18A Description
 

Special Forces Detachment Commander (18A). Commands or serves on the staff of Special Forces units. Serves in positions requiring general Special Forces experience or training. Serves as a Commander, Staff Officer, Advisor, Exchange Officer, Plans and Operations Officer, and service school instructor in positions requiring Special Forces experience or training. Conducts area studies of potential operational areas, acquiring detailed knowledge of their geography, economy, political structure, armed forces, and history. Develops and maintains foreign language capability. Plans, controls and executes foreign internal defense, strike operations, strategic reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, and other related special operations. Develops interpersonal and communicative skills to facilitate interaction with foreign officers, soldiers, and civilians.

Guys, that ain't the half of it.

Good luck!

TR

Re: 18A Description
 

I think that one part of what an 18A is/does that is missing from this discription is that he is(or better be) an integral part of the team. Before SF became a branch an officer assigned to SF was for the most part an outsider/guest to be tolerated by the other team members until he was vetted, accepted by his team members or expeditiously moved along to some slot where he was less of a hazard. Now an 18A is more of a stakeholder in the scheme of things and while he is still going to be tested by the team he has already validated that for the most part he is in this business for the right reasons.

I saw a lot of folks that just could not fit in and would never fit in because they just did not understand that they had a function (other than generator transport officer and turbulance tester) to fullfill as a member of a team that would work effectively without you but would work all the better with you. These were the folks that failed to realize that in SF you were a soldier first and an officer second. That the power vested in you as a team leader had less to do with the actual running of the team (which was and hopefully still is the role of the team sergeant) and more to do with enabling your team members to succeed by going to the wall for them to ensure that everything needed to accomplish the mission was available be it training time, equipment, money, valid mission statements, intelligence,etc.

There are other aspects that come to mind that vary with the capacity in which an 18A is serving and some serious shortcomings of the current expectations for 18As versus the experience level that they may or may not have before becoming branched SF. I'll leave all that alone and see what this generates.

Jack Moroney
Für die Sicherheit

Two excellent posts!!

Terry

My two cents -

As an SF Det CO, I found that there were three key parts to my job.

1. Interfacing with higher and providing guidance to the Team Sergeant/Team on the mission goals.

2. Staying out of the way/being part of the team in planning/executing actual missions (for those who don't get it, the Team plans the missions, not the CO... let them).

3. Betting your bar - being willing to go to bat for your troops and ensure that they didn't get in trouble with higher for unconventional ways of doing things or mischevious actions (with some good sense thrown in, and your own discipline when necessary).

From an NCO perspective Sir, I couldn't agree more. Branching SF officers is, IMO, something the Army got right.

Re: Re: 18A Description
 

All,
First I wanted to say thanks for the great thread. Curious about this statement though.

In speaking of shortcomings in expectations...does this fall on the too few or too many side of the house? Is this due to the type of assignments officers are initially placed in upon completion of school? Career progression through assignments?

:munchin

Re: Re: Re: 18A Description
 

This has to do primarily with the UW mission requirements for an 18A. While I fully support the branching of officers into 18, prior to that they moved back and forth between SF and non-SF assignments which, depending on their basic branch, provided an understanding and certain experience level in conventional assignments that are no longer available once a CPT becomes an 18A. Specifically, a SFODA is supposed to be able to be a force multiplier and organize, equip, train and lead a BN size force. Now in the days before the branch an Infantry CPT in many cases would have served as a company commander, primary staff officer at BN level, and perhaps at the Brigade level. This would have provided him with a better grasp of the organization and deployment of that BN level force, the interface with conventional forces during Phase III of an insurgency, and how to organize and train a guerrilla cadre to perform the functions expected of a BN. Taking this one step further, when that 18A takes over a SF company, either as a major or a senior captain, he now has the role of organizing and deploying an Area Command where he can have several subordinate SFODAs working for him and is essentially a Brigade Cdr running operations and dealing more with operational and strategic level efforts. Once again, as a senior captain or major with conventional time under his belt he more than likely would have gained some additional experience in Bn and Bde operations which would stand him in good stead in a UW role. The same is true for FID missions and more so in that you will normally be training, advising and assisting a host nation in their role to defeat insurgencies and if you have not had any experience in dealing with conventional forces you have a little more of a challenge than those that have had such an experience. Now that is not to say that 18As cannot do all of the above without having had the benefit of conventional time, but the learning curve is steeper. This is a broad generalization, but I have found throughout my time in dealing with some of my officers that there was a shortcoming that required additional training and attention.


Under the current system there are career progression and gate clearance problems for advancement in SF as an 18A which have not disappeared just because we now have a branch. If you take some time and review the mission requirements, again falling back on the UW mission which is the bread and butter of what we do, by the time a CPT gets to be just about to the point where he is really starting to contribute to the team he is moved off to staff or school. Most do not have the ability to really do justice to the requirements expected of them because they do not spend enough time in the slot. Team Leaders are often considered as continual guests on a team because no one on the team really expects that they are going to be there that long. That was one of the reasons for the 180A. I think most of us had hoped that with the creation of the branch that we would build and retain warriors as 18As, but SF as a branch also has Army wide requirements to meet such as ROTC, recruiters, instructors, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I know many of my contemporaries, given the chance, would have been more than happy to spend their entire careers on a team but the current military personnel management systems will not let that happen and in the case of good SF team leaders success means leaving behind that which they entered SF for in the first place. In other words, this is the perfect definition of no good deed goes unpunished.

To me, an SF officer has to develop many different skill sets most of which are perishable and require constant maintenance and effort. When you are confronted with other "officer" requirements and non-specific SF tasks there are few that are willling to maintain those skill and for many that do or attempt to fall out of favor with those that simply do not understand what is required or have other personal and career agendas. With the exception of the Training Group, those officers that worked for me had specific skill set requirements that I expected them to maintain that I felt were critical for the performance of the tasks that I expected them to perform. I am sure I was not unique in this.



Hope that answers your question. We can explore it further if you wish.

Jack Moroney

Sir,

Thank you for the response. It more than answered my questions and gave a few new things to think about/focus on.

I realize that the requirements to fill other than group jobs will always be there and that an officer will never be able to stay on a team forever. Do you feel that the ability to manage other than SF requirements and still maintain proficiency in one's chosen profession is what makes an an 18A stand out from the rest and why the Army seeks those officers for other positions? IMHO It would seem like, however, with increasing optempo and the ever increasing demand for Special Forces worldwide the Army would look at keeping those officers in group longer now not only for the experience but for continued unit cohesion through deployments.

Just my .02

Steve

Actually what sets good 18As apart from the rest of the Army is the same thing that sets 18s in general apart from the rest of the Army. I think I can best sum it up as total commitment to each other and the mission. You see, IMHO, you can only get total commitment from someone when those values that make him who he is as a person match those values ,like a target grid overlay, that make the organization to which he belongs what it is. While many folks come into the Army seeking a job, the SF soldier comes in seeking a profession. We have a lot of folks running around the military of all ranks that, while members of a professional military, are not truly professionals themselves. You can identify them because they punch a time clock and take every chance they can to put themselves and their needs before those of their organization and the folks in the organization. Unfortunately, most of these folks are officers who view their rank as providing them rights and priveledge without responsibility and will use the folks with whom they work as stepping stones for career advancement. As to the reason why "the Army" seeks any particular group of officers for filling positions, positions are filled because folks have demonstrated the potential to fill them and in the case of 18As that potential comes as a result not only from their efforts but in large part because of the extraordinary soldiers with whom they were priviledged to serve. You see, you cannot help but become a better soldier when you serve with the likes of the soldiers that fill the various specialities in the 18 career management field. I think the difference for 18As and the rest of the Army is that the good 18As that I know were soldiers first and officers second and when you work with other soldiers as a soldier and not as part of some officer caste, things get done a whole lot better than not.
Just my opinion.

Jack Moroney

18A
 

Jack and Greenhat hit the nail squarely.

I just want to add that the old system while it had its drawbacks, did field some damn fine leaders. The ones that truly excelled were thsoe that had the qualities that Jack mentioned and did whT Greenhat said - let the NCOs run the show and run interference for them with higher HQ.

Showing that you have TRUST in their abilities is the first sign of a Team that is coalessing and becoming a true working unit in every facet. The Team in turn reciprocates.

Re:
 

Ok, I'll admit, I'm a noob when it comes to knowledge involving the military, but I know for a fact I'm joining and for a fact that I wanna be an SF.
So please go easy on me!
I am currently 16, soon to be eagle scout, black belt, learning foreign languages.
What else can I be doing to ensure SF status?
I work out, and run, so I don't think I need to worry about the physical part.
What do any of you think that I could be doing or doing more of to help get to be an SF?
I will have my bachelors before I go into the Army, and I won't join unless it's going in as an officer, I understand that all too clearly with the 18A prereq's.
Again, I see any question that can help me get my green beret is not a stupid question, and if you see anything I said as stupid, please ignore the post and move on, I'm looking for advice not insults.
Insults being all I EVER get on here.
Thanks,
Nick West

Something you could do and help is to post in the correct forum... Insults are all you get eh? Maybe if you didn't post stupid questions you wouldn't be getting insults. Refer to what Team Sergeant said

Re:
 

I'm asking what I can do for the 18A MOS.
What other forum should I be posting in?!?!

Ok,
one,
I am no child, nor do I act, speak, or look like one.
two,
How is wanting to be an SF stupid? if you say my question is stuipd then you are saying that being an SF is stupid. Is that what you're trying to say?
three,
When recruiters do not respond to letters, goarmy.com is sketchy on what to do before joining, and I don't know any SF's in which I can ask these questions, WHO CAN I GO TO?!?! Tell me! Cause I really wanna know. Everyone who joined the military in any branch has been at my level and was in the need to know about what they were about to join, and the commitment they were making.
four,
I take great offense in being called a child, as I am only 2-4 years younger than most SF's in the field.
five,
when I am in the position that everyone currently in the armed forces has been in at one time, I think they should be understanding and have a little respect.
six,
nowhere in my comment did I mention sniping. I sure didn't see it. And even if I did, snipers are an integral role in the Army, wars are not fought with CQB alone.

If my questions are so stupid, tell me how they are stupid. I have heard no reasoning behind this. All I hear is that I'm stupid, my questions are stupid, I'm a child and no one wants to talk to me.
The Army isn't some secret society in which it's a closely guarded secret in joining. Why can't you people stop avoiding the question and answer me?
I'm growing sick and tired of this. I asked a fair, and relevant question about the 18A MOS. We're on the same side people! Why can't you just answer a few simple questions?
There's nothing hard nor childish about it, I'm sure you all were asking the same questions when it came to signing on.

THANKS,
Nick

OK, Mr. friend of Nick West !! You would best be advised to not post, but just read. If you wish to communicate with anyone, PM myself.

Thanks
Martin

The ball is really in your court. You have a pretty straight trail to follow. The physical fitness training will stand you in good stead and you need to shoot for exceeding all the physical fitness standards required for the 18-21 year age group. You will also need to be able to cover a great deal of distance with a 60 pound rucksack in a measured amount of time and this means that you need to get your body and feet accoustomed to doing that. You need to be able to swim. Get into college, get a commission, and get branched into the infantry. Complete airborne and ranger school and do well as an infantry officer seeking positions as a platoon leader and company commander at a minimum. After you are considered branch qualified apply for Special Forces Selection and Assessement. Now, having said all that go back and read through the begining of this thread and you will get a pretty good idea of the type of individual that we are looking for as an SF officer. I am curious, however, as to why you want to be an SF officer and not one of the NCO MOSs. If you are really into the nuts and bolts of being an SF soldier there are no better soldiers in anyone's military. There are very few SF officers that can really hold a candle to the skills and level of professionalism of the soldiers they are charged to lead. If I had a better understanding of what SF was all about and had the opportunity when I was a young troop I would have wanted to be either a SF medic or commo sergeant with the goal of becoming a team sergeant. You will find that as an SF officer you spend way to little time on a team and very few of us ever really get the opportunity to work at the team level for very long and that's what it is all about.

Jack Moroney

Thanks so much!
 

Thank you very much for your very detailed reply.
It is much appreciated.
From what you said, 18A doesn't really sound like the MOS I'm looking for.
18B more likely.
Thank you again,
Nick

If you won't join unless it is as an officer, then forget 18B (or anything other than 18A as far as SF is concerned). Take TR's recommendations and do your time as a platoon leader and company commander, then come to SF to be an 18A.

If you get over the "I only want to be an officer" thing then you will likely do better. I started as a private E-1, became a 18B weapons sergeant, did that for 7 years, then entered a commissioning program and I did my time in the not-so-special forces as platoon leader, XO, etc.

THE BEST OFFICERS WERE ENLISTED AND NCO's FIRST!!! If you have an attitude to the effect that you are too good to be anything but an officer then your first platoon sergeant is going to hand you your ass on a silver platter, and an attitude like that is likely to keep you out of SF. Keep in mind that SF is primarily an NCO organization and has little room for arrogant officers.

My suggestion - join up as a private (yes, a private) and earn your stripes. You may or may not go SF as an NCO, but you will at least learn how it is to be one of the troops. After a few years, go to OCS or some other commissioning program. You will make a much better Lieutenant if you have spent some time as a private, specialist/corporal, and sergeant. Once you make Captain you can consider becoming a SF Officer.

I disagree.

All commissioning sources commission good and bad Officers. I have seen my fair share of poor Mustangs and of excellent Mustangs.

Colonel Rowe was never enlisted.

For your benefit, I'll go line-by-line in your temper-tantrum post (yeah, that's basically what it was; admit it, start listening instead of pouting and ranting, and learn) to show you how at least one guy who's already done some of what you want to do.

Actually, you've said you're sixteen. To many folks here, you're still very much a child. Additionally, as I've already stated, this post of yours is the web version of a temper tantrum (I didn't get my way so I'm going to yell and insult people), which is a childish thing to do.

I'm betting Gits was referring to your earlier, multiple posts demanding information about sniping within SF, not becoming an SF soldier. You completely missed the farily obvious reference, again demonstrating a child-like attention to detail.

Just because we live in the information age doesn't mean that you will get every question you ask answered. Some information you will learn when its the right time and appropriate, no sooner. Then again, were I a recruiter and you demanded information of me as you've done here, I'd give you nothing, either. Respect is a two-way street. Further, I'm guessing you don't know everyone who has joined the military in any branch, so declaring that you know their abilities and can definitively compare your preparation to their's is absurd.

This only goes to display how little you really know about SF soldiers, despite your claimed research. The average age on my team was 33, more than twice your 16 years, so no, you are not only 2-4 years younger than most qualified SF soldiers currently serving. Again, to us, you still are (and certainly are acting like) a child.

Remember that little 'two-way street' comment? Also, understand we're not here to serve you. There are so many qualified SF candidates (especially in the officer ranks) that SF branch is turning people away. Whether you as an individual feel you are capable means nothing on the whole. If you want us to take the time to answer your questions, be respectful, use proper grammar (that whole attention to detail thing again) and ask well thought out, appropriate questions.

You asked about sniping in earlier threads the folks here deemed inappropriate, either in content or method of asking. We have pretty decent attention spans, and aren't easily fooled. Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes and expect not to be called on it. As for sniping, how do you know (besides what you've read in books) the role snipers play? There are folks here that were doing that job for decades before you were even born, so how about you leave the factual statements to them, and realize you don't know what you don't know.

If all you hear is that your questions are stupid, maybe you should wonder why that's what you're being told. You could say, "I've obviously come across here very poorly. I have some SF-related questions I'd like to ask and was wondering if someone could help me find the answers I'm seeking, if they're relevant to my goal of becoming an SF soldier." That's the adult way of recovering from your earlier faux pas, not getting all puffy-chested and trying to bully your way into a group of predators who see you as a snack rather than a threat.

Again, what do you really know about the Army? I'll answer that for you--very little. There are some things you don't (and won't) know, and its not up to you as to whether you'll learn them or not.

We can, if we choose to. Again, we're not here for your benefit, or at your beck and call. More respectful questions and far, far less demanding would serve you well right about now. Understand your operational environment (you may hear that one again in the distant future, if you can get your act together). If you're truly sick and tired of this forum, you're more than welcome to leave. In fact, you may leave whether you want to or not if you continue down your current road.

That may be true, but many of us tried to enter SF knowing little to nothing about it, simply did our best in an ambiguous environment (another 'you'll see this again' moment), and let those who knew infinitely more about the needs of SF decide whether we had the core requirements needed to become an SF soldier. You may think you need to know something, but in truth you very well may not. That is not up to you to decide. Demanding in the face of this reflects very poorly on your maturity, decision making ability and emotional stability. Think about that for a moment. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like one when you don't get your way. Now, you've already made a very poor impression on the people here that are qualified to answer your questions; you may want to back up, cool off, make some heartfelt apologies and try again with a bit more respect. Your fate here is in your hands.

Words of wisdom from several SF Officers who were kind enough to post very professional replies. Learn from their great advice.

BTW, the average age of my last Team was 34.

Drag the curve up did ya Doc?
:cool:

I agree - prior enlisted service does not make an excellent officer nor does lack of such service make a bad officer. However, it is my opinion (and opinion only) that the same person will make a better officer if they have the benefit of having served on the enlisted side.

In my opinion (again) those officers that look down at enlisted soldiers based on their exalted rank have no business being officers.

Yeah I did. :D

This part I agree with. I am not convinced that enlisted service automatically makes a better Officer, having seen too many Mustangs who could not recognize the difference in the role between NCOs and Officers.

This is an interesting gunfight but before we go comparing body part lengths we all are speaking from experiences that we have had. Now I will agree we all have seen officers that thought their rank had to do something with status, intelligence, height, looks, and divinity-especially in the early years of SF. From what I have seen from the sixties to the nineties, there has been a definite change, over all, for the better primarily because of the creation of the 18A MOS. That is not to say that we don't get our share of mental midgets and power freaks, but on the whole I think after an 18A comes to a team, regardless of source of commissioning, those who have delusions of grandure about themselves undergo an epiphany. From my experience team members will break him from sucking eggs in about a week and in those cases where that doesn't work the chain of command will resolve the problem. Now I cannot explain what happens when some folks suddenly get promoted and move on, perhaps it has to do with the infection some seem to get from the pins holding on their new rank.
Just my observation.

Jack Moroney

Snipe,

If you have any future questions about the process you would take to become an SF officer you can PM me and we can discuss it there. The process of course up until where I am currently at now.

Background on me. I was not prior service enlisted (although I have SF NCO's in my family that I could always turn to for input.) I entered college with the intent of becoming an Army Officer. I was commissioned as an Infantry LT and attended the schools that an infantry LT would need to attend. I did my platoon leader time in the 82nd Airborne and submitted my application to be selected for a chance to become a SF officer. I have recently finished Phase 1 Special Forces Assessment and Selection and was selected to continue my training. I am currently heading to Benning for the Captains Career Course and then return to start the Special Forces Qualification Course.

***Disclaimer*** I am not a Special Forces qualified 18A. I am merely in the process of achieving that goal. I can give you input on the steps you need to take to get to the same point that I am at now. I do not have the experience or the knowledge of the QP's on this board in the matters of SF. So please keep your questions related to the path you need to follow to get where I am at now.

That is if you are even still lurking in these parts after such a long time!

AF:

Snip3r was banned over a year ago, so I doubt it. Note the "Banned User" title under his name.

The high-school kid is a known wannabe and poser on several boards, BTW, and has been booted here with at least two different user IDs, usually within his first few posts. He has previously requested info on sniping, probably not a topic most HS kids should be collecting info on, nor are we going to provide him. He is a long way from becoming an 18A, and has some seriously mistaken ideas about what SF is and does.

TR

This one caught my eye, and if I may offer my $0.02

To the future 18As:
Learn and absorb from IC3 or whatever Captains Career Course you attend. Mounted infantry company tactics...you'll probably see it again....dismounted infantry company tactics...you'll probably see it again.
Those courses which you might choose to (or have already chosen to) blow off as "insignifcant" such as IPB or MDMP...I'd be willing to bet a beer or two that you will see it again.
That 'boring' lecture on fire support... "Logistics? Who needs to pay attention in that class by the loggie guy...I could be PTing" Keep thinking that... If you search through some of these threads, you will find some references to the pre-Branch days, when an SF officer served as a INF BN staff officer...probably a good reason. Think you only need to pay attention to the Company level planning? What is the role of an 18D besides giving you a bandaid ? What is the role of an 18C besides making things go boom?

The second piece of advice I would offer is this. Special Forces means special training in a special form of warfare...not special privilages. Everyone in the military receives special training, how many 18As know how to manually calculate a gunnery firing solutions? How many 18As know how to pilot a helicopter? How many 18As know how many 463-L pallets can be loaded in a C-130?

Lastly, sell SF. How can we help the other branches / services to do their job better, easier, faster, simpler?
How can we (SF) support them? We may be the "tip of the spear" but without the rest of the spear... Just like D.I.M.E, Military is only one part of the whole.

V/R,

I have read a lot on this site about the SF pipeline for enlisted guys going through the 18x program. I am currently in some ROTC classes and interested in the Army after graduation. I mentioned that SF was my goal to the NCO teaching my class. He recommended the officer corp to a guy with my educational background and thinks I would do quite well in it. He said if SF is my goal I can go for 18A. My question is what is the recommended pipeline for a guy in my situation if 18A is my goal? After getting a commission as an Infantry officer, on average how long is it before you are considered branch qualified and able to attend SFAS?

Hey Joe,
"Where you going with the gun in your hand?" - Hendrix...couldn't resist.

With your educational background...hope you got a couple of scholarships.
18A is the only option for SF officers. Recommended pipeline is to get you a combat arms branch, but not just combat arms, maneuver...ideally, Infantry. Second choice would be Armor...with Combat Engineer third (their secondary mission is Infantry).

Would recommend two years Platoon Leader time minimum. Will give you enough time to understand the basics of the Army before jumping into SF. Key will be staying in touch with the SF Branch Future Readiness Officer (the SF Officer Recruiter), to ensure you submit your SFAS packet as soon as your year group is eligible. Year groups are filling up quickly and he who hesitates is lost...but that's the job of an LT. ;)

Best of Luck,
JM

Oh, and fill out your profile...

Thanks for the information. I did have full academic scholarships for both my undergraduate and graduate schools. If not I would be in serious debt right now since that is 10 years of schooling to have to pay for. I enjoyed your book Get Selected. I have also thought about directly enlisting with an 18x contract but nearly everybody I talk to recommends I get a commission, and if I really want SF, to go for it after spending time as an Infantry officer. The other option is to go through the 18x pipeline and get on a team and then decide about a commission later on. I'm still debating all these options while gathering as much input as possible. Thanks again for your help.

Although it would be nice to to have an enlisted SF MOS, in your case, I'd recommend against it...

My perception is guys who go enlisted and went SF before becoming an SF Officer, don't enlist with that plan in mind. Perhaps they hadn't thought about going the Officer route before enlisting or perhaps they couldn't afford college. What ever the reason, it's a long road just to get MOS Qualified in SF, to then turn around and go to OCS, get branch qualified as an Officer, then have to REPEAT THE ENTIRE SFQC AS AN OFFICER...my goodness, lay that out on a timeline and you'll see how old you'll be before getting to an ODA as a Team Leader.

You're already 27. As a frame of reference, I took command of an ODA at 28 IIRC. The average age on my team was 32. Put both your plans/options on a time line and see where you'll be 5-10 years from now in training, experience and rank. If it's what you really want, so be it, but timeline them both out first and make it a deliberate decision.

JM

I agree. There are too many variables involved here. If you are set on going SF pick one path and follow it. Do not worry about what everyone else recommends, what do YOU want to do? I am a little concerned that the requisite qualification for becoming an officer by whomever seems to be advising you is that your "education" makes you suitable for a commission. Education from all sources provides skills but college education skills are but one very small sub-set of skill sets that can enable you to take on some of the facets involved in allowing you to exercise good judgement in leadership positions. College gives potential officers one advantage over others that enter the military and that is usually four more years to mature before entering their chosen profession-it has little to do with making good leaders of folks with poor leadership potential.

True enough....FWIW we have had a number of 18Xs with college degrees ranging from associates through masters degrees. I even know of at least one with a PhD.

It's a personal decision.

FYI - To add.

I know while I was a 18C Instructor, I had a TON of Associate and Bacherlor Degrees, while Master I would say off the top of my head. over two years at least 10-15, Phd we had 5-7 and I had two different Doctors that that stop their practice's then enlisted. Both NG and one went later to 18F course.


Well put by MW and Jack Moroney. Just like we tell anyone coming... Make a choice on your military caree.

My .02

Thanks for all the input. I have the possibility to get a commission through my university ROTC as a LT. They can accelerate the process partly due to my advanced degree but it was suggested to me that the Army would prefer me in branches like Engineering or Military Intelligence where my technical expertise can be utilized. They even commented on the need for physics professors at west point. The reason I would join the army would be to go into a combat branch and get a shot at SF. My concern is that the Army would do everything possible to discourage the SF route and move me towards MI or other non combat branches. I understand there are high standards in SF, but even if I was to meet these standards as a LT what is to keep the higher ranked officers from keeping me away from SF? The army is an 8 year commitment so I am trying to get as much information before making any decisions. Thanks again for all your help on this forum and I greatly appreciate everything you guys have done, and my main motivation for going SF is to be in the company of men like yourselves.

The Army will commission you based on your qualifications and the needs of the service. Once you are in the Army, while the needs of the service will still play a big part in your future, you have the ability to control your own destiny by the caliber of your service. Do the best at whatever you attempt and when that window arrives where you are eligible to apply for SFAS do so. There are no guarantees-only opportunities. Make sure you are ready when that opportunity presents itself.

If I may offer...YOU control your destiny. I was branched FA (not even on my list), was "discouraged" by commanders for wanting to go to the four letter course (SFAS), and was "singled out" upon completion of SFAS.
To echo what the COL said...Bottom line...the only one that will keep you away from SF is you. Easy ways to do it are to goof off as a 2LT (those OERs do count - if you are a AG guy...be the best damn AG guy the unit has) or to convince yourself that you will never go SF "because your commanders won't 'allow' it"...BS...don't self select yourself before you have even started.

- A couple of caveats...1) I went to SFAS before 9/11/01 events and the clamor for SOF. 2) At least one of my commander's did support my decision - so I was fortunate there (but no special privilages, i.e., I still had to perform my duties as a Field Artillery officer - prep for SFAS / SF was on my own time). 3) I do not mean the AG officer as a dig...I did go through the SFDOQC with a Chemical officer...who was Adjutant General Corps before Chem. I merely mention these as obstacles that a lot of officers face going the SF route. Not everyone is lucky enough to be branched Infantry and get two years PL time.

Just my $0.02, but I hope it helps.

V/R,

Dear Sirs

If you allow me to add my €.02 cent

By the myst of war-Gods I followed this step last ten past years (enlist / NcO / officer). After a military duty as squad leader on Scout platoon for two years I decided to enlist in SOF unit as private. Army central human ressources center denied at the fisrt step my attempt because I have had the chance to go to the university and the master would allowed me to have a place as SF officer.

At this time I thought that a good officer we're ought to be private or Nco at least in order to be a good leader ( if the concept of "good leader" does exist...). Some words have been found to convince Paris to let me enlist as private.
After our kind of SFAS for private ( 7 months ) My coy commander told me that I was selected for the NCO training course despite the fact that 6 months before I was told "too old to attend this course". After our NCO SFAS I was a kind of 18B.
Near to ten years after being a private I have the honor to be in charge of an ODA.
IMO we can't afford to have all SF officers from the rank (this could be my best wish :-) ) as we shouldn't have all SF officers from other branch.

Our officer system is quite different from yours.
In our officer training course, West Point officers are allowed to choose SF commitment at their fist appointment at he end of the branch school. They don't spend time in Infantry or other branchs. May be the split between the young and fresh leaders and more seasoned ones is wider open than in United States. And our officer SFAS is a true joke in front of yours.

We will always find officers who want to have a long and glorious way to the stars and others who will do anything for their operators (no matter their original branch).

There is a way between those both exemples. The origin doesn'tcount. This is the melt of the different experiences who could be important. You know better than I that SF operators are force multipliers and officers (IMHO) are just there to make them the job done anywhere, anytime, and if possible not anyhow.

Sorry for the english

What 18A should emulate.
 

Gents,
I am rather new to the site, been doing a lot of browsing etc.
One thing I have not seen is a lot of reading material or examples of 18A that an officer should look up to and even study their exploits just to know them, plus the history and pride behind being a 18A.
I personally met COL Bob when I was a 20 y/o Buck Sergeant downrange. Additionally from all his great advice and knowledge on this site I have read up on COL Jack.
COL (R) Robert L. Howard (Deceased) *RIP*
COL (R) Jack Moroney (Deceased) *RIP*
Could some of you QP drop some unclassified Bio on anyone else that stands as a shiny example for us Os to follow.
*I understand this an odd request, just I am a history buff. I am really an internally motivated gent, but this stuff also motivates me to run that extra mile or put on that extra plate.