs of units that provide the same capabilities? In light of what the SEALs do (to include their SMU), it seems that they can fit the bill for what the Marine unit was created to do. If that's the case, spend those funds expanding the SEAL programs, for instance.

The men of that "proof of concept" were, I'm pretty sure, superb operators. However, in a world where dollars are not infinite and where existing SOF units are trying to expand their own existing programs (SEALs and SF teams attempting to fill to 100% of their MTOEs and trying to stand up new battalions / teams), decision-makers have a lot to think about. I don't think, in as much as I know that inter-service rivalries exist, that high-level SOF generals are just saying: "I don't like the way those guys roll-up their BDU sleeves ... deactivate the unit."


You make a lot of sense to me, and if I had to allocate sparse funding I would do as you suggest.

Terry

[RAT]

IMHO...

I can see the Highers in the Corps try and position this as say to Congress that the Corps is MEU(SOC) capable...

Why expand SOCOM when we have Marines that can do the job.

I don't think it is this easy of a situation I can just see the Corps trying to pull a fast one. They (Marine Corps) have never liked SOF (To included Marine Recon). I was hoping it was going to work out but looks like it isn't.

Oh well... Back to the Corps you bunch of prima donnas HAHAHA

RAT OUT!!!

[Roguish Lawyer]

You make a lot of sense to me, and if I had to allocate sparse funding I would do as you suggest.

Terry

Me too.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Me too.

That was the reason why the USMC got involved with this in the first place. You have to remember that USSOCOM has its own budget and there is absolutely no doubt that this is the reason why the USMC wanted to play in this arena. I am not taking anything away from the troops-USMC is good at what they do and have great troops, however they often see themselves in direct competition with the Army when it comes to light infantry for short duration operations. Look at what they call MEU(SOC), that really has only to do with one portion of the mission and that is DA/CT and not UW.

Jack Moroney

[Blueboy]

Great thread. Like most SF soldiers, I have worked with USMC folks quite a bit in my time (Force Recon, MEU-SOC) and I have nothing but the highest regard for them.

But my question is this: What "value-added" does the USMC Det 1 bring to SOCOM? Do they fill some void in capability? This organization looks and smells like another SEAL team. If so, great---there's plenty of work for everyone. But if this is just a ploy by the Marines to grab a share of MPF-11 funds (considering that they refused to become part of SOCOM after the Cohen-Nunn Amendement in 1986), then I think the SOCOM leadership would be correct in cutting them loose.

[QRQ 30]

The Marines are good soldiers. However they were conceived as the Navy's Infantry and need to remain so. They do what they can to become a separate service i.e. their own air force. The Force Recon was conceived to fill a nitch in their own infantry operations. What they really want is to replace all other services, of course then they will no longer be the "Few and the Proud", just part of the mob.

They are shock troops, originally not intended for extended operations but to hold an area for other troops. They had best be wary. They may get what they want and then go the way of the Airborne Divisions in the Army/

[37F5V]

I can only comment on what I have seen, and that is that there is a good deal of redundancy within the community. So much so infact that it leads in some cases to direct competition between elements within the command. Of the four I have had the priveledge to deal with, three of them seemed to perform quite similar functions down range (granted at different skill sets). It tended to turn into who could plan the quickest and whose "turn" it happened to be. As previously mentioned before I'm sure the Corps group are top notch, but not very neccessary considering the capable SOF at hand.

Then again I'm just a B.S. artist.... :D

[SgtUSMC8541]

If you don’t mind a Marines take on this… a few of you have made some good points that I agree with, and others… well not so much.

QRQ30: The Marines are good soldiers. However they were conceived as the Navy's Infantry and need to remain so. They do what they can to become a separate service i.e. their own air force. The Force Recon was conceived to fill a nitch in their own infantry operations. What they really want is to replace all other services, of course then they will no longer be the "Few and the Proud", just part of the mob.”

I disagree with you completely. I do not see us “doing what they can” to become a separate service. For the most part we are. For the “air force” comment, we need to control our own air support. The Air Force does not have the ability to provide the direct and immediate close air support that we require. We would need the Air Force to hold a nearby air base to provide fix wing support and then an Army base to provide the rotor wing support. That does not make any sense when we can do it our self. Now if they are available, I would never turn down their great support. With that being said, we do not want to replace all other services. We don’t want nor need large bombers, we don’t need the large infantry “mob” (your words), same goes for destroyers and cruisers. There are times when a strong, aggressive, well-armed unit is required immediately. Armor, Infantry, Air (rotor and fixed) Reconnaissance and artillery are all there right now. Now for the Marines being in SOCOM. We don’t need to be (IMHO). Our MEU’s are SOC and that will allow us to complete the mission that are assigned to us. It would be nice to be part of SOCOM but we don’t need to be. The money would be nice, and the recognition. It seems as if some missions are not available to us because we do not belong to “the right club”. Now I might be wrong but I feel as if many Marines feel the same as I do.

So… to summarize. The Marines do not need to be in SOCOM. We are a redundancy to the capabilities that are already provided (and very well) by the other branches. The Marine Corps provides the United States a mission capable unit that no other branch can provide. The SOCOM does not need the Marine Corps to “improve” they can simply increase the numbers and training of the current units

[QRQ 30]

For the “air force” comment, we need to control our own air support. The Air Force does not have the ability to provide the direct and immediate close air support that we require. We would need the Air Force to hold a nearby air base to provide fix wing support and then an Army base to provide the rotor wing support. That does not make any sense when we can do it our self. Now if they are available, I would never turn down their great support.

Don't you think the same could be said of the Army? Don't you think Navy aviators are as cabable of providing CAS for you as the USAF is for the Army?

The Marines, as all other services get caught up in the $$$$ game. I'm talking about the really high levels. I spent several months at the Khe Sahn Combat base and had all of the respect and sympathy for the marines. Here were superb offensive troops cooped up in a static defensive position.

Believe me, if the top level of the Corps could find a way to have a Dept of the Marines along with the other services they would.

[SgtUSMC8541]

Don't you think the same could be said of the Army? Don't you think Navy aviators are as capable of providing CAS for you as the USAF is for the Army?

Believe me, if the top level of the Corps could find a way to have a Dept of the Marines along with the other services they would.

First, Yes I feel that Navy aviators do a great job, and Air Force does a fine job. The issue is more that the Air Force needs an air field to fly from. It is nice to know that a Marine unit can throw down some metal plates and then you have a platform for Harriers and Cobras to fly from. The units that are helping with the tsunami victims right now… if they needed support right now, one call and Harrier attack aircraft and Cobras are hitting targets and LAV’s and Amtracs are rolling. CAS is what Marine Air crew train for. For a long war or a large precision strike, then the Air Force is the way to go..

Now for a Department of Marines. Yes it would be nice to put all those Navy jokes aside, but truthfully, I think being part of the Department of the Navy is a good thing.... and those in the top level would agree. The positives of being Dept of Navy over the negatives of being on our own... we need to stay Navy (Don't tell any Marines I said that)

Edited to add a comment about the Army air support. The Army generally works in much larger units and has more overall support than the Navy/Marine Corps team. The Air Force can then provide the over watch needed as well as the CAS. (Maybe the Army should look into providing it’s own attack air support. Army A-10’s, Army Harriers) My .02 and worth what you paid for them.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Here's what I think:
1. It is about money
2. The GWOT will be won by Spec Ops
3. Spec Ops in general is a very small piece of the money pie compared to the rest of the military and for the value added.
4. It is a mistake to get rid of any Spec Ops asset.
5. Can't we all just get along and kill terrorists?
6. I would suspect this is more a Navy "no" than an Army one.
7. If SOCOM is truly a joint command, the Jarheads should be included.
8. There are more than enough terrorists to keep everybody busy for the rest of our lives.

I say let 'em play. ;)

[QRQ 30]

Airborne!! NDD.

I just took a little exception to the comment about keeping the green although they were talking about $$$ not Army Green.

As for aviation I don't begrudge the jarheads from having aircraft. Its more a thing of wishing we had ours. Are there any army aviators of grund troops who wouldn't love foe us to have A-10s, harriers and maybe even get the A-1Es back? :cool:

I hear the zoomies are dropping the A-10s because they aren't sexy enough. Tell them to throw them into the army pile. :lifter

[Razor]

Here's what I think:...I say let 'em play. ;)

Aw, look who's getting all warm and fuzzy. :) Rodney was right--we CAN all just get along.

[Basenshukai]

My approach to this issue is more centered on the reality of what I see from my very limited and small role in the scheme of things. I good SF LTC - former battalion commander - told me the most enlightening relative comparison of all time: "CPT", he said, "if 'Big Army' had to make a decision tomorrow about whether to disband either 3rd SF Group, or the 3rd Infantry Division, 3rd SF Group would have to turn in their guidon to the Special Warfare Museum within 48 hours."

That statement has put a lot of things in perspective to me. For one thing, no, funds are not infinite. I can tell you that from personal experience, the conventional Army executing the very difficult duty in Iraq has largely acquired the same equipment that we have. In some cases, they have equipment we don't. Ranger slots that I had available to my platoon as a conventional Army lieutenant at the rate of about three per every eight to ten months are coming to us, a SOF unit, at a rate far below that (quite far, in fact).

If the MARDET 1 feels slighted by a feeling of irrelevance, they should join a long line of SOF units that feel the same way. I've spoken to quite a few SOF warriors that have developed their particular AO, surveyed and reconnoitered targets, and establish contacts just to get that target folder snatched away by one, of the other "units" in theater. Reason: Target proves to be of extreme importance.

There are SOF teams out there with the best secondary weapon that their service could buy and there are others with secondary weapons that keep breaking in specific areas due to age and to being used far beyond their designed tolerances - the way SOF units end up utilizing equipment because of their OPTEMPO.

There are SOF operators in one service, with a tremendous level of combat medical training that make far less proficiency pay than others, of the same rank and time in service, from another service, with generally less medical training.

The list can go on forever. In the end, what really matters is that the bad guys are getting two in the chest and one in the head. The problem is not what we do, but how. In the specific case of MARDET 1, part of the issue is, as someone else stated, "value added". If I can get 20 SEALs for the money I can spend on 5 MARDET 1 operators, and I get the same "value added", then ... I'm going to invest in 20 SEALs.

Strictly as an SF soldier, however, it is appalling to me that we are considering standing up a brand new unit when most teams are severely short in not only personnel, but certain specific equipment (and other basic resources). I'm sure that we are not the only SOF with this issue. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment as most of you are QPs with far more experience than me and have lived this.

[NousDefionsDoc]

1. There's no way I believe you can get 20 SEALs for the cost of 5 Marines.

2. I wouldn't consider a Det a brand new unit. Didn't they take the Marines out of existing stocks? They probably have new kit, but how much does that really cost? Maybe the equivilant of two General officer slots in The Maze?

3. I think if we have money to send cadets to CDQC for summer vacation - we should be able to find the money for a Det of Marine shooters.

4. I would rather have the Marine Det that the bureaucratic nonsense that is the Department of Homeland Security or the new Intelligence Czar position. Pull 80 FBI Legats home and spend their per diem on the Marine shooters. Hell, we could probably run that Det for a year on what it cost us for John Kerry to prance around the ME and Phrance on his last jaunt. The unpaid UN delegate parking tickets, the Martha Stewart trial and Ted Kennedy's government sponsored lunch time drinking bouts could all pay for it.

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

At the end of the day, if the powers that be had no intention of letting them run, they shouldn't have ever stood them up. It is criminal to play admin games with the dedication of shooters.

[Basenshukai]

1. There's no way I believe you can get 20 SEALs for the cost of 5 Marines.

2. I wouldn't consider a Det a brand new unit. Didn't they take the Marines out of existing stocks? They probably have new kit, but how much does that really cost? Maybe the equivilant of two General officer slots in The Maze?

3. I think if we have money to send cadets to CDQC for summer vacation - we should be able to find the money for a Det of Marine shooters.

4. I would rather have the Marine Det that the bureaucratic nonsense that is the Department of Homeland Security or the new Intelligence Czar position. Pull 80 FBI Legats home and spend their per diem on the Marine shooters. Hell, we could probably run that Det for a year on what it cost us for John Kerry to prance around the ME and Phrance on his last jaunt. The unpaid UN delegate parking tickets, the Martha Stewart trial and Ted Kennedy's government sponsored lunch time drinking bouts could all pay for it.

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

At the end of the day, if the powers that be had no intention of letting them run, they shouldn't have ever stood them up. It is criminal to play admin games with the dedication of shooters.

NDD,

1. My relative comparison was rhetorical in nature, not based on empirical knowledge. I haven't gone into researching training cost of man per unit. Don't have the time, nor the interest (much bigger fish to fry in my "kitchen" right now). In short, I was trying to make a point. I'll attempt a different method next time as mine was flawed.

2. MARDET is a new unit when you have to get them vehicles, equipment (their own, not USMCs, or the SEALs'), training grounds, logistics to support selection and training (as I assume that they won't continue to just pull Force Recons best and brightest from them as their only source of recruitment - I'm also assuming an OTC-type of scenario). I will include a support unit among other things. I understand that for now, they are sharing space with a SEAL team. Eventually, they are going to have to get their own "place". You know what? I think I need new pistols for my guys.

3. Cadets in CDQC ... I couldn't agree more with you on this one. I think is a waste of money spent on guys that might never use the skill just to get a badge. But, I really don't think that the "powers that be" have cadets in CDQC slots on the dry erase board while trying to figure this one out. Maybe they should, but, I don't think they do. If they do, then that's probably worth pistols I need ... maybe.

4. Theoretically, you are right. We could stop spending money on the Mars Rovers, or maybe the Space Shuttle program and establish the biggest, best equipped SOF unit on the planet. Heck, let's just disband the Marine, Army and Air Force bands and, of course, the 82d Airborne Choir while we are on a roll. But, those are not the things on the consideration list of the decision makers, unfortunately. Sad ... but true. Believe me, I know where you are coming from ... but, I still need those "pistols" and maybe, just maybe, more than a little over a fire-team worth of guys as a detachment. It sure would be nice.

PS - Maybe I'm over-protective of my own guys, but when I see this consideration of spending more on something that is not even "really on the books yet", I tend to think of my own guys and it makes me pause. Maybe a little selfish of me. For this, I apologize.

[NousDefionsDoc]

PS - They've been training experienced Operators for 18 months - lets put them on the books and give them a target. I understand about protecting your own guys - believe me I do. But we criticize the Agency and the FBI for not working together, let's set the example.

We're still buds, just discussing current events. No need to apologize. :)

[504PIR]

Just to throw a historical perspective on this. The USMC has done this to itself before. IE they formed the Marine Raider and the Parachute BN in WWII. Then disbanded them. For whatever reason, duplication of mission, ego(all Marines are elite), dislike of the Commander(Carlson). The joes put together some great units, got to play some, then went back to the rest of the Corp.

80's didn't want to be part of SOCOM. Did want to place Force-level assets under non-USMC control. Also "all Marines are an elite force".

In the 90's their Recon BN s were almost forced to become Lt Cavalry with combining with the LAV CO.s(?)

I think 2 of of the big reasons the Det was stood up...money and ego. The CoC wanted the SOCOM money and wanted a Marine presence in "Spec Ops'. Our jarheaded friends are pretty big on promoting the Corp as the "do-it-all" force. I have even been told by a Marine Plt Ldr, that ", a Marine Infantry platoon is the same as a Ranger plt,except they don't jump"....LMAO!

Thats just the way it is there. I have never been a jarhead, respect them, but thats kind of how I see it. We are fortunate that they have kept the Scout/Sniper program in place and the Force Recon bubbas are great dudes. But their CoC loves FR & S/S about as much as the conventional Army loves SF. The Corp wants to be THE CORP...and thats about it.

Just my .02

Going back to "lurk mode"

[NousDefionsDoc]

Corps, not Corp. Corp is what RL defends against The People. ;)

[STR8SHTR]

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

NDD you just made me feel warm and fuzzy. I didn't know that you had feelings.

[RAT]

Just to throw a historical perspective on this. The USMC has done this to itself before. IE they formed the Marine Raider and the Parachute BN in WWII. Then disbanded them. For whatever reason, duplication of mission, ego(all Marines are elite), dislike of the Commander(Carlson). The joes put together some great units, got to play some, then went back to the rest of the Corp.

504,

You are spot on. If one does not know, Carlson Raiders where the predecessors to the SEAL/s. There was still UDT/s but they formed a function on more of the lines of EOD today. The Raiders where the ones who did the commando missions and the very 1st trunk operations(Sub lock in and outs)

80's didn't want to be part of SOCOM. Did want to place Force-level assets under non-USMC control. Also "all Marines are an elite force".

This will haunt us forever.

In the 90's their Recon BN s were almost forced to become Lt Cavalry with combining with the LAV CO.s(?)

I think 2 of of the big reasons the Det was stood up...money and ego. The CoC wanted the SOCOM money and wanted a Marine presence in "Spec Ops'. Our jarheaded friends are pretty big on promoting the Corp as the "do-it-all" force. I have even been told by a Marine Plt Ldr, that ", a Marine Infantry platoon is the same as a Ranger plt,except they don't jump"....LMAO!

I don't think money was as big a deal as that Gen Jones was the Co of a Recon unit in the 80's ans wanted to play with SOCOM then. Now he was the boss and he had the right to let his boys play. Gen Jones was the only Commadant to be from the Recon community.

As for the Marine Infantry -V- Rangers. This will be a debate that will go on till the end of time. I do belive that it is Apples and Oranges. Both are great at what they do. Could a great Ranger be a great Marine (Yes.) Could a great Marine be a Great Ranger. (Yes) I know people who came from the Rangers to the Corps and did very well, I know Marines who went the the Batts and did very well. Great people ae great people no matter what shirt they wear.


We are fortunate that they have kept the Scout/Sniper program in place and the Force Recon bubbas are great dudes. But their CoC loves FR & S/S about as much as the conventional Army loves SF. The Corp wants to be THE CORP...and thats about it.

Like you said right now we are like by the CMC. CMC Jones was a RECON MARINE 1st and for most. Now Hagee or who ever the CMC is now is not a big RECON guy. As one Recon Bn CO told a buddy of mines Plt Sgt. "Recon is NOT a big deal. I have an H&S plt of Marines who can do the same job." Till we get commanders that understand Spec Op's the Corps will alway be lacking. MHO

RAT OUT!!!

[QRQ 30]

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

So true. I always said that if I had to lead an infantry squad or platoon I would just as soon it be Marines for the above reason.

You may find this hard tyo believe but these two incidents happened in SOG.
1. My 1-2 failed to bring his gear for a pre-insertion inspection. I always held one (by the numbers) due to the fact that people tend to leave "heavy shit" behind. I told him to go get his gear and he asked: "WHY" I relieved him on the spot and inserted a man short.
2.I had a SP4 1-2 with me on his first operation. As soon as we took a security brerak he took off his ruck and laid his weapon down and went to "smoke and Joke" with an indig. I told him to never separate from his weapon and equipment and he askes the magic word: "WHY". I swear the only reason I didn't shoot him on the spot was that I didn't have a supressed weapon at the time.

At Khe Sahn the jarheads were always begging loaded magazines from us. It seems that they went by the book and only were allowed a basic load of seven magazines. If you have ever seen them operate you would realize they almost always expended a full magazine at every danger crossing. 7 mags didn't last long.

When we were alerted to close KSCB the Jarheads were made to take their bayonets and slit and empty sand bags back into the trenchs. I never could understand that one. I know they didn't want to leave anything for Mr. Charles but there were easier ways to accomplish that..


Now when and if a marine survives to become a staff NCO his initial lobotomy, which was performed in boot camp has healed and Jarhead staff NCPOs are great people to know. :)

[SERPENT5XX]

Gentlemen,

First off I am a SF guy so I am sure this will be seen as biased by some of you. With that said I am interested first and foremost in winning the GWOT and I am for anything that gets us to that end.
I was OCONUS for months and was in a position that allowed me intimate visibility of all SOF and DET 1 Operations. I do not say this to impress you, I say this to illustrate that I understand their mission and what they provide to USSOCOM. Great troops, well trained, motivated, and well equipped shooters. (I love that pistol, sniper rifle and cool Mercedes truck). They are a great choice for focused DA/CQB ops. As are elements of SF, SEALs, some infantry and un-named others. That is the problem.
Here is the issue. In GWOT the number of trigger pullers, even ones capable of precision force is not really an issue. The issue is UW capable units. What we are short of are guys that can do the unique UW related things that SF guys can do. Obviously I will not get into specifics and cause the OPSEC ninjas to descend on my house, but basically the guys that can prosecute targets in GWOT far exceeds those that can produce the targets. Think of a pyramid. The capstone consists of target producers and the whole rest of the pyramid consists of target prosecutors waiting for targets to hit.
Why do you think we have not caught Bin Laden or the Z-man? Is it because we do not have any units able to apply precision force? No, the problem is we do not know where to apply that force. We need more targets, not the forces to hit them.
The bottom line is DET 1 does not bring anything to the USSOCOM table that they do not currently have or are even short of.
Just my observation.

SERPENT5XX

[GreenSalsa]

Dead on!

I believe if they (USMC) wanted to play in SOCOM, their best chance would have been to sell their "recon" abilities. We have a LOT of trigger pullers, not enough eyes to direct those triggers.

[504PIR]

Just to clairfy my post:

The whole Marine Infantry vs Rangers thing. Based on mission, assets, support & logistics I believe Marines are more comparable to Airborne Infantry than Rangers.

Both Abn Inf and MC are elite light infantry with a specialized "forced-entry" capibility. Both have a larger amount of support avalible to them (FA, Armor, ADA, Cmbt Eng as well as CAS & Naval Gunfire). Not that Rangers lack support at all.

Lets face it any of the 3 Ranger Bn gets more money for equipment & training than any Abn or MC Inf Bn. So stands to reason they "should" perform to a high standard.

Also in a Ranger Platoon all the NCOs and many of the E-4s are tabbed, as well as the "cool guy" schools Sniper/SOTIC, SERE, etc are in the skill sets of the platoon. Unfortunatly my jarhead friends tell me the Corps can be kinda stingy with $ for schools.

Ranger Regiment has more discretion with keeping or DXing its personal. When I was in Divison we had to work with a turd longer instead of just kicking him out. I suspect the MC is the same way.

A good Marine should make a good Ranger and vice versa. Hell I was smoked at Camp Darby by a RI wearing a "funny 8 cornered PC", think he called it a "cover".

When I had the conversation with the Marine Plt Ldr he was a obnoxious, know it all jerk. Unfortunatly the USMC does not have a monopoly on that type of officer. I did enjoy screwing with him though....

Not trying to beat up any unit, just my opinion. Be proud to have anybody who has worn a Tan/Black, Maroon or even that funny looking 8 cornered PC by my side in a fight.

Back to lurking

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/SCM.htm