SecDef To Decide Fate Of Special Operations Unit

[Razor]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Here's what I think:...I say let 'em play.

Aw, look who's getting all warm and fuzzy. Rodney was right--we CAN all just get along.

[Basenshukai]

My approach to this issue is more centered on the reality of what I see from my very limited and small role in the scheme of things. I good SF LTC - former battalion commander - told me the most enlightening relative comparison of all time: "CPT", he said, "if 'Big Army' had to make a decision tomorrow about whether to disband either 3rd SF Group, or the 3rd Infantry Division, 3rd SF Group would have to turn in their guidon to the Special Warfare Museum within 48 hours."

That statement has put a lot of things in perspective to me. For one thing, no, funds are not infinite. I can tell you that from personal experience, the conventional Army executing the very difficult duty in Iraq has largely acquired the same equipment that we have. In some cases, they have equipment we don't. Ranger slots that I had available to my platoon as a conventional Army lieutenant at the rate of about three per every eight to ten months are coming to us, a SOF unit, at a rate far below that (quite far, in fact).

If the MARDET 1 feels slighted by a feeling of irrelevance, they should join a long line of SOF units that feel the same way. I've spoken to quite a few SOF warriors that have developed their particular AO, surveyed and reconnoitered targets, and establish contacts just to get that target folder snatched away by one, of the other "units" in theater. Reason: Target proves to be of extreme importance.

There are SOF teams out there with the best secondary weapon that their service could buy and there are others with secondary weapons that keep breaking in specific areas due to age and to being used far beyond their designed tolerances - the way SOF units end up utilizing equipment because of their OPTEMPO.

There are SOF operators in one service, with a tremendous level of combat medical training that make far less proficiency pay than others, of the same rank and time in service, from another service, with generally less medical training.

The list can go on forever. In the end, what really matters is that the bad guys are getting two in the chest and one in the head. The problem is not what we do, but how. In the specific case of MARDET 1, part of the issue is, as someone else stated, "value added". If I can get 20 SEALs for the money I can spend on 5 MARDET 1 operators, and I get the same "value added", then ... I'm going to invest in 20 SEALs.

Strictly as an SF soldier, however, it is appalling to me that we are considering standing up a brand new unit when most teams are severely short in not only personnel, but certain specific equipment (and other basic resources). I'm sure that we are not the only SOF with this issue. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment as most of you are QPs with far more experience than me and have lived this.

[NousDefionsDoc]

1. There's no way I believe you can get 20 SEALs for the cost of 5 Marines.

2. I wouldn't consider a Det a brand new unit. Didn't they take the Marines out of existing stocks? They probably have new kit, but how much does that really cost? Maybe the equivilant of two General officer slots in The Maze?

3. I think if we have money to send cadets to CDQC for summer vacation - we should be able to find the money for a Det of Marine shooters.

4. I would rather have the Marine Det that the bureaucratic nonsense that is the Department of Homeland Security or the new Intelligence Czar position. Pull 80 FBI Legats home and spend their per diem on the Marine shooters. Hell, we could probably run that Det for a year on what it cost us for John Kerry to prance around the ME and Phrance on his last jaunt. The unpaid UN delegate parking tickets, the Martha Stewart trial and Ted Kennedy's government sponsored lunch time drinking bouts could all pay for it.

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

At the end of the day, if the powers that be had no intention of letting them run, they shouldn't have ever stood them up. It is criminal to play admin games with the dedication of shooters.

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

1. There's no way I believe you can get 20 SEALs for the cost of 5 Marines.

2. I wouldn't consider a Det a brand new unit. Didn't they take the Marines out of existing stocks? They probably have new kit, but how much does that really cost? Maybe the equivilant of two General officer slots in The Maze?

3. I think if we have money to send cadets to CDQC for summer vacation - we should be able to find the money for a Det of Marine shooters.

4. I would rather have the Marine Det that the bureaucratic nonsense that is the Department of Homeland Security or the new Intelligence Czar position. Pull 80 FBI Legats home and spend their per diem on the Marine shooters. Hell, we could probably run that Det for a year on what it cost us for John Kerry to prance around the ME and Phrance on his last jaunt. The unpaid UN delegate parking tickets, the Martha Stewart trial and Ted Kennedy's government sponsored lunch time drinking bouts could all pay for it.

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

At the end of the day, if the powers that be had no intention of letting them run, they shouldn't have ever stood them up. It is criminal to play admin games with the dedication of shooters.

NDD,

1. My relative comparison was rhetorical in nature, not based on empirical knowledge. I haven't gone into researching training cost of man per unit. Don't have the time, nor the interest (much bigger fish to fry in my "kitchen" right now). In short, I was trying to make a point. I'll attempt a different method next time as mine was flawed.

2. MARDET is a new unit when you have to get them vehicles, equipment (their own, not USMCs, or the SEALs'), training grounds, logistics to support selection and training (as I assume that they won't continue to just pull Force Recons best and brightest from them as their only source of recruitment - I'm also assuming an OTC-type of scenario). I will include a support unit among other things. I understand that for now, they are sharing space with a SEAL team. Eventually, they are going to have to get their own "place". You know what? I think I need new pistols for my guys.

3. Cadets in CDQC ... I couldn't agree more with you on this one. I think is a waste of money spent on guys that might never use the skill just to get a badge. But, I really don't think that the "powers that be" have cadets in CDQC slots on the dry erase board while trying to figure this one out. Maybe they should, but, I don't think they do. If they do, then that's probably worth pistols I need ... maybe.

4. Theoretically, you are right. We could stop spending money on the Mars Rovers, or maybe the Space Shuttle program and establish the biggest, best equipped SOF unit on the planet. Heck, let's just disband the Marine, Army and Air Force bands and, of course, the 82d Airborne Choir while we are on a roll. But, those are not the things on the consideration list of the decision makers, unfortunately. Sad ... but true. Believe me, I know where you are coming from ... but, I still need those "pistols" and maybe, just maybe, more than a little over a fire-team worth of guys as a detachment. It sure would be nice.

PS - Maybe I'm over-protective of my own guys, but when I see this consideration of spending more on something that is not even "really on the books yet", I tend to think of my own guys and it makes me pause. Maybe a little selfish of me. For this, I apologize.

[NousDefionsDoc]

PS - They've been training experienced Operators for 18 months - lets put them on the books and give them a target. I understand about protecting your own guys - believe me I do. But we criticize the Agency and the FBI for not working together, let's set the example.

We're still buds, just discussing current events. No need to apologize.

[504PIR]

Just to throw a historical perspective on this. The USMC has done this to itself before. IE they formed the Marine Raider and the Parachute BN in WWII. Then disbanded them. For whatever reason, duplication of mission, ego(all Marines are elite), dislike of the Commander(Carlson). The joes put together some great units, got to play some, then went back to the rest of the Corp.

80's didn't want to be part of SOCOM. Did want to place Force-level assets under non-USMC control. Also "all Marines are an elite force".

In the 90's their Recon BN s were almost forced to become Lt Cavalry with combining with the LAV CO.s(?)

I think 2 of of the big reasons the Det was stood up...money and ego. The CoC wanted the SOCOM money and wanted a Marine presence in "Spec Ops'. Our jarheaded friends are pretty big on promoting the Corp as the "do-it-all" force. I have even been told by a Marine Plt Ldr, that ", a Marine Infantry platoon is the same as a Ranger plt,except they don't jump"....LMAO!

Thats just the way it is there. I have never been a jarhead, respect them, but thats kind of how I see it. We are fortunate that they have kept the Scout/Sniper program in place and the Force Recon bubbas are great dudes. But their CoC loves FR & S/S about as much as the conventional Army loves SF. The Corp wants to be THE CORP...and thats about it.

Just my .02

Going back to "lurk mode"

[NousDefionsDoc]

Corps, not Corp. Corp is what RL defends against The People.

[STR8SHTR]

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

NDD you just made me feel warm and fuzzy. I didn't know that you had feelings.

[RAT]

Originally Posted by 504PIR

Just to throw a historical perspective on this. The USMC has done this to itself before. IE they formed the Marine Raider and the Parachute BN in WWII. Then disbanded them. For whatever reason, duplication of mission, ego(all Marines are elite), dislike of the Commander(Carlson). The joes put together some great units, got to play some, then went back to the rest of the Corp.

504,

You are spot on. If one does not know, Carlson Raiders where the predecessors to the SEAL/s. There was still UDT/s but they formed a function on more of the lines of EOD today. The Raiders where the ones who did the commando missions and the very 1st trunk operations(Sub lock in and outs)

Originally Posted by 504PIR

80's didn't want to be part of SOCOM. Did want to place Force-level assets under non-USMC control. Also "all Marines are an elite force".

This will haunt us forever.

Originally Posted by 504PIR

In the 90's their Recon BN s were almost forced to become Lt Cavalry with combining with the LAV CO.s(?)

Originally Posted by 504PIR

I think 2 of of the big reasons the Det was stood up...money and ego. The CoC wanted the SOCOM money and wanted a Marine presence in "Spec Ops'. Our jarheaded friends are pretty big on promoting the Corp as the "do-it-all" force. I have even been told by a Marine Plt Ldr, that ", a Marine Infantry platoon is the same as a Ranger plt,except they don't jump"....LMAO!

I don't think money was as big a deal as that Gen Jones was the Co of a Recon unit in the 80's ans wanted to play with SOCOM then. Now he was the boss and he had the right to let his boys play. Gen Jones was the only Commadant to be from the Recon community.

As for the Marine Infantry -V- Rangers. This will be a debate that will go on till the end of time. I do belive that it is Apples and Oranges. Both are great at what they do. Could a great Ranger be a great Marine (Yes.) Could a great Marine be a Great Ranger. (Yes) I know people who came from the Rangers to the Corps and did very well, I know Marines who went the the Batts and did very well. Great people ae great people no matter what shirt they wear.

Originally Posted by 504PIR

We are fortunate that they have kept the Scout/Sniper program in place and the Force Recon bubbas are great dudes. But their CoC loves FR & S/S about as much as the conventional Army loves SF. The Corp wants to be THE CORP...and thats about it.

Like you said right now we are like by the CMC. CMC Jones was a RECON MARINE 1st and for most. Now Hagee or who ever the CMC is now is not a big RECON guy. As one Recon Bn CO told a buddy of mines Plt Sgt. "Recon is NOT a big deal. I have an H&S plt of Marines who can do the same job." Till we get commanders that understand Spec Op's the Corps will alway be lacking. MHO

RAT OUT!!!

[QRQ 30]

I will admit I like Marines. They don't ask a lot of questions and they do what they are told.

So true. I always said that if I had to lead an infantry squad or platoon I would just as soon it be Marines for the above reason.

You may find this hard tyo believe but these two incidents happened in SOG.
1. My 1-2 failed to bring his gear for a pre-insertion inspection. I always held one (by the numbers) due to the fact that people tend to leave "heavy shit" behind. I told him to go get his gear and he asked: "WHY" I relieved him on the spot and inserted a man short.
2.I had a SP4 1-2 with me on his first operation. As soon as we took a security brerak he took off his ruck and laid his weapon down and went to "smoke and Joke" with an indig. I told him to never separate from his weapon and equipment and he askes the magic word: "WHY". I swear the only reason I didn't shoot him on the spot was that I didn't have a supressed weapon at the time.

At Khe Sahn the jarheads were always begging loaded magazines from us. It seems that they went by the book and only were allowed a basic load of seven magazines. If you have ever seen them operate you would realize they almost always expended a full magazine at every danger crossing. 7 mags didn't last long.

When we were alerted to close KSCB the Jarheads were made to take their bayonets and slit and empty sand bags back into the trenchs. I never could understand that one. I know they didn't want to leave anything for Mr. Charles but there were easier ways to accomplish that..


Now when and if a marine survives to become a staff NCO his initial lobotomy, which was performed in boot camp has healed and Jarhead staff NCPOs are great people to know.

[SERPENT5XX]

Gentlemen,

First off I am a SF guy so I am sure this will be seen as biased by some of you. With that said I am interested first and foremost in winning the GWOT and I am for anything that gets us to that end.
I was OCONUS for months and was in a position that allowed me intimate visibility of all SOF and DET 1 Operations. I do not say this to impress you, I say this to illustrate that I understand their mission and what they provide to USSOCOM. Great troops, well trained, motivated, and well equipped shooters. (I love that pistol, sniper rifle and cool Mercedes truck). They are a great choice for focused DA/CQB ops. As are elements of SF, SEALs, some infantry and un-named others. That is the problem.
Here is the issue. In GWOT the number of trigger pullers, even ones capable of precision force is not really an issue. The issue is UW capable units. What we are short of are guys that can do the unique UW related things that SF guys can do. Obviously I will not get into specifics and cause the OPSEC ninjas to descend on my house, but basically the guys that can prosecute targets in GWOT far exceeds those that can produce the targets. Think of a pyramid. The capstone consists of target producers and the whole rest of the pyramid consists of target prosecutors waiting for targets to hit.
Why do you think we have not caught Bin Laden or the Z-man? Is it because we do not have any units able to apply precision force? No, the problem is we do not know where to apply that force. We need more targets, not the forces to hit them.
The bottom line is DET 1 does not bring anything to the USSOCOM table that they do not currently have or are even short of.
Just my observation.

SERPENT5XX

[GreenSalsa]

Dead on!

I believe if they (USMC) wanted to play in SOCOM, their best chance would have been to sell their "recon" abilities. We have a LOT of trigger pullers, not enough eyes to direct those triggers.

[504PIR]

Just to clairfy my post:

The whole Marine Infantry vs Rangers thing. Based on mission, assets, support & logistics I believe Marines are more comparable to Airborne Infantry than Rangers.

Both Abn Inf and MC are elite light infantry with a specialized "forced-entry" capibility. Both have a larger amount of support avalible to them (FA, Armor, ADA, Cmbt Eng as well as CAS & Naval Gunfire). Not that Rangers lack support at all.

Lets face it any of the 3 Ranger Bn gets more money for equipment & training than any Abn or MC Inf Bn. So stands to reason they "should" perform to a high standard.

Also in a Ranger Platoon all the NCOs and many of the E-4s are tabbed, as well as the "cool guy" schools Sniper/SOTIC, SERE, etc are in the skill sets of the platoon. Unfortunatly my jarhead friends tell me the Corps can be kinda stingy with $ for schools.

Ranger Regiment has more discretion with keeping or DXing its personal. When I was in Divison we had to work with a turd longer instead of just kicking him out. I suspect the MC is the same way.

A good Marine should make a good Ranger and vice versa. Hell I was smoked at Camp Darby by a RI wearing a "funny 8 cornered PC", think he called it a "cover".

When I had the conversation with the Marine Plt Ldr he was a obnoxious, know it all jerk. Unfortunatly the USMC does not have a monopoly on that type of officer. I did enjoy screwing with him though....

Not trying to beat up any unit, just my opinion. Be proud to have anybody who has worn a Tan/Black, Maroon or even that funny looking 8 cornered PC by my side in a fight.

Back to lurking

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1993/SCM.htm