How has being SF or in the Army changed you?

dennisw · 05-24-2005, 15:21

I've watched my youngest go through the SF pipeline for the last two years, including basic and infantry training, and the transformation is very interesting to say the least. Since he's fairly young, some of the changes can be chalked up to normal maturity, if there is such a thing. However, I have a feeling that most of the changes are related to his training and experience.

For the Quite Professionals and candidates, do you think the SF journey has changed you in any significant manner?

dave_az · 05-25-2005, 08:47

Looking forward to answer. .

lksteve · 05-25-2005, 08:56

i've thought about this question often...over the years, it seems to me that the training didn't change me, fundamentally, anymore than a gem cutter changes the nature of a stone he fashions...the training brings forward certain aspects of a person, but underneath, it's the same guy...

i do not believe that anyone can become SF...there are people with the right combination of phsyical and intellectual skills, aptitudes and interests that cannot, should not and will not make it through the training and for the rare few of these folks who do, they do not stay in the business very long...the more mature leave of their own choosing and the posers are sent away...

QRQ 30 · 05-25-2005, 09:21

I agree with 1ksteve. That's why I didn't reply. I believe Special Forces merely fulfilled my destiny from the beginning. Take that as a compliment for your son. If he makes it it means he is made of the right stuff.

BTW: Not making it doesn't necessarily mean failure in life. I don't care for quiters but others just weren't meant to be. Hopefully the selection process does its job and selects the proper candidates.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 05-25-2005, 10:56

Agree with both QRQ and lksteve. SF is a commitment and not just a branch. In order for anyone to fullfill this commitment they have to be fully aligned with the physcological, physical, intellectual demands expected of a Special Forces soldier. I really don't see myself as changed from being who I was before I came into the service but I do see myself as being a whole lot better soldier for being associated, challenged, and driven by a sense of not wanting to let down anyone with whom I worked. The motivation was always there but the acquired skill sets associated with mission performance was honed by those with whom and for whom I served. I think that one of the most unique things about Special Forces as a profession at arms, unlike many of the other branches in the service, who you are is what you do whereas in most other professions/jobs/careers what you do is not necessarily who you are.

Jack Moroney

dennisw · 05-25-2005, 11:28

In hindsight, I should have worded my question more carefully. I like the gem cutter analogy. Peter G. Bourne, MD -- Department of Psychiatry proformed a study of SF soldiers in Vietnam. I found it fascinating. Many of you are probably already familiar with his findings. If not it's at the following website:

www.sfalx.com/bourne/

Some of his observations may relate more to Vietnam then to SF soldiers in general. Again, the members of this board are better suited then any to answer that.

Although my son does not have SF experience, I can see certain characteristics emerging due to the training: self reliance, acute sense of SA and an increased sense of confidence related to problem solving. Also, it appears sleep is not a necessity, just an option. lol

Do you agree with Dr. Bourne? Is he on target?

Also, if we use the gem cutting analogy, how much of the metamophism is related to the training, and how much relates to the team experience?

Without being dissarespectful, I would imagine some folks coming out of the pipeline can be a bit cocky or rough and the team provides the group discipline to polish the stone.

QRQ 30 · 05-25-2005, 11:42

I'm not sure I agree 100% but pretty much so.

I didn't learn to do without sleep. I did learn to nap for 4 1/2 minutes during a 5 minute break.

I believe the traits are collective rather than specifying a position.

The first and best Team sergeants had similar characteristics. They never challenged the officers but, rather supported and demanded we support them. The first two of which I speak were Korean vets. They never got excited. When presented with a problem they would calmly consider a solution and then present it to the team. One, MSG Holz may pace back and forth with his hands behind his back. If he did this we knew he was in "Deep Thought". Unlike today, the Team Sergeants of the sixties were mostly veterans with more than 20 years service.

NousDefionsDoc · 05-25-2005, 11:49

It made a whole new person out of me and every bit of success I have had since, however small, can be directly attributed to the example shown by my Teammates in professionalsim, personal responsibility, team work, etc.

QRQ 30 · 05-25-2005, 11:51

The following motto of the Special Operations Association pretty well says it all"

Quote:

You have never lived until you have almost died. For those who have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know.

Or as we said in SOG: "Looked the elephant in the eye."

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 05-25-2005, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by dennisw

Do you agree with Dr. Bourne? Is he on target?

.

The group dynamics are going to vary a lot and while he has captured some of the stuff that goes on it surely did not go on with all teams. Each team, like every camp, was different and had different variables. I commanded two separate teams and each, like the people on them, where extremely different and neither fit the discriptions portrayed by Bourne. I do know of situations and camps where individual actions occured but not one camp where collectively that went on as a rule.
As far as his portrayal of leadership and the various elements of "power" he thinks are being used I think he is off the mark completely. Elements of power (legitmate, positional, reward, referent, coercive, personal,professional, etc) all stem from the strenghts and weakness of the leader/person and his view of this interaction has to be taken in light of the personalities involved. So while his comments are interesting and have some basis in fact for his observations it has little value in drawing conclusions about SF leadership interactions specifically. I will say from a leadership perspective that most newly assigned officers have at the least legitimate , positional power and some professional power. Good ones, as they mature or if they have had prior experience in SF or are quick studies will also have professional and referent powers. The best ones will have a combination of professional, referent, personal and get the job done with that. Those that have to depend on legitimate, positional, and coercive power to function will not last long-although there is a time and a place to exercise these elements it is usually in influencing up the chain and rarely, if ever, within the team. While this sounds like a short treatise on leadership I do not intend it to, it is just my reflection back on the teams I commanded and all the various team leaders that worked as commanders subordinate to me and as contemporaries with me.

Jack Moroney

lksteve · 05-25-2005, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by dennisw

Also, if we use the gem cutting analogy, how much of the metamophism is related to the training, and how much relates to the team experience?

depends on the individual...depends on the team...the process of metamorphism is never completed...never...at least in my case, i believe i am still evolving, based on my experience, my training, my associations...not unlike NDD, i apply everything i learned throughout my time in SF to my life beyond the Army...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dennisw

Without being dissarespectful, I would imagine some folks coming out of the pipeline can be a bit cocky or rough and the team provides the group discipline to polish the stone.

first trip downrange usually knocks cocky out of even the brashest...the team he's with on that first trip determines whether the gem is polished or simply rubbed on...

rough...i dunno...don't think that ever goes away...some of us are more suave and debonaire than others...BTW, the correct pronounciation is swave (as in wave with an s at the beginning) and deboner (as in one who removes meat from a bone)...i would not make these things up...

Tubbs · 05-25-2005, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by lksteve

BTW, the correct pronounciation is swave (as in wave with an s at the beginning) and deboner (as in one who removes meat from a bone)...i would not make these things up...

Sounds like you've been talking to my old company 1StSgt.