conventional view of unconventional warfare

[GreenBeret65]

Th following is strictly my own personal opinion. I left the 8th SFG in 1965 for civilian life for reasons I thought were important at the time. Many times over the years I have regretted that decision. I am now making SF an important part of my life again after many years. I read a lot of material in the Drop and in this forum and the SOCNET forum and I think the "conventional military mind" still does not get it concerning the role of Special Operations in modern warfare. I do not get the "gut feeling" that they understand us or see the tremendous value in unconventional warfare. Please understand that this is only my personal opinion. I know I said that twice but I am not looking to get anyone upset. I am new here and I like to go very slowly and read much more than I post.

I also believe that in any military outfit you must have distinctions that recognize individual and unit superiority. All men may have been born equal; however, 46 years ago I believed that I and every "Quiet Professional" was different then and is different now today. I also recognize and give credit to all of our other brothers in Special Operations everywhere in the world..

I am sorry that this is so verbose and I hope the Moderator is not too upset with me. I will try to use less words in the future.

De Opresso Liber

The most important book that I believe I have ever read is "The Art of War"
Sun Tzu circa 500 BC

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by GreenBeret65

I think the "conventional military mind" still does not get it concerning the role of Special Operations in modern warfare. I do not get the "gut feeling" that they understand us or see the tremendous value in unconventional warfare. C

There are many reasons for this and like the Fairbairn Knife this is a double edged blade. SOF has not done a good job in educating either the conventional military nor has it done a good job in educating the decision makers who write our national strategies. SOF is also its own worst enemy when it comes to selling itself or capitializing on its own capabilities when it comes to what its role should be and where the emphasis should go within the community. I think one of the biggest problems within, at least the SF community, is that because we operate, or are supposed to operate, on broad mission type orders leaving the execution decentralized to the lowest echelon possible most of those decision makers that would want to utilize SF in their primary functions can't come to grips that this is primarily a NCO run, lead, trained, and driven operation. You all have heard about the NCO being the backbone of the Army, well in SF it is the organization. It is very culturally difficult for some officers, especially senior officers, to understand that NCOs function in roles normally defined as "officer" roles. They advise, lead, and train every echelon doctrinally from platoon to battalion and in some cases beyond. I have to cut this short because because I have to go address the "present" mother nature left me yesterday before the wind starts to kick up and the wind chill hits the forecasted minus 30.

[incommin]

Two comments:
All men are not born equal! The only equality is that we are born by a female, all breath air, and we take up space. If anyone can provide more areas where we are equal, I would like to hear them. Certain men are drawn to SF. Those that make it are very much different from everyone else.

The big green machine has never understood SF and I doubt it ever will...... too many contridictions to the "regular army".

My .02

Jim

[bailaviborita]

I think the "conventional military mind" still does not get it concerning the role of Special Operations in modern warfare. I do not get the "gut feeling" that they understand us or see the tremendous value in unconventional warfare.

I agree. Having served in both areas, I find the leadership on the conventional side to be almost totally devoid of creativity or thinking out of the box. Wearing a watch cap when it is cold outside is usually deemed too unconventional to be an option to most of these units. With that mindset I fail to see how a UW situation can be approached by many of these units- when each AO has different factors and requires a different approach- indeed many times a different approach daily- a comformist and "hyper-uniform" attitude in my opinion is counter-productive.

Having said that, I fear that many leaders in SF are also woefully lacking in UW historical knowledge/attitude. I don't see many in SOCOM advocating a UW-centric and SOF-centric approach either.

[Joe-Boo]

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily .

Back to the regularly schedualed program.

[incommin]

Originally Posted by Joe-Boo

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily .

Back to the regularly schedualed program.

I must be confused. I always thought that a "good NCO" looked, walked, talked and acted like a good NCO. That meant keeping the weight down, trying to max PT tests, seeing that his soldiers were trained, and disciplining soldiers when it was required. In fact, I learned that while I was in SF.

Jim

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Joe-Boo

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily .

Back to the regularly schedualed program.

SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

Make no mistake; the collective IQ of the men of Special Forces is without peer in the US military, couple that with being “hard” and you have created the most feared men on the battlefield today. Why do you think Army Special Forces is the only unit in the military trained to live behind enemy lines?

“When I was a conventional Army LT” Please tell us what did you do in the Army? MOS?

Please don’t make comparisons between combat support soldiers, combat service support and combatants. Each of us has a job to do and one could not function without the other.

Also, IMO doing a 300 on the PT test and keeping a clean and squared away appearance speaks volumes for a soldier. I take it you’ve not learned that lesson? Were you in a combat unit?

TS

[Joe-Boo]

TS...since you asked...

I was an 11A, later a 12A which I believe now is a 19A. I left as a Captain...I am now an enlisted CCT.

If you would like a more indepth response or a DD-214 please PM me.

Please add the "Perhaps much of the" to my quote...it was only a thought to ponder, not a statement as you represented it. To further the discussion I was pointing out SOCOM...not SF in specifically. Actually, if you had a conversation with me you would realize that my remark was an indirect complement to your careerfield. The "hard" part of that post is meant to point out and relates to the FACT that you guys do not only focus primarily on physical prowess as assesment tool.

My point and "Experience" is related to what I had seen... as stated. To expound, I am talking about a NCOs that "hide" behind PT scores/ pressed uniforms and shined boots...often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence.

"Please don’t make comparisons between combat support soldiers, combat service support and combatants. Each of us has a job to do and one could not function without the other."

What comparison would that be?

"Also, IMO doing a 300 on the PT test and keeping a clean and squared away appearance speaks volumes for a soldier. I take it you’ve not learned that lesson? Were you in a combat unit?"

Since the test I take is harder than the Army's (yes, I have done both... tens of times) and I score in the "outstanding" range...I believe I have learned that lesson.


Incommin...

I ask you to re-read my original post and my response above.



Thank you both for your service.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Joe-Boo

TS...since you asked...

I was an 11A, later a 12A which I believe now is a 19A. I left as a Captain...I am now an enlisted CCT.

If you would like a more indepth response or a DD-214 please PM me.

Please add the "Perhaps much of the" to my quote...it was only a thought to ponder, not a statement as you represented it. To further the discussion I was pointing out SOCOM...not SF in specifically. Actually, if you had a conversation with me you would realize that my remark was an indirect complement to your careerfield. The "hard" part of that post is meant to point out and relates to the FACT that you guys do not only focus primarily on physical prowess as assesment tool.

My point and "Experience" is related to what I had seen... as stated. To expound, I am talking about a NCOs that "hide" behind PT scores/ pressed uniforms and shined boots...often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence.

"Please don’t make comparisons between combat support soldiers, combat service support and combatants. Each of us has a job to do and one could not function without the other."

What comparison would that be?

"Also, IMO doing a 300 on the PT test and keeping a clean and squared away appearance speaks volumes for a soldier. I take it you’ve not learned that lesson? Were you in a combat unit?"

Since the test I take is harder than the Army's (yes, I have done both... tens of times) and I score in the "outstanding" range...I believe I have learned that lesson.

SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

Again let’s hope that’s not true either. SOCOM is made up of smarter than average personnel.

Your post smacks of a sour grape attitude concerning some of the less capable NCOS’s in your conventional unit days. Tell me former 11A, 12A and 19A CPT, did you make a difference and remove these shirkers from our ranks? often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence. Knowing you were aware of their misdeeds I’m sure you as an officer took care of business. Or is it your intention to just complain about them?

You see unlike you had I known of individuals such as these rest assured they would have been dealt with harshly. During my days as a conventional infantryman we dealt with all kinds of individuals and those that did not pull their weight were either sent packing or given an attitude adjustment. Plain and simple.

From your post & Bio I assumed you were never in a combat unit therefore your comparison would have been in regards to support unit’s verses combat units. I stand corrected.


Since the test I take is harder than the Army's (yes, I have done both... tens of times) and I score in the "outstanding" range...I believe I have learned that lesson.
All that did was make me laugh. We train for combat, not the PT test....... a totally different mindset.

Team Sergeant

[Joe-Boo]

TS,

Again...my quote was "Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man". "

This is a thought that I hoped others might expound on. I agree...I would hope not...my point being assessment process by various career-fields.

"Your post smacks of a sour grape attitude concerning some of the less capable NCOS’s in your conventional unit days. Tell me former 11A, 12A and 19A CPT, did you make a difference and remove these shirkers from our ranks? often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence. Knowing you were aware of their misdeeds I’m sure you as an officer took care of business. Or is it your intention to just complain about them?"


Actually, yes I did. However, I found it pathetic that many higher level officers thought so highly of them. Which is one of several reasons I resigned my commission and worked my way into the SOF arena. I am not here to pass off a sour grapes attitude about these NCOs, I was hoping to gain some insight from you and others. This seems like a natural deviation that if you are going to talk comparisons about conventional and SOF forces and the conversation was turning (not by me), perhaps a discussion of NCO leadership traits might be in order. That was all I was doing.

I did not come here to brag, boast, inform, or necessarily share my past...you asked what my background (MOS) was so I told you.

It is you who brought up the PT test and appearance in reference to me...I only responded. I am glad you train for combat...join the club. My reference is about the Army PT test and the ST PFT I do now.

Is there a particular reason you are crawling up my 4th point with misquotes, mischaracterizations, and rudeness? Or is this SOP and I did not read about this on a sticky?

I fail to see what I did to deserve either of your responses or the tone you have taken. I came here as an ally and a fellow warrior who appreciates your careerfield..something that SF does not get a whole lot of ( though deserves)from the Army or SOCOM as of late, if ever. I offer confidence in you guys and compliments based off experience. What's with the work over? Do I owe you money?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Joe-Boo

TS,

Again...my quote was "Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man". "

This is a thought that I hoped others might expound on. I agree...I would hope not...my point being assessment process by various career-fields.

"Your post smacks of a sour grape attitude concerning some of the less capable NCOS’s in your conventional unit days. Tell me former 11A, 12A and 19A CPT, did you make a difference and remove these shirkers from our ranks? often, they throw their subordinates under the bus to hide their own incompetence. Knowing you were aware of their misdeeds I’m sure you as an officer took care of business. Or is it your intention to just complain about them?"


Actually, yes I did. However, I found it pathetic that many higher level officers thought so highly of them. Which is one of several reasons I resigned my commission and worked my way into the SOF arena. I am not here to pass off a sour grapes attitude about these NCOs, I was hoping to gain some insight from you and others. This seems like a natural deviation that if you are going to talk comparisons about conventional and SOF forces and the conversation was turning (not by me), perhaps a discussion of NCO leadership traits might be in order. That was all I was doing.

I did not come here to brag, boast, inform, or necessarily share my past...you asked what my background (MOS) was so I told you.

It is you who brought up the PT test and appearance in reference to me...I only responded. I am glad you train for combat...join the club. My reference is about the Army PT test and the ST PFT I do now.

Is there a particular reason you are crawling up my 4th point with misquotes, mischaracterizations, and rudeness? Or is this SOP and I did not read about this on a sticky?

I fail to see what I did to deserve either of your responses or the tone you have taken. I came here as an ally and a fellow warrior who appreciates your careerfield..something that SF does not get a whole lot of ( though deserves)from the Army or SOCOM as of late, if ever. I offer confidence in you guys and compliments based off experience. What's with the work over? Do I owe you money?

You now have my full attention.
Right now I've other commitments.
I will return to this discussion soonest.
While it must be difficult going from O-3 to E-3 your decision is yours and yous alone.
You've not yet seen me crawl up someones 4th point of contact.

Team Sergeant

[Joe-Boo]

"You now have my full attention."

Though I am flattered I can only hope you will re-read my posts now that you are not so distracted and see that I am only trying to contribute to this awsome forum.

"Right now I've other commitments."
"I will return to this discussion soonest."

No rush...

"While it must be difficult going from O-3 to E-3 your decision is yours and yous alone."

Actually it is E-5...however, thank you for the compliment, but it really was not that difficult on my part...the personnel guys did all the heavy lifting. (the paper ran out in the fax machine and they reloaded it)

"You've not yet seen me crawl up someones 4th point of contact."

Though I am sure if I ever do, it will be eched into my mind forever.

Waiting to hear what I said in my original post on this thread to earn so much 1-on-1 attention.

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by Joe-Boo

Perhaps much of the SOCOM forces are more focused on "Hard Men" rather than the "Smart Man".

When I was a conventional Army LT...there was a characteristic I found annoying about what many of the higher than me officer types found as a "Good" NCO. Often this had to do with PT score/waist size, pressed uniform/shined boots, and the ability to throw his guys under the bus to cover his ass. The last one is subtle, as it appears to the untrained eye, that he is disciplining his troops. Actually, it is a premptive step to prevent higher from noticing that NCO's incompetence.

As I have moved over to SOF, I found the same to be true even in my own small careerfield. Two things of note however, there are fewer of them and they tend to be higher ranking. The officer problems still exist as well, but they have less influence at my level and I don't have to deal with them daily .

I don't know too many "SOCOM" forces who focus more on hard men than the smart man. The NCO's I've worked with in SOF are for the most part the most enlightened men I've worked with in the Army- as well as in civilian life. In my post (I assume you were responding to mine) I was making a comment about O's- and mainly about G.O.'s. When I was handed a book called "Killing Pablo" by the team sergeant on day 1 and hearing that everyone else on the team had already read it- I knew this wasn't your average army unit.

I'm not sure what most conventional O's think of what makes a good NCO- those around me value professionalism, competence, and a good attitude. I personally value competence- the rest is gravy. PT scores are usually indicative of other traits (high PT score/sharp image follows from high professionalism, competence, etc.)- so I would disagree that PT scores/appearance shouldn't be qualifiers. As for sacrificing troops to cover one's ass- you will find that everywhere: outside the military and in as well as in SOF. In fact, I'd say that most countries' armies are much worse than ours when it comes to that- so, I am curious: who are you comparing us to?

As to why you might be getting "attention" for your first post- I would think it was because you weren't really addressing the subject of the thread: conventional mindset of SOF and UW vs. SOF mindset of UW and reality of SOF. Then you started out by implying that SOCOM forces focus on being "hard" rather than "smart"- that alone would have gotten anyone attention on this board I would think. Then you went into a rant about conventional O's and unprofessional NCO's that seemed to imply that it was very prevalent in the Army. Again- I'd ask you if you think that is any different than other armies or other American companies/institutions and if so- which ones? I'd think you'd find it not so bad in the conventinal army when compared to other examples. The fact that you ended with comparing those O's to SOF O's ("not so much, but still there") again has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. How does that tie into the conventional mindset of UW and SOF?

[Joe-Boo]

Bailaviborita,

I see your points. Dually noted. I see, now, how my thought about SOCOM might have not been clear as to how it was written. I was only raising the proposition that UW, which I believe is SF centric, would require more "brains' and a focus on the "MAN". I poorly posed a thought that perhaps with much of the SOCOM forces are selected and/or assessed on physical/mental toughness and not necessarily though process evaluating or training. If true (which is why I was posing the thought...for enlightenment by you all), this may leave much of "SOF" ill-equipped for that job.

Rest of my post was not meant to down play the role of fitness or appearance...to the contrary I feel they are very important for both mission success and for establishing credibility. My point there related to how the "conventional military mind" does not have a grasp on UW or the employment of SOF.

Wearing a watch cap when it is cold outside is usually deemed too unconventional to be an option to most of these units. With that mindset I fail to see how a UW situation can be approached by many of these units- when each AO has different factors and requires a different approach- indeed many times a different approach daily- a conformists and "hyper-uniform" attitude in my opinion is counter-productive.


Your above quote is where I was beginning my though process. Reason being is that I have found that many NCOs that are focused on a conformist and "hyper-uniform" in the conventional Army tended to "hide" behind PT score, pressed uniform, and highly shined boots. As well, these leaders tend to be willing to through their guys under the bus to save their own reputation. Each being a sub-category of the last...not mutually inclusive. Perhaps "many NCOs" is an over-statement. However, that behavior occurred often enough for me notice a distinct pattern of common and recognizable traits.

As a way to recognize professionalism, it is my opinion, a lazy analysis. This is common with officers that are more focused on themselves than their men...from what I have seen. An "as long as the men look good, they won’t see my warts" attitude.

My response was an attempt to gain incite through discussion, nothing more. Unlike many of you who have been around longer than me, I was posing thoughts based off of observances for you to respond to. I was not making statements of fact.


Having said that, I fear that many leaders in SF are also woefully lacking in UW historical knowledge/attitude. I don't see many in SOCOM advocating a UW-centric and SOF-centric approach either.

I did not take your above quote as a statement regarding senior or General Officers...my bad. To me, this could have been O's all the way down the rank structure and non-team level SNCOs . That was why I gave my observation regarding dealing with O's that do not understand the very mission sets they are assigned to and the decisions they make due to that lack of understanding.

Thank you for the clarification.

[The Reaper]

Joe:

I have the privilege of having met you and worked with you.

Others here have not.

You are sending a tone and attitude in your wording which is, IMHO, not reflective of you as you really are.

Bear in mind that the internet poses many communication challenges, and reading between the lines, it appeared that you might be attacking NCOs, SF NCOs in particular.

That would not be a good idea on a board with membership like this one. Your experiences in the Mech Infantry are likely pretty far removed from those of an AD SF NCO. Food fights between new non-SF members on PS.com and admins are rarely decided in favor of the new member.

I would caution you to consider your wording in the future on this board, and look for potential misperceptions. Perceptions are reality on the internet, and the toes you step on may be connected to a foot that will be impacting on you in the future.

You may wish to consider whether it is wise to incite discussion when you are not well-known and there is large latitude for misperception of your intentions. I am sure that once people get to know you, and you them, the discussions may be more spirited with less vitriol. In short, your input is welcome here, just try to consider how it may be interpreted by others, and if you have stepped on any toes, or realize you are digging a hole, stop.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR