SF numbers to increase?

[18C4V]

Tue Jan 24, 1:15 AM ET

A new Pentagon review of U.S. defense strategy would add thousands of troops skilled in fighting terrorists and insurgents to the ranks of the elite Special Operations Forces, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

Citing U.S. officials and military analysts familiar with the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, the report said the plan would increase the number of Special Operations Forces to the highest level since the Vietnam War.

The strategy also would add billions of dollars to the budget of the U.S. Special Operations Command over the next five years, the report said, citing the officials and analysts who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The newspaper said one of the largest gains would be in Army Special Forces, or Green Berets, who operate in 12-member "A-teams."

The officials and analysts were cited as saying that the Special Forces would expand from 15 to 20 active-duty battalions, creating about 90 more A-teams (1,080 members) to deploy to regions considered vulnerable to terrorist or extremists influences, the newspaper reported.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to discuss details of the review but confirmed that bolstering Special Operations Forces was "a concept the QDR has identified as important," the newspaper said.

The QDR report will be sent to the White House and Congress in February.

[Pete]

A fouth battalion for some groups or stand up a retired group?

Retired group? I would think yes, more staff positions.

So if we bring back a retired group which one should it be? Why?

Pete
Who would vote 2 for the 5th, 1 each for the 3rd, 7th and 10th.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pete

A fouth battalion for some groups or stand up a retired group?

Retired group? I would think yes, more staff positions.

So if we bring back a retired group which one should it be? Why?

Pete
Who would vote 2 for the 5th, 1 each for the 3rd, 7th and 10th.

Well, that is our current conventional force reorganization plan.

Take three maneuver brigades in a division, reapportion them into four smaller brigades, and claim 25% more brigades than before.

They can make as many additional units as they want. Manning them, and moreover, with competent individuals is a completely different issue.

I was in a couple of Team Rooms this morning. Average deployable strength, eight SF soldiers.

Anyone on an ODA want to tell us how many you have assigned and available to deploy? PM me if you don't want to do it here.

TR

[Pete]

I still remember when Star Fleet came on line.

The Ra-Ra talks about all the numbers in the CMF and advancement.

As I dropped my rucksack in the team room so I could repack to go again I would count the Groups, Battalions, Companies and Teams on my fingers.

It didn't take much math to figure out that with all the new positions there was still the same number of A Team guys under the rucksack.

Sometimes I had a hard time seeing the "Big Picture".

Pete

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Pete

Sometimes I had a hard time seeing the "Big Picture".

Pete

I was hoping that when we started to grow officers within CMF18 that we would lose the idiot factor because it would be folks that knew our business that developed, fought for, and executed the "Big Picture" because they followed a logical progression thru normal career development as A-Team Ldrs, Company Cdrs, Bn Cdrs, Grp, Cdrs with an occassional staff slot as Ops officers, XOs, and joint SOF slots now and then. What happened? Why aren't the 18s standing up and being heard? Have we developed folks more interested in protecting their career than serving the troops?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

I was hoping that when we started to grow officers within CMF18 that we would lose the idiot factor because it would be folks that knew our business that developed, fought for, and executed the "Big Picture" because they followed a logical progression thru normal career development as A-Team Ldrs, Company Cdrs, Bn Cdrs, Grp, Cdrs with an occassional staff slot as Ops officers, XOs, and joint SOF slots now and then. What happened? Why aren't the 18s standing up and being heard? Have we developed folks more interested in protecting their career than serving the troops?

The "don't ask me how, just tell me when it is done" mindset is pervasive.

The current leadership was not selected because they offered opposing opinions and objected when the Emperor modeled his new clothes. The SecDef himself has demanded that sort of obedience, I am sure that it has been reinforced at lower levels.

I think that the decision made by a senior SF commander to knuckle under and tell the guys to end the relaxed grooming standards proved that. The career and promotion is more important than doing the right thing. I am sure that they rationalize it by saying to themselves, well, at least I will be there next time to stand up for the boys.

It pains me to say it, but I can count the SF GOs I have known (1984-2005) who took care of the troops before themselves on one hand.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The career and promotion is more important than doing the right thing.
TR

That is very sad. Seems that the leadership seems to have forgotten, or never understood, that the sole role for a leader in SF is to enable his troops to succeed, not himself. Damn, this is depressing.

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The career and promotion is more important than doing the right thing

since i retired seven years after the creation of the branch, my perspective is somewhat limited...as a detachment commander, no one above me in the chain of command, from B-team commander to the JFK commander had A-team time, thus i always felt like i was pushing a wet noodle uphill against a steep wind regarding team issues...i always felt a branch was the way to go...but toward the end of my career, i began to feel like it wasn't so much an improvement in terms of mentality and experience but rather provided a path of advancement that had not previously existed...granted, this is a long, opinionated preface to a short question, but did things get any better, or is it still SSDD...?

[QRQ 30]

I guess we can talk about leadership. OTOH I prefer to talk about the troops. There was much talk about dilution and decrease in standards during the Vietnam wae but that was, up til now, the Hey Day of SF and the "young, sub-standard, poorly trained" mostly first term SF troopers stepped up and passed the true test -- the test of fire - with flying colors.

Today's teams are mostly battle hardened and there is an abundance of NCOs and Officers chomping at the bit to have their own teams. Thinking of the split team concept, there are probably enough tested personnel to handle an influx of new people - maybe enough to double the force. When things settle down as they did post Vietnam, again, many of those who steped up to the plate will fade back into the sunset leaving those more suited for garrison life. I wasn't cut out to be a "garrot trooper" and retired with fifteen.