Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

06-01-2007, 13:55

[QUOTE=jatx]

The individuals whom SF will be most interested in in those places will not be weighing a career in SF versus one in the infantry as an E4, they will be weighing it against other opportunities providing challenge and an opportunity for impact. I.e., Special Forces vs. FBI/CIA vs. State's FSO program vs. Peace Corps vs. grad/professional school vs. Capitol Hill, etc.. Changing the fallback MOS policy would go a long way towards neutralizing common objections and increasing the pool of candidates, assuming that the change was accompanied by an active recruiting strategy (as opposed to the passive approach taken now).

I'm not SF, but I do not think the branch wants to attract people that are concentrating more on their fallback plan than the task or goal at hand. I doubt too many people approach the Directorate of Operations with a fall back plan to go to graduate school, and approach the DI if they fail to meet the standard of the courses provided for their training curriculum. However, I do love The Reaper's and Magician's idea of bringing back the Lodge act. But, I think it would be very hard to vet Arabs who wanted such positions, and it would possibly be better to recruit Sephardi Jews or others of Middle Eastern descent who had a thorough knowledge of Arabic, and the Muslim culture.

SF should also use dedicated recruiters. An SF recruit should never encounter the Big Army until they visit MEPS. The sad truth is that Army recruiters give a very poor impression of the institution, are poorly informed about the SF option, and are often dishonest and encourage dishonesty. They compare very poorly to the other recruiters interacting with the individuals in question. I suggest that retired SF personnel be hired as contractors to fill this crucial role.

Again, does the Special Forces really want someone who can be so easily dissuaded by small amount of adversity? It's like suggesting college registration is too difficult, and as such we're losing a lot of quality students who cannot navigate the college experience on their own. Not really. If you cannot figure out how to register, or to research it is unlikely that you are college material anyway, and I think Special Forces is the same way; if not more so. If you're not self-reliant enough to figure out how to embark on a career in Special Forces, and you're attending an Ivy League school it speaks volumes about your competence as an academic and a person. The suggestion that we should coddle these high quality candidates is only a reflection of their sense of entitlement. I, for one, cannot think of a more difficult or rewarding career than that of the Special Forces, and I think the Peace Corps volunteer would hardly be missed in the presence of such great men.

06-01-2007, 13:55	#10
huzza Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE=jatx] The individuals whom SF will be most interested in in those places will not be weighing a career in SF versus one in the infantry as an E4, they will be weighing it against other opportunities providing challenge and an opportunity for impact. I.e., Special Forces vs. FBI/CIA vs. State's FSO program vs. Peace Corps vs. grad/professional school vs. Capitol Hill, etc.. Changing the fallback MOS policy would go a long way towards neutralizing common objections and increasing the pool of candidates, assuming that the change was accompanied by an active recruiting strategy (as opposed to the passive approach taken now). I'm not SF, but I do not think the branch wants to attract people that are concentrating more on their fallback plan than the task or goal at hand. I doubt too many people approach the Directorate of Operations with a fall back plan to go to graduate school, and approach the DI if they fail to meet the standard of the courses provided for their training curriculum. However, I do love The Reaper's and Magician's idea of bringing back the Lodge act. But, I think it would be very hard to vet Arabs who wanted such positions, and it would possibly be better to recruit Sephardi Jews or others of Middle Eastern descent who had a thorough knowledge of Arabic, and the Muslim culture. SF should also use dedicated recruiters. An SF recruit should never encounter the Big Army until they visit MEPS. The sad truth is that Army recruiters give a very poor impression of the institution, are poorly informed about the SF option, and are often dishonest and encourage dishonesty. They compare very poorly to the other recruiters interacting with the individuals in question. I suggest that retired SF personnel be hired as contractors to fill this crucial role. Again, does the Special Forces really want someone who can be so easily dissuaded by small amount of adversity? It's like suggesting college registration is too difficult, and as such we're losing a lot of quality students who cannot navigate the college experience on their own. Not really. If you cannot figure out how to register, or to research it is unlikely that you are college material anyway, and I think Special Forces is the same way; if not more so. If you're not self-reliant enough to figure out how to embark on a career in Special Forces, and you're attending an Ivy League school it speaks volumes about your competence as an academic and a person. The suggestion that we should coddle these high quality candidates is only a reflection of their sense of entitlement. I, for one, cannot think of a more difficult or rewarding career than that of the Special Forces, and I think the Peace Corps volunteer would hardly be missed in the presence of such great men. Last edited by huzza; 06-01-2007 at 14:01.