The spec ops stretch

Surf n Turf · 10-16-2006, 21:22

Interesting Read

The spec ops stretch
Expansion plans leave many in Army Special Forces uneasy
By Sean D. Naylor
The impending expansion of Army special operations forces laid out in this year's Quadrennial Defense Review is spreading waves of unease throughout the Special Forces community.

The 10,000 soldiers in the Army's five active and two National Guard Special Forces groups make up the largest component of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCom) and are the U.S.' pre-eminent exponents of unconventional warfare (working with guerrilla groups to overthrow an enemy regime) and foreign internal defense (training friendly governments to defend themselves against insurgencies). But many SF officers feel that U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) has left them in the dark about how it plans to deliver on the QDR's promise to expand the number of SF battalions by a third over the next several years. They are deeply concerned that, despite the generals' protestations to the contrary, a rushed expansion of Army special operations forces will result in an SF contingent that, while bigger on paper, will contain half-filled units manned by troops who are less mature, less experienced and less skilled in languages and foreign cultures than SF soldiers traditionally have been.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/10/2174369

SnT

**The Reaper** · 10-16-2006, 22:53

Helluva article.

Sean Naylor just stated much more eloquently many of the points I have been making for a while.

Not too much there I would disagree with.

TR

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 10-17-2006, 05:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Not too much there I would disagree with.TR

I agree, but who is listening and where is the chain of command's indorsement for this? This shouldn't be a BFO from Sean Naylor but a position paper by USSOCOM indorsed by all the component commanders.

And I love this quote:But many SF officers feel that U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) has left them in the dark about how it plans to deliver on the QDR's promise to expand the number of SF battalions by a third over the next several years. They are deeply concerned that, despite the generals' protestations to the contrary, a rushed expansion of Army special operations forces will result in an SF contingent that, while bigger on paper, will contain half-filled units manned by troops who are less mature, less experienced and less skilled in languages and foreign cultures than SF soldiers traditionally have been.

If they are so damned concerned who are they, where are they, and why aren't they standing on top of their bosses desks. It's time to stand up and be counted and stop placing your career ahead of your men. This crap about some "group commander having to take a brick and make it fly" shows the cut off point between the managers and the leaders. This is command negligence.

x SF med · 10-17-2006, 06:49

One point that has not been voiced in this article, or in my other research is taking older FOGs (like myself, and a few others on the board) to the Company HQ, Bn HQ, and Grp HQ levels, freeing up the NCOs that have been 'snaked' from teams. We all know the mission, have the Qualifications, and have passed the Clearance fiasco, We may not be as physically able to as the kids to be 'on the ground' but we know enough and care enough to make sure the support, intel and commo are what they need to accomplish their missions.

Just a thought.

Five-O · 10-17-2006, 06:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

It's time to stand up and be counted and stop placing your career ahead of your men.

Sir, its a rare breed that does this...hopefully not in SF as well.

CoLawman · 10-17-2006, 08:19

Sean Naylor took SecDef to task in his book "Not a Good Day to Die". Most of the issues Naylor addressed in the book involved the SecDef's micromanaging of the mission in Astan. Now this article seems to be (again) directing the reader to the top of the heap.........SecDef.

It is awful difficult, and takes a special person, to sacrifice one's career by butting heads with the SecDef. I would assume that alot of the top military brass have taken a stance that keeping one's mouth shut at least allows them to stay in the fight.

It seems to this layman that the SecDef is the epitome of micromanagers! It further seems to me that he is McNamara reincarnated!

If Naylor's credibility is not questioned then it is time for the SecDef to move to a retirement home.

Guy · 10-17-2006, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by x_sf_med

One point that has not been voiced in this article, or in my other research is taking older FOGs (like myself, and a few others on the board) to the Company HQ, Bn HQ, and Grp HQ levels, freeing up the NCOs that have been 'snaked' from teams. We all know the mission, have the Qualifications, and have passed the Clearance fiasco, We may not be as physically able to as the kids to be 'on the ground' but we know enough and care enough to make sure the support, intel and commo are what they need to accomplish their missions.

Just a thought.

Till this day, I can not for the life in me, figure out why? They won't recall you FOGs....

Stay safe.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 10-17-2006, 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

It is awful difficult, and takes a special person, to sacrifice one's career by butting heads with the SecDef. .

Well actually isn't that what leadership is all about? It doesn't matter whether it is the SECDEF or the next individual above you in the chain of command. You have an obligation to your mission and your men to stand your ground and confront the issue head on. A Platoon leader who knows that an order is going to get his men killed and does not stand before the Company Commander and state his piece is wrong. If the order stands, then the only other option is to lead the platoon from the front and take the first round. Unfortunately this is not the case because the point of departure here is sacrifice of your career or the sacrifice of the men who are depending on you to do the right thing. People at the decision making level that are driving the show are not going to hear the first shot fired that is going to take out the first troop and it is hard for me to accept that anyone watching the battle unfold on HDTV shot from a drone can feel the agony of the guy on the ground if he did not have the balls to ensure that he did all he could to provide him with the right tools and mix of folks required to do the job. It doesn't take a special kind of person to do that it is expected of any commander who is supposed to look to his troops and his mission but then, for the most part, I will agree with you that it takes a special kind of person that builds his career at the expense of his subordinates regardless of the cost. Let me end this before I get wound up. Rant over.

**Team Sergeant** · 10-17-2006, 11:30

In all my years I've never actually seen a twelve man A-Team. While I'm sure our Commanders had a few (on paper) I've never seen one standing in one place at one time.
Fact: There are not enough men that actually desire to do what we do with the raw talent we require period.
The only possible way to enlarge the Army Special Forces is to reduce the requirements and to lower our standards. This has been done before to fill our ranks. (We’re still recruiting off the streets, allowing privates to attempt SFAS, I don't know about the officer side of the house. That should enlighten most intelligent individuals we CANNOT currently fill our ranks.)
The only way the US military could enlarge the Army Special Forces is to lower the standards to such a level that anyone just wishing to could earn the Green Beret.

If we dilute the Army Special Forces to the point we no longer intimidate or put the fear of allah into today's global terrorists IMO we will cease to be an extremely effective fighting force. What's worse it will cause high-quality men to leave and good men not to join.

Team Sergeant

**The Reaper** · 10-17-2006, 11:54

Agreed. The smart thing to do would have been to try and stand up another Group oriented on the CENTCOM AOR, not to add force structure to every SFG out there.

Or we could look at bringing another two Guard SFGs on line, which might be easier.

The decision to bring in 18Xs was a good one. Once the program started producing results, it seems to me that it was turned into a stampede to get more kids of lower quality into the program.

If as my boss, you tell me that my goal as a training unit commander is to give you 750 SF soldiers, great, I can just throw away the standards and draw the line at 750. Everyone above that line, report to the CIF and draw your Tabs and Green Berets. I know that it is not quite that simple, but that is the net result. When you give people numbers for goals, rather than asking for everyone who can make the standards, and the cadre's success is based upon that, too many will do just what you asked for. Meet the numbers, regardless of quality or standards.

As noted before, the leadership at USASOC is not oriented on SF, despite the fact that SF is the largest component of USASOC and SOCOM. Two ways to tell how you stand within an organization. The origin of the leadership and where the money goes. The SOCOM CG is an aviator with an SF Tab and a Ranger Tab, not really an SF soldier for a very long time. The USASOC CG and CSM are both Rangers. The JSOC CG is a Ranger. SOCOM has not had an actual SF CG since MG Joe Lutz stood it up. All of the past USASFC CGs I can recall other than the current one and his predecessor have ended their careers without hitting four stars or a SOF three star command. Four of the the previous five SWCS CGs (the senior SF two-star position) have retired, the other is serving out his career as a non-promotable three-star in Purgatory. Where is SF in charge beyond that? The previous USASOC CG was our best shot at a four-star SF soldier and he retired out of the job.

Where do you think the money is going? SF as the largest component with the preponderance of missions and boots on the ground gets a tiny portion of the SOF funding. An SFOD-A with more missions and a lot less support dedicated to it, has less and (lower quality) night vision than a Ranger infantry platoon. The majority of SOCOM's money goes to infil platforms (dedicated almost exclusively to Black units) and the black units themselves. What do you think the priority is?

I fear that this will only get worse as the Army continues to put a glass ceiling on real SF officers who have been working in their MOS for their careers. That virtually guarantees that the leadership and those making money decisions will only see to SF AFTER the other units have been fully resourced.

We got the job done and the good press, the politicians gave the resources to SOF, and the SOF leadership failed to do their duty to put the money where their mouths were.

My apologies for the rant.

TR

x SF med · 10-17-2006, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy

Till this day, I can not for the life in me, figure out why? They won't recall you FOGs....

Stay safe.

I wouldn't bitch too loud or long - as long as I was a DA civilian or brought back at a decent rank that takes into account the education and business experience to help run whichever B, C, or D I was assigned to. My knees are fried, but my brain still works most days.

TR-
Rant away, I don't think you'll get too much push back from the SF guys here, especially since you're giving the truth, from experience.

tag0885 · 10-17-2006, 12:59

(opinion from an outsider) the SEALs have been able to recruit straight from the civilian world with success and without a drop in quality. I think we should take a page from their book and perhaps set up a prep program for the 18x contract, such as the SEAL's RDAC. It appears that this will be the Army's way of trying to fill their need, with a national prep program that is successful we will be able to better evaluate/prepare those coming in. There are good candidates out there, you just have to go get them. You guys could also bring back SOPC (i believe that was the name of it), which along with a prep program would seriously bolster the quality of candidates.
What I said above will help better prepare those already wanting to come to SF, the other step needed is to appeal to more people. The Army could spend more money advertising to get the SF name out there and into the heads of the people. (I have read stories of SEALs going to marathons and other extreme competitions to try and recruit)This will get SF more recognition, but as long as it is "The Army" promoting it, SF will easily be able to keep its "quiet professional" motto true to form. (which is another recruiting advantage point) Like I said, these are just opinions from someone not in the military. The problem is that all this requires money, it will show how badly the Army truly wants to have qualified SF soldiers downrange.

82ndtrooper · 10-17-2006, 13:05

I guess they forgot SOF Truth # 4 ??

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 10-17-2006, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by tag0885

(opinion from an outsider)

Your opinion, while welcome, shows a total lack of understanding between SEALS and SF. If all we needed was folks that could swim and do push-ups we could recruit water ballet stars with no-necks. I would suggest that you do a little more reading about what we do and what is required before you spend any more time exploiting your marketing and recruiting skills to draw folks into SF. We are not about making corn flakes. It is not the lack of interest in SF, it is the lack of those qualified to meet the requirements for SF. To quote a line from an old CW song, "If wishes were horses then beggars would ride"!

**The Reaper** · 10-17-2006, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by tag0885

(opinion from an outsider) the SEALs have been able to recruit straight from the civilian world with success and without a drop in quality. I think we should take a page from their book and perhaps set up a prep program for the 18x contract, such as the SEAL's RDAC. It appears that this will be the Army's way of trying to fill their need, with a national prep program that is successful we will be able to better evaluate/prepare those coming in. There are good candidates out there, you just have to go get them. You guys could also bring back SOPC (i believe that was the name of it), which along with a prep program would seriously bolster the quality of candidates.
What I said above will help better prepare those already wanting to come to SF, the other step needed is to appeal to more people. The Army could spend more money advertising to get the SF name out there and into the heads of the people. (I have read stories of SEALs going to marathons and other extreme competitions to try and recruit)This will get SF more recognition, but as long as it is "The Army" promoting it, SF will easily be able to keep its "quiet professional" motto true to form. (which is another recruiting advantage point) Like I said, these are just opinions from someone not in the military. The problem is that all this requires money, it will show how badly the Army truly wants to have qualified SF soldiers downrange.

tag:

Not sure what your background is from the info in your profile.

The SEALs are looking for a different type of recruit, strong of back and totally dedicated to the mission. They do not really do UW or FID, or speak the required languages, so their needs are different from ours. We might find some very fit and smart 18 year olds, but we are not going to find very many mature people of that age.

You do not appear to understand the SF prep process. SOPC is not gone, it just changed names. Besides, the people with the dedication and maturity we want will prep themselves, they do not need someone to hold their hands and make them ruck long and hard. The sort of people that we want have generally tended to self-motivate and those who did not were not really the sort of people we were looking for. Those who would be influenced by a flashy ad campaign and not by the SF soldiers making the news are not the ones we want either.

It is not a lack of those who want the beret so much as it is a lack of those who are winning (and able) to pay the price of admission. If we took everybody, the tab wouldn't read "Special Forces", it would be "Average Forces".

Just a friendly heads up, you might do some more reading before jumping in with both feet.

Welcome aboard.

Rats, the Colonel beat me to the punch, as usual.

TR