The SAS: a very special force

[Divemaster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ial-force.html

[Dusty]

Certainly, as we prepare to tackle the wars of the future, it is clear we need more investment in our special forces, not ill-judged budget cuts. For, as George Orwell memorably remarked, “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

[Chairborne64]

Actually, the cut in the U.S. Army is going to be a big challenge to SF. As the recruiting pool goes down it will be very hard to maintain all the force structure that we have grown (all those 4th battalions). I am sure all of us old timers remeber the "ghost" 6 team in each company after the Gulf War.

[Badger52]

Special forces face big cuts in support network
The support network for Britain’s special forces is facing major cutbacks with around 600 posts earmarked to be lost in a reorganisation to coincide with the military pull-out from Afghanistan.

LINK to a follow-up

Notable to me from the original article:

As one senior Army officer comments: “If you cut the strength of the Army any further, then you reduce the recruiting pool from which the special forces draw their recruits. You then have a situation where you either cut the size of the special forces, or drop the training bar, which would severely reduce their effectiveness.”

I guess the age old "less is more" doesn't always cut it...

[MR2]

And that prostitute down in Argentina is just waiting for them to make those cuts.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Special forces face big cuts in support network
The support network for Britain’s special forces is facing major cutbacks with around 600 posts earmarked to be lost in a reorganisation to coincide with the military pull-out from Afghanistan.

LINK to a follow-up

Notable to me from the original article:

How does he think we graduated 850 students per year (from a low of 250 just a few years before) while the regular Army had very limited strength increase?

That bar can be set very low, as we see from time to time.

TR

[medic&commo]

You paying attention, Barack Hussein Obama?

It been suggested that BHO would like nothing better than to see the "nation playing field" be leveled, in relation to America's standing in the hierarchy.

Perhaps this is just another way of chipping away at super-power status.
m&c

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by medic&commo

It been suggested that BHO would like nothing better than to see the "nation playing field" be leveled, in relation to America's standing in the hierarchy.

Perhaps this is just another way of chipping away at super-power status.
m&c

Exactly. Spread the wealth.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Hell, I remember all of the "nonexistent" platoons in the regular army after the Gulf War.

The vast majority of my active duty time was spent serving as infantry. MOS 63T...

Perhaps we should be like the Muh-reens and pridefully do more with less.

Old quote from the 70s:

"We have been doing so much, with so little, for so long; that they now expect us to do everything, with nothing, forever."

Have that on a wall plaque from 72.

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Old quote from the 70s:

"We have been doing so much, with so little, for so long; that they now expect us to do everything, with nothing, forever."

Have that on a wall plaque from 72.

I was just looking at the US Army total headcount in 1970 and 1975.

Looks like approx a 40%+ headcount reduction.

Which I assume would have had considerable impact on specialist unit recruitment from a big picture gross numbers pump in/pump out perspective.

I don't know the difference in specialist unit headcount ratios from 1970 to 1975 nor now, but I can imagine the strain on producing qualified specialist personnel would have been immense, and indicates some potential challenges in the period ahead.

No offense to the old school fellas, but I would think the additional skillsets that keep getting layered on top over the years that lengthen the "manufacturing pipeline" adds a further headwind to gaining, or even just maintaining, capability.

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Old quote from the 70s:

"We have been doing so much, with so little, for so long; that they now expect us to do everything, with nothing, forever."

So true and will be come a fact very shortly. Ghost teams will be back shortly too.

[longrange1947]

Flagg, during that time, teams were manned at 5 to 8 instead of 12, I was one of 2 qualified medics in the company in 74, that was a lot of field trips, and teams were at 4 or 5 per company mostly 4. You could have as few a 20 to 40 team members in a company with 40 being very rare.

That saying was true in the early 70s and will return soon enough. There is always that pesky "Peace Dividend" that liberals love to talk about. While they find nothing wrong with making a soldier pay out of state tuition, but give illegal aliens in state.

Sorry, off topic. Rant off.

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Flagg, during that time, teams were manned at 5 to 8 instead of 12, I was one of 2 qualified medics in the company in 74, that was a lot of field trips, and teams were at 4 or 5 per company mostly 4. You could have as few a 20 to 40 team members in a company with 40 being very rare.

That saying was true in the early 70s and will return soon enough. There is always that pesky "Peace Dividend" that liberals love to talk about. While they find nothing wrong with making a soldier pay out of state tuition, but give illegal aliens in state.

Sorry, off topic. Rant off.

Jeez!

Understrength and overworked.

I would imagine that if the tempo of "peacetime" domestic/foreign travel didn't drop proportionally then the smaller number of fellas left in started running into some serious quality of family life issues....which I'm guessing would ultimately further magnify the problem until remedied.

Maybe another cautionary tale.

A capability expensive in terms of lives and national treasure to create, but "bang for buck" inexpensive to maintain, allowed to turn to dust.

[35NCO]

How does a drawdown effect the recruiting of quality soldiers? My thought process is that it IS an Army problem in having a large pool of quality soldiers for SF and SMU's to draw from. I think its good that the problem is currently being addressed.

I can see how to each of us that our view and perspectives of the quality of soldiers under the current force may differ vastly. From my experience in the field of Intel, there are few and rarely any that have the skills or qualities of what is to be expected of even the most basic soldier. A powerful statement, yes, but believe me, I have the stories to back that up over the years.

In a number of instances I have questioned how so many soldiers of many ranks from the lowest private to field grade officers and CSM's have managed to stay in the Army at all. Respectively, to each of them, for their blatantly evident shortfalls. This is my opinion of course and I recognize I am not perfect either. I see this problem of a lack of even minimal skills, as a cross section of the Army from the perspective of the branch to which I serve. This means to me this problem is likely not just secluded to my branch and is frighteningly an Army wide problem.

What I mean by all of this is that if the Army wants to look at the definition of a Soldier and retain only the best, brightest and strongest to a reasonable standard of combat readiness, would this not improve the pool of recruits to draw from?

To me the idea makes sense. A smaller but significantly more competent force in the Army seems more useful. A surgical necessity in fact, for the Asymmetrical threats of a modern world. With less money wasted on those skating by, there should be more of the budget available for those units in critical areas.

Of course this is all in a perfect leadership scenario of whom and how each level of necessity is defined. If the concept does not fail in implementation and execution of orders, I would support the smaller force on those terms. That in the end, I believe would help support better soldiers suited for SF and SMU recruitment.

To disclaim, no, I am not SF nor have I ever claimed to be. I am not trying to impose or imply that I would know what is best for SF or any of our SMU’s. My point of view is that my draw and fascination to SF or any other SMU is not because of the “Special” factor. To me, the types of personalities of SF and SMU’s alike should be a model for the entire force. A level of common sense leadership and professionalism that is difficult to find in the common conventional force. Please take no offense to this and understand my meaning, but to me, the only normal soldiers in the Army ARE SF.