SF too Critical

BMT (RIP) · 11-03-2004, 16:32

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...3518-4202r.htm

BMT

NousDefionsDoc · 11-03-2004, 17:28

Really good article BMT. Thanks.

Jo Sul · 11-03-2004, 17:36

Fortunately, we no longer need to worry too much about what Kerry would do as President.

QRQ 30 · 11-03-2004, 17:44

Actually, Special Forces was barely mentioned except for the headline.

I tend to disagree with the following statement:

Quote:

History shows that even when the military opens up more SOF opportunities, only a limited number of men can actually qualify.

In a very short span of time (2-3 years) SF went from 2 AD Groups to 7. At times in the late sixties and early seventies there were thousands in training in SFTG. These men performed admirably in S.E.A. as well as Europe, Africa and Latin America. Many of these soldiers were "one term" soldiers and did their jobs in a professional manner.

The key is in selection. There are millions of good candidates out there. We just need to indentify, select and train them.

I sometimes wonder at the wannabe hunt attitude of some. Are we that rare? Try to calculate the total men who served in the AD SF Groups in the first 50 years. You may find the number mind boggling and it will still be conservative.

Doc · 11-03-2004, 17:57

"In a very short span of time (2-3 years) SF went from 2 AD Groups to 7."

That's mind boggling. I don't want to reply with too much info on a public forum about this subject. Suffice to say that we will not have to "double SF" anytime in the next 4 years. It takes time to build skills and units in order for them to be special.

No slight intended on past warriors as they were my heroes and mentors.

longrange1947 · 11-03-2004, 18:20

And which of the three always active Groups have you left out?

Hint - 5th, 7th or 10th?

QRQ 30 · 11-03-2004, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by longrange1947

And which of the three always active Groups have you left out?

Hint - 5th, 7th or 10th?

I believe that: "In the beginning there was the 77th (7th) and 10th. God saw they were good and made the 5th."

**The Reaper** · 11-03-2004, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc

"In a very short span of time (2-3 years) SF went from 2 AD Groups to 7."

That's mind boggling. I don't want to reply with too much info on a public forum about this subject. Suffice to say that we will not have to "double SF" anytime in the next 4 years. It takes time to build skills and units in order for them to be special.

No slight intended on past warriors as they were my heroes and mentors.

Concur, Doc.

We had a much larger Army back then, and different standards.

I believe that a lot of the selection then was done in combat.

TR

longrange1947 · 11-03-2004, 22:22

Correct on that one. But 46th wasn't really absorbed until later. There was a difference in the two for a bit. 7th sent a company to Oki and Thailand. One company satyed a company + (46th) and the other went plumb crazy as 1st SAFAsia.

Did a couple of trips to 46th from 1st. last one was in the closing years of 72-73.

Great memories!