View Full Version : SF numbers to increase?
Tue Jan 24, 1:15 AM ET
A new Pentagon review of U.S. defense strategy would add thousands of troops skilled in fighting terrorists and insurgents to the ranks of the elite Special Operations Forces, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
Citing U.S. officials and military analysts familiar with the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, the report said the plan would increase the number of Special Operations Forces to the highest level since the Vietnam War.
The strategy also would add billions of dollars to the budget of the U.S. Special Operations Command over the next five years, the report said, citing the officials and analysts who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The newspaper said one of the largest gains would be in Army Special Forces, or Green Berets, who operate in 12-member "A-teams."
The officials and analysts were cited as saying that the Special Forces would expand from 15 to 20 active-duty battalions, creating about 90 more A-teams (1,080 members) to deploy to regions considered vulnerable to terrorist or extremists influences, the newspaper reported.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to discuss details of the review but confirmed that bolstering Special Operations Forces was "a concept the QDR has identified as important," the newspaper said.
The QDR report will be sent to the White House and Congress in February.
A fouth battalion for some groups or stand up a retired group?
Retired group? I would think yes, more staff positions.
So if we bring back a retired group which one should it be? Why?
Pete
Who would vote 2 for the 5th, 1 each for the 3rd, 7th and 10th.
The Reaper
01-26-2006, 11:58
A fouth battalion for some groups or stand up a retired group?
Retired group? I would think yes, more staff positions.
So if we bring back a retired group which one should it be? Why?
Pete
Who would vote 2 for the 5th, 1 each for the 3rd, 7th and 10th.
Well, that is our current conventional force reorganization plan.
Take three maneuver brigades in a division, reapportion them into four smaller brigades, and claim 25% more brigades than before.:rolleyes:
They can make as many additional units as they want. Manning them, and moreover, with competent individuals is a completely different issue.
I was in a couple of Team Rooms this morning. Average deployable strength, eight SF soldiers.
Anyone on an ODA want to tell us how many you have assigned and available to deploy? PM me if you don't want to do it here.
TR
I still remember when Star Fleet came on line.
The Ra-Ra talks about all the numbers in the CMF and advancement.
As I dropped my rucksack in the team room so I could repack to go again I would count the Groups, Battalions, Companies and Teams on my fingers.
It didn't take much math to figure out that with all the new positions there was still the same number of A Team guys under the rucksack.
Sometimes I had a hard time seeing the "Big Picture".
Pete
Jack Moroney (RIP)
01-26-2006, 14:40
Sometimes I had a hard time seeing the "Big Picture".
Pete
I was hoping that when we started to grow officers within CMF18 that we would lose the idiot factor because it would be folks that knew our business that developed, fought for, and executed the "Big Picture" because they followed a logical progression thru normal career development as A-Team Ldrs, Company Cdrs, Bn Cdrs, Grp, Cdrs with an occassional staff slot as Ops officers, XOs, and joint SOF slots now and then. What happened? Why aren't the 18s standing up and being heard? Have we developed folks more interested in protecting their career than serving the troops?
The Reaper
01-26-2006, 14:52
I was hoping that when we started to grow officers within CMF18 that we would lose the idiot factor because it would be folks that knew our business that developed, fought for, and executed the "Big Picture" because they followed a logical progression thru normal career development as A-Team Ldrs, Company Cdrs, Bn Cdrs, Grp, Cdrs with an occassional staff slot as Ops officers, XOs, and joint SOF slots now and then. What happened? Why aren't the 18s standing up and being heard? Have we developed folks more interested in protecting their career than serving the troops?
The "don't ask me how, just tell me when it is done" mindset is pervasive.
The current leadership was not selected because they offered opposing opinions and objected when the Emperor modeled his new clothes. The SecDef himself has demanded that sort of obedience, I am sure that it has been reinforced at lower levels.
I think that the decision made by a senior SF commander to knuckle under and tell the guys to end the relaxed grooming standards proved that. The career and promotion is more important than doing the right thing. I am sure that they rationalize it by saying to themselves, well, at least I will be there next time to stand up for the boys.
It pains me to say it, but I can count the SF GOs I have known (1984-2005) who took care of the troops before themselves on one hand.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Jack Moroney (RIP)
01-26-2006, 14:58
The career and promotion is more important than doing the right thing.
TR
That is very sad. Seems that the leadership seems to have forgotten, or never understood, that the sole role for a leader in SF is to enable his troops to succeed, not himself. Damn, this is depressing.
The career and promotion is more important than doing the right thingsince i retired seven years after the creation of the branch, my perspective is somewhat limited...as a detachment commander, no one above me in the chain of command, from B-team commander to the JFK commander had A-team time, thus i always felt like i was pushing a wet noodle uphill against a steep wind regarding team issues...i always felt a branch was the way to go...but toward the end of my career, i began to feel like it wasn't so much an improvement in terms of mentality and experience but rather provided a path of advancement that had not previously existed...granted, this is a long, opinionated preface to a short question, but did things get any better, or is it still SSDD...?
I guess we can talk about leadership. OTOH I prefer to talk about the troops. There was much talk about dilution and decrease in standards during the Vietnam wae but that was, up til now, the Hey Day of SF and the "young, sub-standard, poorly trained" mostly first term SF troopers stepped up and passed the true test -- the test of fire - with flying colors.
Today's teams are mostly battle hardened and there is an abundance of NCOs and Officers chomping at the bit to have their own teams. Thinking of the split team concept, there are probably enough tested personnel to handle an influx of new people - maybe enough to double the force. When things settle down as they did post Vietnam, again, many of those who steped up to the plate will fade back into the sunset leaving those more suited for garrison life. I wasn't cut out to be a "garrot trooper" and retired with fifteen.
The Reaper
01-26-2006, 18:07
Terry:
I hear what you are saying, but you are trying to get twice as many SF soldiers out of a force 25% of the size of the Vietnam Era Army.
Not to detract anything from anyone, but the technical training requirements and language skills alone are significantly more difficult than even 20 years ago.
I was in during a lot of the complaints about lowering standards and they were not significantly changed during my tenure, but I think we have eliminated almost all of the "gatekeepers" and "tab protectors" and causes for failure other than lack of application.
They can double the number of Green Berets, but not the number of SF soldiers.
TR
They can double the number of Green Berets, but not the number of SF soldiers.
TR
Hell just tell china to make more :D
Reading the above posts it sounds like the ticket punching at command level hasn't stop since branch was implemented. The downside of having Gen Officers in SF is that you put more rungs in the ladder available for lateral transfer. This was one of hte problems with the early buildup and hte NCO ranks. A lot of guys wanted into SF just to get promoted. Thank God we weeded those out.
The problem is weeding out the 06 and above - they usually are politicians and good at hiding behind someone's skirt.
As far as increasing the size of SF, well it also depends on who volunteers. The first thing is a willing pool of qualified applicants. One obvious indication of this has been direct recruitment for SF, same thing happened in Vn era. The problem for the Army now is the same as it was then. The most obvious choice for recruitment is combat veterans from other army units. The problem is it depletes the Army of what it needs the most in those units - seasoned NCOs. So there is always a lot of Army resistance to this lateral recruitment - especially in big numbers.
Another thing that is a big factor for many of these NCOs is their family live. You have to admit that SF is not a good place for a dedicated family man. It is hard as hell on marriages and families. So a number of experienced NCOs in the regular army, who would be good SF men, will not join SF because of the family factor.
The other question is more ODAs or more staff. You can make the whole look bigger without ever increasing boots on the ground. This is something General Officers are good at- sleight of hand.
Welll guess we just have to see how reality plays out on this one. ...
a related question about the current SF structure that perhaps you experienced gentlemen can answer. i recently saw a report that indicated that the current size of the SF force is approx. 50,000. Of that 50,000 the report indicated that some 7,000 of those men are deployed throughout the world - boots on the ground as they say. What are the other 43k doing, exactly? I noted in the report (I'll have to dig up a copy - came from one of the news agencies) that the 7k deployed included SF folks training liaison forces. If 7k of the 50k are carrying the fight, then it would seem to me that increasing from 50k to 60k, as the media has suggested the numbers to be, isn't that necessary.
That being said, I recognize the Army understands the critical skills that SF soldiers bring to the battlefield (we saw this with the proposal earlier last year to transfer Langley's CA mission to SOCOM) and with the current tempo of operations, the use of SF in hotspots is likely to increase significantly. For this layman, however, i'm curious as to how the structure is currently setup.
The Reaper
01-27-2006, 12:30
a related question about the current SF structure that perhaps you experienced gentlemen can answer. i recently saw a report that indicated that the current size of the SF force is approx. 50,000. Of that 50,000 the report indicated that some 7,000 of those men are deployed throughout the world - boots on the ground as they say. What are the other 43k doing, exactly? I noted in the report (I'll have to dig up a copy - came from one of the news agencies) that the 7k deployed included SF folks training liaison forces. If 7k of the 50k are carrying the fight, then it would seem to me that increasing from 50k to 60k, as the media has suggested the numbers to be, isn't that necessary.
That being said, I recognize the Army understands the critical skills that SF soldiers bring to the battlefield (we saw this with the proposal earlier last year to transfer Langley's CA mission to SOCOM) and with the current tempo of operations, the use of SF in hotspots is likely to increase significantly. For this layman, however, i'm curious as to how the structure is currently setup.
There are nowhere near 50,000 SF.
You need to go back to the glossary (or your source) and review the difference between SOF and SF.
I would suspoect that there are more than 7,000 SOF personnel deployed on any given day as well, but can't speak for what the AFSOC, NAVSPECWARCOM, and MARSOC are up to.
In addition to SF, which is likely over 50% deployed on any particular day, the Army also counts as SOF the Rangers, PSYOP, CA, SOA, SOSCOM, and assorted classified units.
My beef is that virtually every time that you see SOF mentioned, even by SOCOM, they reference the maturity, experience, language training, area orientation, cultural attunement, etc. that really only apply to SF, PSYOP, and some CA units, NOT all of SOF (though some are trying to make small moves in that direction).
HTH.
TR
TR, that makes more sense. I can see where 50k would include Rangers, SEALS, etc. With that understanding, I can see why there would be a need to boost the SF numbers, particularly given the language capabilities and training. Should be interesting to see how the DOD goes about implementing the plus-up. regards
Scorpion6
02-15-2006, 10:42
I can only hope that in this call to increase SOF, that DOD doesnt lower standards. But from my sources actually in SF and NAVSOF they refuse to do that, which gives me hope that if and when i make that transfer from Psyop to SF i wont find myself surrounding by undeserving newbees. Because i can say without a doubt, that in the Army's call to increase this job by 33%, we have seen a decrease in experienced soldiers. I am surrounded by 75% of newly made psyop soldiers. and although this can be dealt with by hardened NCOs, the command has floundered in what is "PSYOP". i say thats great! increase psyop, the US is all about taking the enemy down, but now we realize we need to help these countries take care of themselves, and we can help with that. But i am fighting a battle under a command with no objective. we are just out there, as individuals under commands that think they know what it is we are supposed to do. So getting back to the discussion, its great to increase but i think it should be spawned from within, under each branches watchful eye. And not make the mistake of drastically decreasing our effectiviness to do the job RIGHT! by increasing numbers and letting the quality fall to the wayside.