Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RiotMaker
So I was reading an aritcle in a paper today. It was about a Navy SEAL recruiter competing in the Badwater Ultramarathon. (for those who don't know it's a 135 mile run through Death Valley California) He did it to recruit "highly-trained candidates" to go SEAL.
Then I read a comment. Something along the lines of "SEALs are looking for recruits in these types of competitions because unlike other Spec Ops branches, the SEALs refuse to lower their standards."
Does anyone take offense to this? Has SF lowered their training standards in the past few years? I mean, I know the Army has. I see it everyday around me.
Forgive me if I've stepped on any toes here. I wasn't implying that SF has softened up. Just wondering if it has changed it's requirements some.
|
There is only one way to find out.
Go through both and let us know which was tougher when you are done. Unless the individual who said that had been to both or worked at both, I am not sure that he is really qualified to make that statement.
I do not believe that the difficulty of the training necessarily defines the quality of the man. The real question is whether your selection process accurately selects the candidates that you are looking for, with the attributes that you require for your force.
I was with the Italian SF battalion on exchange many years ago, and they tried to convince me that their training was better because they killed a couple of candidates in training every year.
Standards SHOULD change, as the force and the requirements change. SF is a thinking man's game. We continue to evolve and to change our selection and our training in order to put the right guys in the pipeline and subsequently the force. We hope that these are the people who can meet our standards and who can do the job once they arrive in the force. We still have the core skills that a guy who went through the Q Course in the 1950s would recognize, but we have also changed to take advantage of modern input into our selection and assessment process, as well as to select students who have the characteristics that we need in an ever evolving force.
Reality also dictates that if you have trouble recruiting, selecting, training, and graduating sufficient numbers of SF soldiers to adequately man the force from a 765,000 man Army, it will be a much more difficult challenge to do so from a 485,000 man force. The SEALs are able to compete across the entire Navy, for the guys who want to do what they do, for a much smaller force than SF. SF has to man about ten times as many slots as the SEALs. They can select for their force in whatever way meets their needs. I have never been through BUDS, or SEAL training, so I cannot comment on the difficulty or adequacy of their selection process for their needs, and it would be unprofessional for me to do so. Dick Couch, a former SEAL has, and he followed an SF class through the entire process. He seems to address that comparison somewhat in his book.
There are a couple of variables in force management. You have the number coming in, which is affected by bonuses, pre-reqs, etc., and you have the number attritting away, as retirements, medical losses, etc. When the force management software misses some attrition point, and the number of SF guys leaving doubles (like when contractors were paying $1000 per day for SF guys), you have to figure out a way to try and catch up. Like the 18X program, which has been very successful. We were graduating 250 SF soldiers per year in 2001, and losing 750 per year. You have to cut losses and increase accessions, or blow away like dust in the wind.
At some point, if you cannot man the force, the Army will cut your force structure. We eventually had to zero out one ODA per SF Company, or we were going to lose something bigger. Like an SF Group. Can anyone imagine what would have happened with the GWOT without 3rd Group, which was oriented (at least partially) to the AOR?
I am satisfied with the current standards and difficulty of the SFQC. It would have smoked my ass in my best condition ever. I do not think that SFAS is a cakewalk or has lost its edge. After all, we are selecting for candidates who can successfully complete SF training, and become valuable members of the force. Not hazing for a fraternity, or tab protecting, or trying to get even for having been in the last hard class. And by and large, I think that history is proving that we have selected the right people, given them the right training, and sent them to successfully accomplish some pretty difficult tasks in the GWOT. I am not really interested in who thinks they are tougher, or whose package is bigger. We are proving ourselves and validating our program in combat, every day. I do not see us coming up short to anyone.
TR