SF Support Officer question

[stuW]

Hello all,

I have a decision to make and I was hoping you could give me some feedback. While the dilemma is particularly relevant to my life, I have not found a thread that provides enough material to satisfy my questions. Hopefully others have/will have questions like mine.

The issues at stake
Two issues are relevant to my situation and have not been covered: 1) Leadership opportunities and typical experience for a young, junior officer in a support role in an SF Group and 2) if Civil Affairs experience can be valuable for soldiers aspiring to go SF, given that there is some crossover in skill sets in these MOS's.

Summary of my interests and opportunities
I have potential aspirations to become an 18A. Because I have not been part of the army, it is difficult for me to conclude what exactly I intend to do after my first contract. As such, I am seeking to enter as an OCS officer and hold an MOS that offers options for growth and experience, while also allowing me to use my skills and make an immediate impact within a team. Developing leadership experience is important to me. I have pared my decision to two options - entering as a reserve MI Officer attached to a Civil Affairs Battalion that intends to immediately begin developing me into a CA officer, or entering as a National Guard MI Officer attached to an SF Group. Both options allow me to control my entry MOS and the unit I join, which is important to me because it makes my next eight years of reserve and active service a little more predictable.

I was looking through all the SF threads on support troops, and I did not stumble onto any that discuss the role of an officer, particularly a junior officer, in an SF support role. I have been reading The Company they Keep, and based on my readings from that book and my time spent reading this site, I hypothesize that the leadership experience as a 24 year old MI officer attached to an SF Group, surrounded by older enlisted soldiers with much more experience and training, would differ significantly from the conventional Army. I am interested in this option, however I am concerned that I will not be developed in a manner that will allow me to easily move outside of military intelligence, such as to Special Forces or other branches that operate beyond the wire.

My Questions
How are junior support officers viewed and treated in an SF group? Are they developed to lead, and in what manner? Additionally, do you have any additional information or variables I should consider in this decision?

FYI: I am leaning towards the Civil Affairs route.

Thank you for your service and support.

Best regards,

Stuart

[Razor]

If you're goal is to prepare yourself to become an 18A, why aren't you considering a combat arms branch (e.g., infantry, engineers, armor)?

[sleepyhead4]

Originally Posted by Razor

If you're goal is to prepare yourself to become an 18A, why aren't you considering a combat arms branch (e.g., infantry, engineers, armor)?

My question exactly.

I don't know if it's just me or others share my view, but generally junior support officers are only seen as staff peons, with little to no real exposure to the ODA's. Your best bet in preparing yourself to be an 18A is going combat arms, i.e. Infantry...hint hint. In a combat arms branch, you learn to be a combat leader, working with hard charging NCO's/soldiers. As a junior support officer in SF, you will learn the admin side and the SF culture, but not much more. So decide which is more important as an officer...training or paper work.

[stuW]

Razor and Sleepyhead,

Honestly, without ever being in the army, it is difficult for me to say my life goal is be an SF officer, as that really is a career that will last me for much of my life. There are just too many variables and too many tests in front of me to be only driven to that goal at this time. I will need to make that decision, but I think it can be made/should be made after I enter the army. Until I make that decision, I am looking for an experience that would allow me to feel fulfilled with the work I do and develop me, while framing my options based on the 18A possibility (recognizing that the statistics suggest I will not become an 18A).

With regard to the combat arms question, I think a bit more info about me might help. I went through most of college planning to work in intelligence, but while studying in Cairo, I became interested in the Army, largely because I was living with an ROTC roommate and taking a graduate class with an Army Foreign Area Officer. My interest in the military is primarily stimulated by its mental challenges when working with grey – working with foreign nations in FID, working with foreign civilian populations/NGOs/IOs in Civil Military Operations, ect. While there has been discussion/concern on this website of some new SF soldiers being very focused or interested in direct action, I may fall into the opposite spectrum by having strong interest in FID and nation building. This is not to say I am opposed to being trained and serving in combat, I just don’t think I will be as good at it, and it will not be the best use of my current skills and experience. CA, to my understanding, does prepare its soldiers for combat to a limited degree based on its presence beyond the wire, giving me a chance to see if I would be any good in combat, and if I should apply for SFAS.

Recognizing that after my first 8 years in Army I may realistically decide to take a different career path, I probably would prefer/be a better and more impactful soldier serving those eight years in a Civil Affairs unit than in an Infantry unit. In addition, I can guarantee my unit and MOS going into the reserves, whereas if I went through OCS active duty, I would not be able to guarantee a combat MOS. With my luck, I’d probably find myself doing accounting for the army. I am willing to consider OCS active duty and try for Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery, but the risk of me being placed in another unit where I will be less impactful concerns me.

While I am aware of SF Officers moving into CA, is there a record of CA officers moving to SF? Were they able to pick up the combat related tasks well? Any additional thoughts or suggestions would be very useful.

Best regards and thank you Sleepyhead for the input on SF officer support. I have more or less ruled it out.

Stuart

[Pete]

Originally Posted by stuW

.....I have potential aspirations to become an 18A. ...

You asked, they took the time to reply and you basicly said "Nevermind."

If you don't want to hear the answer - don't ask the question.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by stuW

Razor and Sleepyhead,

Honestly, without ever being in the army, it is difficult for me to say my life goal is be an SF officer, as that really is a career that will last me for much of my life. There are just too many variables and too many tests in front of me to be only driven to that goal at this time. I will need to make that decision, but I think it can be made/should be made after I enter the army. Until I make that decision, I am looking for an experience that would allow me to feel fulfilled with the work I do and develop me, while framing my options based on the 18A possibility (recognizing that the statistics suggest I will not become an 18A).

With regard to the combat arms question, I think a bit more info about me might help. I went through most of college planning to work in intelligence, but while studying in Cairo, I became interested in the Army, largely because I was living with an ROTC roommate and taking a graduate class with an Army Foreign Area Officer. My interest in the military is primarily stimulated by its mental challenges when working with grey – working with foreign nations in FID, working with foreign civilian populations/NGOs/IOs in Civil Military Operations, ect. While there has been discussion/concern on this website of some new SF soldiers being very focused or interested in direct action, I may fall into the opposite spectrum by having strong interest in FID and nation building. This is not to say I am opposed to being trained and serving in combat, I just don’t think I will be as good at it, and it will not be the best use of my current skills and experience. CA, to my understanding, does prepare its soldiers for combat to a limited degree based on its presence beyond the wire, giving me a chance to see if I would be any good in combat, and if I should apply for SFAS.

Recognizing that after my first 8 years in Army I may realistically decide to take a different career path, I probably would prefer/be a better and more impactful soldier serving those eight years in a Civil Affairs unit than in an Infantry unit. In addition, I can guarantee my unit and MOS going into the reserves, whereas if I went through OCS active duty, I would not be able to guarantee a combat MOS. With my luck, I’d probably find myself doing accounting for the army. I am willing to consider OCS active duty and try for Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery, but the risk of me being placed in another unit where I will be less impactful concerns me.

While I am aware of SF Officers moving into CA, is there a record of CA officers moving to SF? Were they able to pick up the combat related tasks well? Any additional thoughts or suggestions would be very useful.

Best regards and thank you Sleepyhead for the input on SF officer support. I have more or less ruled it out.

Stuart

Stuart,

You may have read from the books I've sent you. Most of the questions you asked were in those books.......................

GB TFS

[Richard]

From reading your posts - I suggest you seek to go MI or CA - and forget about the 11/13/19/18 CMFs - your musings don't show the levels of interest, commitment or confidence needed for those options - FAO might be a consideration down the road IF you ever really commit to the military.

Richard's $.02

[Razor]

Originally Posted by stuW

This is not to say I am opposed to being trained and serving in combat, I just don’t think I will be as good at it, and it will not be the best use of my current skills and experience.

SF is a combat unit. FID, UW, etc. is all about teaching others to become better at killing people and destroying things. If being a direct combat leader isn't your cup of tea, I'd abandon any and all interest you have in SF

While I am aware of SF Officers moving into CA, is there a record of CA officers moving to SF?

You can't directly branch into Civil Affairs as a new 2LT, at least on the active side. CA is a functional area that will not be accessible to you until complete branch qualification in your basic branch as an O-3, 4-6 years down the road after commissioning. Do a Goggle search on Army basic branches to learn about what branches you can enter as a new officer.

[sleepyhead4]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think CA is no longer available for 18A's as a functional area after team time.

StuW, understand that no matter what MOS you are in SF, you are a shooter first. So I don't think you have the heart or desire to be an SF operator. Good luck in whatever choice you make, but I'd rule out SF in your future.

[dirt_diver]

Combat arms (preferably infantry 11A) will prepare you the best for the chance to be an 18A.

If you are planning on serving in the guard/reserves, I would suggest serving in the guard as the reserves does not have SF groups. Also, if you are serving in the guard you could pursue the intelligence career on the civilian side and be an infantry officer in the guard while you wait for your chance at SFAS.

[Dozer523]

getting back to the original. . .
How are non-18s treated by 18A? we are talking CPT anf LTs. Well, first they are treated like professionals. The Chem guy and the Sig guys and the MI guys and the AG guys (That might be the exception. Don't get me going on gender-incorrect branch choices) are all treated as deserved by the level of proficiency they bring to the Group -- They wouldn't be there if we could (or wanted to) do it ourselves. Lots of those guys go SF because they are in close proximity and say to themselves (I SO wish I could spell decide -- omg I CAN!) Anyway, they hang with us and decide "I can do that." AND that is very COOL! Aside from that they are treated as friends if they are friendly and like jerks if that is what they are. In 5th Group one of the coolest guys was a 2LT Chem officer. (He had lots to overcome and did!)
As for assessing through CA. NAH! It's sort of the other way around. Some awesome CA officers are awesome because they were SF. CA is about exploiting Cultural awareness, SF invented it!
Do what you want. Just do it spectacularly well. Then bring that experience to being an 18. Infantry is obvious but Tankers, FA, Sig (Col Rowe was SC) bring a different but valuable set of tools. The Finance Officer for 5th Group was in my class, and he was a Great SF Soldier and Oofficer. I got this straight from his Team Sergeant (MSG Max Perdiem), His Team lived Goooooooood!

[stuW]

I wanted to respond back one last time to everyone who posted in response to my question. The purpose is to thank you for your comments, and to also show that I have attempted to internalize your comments - that they were used to stimulate my thinking and not for naught.

Several of you raised issue with my concerns about entering combat arms branches. After reading Craig Mullaney's book and his description of his initial concerns about combat, I am reconsidering my options and including combat arms in the mix. I will post my decision when I need to make it. At the end of the day, I'm not particularly inclined towards combat, though I do enjoy the competition when I spar. It is difficult to know how I would respond in a combat environment because I've never experienced it, and no matter how much I read about it, I'm struggling with that unknown.

Pete, I hope I didn't come off as saying nevermind. That was not my intent at all and I heavily value everyone's posts made on this issue.

GreenberetTFS, I am working through your books. I'm about halfway done and I may request another batch when I am done. I'm trying to balance my masters thesis research with free reading

Dozer, your response was helpful in understanding that there is a range of opinion on my question. Thank you for describing a bit more on how SF support soldiers/officers are treated.

Dirt Diver, thank you for your suggestion. It's an option that I also am thinking about, though I probably would prefer to go active if I wanted a combat arms MOS.

Thank you again and best regards,

Stuart