Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post - Does The United States Still Need a USSOCOM?

mark46th · 03-29-2010, 20:23

I have stated before and will continue to say that SF should be out of USSOCOM. Putting SF under the command of anyone who has other than SF's goodwill at the forefront does SF no good. I know it is a source of funding but SF is suffering the disrespect that prostitutes suffer - we are a great piece of a$$ until the wife shows up threatening divorce and we get dumped in a back alley. SF needs an independent command like the structure that was in place during the 50's, 60's and early 70's...

This did lead to problems because our command didn't have the influence to protect SF and we eventually became cannon fodder for the regular army after the Desert Eagle fiasco. I guess it is a cycle that we go through. SF becomes sexy and the darlings of the powers that be (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) followed by a down cycle (Jimmy Carter) that takes years to overcome.

03-29-2010, 20:23	#12
mark46th Quiet Professional Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Orange, Ca. Posts: 4,950	I have stated before and will continue to say that SF should be out of USSOCOM. Putting SF under the command of anyone who has other than SF's goodwill at the forefront does SF no good. I know it is a source of funding but SF is suffering the disrespect that prostitutes suffer - we are a great piece of a$$ until the wife shows up threatening divorce and we get dumped in a back alley. SF needs an independent command like the structure that was in place during the 50's, 60's and early 70's... This did lead to problems because our command didn't have the influence to protect SF and we eventually became cannon fodder for the regular army after the Desert Eagle fiasco. I guess it is a cycle that we go through. SF becomes sexy and the darlings of the powers that be (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) followed by a down cycle (Jimmy Carter) that takes years to overcome. Last edited by mark46th; 03-30-2010 at 13:28.
mark46th is offline