# PSYOP in Rangers, and Enabler Support to SF



## Ravage (Aug 25, 2009)

http://news.soc.mil/releases/News Archive/2009/August/090825-02.html

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (USASOC News Service, Aug. 25, 2009) – Five Psychological Operations specialists assigned to the 4th Psychological Operations Group (Airborne) recently underwent a grueling five-day assessment to determine if they are fit to serve and fight with the 75th Ranger Regiment.

PSYOP roles are usually divided into two areas: strategic and tactical. Strategic roles may require a Soldier to wear a suit and work in an embassy, whereas tactical missions often see them out in the field, carrying a weighty man-packed loudspeaker system in addition to their normal combat gear.

The detachment of 16 PSYOPers supporting the Rangers is certainly described as tactical.  After all, their name is Tactical PSYOP Detachment 9B40, part of Bravo Company, 9th PSYOP Battalion.  Because of the tough missions and austere conditions that Rangers are notorious for, the Soldiers providing them PSYOP capabilities have to be the best available.

Staff Sgt. Matthew Mead, 9B40 detachment sergeant, had the job of running the events and helping evaluate the candidates.

“These guys might have to move out for 20 miles loaded down with equipment, keeping up with Rangers who are probably the fastest ruckers in the Army, and still know how to perform their PSYOP role, and how they’ll fit into a given mission once they reach their objective,” Mead said. “We need thinkers that can fit in with the Ranger Regiment.”

Capt. Bruce Hoffman, 9B40’s detachment commander, has been in the Army for over 19 years.  First joining the Army as an infantryman, Hoffman has served with scout platoons, Long Range Reconnaissance and Surveillance teams, and as a Ranger instructor for four years.  Members of his detachment recognize him as the standard bearer.  During the five-day assessment, he used the skills he gained as an instructor for the Rangers to determine whether the Soldiers trying out have what it takes to be a member of his team.

The week-long assessment was designed to stress the Soldiers out and observe how they perform in that condition.  The week kicked off like most in the Army, with physical training before the sun came up on Monday morning.  The first event the group faced was the Ranger Physical Fitness Test , which is similar to the Army’s PT test, but it adds dead-hang pull-ups, and instead of a two-mile run, there’s a five-mile run that must be completed in no more than 40 minutes.

After a quick breakfast and the chance to change into their duty uniform, the Soldiers and their evaluators moved out to Mott Lake for the Combat Water Survival Test.  Mead ran through a demonstration, then the five candidates were individually canoed out to the middle of the lake where they donned a blindfold, carried a weapon and a load-bearing vest that were tied to the boat, and jumped into the water.  One Soldier didn’t consider himself a strong swimmer, so the evaluators watched him closely, making sure he didn’t drown.  All five completed the water test successfully, after which the group was taught how to use their Army Combat Uniforms to make a personal floatation device.

The class ended abruptly when Sgt. Bradley Thuma, one of 9B40’s NCOs, yelled at the group to get back to the shore as fast as possible.  It was time to recite the Ranger Creed, a favorite amongst the team’s NCOs.  Before the assessment, each Soldier was given a little black Ranger Handbook and told to memorize the Ranger Creed.  Messing up while quoting it resulted in an immediate increase in the volume of the assessor’s voice, and of course, remedial training for the entire team.

“Almost everything we quizzed them on was in the Ranger Handbook,” Mead said. “If a guy shows up to assessment and he’s not even willing to read the Handbook that kind of says something to us.”

One candidate was prompted to recite the Creed’s first stanza.  He snapped to attention, ran out in front of his fellow Soldiers and shouted,  “The first stanza of the Ranger Creed!”  His veins bulged and sweat dripped off his forehead thanks to the hot, humid North Carolina air, not to mention the previous bouts of sprints, push-ups and flutter-kicks he’d endured.

“Repeat after me…”  A few seconds of silence indicated the Soldier’s uncertainty.  Given a bit more time he might have led the group in a resounding rendition of the Ranger Creed, but hesitation wasn’t the name of the game.

“Are you telling me that you came to this assessment without having memorized the Ranger Creed?”  one of the team’s NCOs shouted.  The group was then told to sprint to the lake, swim out to the middle and back as fast as they could.  The Soldiers executed this command immediately, but on their faces they had a look that showed they hadn’t bargained for what lay ahead.

“They need to be physically fit for not just a PT test, but for a week-long endurance event,” Mead said.  “They need to know the Ranger Handbook, and they need to know tactical PSYOP.  If they do those things and come with the right attitude, they’re probably going to be successful.  But if they blow off any of those three, they’re gonna have a hard time.”

For one of day two’s events, the group met in the August heat at one of the obstacle courses on Fort Bragg.  After a run-through to show the Soldiers what to expect and to point out any hazards, they lined up at the beginning and were let loose one at a time.  Climbing up walls, swinging on ropes, low-crawling through muddy water, jumping over obstacles, and rolling through sand left the candidates covered from head to toe in water, dirt and sweat.

One of the candidates, Sgt. Minkyu Rhi, said he volunteered for this because he was looking for a challenge.

“One of my cadre from when I went through the PSYOP course used to be a member of 9B40, and from how he described the team it sounded like the bar was higher over there than in the rest of the Group,” Rhi said. “That first day was kind of a rude awakening.  I knew there was going to be a little bit of ’smoking‘ or whatever you want to call it, but I didn’t expect it to be at that level.  But I can take a lot of punishment, so I got quickly in that mode.”

During days three and four, the group went out to a site near Camp Mackall to do small unit tactics, and land navigation.

“During the small unit tactics portion of the assessment, we were curious to see how they would react during a stressful situation,” Mead said. “Obviously you can’t replicate the stresses of actual combat, but we tried.  We fired blanks and shouted at them and basically got them excited, got their hearts pounding to see what they would do.”
Rhi, who before trying out for 9B40, was assigned to Charlie Company, 8th PSYOP Battalion, summed up the assessment.

“I would tell anyone that’s interested in this, that it’s probably one of the most vigorous events, physically and mentally, that they’ll ever do,” he said. “But, it’s not just one big ’smoke-fest.’  I learned a lot about land nav, common infantry tactics and a lot of PSYOP capabilities. I’d have to say the last day was the most challenging part of the week.  It was really hot, and at that point we were all pretty beat, and they told us that we had to road march all the way back to Bragg.  But I think we stopped around the 12 or 13 mile mark, which was a relief.”

“They went and occupied a broadcast position; broadcast a message, recorded the reaction of the target audience, and then exfiltrated,” Mead said. “It’s similar to a prepared deliberate ambush, because you have to determine your fields of fire.  But, in this case, instead of laying waste to the objective, they were broadcasting a message.” 

Other PSYOP tasks included in the SUT lanes were face to face interactions with “locals”, consequence management, and loud speaker operations.  Mead said determining how effectively the Soldiers performed their PSYOP roles was a big part of the assessment.

At the end of the week, three Soldiers were chosen as new members of TPD 9B40: Sgt. Minkyu Rhi, Spc. Christopher Darbyshire, and Spc. Matthew Thomas.  Hoffman and Mead told the two Soldiers who weren’t selected that they were welcome to come back and try again in November, when the detachment will hold their next assessment.  The only thing that will keep Soldiers from being invited back to try again is a legitimate medical problem, and any sort of integrity violation like cheating or lying during the week.  Soldiers that complete the week receive a Certificate of Achievement worth five promotion points, even if they aren’t selected for the detachment.

Hoffman said that new members of the detachment prepare for two main options: joining a team and training with the Rangers for a roughly 90 day pre-mission training period and then deploying, or going to pre-Ranger course and Ranger school.









> Spc. Christopher Darbyshire runs through an obstacle course at Fort Bragg, NC. Darbyshire is trying out for TPD 9B40, a PSYOP team that serves with U.S. Army Rangers. (Photo by Sgt. David Harris, 4th PSYOP Group (A) Public Affairs Office)









> Sgt. Minkyu Rhi moves through water that’s part of an obstacle course on Fort Bragg.  Rhi is being assessed to determine if he is fit to serve with the Rangers in a PSYOP role. (Photo by Sgt. David Harris, 4th PSYOP Group (A) Public Affairs Office)









> Spc. Matthew Thomas jumps into Mott Lake as part of the Combat Water Survival Test.  Thomas is being assessed to determine if he is fit to serve with the Rangers in a PSYOP role. (Photo by Sgt. David Harris, 4th PSYOP Group (A) Public Affairs Office)









> The group of five PSYOP Soldiers recites the Ranger Creed after completing the Combat Water Survival test.  The Soldiers are being assessed to determine if they’re fit to serve alongside Rangers in a PSYOP role. (Photo by Sgt. David Harris, 4th PSYOP Group (A) Public Affairs Office)


----------



## jimt (Oct 29, 2010)

Good idea. Hopefully it works. Psyopers are great assets to any team, whether its Rangers, SF or Delta.


----------



## moobob (Oct 29, 2010)

jimt said:


> Good idea. Hopefully it works. Psyopers are great assets to any team, whether its Rangers, SF or Delta.


 
Huh?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2010)

jimt said:


> Good idea. Hopefully it works. Psyopers are great assets to any team, whether its Rangers, SF or Delta.


 
X2 on the Huh? Just out of curiosity do you have a special operations sticker on your bumper?


----------



## jimt (Oct 30, 2010)

Wow. no, no stickers. Worked with a lot of great people in spec ops. I guess you weren't one of them.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 30, 2010)

OK, enough ribbing the new guy... back on track for this thread please.


----------



## car (Oct 30, 2010)

Touchdown, Gamecocks!


Just to reinfoirce Mara's point......stay on thread, boyz!


----------



## moobob (Oct 30, 2010)

Wasn't ribbing... just looking for an explanation of the post. Specifically "Good idea. Hopefully it works."

car, pm.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 30, 2010)

You know we in SOF have a tendency to rib new guys, if my tone wa perceived wrong I guess I am sorry, I just think it's funny when people name drop units/colors ect


----------



## pardus (Oct 30, 2010)

I think the 'ribbing' was very tame and should be encouraged, keeps everyone straight and on online IMO.

This is sounding very "Army" and PC.

Just my :2c:  

;)


----------



## jimt (Nov 3, 2010)

No problem on the ribbing. I apologize if I insulted anyone. Wasn't meaning to.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 4, 2010)

It looks like ACU is still performing well as an all environment camo.


----------



## pardus (Nov 4, 2010)

SpitfireV said:


> It looks like ACU is still performing well as an all environment camo.


 
Ridiculous isn't it? The only good thing about it is that is stains easily because of the lightness of the tan giving it some local flavour when in mud/water.

I despise it as a cam and a concept.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 4, 2010)

Yeah you can really see that in the mud photos. Looks like some sort of dodgy cam they used to put on GI Joes back in the 80s.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 6, 2011)

4th POG has had a "Ranger support element" for Ranger units for awhile now, first time I knew of them was in 2002. Glad to see they are still utilizing them.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2011)

Why not send them to RASP? Then at least the guys they are supporting know they are worth their mettle?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 6, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> Why not send them to RASP? Then at least the guys they are supporting know they are worth their mettle?



Yeah I fully agree with this...


----------



## psyopwilddog (Apr 5, 2011)

Being a former psyop specialist, I like the idea of being put through a hell week to see if they have the right stuff to see if they can hang with the Ranger's and still do their job to support the Rangers mission.


----------



## Lee175 (Sep 5, 2011)

I certainly think the title POG fits. :)


----------



## Loki (May 25, 2012)

I find this interesting, timely and frankly about time. One of my old units (the 426th FID/UW CA. ) supported the Rangers on occasion along with 1st SFG. At that time 2002 we had to pass the swim test, road march, 80% PT quals even to be in the unit. We further supported JCETs and numerous other types of missions world-wide. We were attachments in CAT-A four man configurations from CA at that time. Later in my career I was assigned to the 361 / 7th POG. As of recently there has been problems with personnel keeping pace with the main body elements. I think the problem has always been present, it is just now becoming an issue in support of combat operations. As reported to me via SNCOs (buddies still serving) there has been problems down-range with troops falling out and not being able to keep up with units in the combat environment. Particularly personnel of reduced upper body strength and physical stature as well as fat bodies. In some cases the support personnel had to be picked up and flown out for medical problems and exhaustion. This has lead to stricter selection at the unit level for assignment, taskers and deployment. Frankly some of my assignments tried my endurance even after serving in the infantry for numerous years and being in excellent physical condition. This is a great idea, long overdue and should be mandatory for all CA and PSYOP.

Here's an example of one of those DA missions while in A-stan that ended in nothing, nada zero... 9.25 miles in and 9.25 miles out with a river crossing. Just about drown... Full gear and weapons with some sweet summer sun. I was assigned to support and was embedded with French SPECOPs teams. On occasion US SF and Dutch SF as well depending on mission requirements. No joy on the target then 12 compounds searched. O and none of those nice super cool guy American helicopters to come get you.  Special big mountains in the Maruf.


----------



## goon175 (May 27, 2012)

pretty cool to look at....not so much fun to climb...

Dissapointing to hear that TPT is having a hard time keeping up. The guys we had attached to us never had a problem keeping up, but their tactics left a little to be desired...

FUCK THOSE MOUNTAINS.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 27, 2012)

Being a outsider I'm a bit at a loss, what would be the point of attaching a PSYOP's group to a SOF unit that focuses on DA/raids? That kind of says "get in, get the bad guys/kill em all, get out" to me. Granted, again, this is a outsider looking in, so I suppose I'm looking for some enlightenment.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 27, 2012)

Easy answer? Loudspeaker backpack to tell them "give the fuck up, you're surrounded and we brought in heavy bombers" for a "soft" raid.

Or playing heavy metal once the SBF opens up.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 27, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Easy answer? Loudspeaker backpack to tell them "give the fuck up, you're surrounded and we brought in heavy bombers" for a "soft" raid.
> 
> Or playing heavy metal once the SBF opens up.


 
Makes sense, though most jihadi's don't strike me as the surrender without a fight type. If anything, surrounding em and yelling "surrender" through a loudspeaker just gives em time to wake up, set some bombs, and get their guns ready in my book


----------



## Marauder06 (May 27, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Makes sense, though most jihadi's don't strike me as the surrender without a fight type. If anything, surrounding em and yelling "surrender" through a loudspeaker just gives em time to wake up, set some bombs, and get their guns ready in my book


 
It works sometimes, especially in Afghanistan, often for one or more of these reasons:  1) they don't want to get killed, 2) they don't want their family placed in danger, 3) they're pretty certain if they don't fight, they'll be back out on the street shortly thereafter.

It doesn't always work so well with foreign fighters who don't care if they die, and don't care who dies with them.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 27, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> It works sometimes, especially in Afghanistan, often for one or more of these reasons: 1) they don't want to get killed, 2) they don't want their family placed in danger, 3) they're pretty certain if they don't fight, they'll be back out on the street shortly thereafter.
> 
> It doesn't always work so well with foreign fighters who don't care if they die, and don't care who dies with them.


 
I can see how that works, and it makes sense. Fucking foreign fighters....and with places like Libya and Egypt both about to get themselves islamicist governments, things are just looking up more and more!


----------



## Loki (May 28, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Being a outsider I'm a bit at a loss, what would be the point of attaching a PSYOP's group to a SOF unit that focuses on DA/raids? That kind of says "get in, get the bad guys/kill em all, get out" to me. Granted, again, this is a outsider looking in, so I suppose I'm looking for some enlightenment.


 
Hummm, occasionally I asked myself exactly that same question... Our primary mission was not to kill anyone or nor everyone. We wanted to; (1) apprehend, secure and recover 10 suspected Taliban personnel at a target location (2) conduct searches of multiple compounds for additional hostile persons and munitions / weapons (3) speak with surrounding leaders Mullas, key personnel and asses the civil populations welfare, water and general safety (4) hand off specific items to specific persons (5) arraign later delivery HA items to the inhabitants of the area (6) record and photograph everything and everybody. Additionally I was tasked with CAS as required because the aircraft were manned by English speakers (Brits out of Kandahar). On the team I was on I was routinely responsible for calling air if needed by the French commander. Of course we had a back up guy on our team as well. I was also tasked with calling in SITREPs via my commo which was separate from the French at that time to my US Commander.

During this mission and others I was a CA asset and not part of a TPT (that came several years later in my career). My job was as an embedded support, the tasking comes from and was above my pay grade for these types of operations. You know sometimes you get missions and you really wonder why I'm here and someone is not telling me everything. This happens just about the same and exact time you hear your ass slam shut. I was assigned as the sole support US CA asset for these teams during these types of operations among other types. On occasion there were other types of assets that accompanied us. My boss was US SF and had US SF elements. They were chopped out as well to the French via US SF LNO to support them and I supported them as well. That's another really great part about CA and Pysop you never know at times where you will end up, hence again the need for this type of training. They needed a US SOF CA asset among several other things to conduct village, population, tribal assessments in the region / AOR. There are also certain reporting requirements, stats, funding accountability and numerous other things that we are responsible to record to support US commander. Not to mention we fund things with US money and give credit with full recognition to our foreign partner forces. These were pretty routine and still are as I understand it happening. And on occasion you have to bait the hook with meat.

DA was not the primary or only focus of this unit, there are many other missions and objectives inclusive and sub-taskings. It's not always that clear cut, pretty and or clean (_Chopper ride to the objective, hit the target, PUC HVT, load up, knuckle bump and hit the road_).  I never saw anything go down that smooth, cool or high speed. It was always a shit sandwich with many working parts, dated or poor actionable intel, equipment break downs and fog combined with friction. These are multi-faceted multi-disciplined forces with strategic and tactical operational objectives. At times we operated in the field for up to two weeks with numerous types of missions on our plate. Recently some forces have more clearly delineated responsibilities and singular focus with the addition of key personnel campaigning for the change at the top levels. But still the SOF units are multi-dimensional and multi-faceted forces with numerous objectives.

I hope this lends a clearer view of the operational requirements, concerns and responsibility of the CA and Pysop personnel. Although my assignment was somewhat abhorrent and unique it is not unheard of or highly unusual. The job requires an open mind, adaptability and a solution oriented individual who can think beyond the moment or his /her comfort zone.

I also give further opinion relative to this MOS / stuff on this thread more in depth;
Civil Affairs Qualification Course: Week 1 in Review 

Conclusion; these guys need more and better Warfare training hence I think the solution of the course in this thread is way over due. 

This Vid reminds of more missions than I care to remember. Same AO but none of the cool chopper support or bling.  All work no play...





!


----------



## Squidward (Feb 1, 2013)

goon175 said:


> pretty cool to look at....not so much fun to climb...
> 
> Dissapointing to hear that TPT is having a hard time keeping up. The guys we had attached to us never had a problem keeping up, but their tactics left a little to be desired...
> 
> FUCK THOSE MOUNTAINS.


 
x2 bro

Had an enabler stop, take off all his gear and refuse to move on me twice during the same mission. The first time was on the side of a mountain during infil, and the second time was in the open during the movement to exfil. Both times things could have gone very badly for the entire element, and it was a position I promised myself I would never get caught in again.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 1, 2013)

Take his/her gear and don't return it when you get back


----------



## Squidward (Feb 1, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Take his/her gear and don't return it when you get back


 
We cross loaded his stuff and moved on. Dude was on a bird to Bagram a few days after we got back.


----------



## Loki (Feb 1, 2013)

Squidward said:


> x2 bro
> Had an enabler stop, take off all his gear and refuse to move on me twice during the same mission. The first time was on the side of a mountain during infil, and the second time was in the open during the movement to exfil. Both times things could have gone very badly for the entire element, and it was a position I promised myself I would never get caught in again.


 
How embarrassing, frustrating and a total NO-GO at this station. I can only imagine what was going through your mind. Don't fucking quit you puke, fucking die in place now! My head would have exploded! 

P.S. We were all hoping with everything we had to see a Helo and surprise us. It never happened, March or die! The Maruf sucks ass!



Squidward said:


> We cross loaded his stuff and moved on. Dude was on a bird to Bagram a few days after we got back.


My head is spinning right now, other grown men had to carry this bitches gear? He should have cut his fucking wrists or washed his pathetic mouth out with a M4!


----------



## Karoshi (Feb 1, 2013)

Should've ratfucked the snacks in his gear and punctured each can of Monster he was carrying, before sending him on his way.


----------



## Loki (Feb 1, 2013)

Karoshi said:


> Should've ratfucked the snacks in his gear and punctured each can of Monster he was carrying, before sending him on his way.


 
Should of dumped all this pukes trash and only taken the sensitive items. Everything else burned in place with a thermite. On return to the FOB there would have been hell to pay. This is sickening! I can accept slow, tired, hunger and beat I can't accept quit. You better drag yourself and shut up. Something better be broke, detached and blood coming out of your ass before you even think about this. Even then; "harden the fuck up"!


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 1, 2013)

Squidward said:


> ...Dude was on a bird to Bagram a few days after we got back.


 
Was it a MEDEVAC bird?  He would have suffered from falling into my fist a few times as soon as we got back.

Crip


----------



## Squidward (Feb 1, 2013)

This is the image I always think of when I see "Harden the fuck up".

By the time we got back everyone just wanted to wash their hands of him and expedite his departure. Guy ended up getting sent out to another team and getting fired again after only a week or so. He works permanently, harmlessly up at Bagram now. As far as what was going through my mind, I think I remember saying to myself, "This is it. Where's it going to come from?" Luckily "it" didn't come until daybreak, and that was the day I almost ate an RPG. However, that's another story altogether.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2013)

If only there was a way, a method, of pre-screening individuals before sending them out with a team...


----------



## Squidward (Feb 1, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> If only there was a way, a method, of pre-screening individuals before sending them out with a team...


 
I've asked that question a couple times. Believe me.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2013)

Squidward said:


> I've asked that question a couple times. Believe me.


 
I don't doubt that. It is something we've discussed here more times than I can remember. Marauder06 has an entire soapbox built around it (righteously so in my opinion) and as a former support guy it sickens me to hear of shit like this. Small units are not "plug and play", you don't drop someone out there who meets "x" qualification and then wash your hands of it. You can teach SUT, you can teach other skills, but you can't teach "heart" and Day One in the team room is the wrong time to figure out a PT plan. All of the other stuff can be acquired provided a solid foundation exists.

A decade of war and people still don't "get it" but meanwhile who is paying the price? Guys like you and your team. Cynically one could say "Well, that's why you're SF. You're trained to deal with the situations, so deal with it." That's a cop out, but I'll bet that's the argument some will put forward.

We send million dollar cars to the Combat Speedway and then shake our heads when that car is sidelined by a broken 10 dollar part.

It breaks my heart. I guess we should be glad I'm not drinking tonight. That guy who quit on you? Fuck him with a pizza cutter. I'd have killed a family of 4 with an ax for that opportunity. Fuck him. Twice. With a pizza cutter.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 1, 2013)

.


----------



## Loki (Feb 1, 2013)

Exactly the reason for such a class and selection of "enablers". I can tell you first hand more than once I have ended up knee deep in a shit storm as a nobody in a team of "group dudes". The last thing I would do is quit, drop out or cry like a bitch. I could care less about badges, patches or some other crap. A Warrior don't let another Warrior down or his team, Charlie Mike, drive on or die in place! Every mission every time the same thought in my mind always, don't let your brothers down, stay in the fight no matter what. SUCK IT UP! Till the end with honor and dignity no matter what happens or how bad it gets. That's Soldiering 101, something the Army as a whole don't teach. I'm not some hard core PT freak or super stud action guy, on the contrary I'm an old fat fuck, but quit and lay down ain't part of the deal.

Thank you all for your service. Now for a glass of rum and a Cigar while dreaming about warm beaches, hard body honeys and scuba diving somewhere.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> <<SNIP>> Cynically one could say "Well, that's why you're SF. You're trained to deal with the situations, so deal with it." That's a cop out, but I'll bet that's the argument some will put forward...


 
On more than one occasion Brother.

Its always quantity over quality with command and the inverse down at the ODA level. If the guys who are supposed to be supporting me require their hands being held to do their jobs then I will save myself the time and just do it myself.

I talked with my BN CDR a few weeks ago about the need for an A&S to identify support guys who have what we are looking for and to weed out those who arent what we need. He seems dedicated to it so I am going to work on the implementation plan while I am here.

We have gone far too long accepting whatever the various branch managers decide to send - fuck that...

Crip


----------



## Squidward (Feb 2, 2013)

A pizza cutter? That's a new one for me. I like it.

The movie Saving Private Ryan comes to mind.

It's a numbers game. Always has been. Oh this team doesn't have insert MOS here? Well PFC Shmeckass here is an insert MOS here. We'll send him out there. It's not fair play on a lot of grounds, and it's terribly reckless.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 2, 2013)

Honestly, a lot of these issues would not be issues if Basic COMBAT Training did what it was supposed to do. 

Just sayin'


----------



## Squidward (Feb 2, 2013)

Well we shouldn't really even have to do basic combat training anymore in my opinion. All we should really have to do with recruits is give them a uniform, a bunch of gear and tell them they're warriors.

I'm unsure of why we didn't think of this before.


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2013)

Squidward said:


> This is the image I always think of when I see "Harden the fuck up".
> 
> By the time we got back everyone just wanted to wash their hands of him and expedite his departure. Guy ended up getting sent out to another team and getting fired again after only a week or so. He works permanently, harmlessly up at Bagram now. As far as what was going through my mind, I think I remember saying to myself, "This is it. Where's it going to come from?" Luckily "it" didn't come until daybreak, and that was the day I almost ate an RPG. However, that's another story altogether.View attachment 7770



If this was recent, you sent that fuck show out to me and he didn't last long at all. We still get shit for it too.


----------



## Squidward (Feb 2, 2013)

lindy said:


> If this was recent, you sent that fuck show out to me and he didn't last long at all. We still get shit for it too.


 
It would've been back in October. We did send a different guy out recently though. PM inbound.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I don't doubt that. It is something we've discussed here more times than I can remember. *Marauder06 has an entire soapbox* built around it (righteously so in my opinion) and as a former support guy it sickens me to hear of shit like this. ...


 
I think that's my cue 


"Enablers? Those guys aren't important!"  ...said none of the top Army-majority SOF organizations other than SF.

I blame the individual for not being able to keep up with the people he supports.

I blame the Groups for tolerating this type of performance from their enablers, to the point where low enabler performance is almost expected.

I blame USASFC for not doing anything about it. Ever.



It's not that freakin' hard to fix this situation. Here it is three easy steps:

1) Initiate an enabler assessment, selection, and training program. Make it as big or as small as you want. But do it now. And put an enabler in charge of it, NOT an SF guy. If you put an SF guy in charge of it, it's going to become SFAS- and Q-course lite. You don't need a bunch of enablers who think they can do ODA jobs, what you need is for the ODAs to think that the enablers can do enabler jobs in support of the SF mission. You do that by ensuring enablers are good excellent at enabler jobs, not by trying to make them good at ODA tasks.

2) After you have screened, assessed, and trained your enablers, start holding them accountable. Get rid of the shitbags, don't just send them up to Bagram where they can brag about their time "with the teams" to Air Force chicks at Green Beans. Put it down on paper so it follows them the rest of their career, so they can't use "well when I was at Group..." to cover up their screwups when they're back with 10th Mountain instead of 10th Group. If you don't write it down, it never happened and these clowns will be milking credibility out of that USASFC combat patch for the rest of their career. Moreover, it'll be like a bad Poltergeist re-run "They're baaaa-ack!" because once you've been assigned to a Group, no matter how well or poorly they did there, you're much more likely to be re-assigned *unless* there is something in the guy's file to prevent it from happening.

3) Start treating your enablers as part of the team (the overall Group "team"), not as second-class citizens. That will make average ones better, and the good ones want to stay and not pop smoke for greener pastures and greater empowerment in other SOF formations.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> And put an enabler in charge of it, NOT an SF guy. If you put an SF guy in charge of it, it's going to become SFAS- and Q-course lite.


 
Here's where we disagree.

I think that 18 series involvement is crucial and I think a mini-SFAS is in order. 1) Your customer will know what it takes to support him. 2) Events in SFAS are looking, in part, for teamwork and leadership in stressful situations. Besides, if enablers are expected to keep up with an ODA they should perform at an ODA's level physically. To be fair, if the enabler wants to do "cool guy" stuff, then he needs to man up and go all the way. If he wants to bring his skill sets to a Team and support the mission in that regard, then an SFAS-based process should be G2G. Also, by bringing in the 18 series CMF into the process it eliminates any complaints (or should) about the quality of soldier being chopped to an ODA. Otherwise you'll still have an us vs. them mentality when it needs to be like a football team: Offense and Defense are typically your "rock stars" but Special Teams can make or break a game. How many field goals have won or lost a big game? The kickers matter.

Just spit-balling, but I have to wonder if certain MOS' should be become a permanent part of a line company/ B Team through the dreaded MTOE revision. Now your customer REALLY has a say in who they want or not. Just a thought.

I'd also be so bold as to say that SF Support, CA, and whoever else should combine like an Enabler Voltron and all attend the same selection process. Ad hoc stuff in a unit is one thing, but if CA/ PSYOP guys are being attached to an ODA then we're back to some commonality in selection (again, looking at the customer's needs*), plus it brings all of the Army SOF enabler commands and staffs and everything together for funding, manning, and political purposes.

* - I'm sticking up for team guys...the end is nigh.


----------



## Loki (Feb 2, 2013)

100% agreed! I believe the Army fails to train personnel in the harsh realities of desperate times and difficult highly stressful events under extreme physical & mental duress. I firmly believe the Marine Corps does a much better job. Sorry but I feel that big Army is more concerned about with checking boxes and making everyone feeling good.  They are less and less qualified to produce the product that can participate and support special units.  Currently if the individual doesn't arrive on their own with the ability it won't be there.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2013)

I mean you get a new kid in your squad, the first thing you do is kick his junk it with road marches, PT, patrolling, and IMT/SUT until he starts to gel with the squad. I don’t know how you could do that with a support guy?

Sounds like they need to have tested standards within their respective fields, maybe an ASI that allows them to work with combat end of SOF? Oh wait, that’s right they are supposed to be Ranger tabbed. Well I guess when the standards are dropped, the quality drops.

Maybe SF can have a command decision to say “unless they meet the basic requirements (i.e. “V” asi) they cannot be assigned to any of the SFGs”? I bet that would stop from having to build an A&S, and would drop some of the concerns of “is this support guy ganna quit on me”.

Then again, you could come out with a few more 18 series MOS's that cover down on those support roles and have them go through the process, then know that they are trained to SF standards.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

AFAIK, the only "V" coded intel slots in Group are the SOT-As.  They make up an important, yet small, portion of overall enablers.  "Ranger-qualified or nothing" is not a useful screening criteria for enablers in a Group.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I'd also be so bold as to say that SF Support, CA, and whoever else should combine like an Enabler Voltron and all attend the same selection process. Ad hoc stuff in a unit is one thing, but if CA/ PSYOP guys are being attached to an ODA then we're back to some commonality in selection (again, looking at the customer's needs*), plus it brings all of the Army SOF enabler commands and staffs and everything together for funding, manning, and political purposes.
> 
> * - I'm sticking up for team guys...the end is nigh.


 
I'd go as far as putting adding CA/PSYOP positions into the Group Support Co (or what ever it is called).

Too many Officer's do a tour in CA/PSYOP and then claim to be SOF experts.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> AFAIK, the only "V" coded intel slots in Group are the SOT-As. They make up an important, yet small, portion of overall enablers. "Ranger-qualified or nothing" is not a useful screening criteria for enablers in a Group.


 
Agree

I guess it's worth mentioning that the new/only pipeline for SOT-A has an A&S  requirement and the  TL's need to be Ranger-qualified.  This is discussed in depth in the SOF Enabler thread.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> AFAIK, the only "V" coded intel slots in Group are the SOT-As. They make up an important, yet small, portion of overall enablers. "Ranger-qualified or nothing" is not a useful screening criteria for enablers in a Group.


 
They make them go to BAC right? Why not Ranger school? I don't know any better and I am just talking out of my ass here, but it seems like an easy fix to me.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Feb 2, 2013)

JAB said:


> I mean you get a new kid in your squad, the first thing you do is kick his junk it with road marches, PT, patrolling, and IMT/SUT until he starts to gel with the squad. I don’t know how you could do that with a support guy?


 

Pretty easy considering this was done at my last unit. Then again we had our own seperate drills from the rest of Spt. Company.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

JAB said:


> They make them got BAC right? Why not Ranger school? I don't know any better and I am just talking out of my ass here, but it seems like an easy fix to me.


 
Are you talking everyone, or just SOT-As?  If the former, it's not necessary for someone to be Ranger qualified to be a highly-competent enabler in an SF Group.  It would be a good goal, but not a useful pre-screening standard.

My first detachment sergeant for the MID was non-Airborne-qualified but one hell of an NCO.


----------



## Loki (Feb 2, 2013)

The typical enablers are not mentally prepared or equipped to support these forces. I was assigned to a FID/UW CA unit that possessed a much higher PT standard and selection process as well as a Airborne unit (not that means anything). Many of our guys were former group dudes at that time. That has now changed as well as many things Army wide. There is also a problem with "Ranger" tabbing enablers and making them feel somewhat equal or as a peer with the SFGs or long tabbers if you will.  Allot of whannbees end up here in CA or Phyop at times creating more more problems then they solve with the wrong mind-set. Its a fine line and one that is difficult. As a CAT-A  Team Sergeant I saw many of these problems first hand.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Are you talking everyone, or just SOT-As? If the former, it's not necessary for someone to be Ranger qualified to be a highly-competent enabler in an SF Group. It would be a good goal, but not a useful pre-screening standard.
> 
> My first detachment sergeant for the MID was non-Airborne-qualified but one hell of an NCO.


 
LOL I have no idea who goes out with ODA’s or goes out and does whatever it is they do, but I am just looking at it from a simple concept of: if an ODA or XZY needs a guy who is going to be able to pull his weight, fight if need be and keep up, then an easy identifier would be someone with a ranger tab. Maybe not “every support guy” but “in order to go on a patrol must have Ranger tab” type thing.

I mean from the Infantry side of the house, I would not just grab some random support guy I know nothing about and take him on a patrol in the badlands. However, that same random support guy with a Ranger tab would gel a lot faster and reduce a lot of concerns.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2013)

Logistically, there's no way you could send enough support guys through Ranger school to be of any benefit. SOT-A's are V coded slots and they aren't at 100%, so adding more guys to the mix would fail.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2013)

I just don’t get that, I have met tons of CA/PSYOP, Signal, Intel, etc, etc in support roles with Ranger tabs. And that is just regular old grunt units.

Oh well, just figured I would toss some thoughts out, I will leave you guys to it now.


----------



## Loki (Feb 2, 2013)

JAB said:


> LOL I have no idea who goes out with ODA’s or goes out and does whatever it is they do, but I am just looking at it from a simple concept of: if an ODA or XZY needs a guy who is going to be able to pull his weight, fight if need be and keep up, then an easy identifier would be someone with a Ranger tab. Maybe not “every support guy” but “in order to go on a patrol must have Ranger tab” type thing. I mean from the Infantry side of the house, I would not just grab some random support guy I know nothing about and take him on a patrol in the badlands. However, that same random support guy with a Ranger tab would gel a lot faster and reduce a lot of concerns.


 
Yes and No, you would be extremely hard pressed to find enough numbers of Ranger tabbed CA or Phyop guys to go around. Very, very few out there. On my last deployment we relieved in place members of our active component from the 96th CA. These guys were running around doing all kinds of whacked out projects with little to no real objectives or direction. The bulk of this CAT-A was former Infantry that were dead set on being action guys. Wells everywhere and tampering with the Aquafur as well as other problems. None of these folks are experts and have little to no professional experiences than being in the Army. Beards, ball caps and chopped up vehicles. They were operating like some rouge SF unit and playing the part. I won't bother going into long detail but many of these guys start losing sight of their specific missions and want to be a shooter. They left us a shit sandwich. If you want to do that go to selection or the Infantry and move on. That is not our lane nor do I want a bunch of guys thinking they are trigger pullers. If it goes south you have to drop the hammer but "Ranger tabbing" blanketly is not the solution nor would TRADOC buy into that. Besides that is supposed to be a leadership course... I really don't want a CA asset new in the Army going although that class / course and trying to apply that skill-set for "heart and minds". I think the course as described in this thread is a great solution. I would further recommend that New CA and PHYOP personnel complete basic infantry school. Hey but then again what do I know. A gut check class for 6 weeks including long duration field operations, smoke them. They could make that part of the basic course and do the job that needs to be done. Increase PT standards CA & Phyop wide not just at the FID/UW level.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

JAB said:


> I just don’t get that, I have met tons of CA/PSYOP, Signal, Intel, etc, etc in support roles with Ranger tabs. And that is just regular old grunt units.
> 
> Oh well, just figured I would toss some thoughts out, I will leave you guys to it now.


 
All ideas are welcome.

Part of the problem is an issue of scale.  At its height I had a hundred + people (male and female) in my MID, there was a large section in the Group S2 shop, and each of the battalion had a small detachment.  So we're probably talking... 150, 200 people.  And that's just intel.  The throughput of Ranger School, to accommodate all of the enablers in all seven Groups simply isn't there, even if everyone could pass the course, which of course they couldn't.


----------



## moobob (Feb 2, 2013)

Probably most significant is when a Group support guy goes to Ranger School and fails. Then noone else gets to go for a year or two because of "that guy" who "wasted" the slot. Usually the Ranger slots go to SF soldiers, because they are inexperienced (off the street 18X when they were still coming in) and/or because they have officer/senior NCO leadership who have tabs and want their guys to have them too. Some people say that Ranger School influences senior enlisted promotion within SF, which isn't far fetched, not that it really makes any sense. There are also decent amount of SF guys that don't pass Ranger School for a lot of reasons, but support guys have to be twice as good to be considered to be worth half an SF soldier. Not complaining, just the nature of the beast.


----------



## Loki (Feb 2, 2013)

Most of the group dudes I know that have been through Ranger school went through prior to going through selection. The bulk of guys come from the Infantry and like units then everyone else as far as I knew 5 years ago and back. Of course all my buddies are now long retired so the stories all get bigger, the missions more dangerous & exciting and the women more beautiful. Funny the stories get better every year or every-time we get drunk in some distant place in a dark bar / lounge and start trading lies. They usually start with "there I was, no shit!". But then again what the hell do I know...


----------



## moobob (Feb 2, 2013)

You're right. Most go prior. There is a pretty steady stream of SF qual'd guys that end up going though, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Squidward (Feb 3, 2013)

A tab and a title does not a man make.

Both in my mind signify a list of greater expectations. It's up to the individual to uphold the standard, and not every individual does. Name a tab, and there's plenty of examples of people that don't. SF guys are no exception. People slip through the cracks. However, once deficiencies in standards are identified, tabs and titles are often revoked as it should be, but it should never come to the point that an individual refuses to continue the mission because of lack of heart. 

To mitigate that, I agree some sort of assessment should be in place for enablers, and I agree they shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. Ours never were/are. Especially young guys who can seriously benefit from good leadership. However, if there's one thing in which I agree the most it's permanent, negative marks on the record of sub-standard individuals wherever they go. Word of mouth simply isn't good enough.


----------



## Loki (Feb 3, 2013)

Squidward said:


> A tab and a title does not a man make.
> Both in my mind signify a list of greater expectations. It's up to the individual to uphold the standard, and not every individual does. Name a tab, and there's plenty of examples of people that don't. SF guys are no exception. People slip through the cracks. However, once deficiencies in standards are identified, tabs and titles are often revoked as it should be, but it should never come to the point that an individual refuses to continue the mission because of lack of heart. To mitigate that, I agree some sort of assessment should be in place for enablers, and I agree they shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. Ours never were/are. Especially young guys who can seriously benefit from good leadership. However, if there's one thing in which I agree the most it's permanent, negative marks on the record of sub-standard individuals wherever they go. Word of mouth simply isn't good enough.


 
100% Perfect, on the mark...


----------



## reed11b (Feb 3, 2013)

Squidward said:


> However, if there's one thing in which I agree the most it's permanent, negative marks on the record of sub-standard individuals wherever they go. Word of mouth simply isn't good enough.


If someone quit on a mission, I would say far more then a black mark. Chapter his ass out and fast. In the current RIF, decent soldiers are getting chaptered out for garrison BS, why keep someone who can't perform were it really counts?
Reed


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2013)

Until the A&S becomes a reality and fully funded, those not meeting the standard should be relived and sent elsewhere. The quitter ref'd above has valuable skills and would make a significant contribution to the cause but outside of SOF.

A soldier with a weak mind or body makes life that much harder for the rest of us.  BUT once we prove ourselves, we're in.


----------



## moobob (Feb 3, 2013)

I wasn't referencing anyone specific.

Now personally, but I would never quit because I'm so gay for everyone. So glad I can say that now. Jack Johnson!


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2013)

JAB said:


> They make them go to BAC right? Why not Ranger school? I don't know any better and I am just talking out of my ass here, but it seems like an easy fix to me.


 
We dont need a (insert support MOS here) who is great at FM7-8 skills (with the exception of SOT-As); we need one who can perform his MOS without the assistance of (insert supervisor.)

SF needs a few things from its support slice(s):
1.) Know your job inside and out and be able to perform it with minimal supervision
2.) Be a team player
3.) Be trustworthy
4.) Be fit (level determined by whether they will be assigned to working along side an ODA or working for an ODA on the FOB/VSP or at the AOB/SOTF)

SF doesnt need support guys who:
1.) Dont know or cant perform their MOS duties
2.) Are only looking out for "me"
3.) Are slugs, have substance abuse or debt problems
4.) Think they are/should be Sniper, 18D, HALO, Scuba, Tactics, or ASO deities

MO6's proposal goes a long way to ensure an initial look at guys wanting to be assessed to Group is performed. Yearly performance eval's will weed through those who get lazy after they get to Group.

As for who should be in charge of the A&S, I agree with both MO6 and FF and disagree with both at the same time. It should not be a reduced version of SFAS but it should include team events, PT test (SOT-A candidates would also have a graded ruck), and MOS specific exams/proficiency tests. Interviews would be included as part of NCO/Officer evaluations.

Evaluators should represent a cross section of senior NCOs from across the GSB/BSC. This would include cooks, intel, mechanics, riggers, etc... There should be an 18-series presence whose number is based on amount of soldiers being assessed (no specific ratio comes to mind.) They would be primarily responsible for the range and medical training as well as medical coverage for physical events.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2013)

Would a "Recondo School" type of A & S work?


----------



## RangerRowe (Feb 25, 2013)

I'm part of the contingent that's developing the SOT-A Pipeline. The course has actually already been validated and the career pipeline is fully developed. Five iterations of the pilot course have already been run and cadre to be assigned would be a mixture of experienced SOT-A's and 18 series with an E8 Ranger Tabbed SOT-A as the NCOIC. JFK SWC wants to own it and run it and 2 locations have been settled upon as being the final choice with one already having held the five earlier events during the pilot iteration. The problems with it though do not lie with the course but with the highest levels of the Army.

When I started working on this thing 3 years ago, with the 6 or 7 other guys that have helped to get it to this point, I was clueless as to how difficult it would be. I assumed the difficulty would be writing and developing the concept, or the course requirements, or finding available locations to hold the course. None of that was true. All of that was the easy part in comparison. I had no idea that the major problem we would face was MACOM politics. Essentially it comes down to this, USASFC wants it and they will spend the money for it and because of that they want to recruit and keep their 35Ps that become SOT-As. HRC says no, we will continue to assign all low density MOS', to include 35Ps and if you choose to send them SFSOC I & II (SOT-A A&S), BAC, SERE-C, and Ranger School well then good on you but we want them back when they're E7's. Should the 35P's we send you fail or quit the SFSOC I & II pipeline well you can't send them back to HRC for reassignment until their 3 year assignment at Group is done. That's the fight in a nutshell. USASFC, and rightly so, wants more power over the assignment process and HRC doesn't want to give any of it up. 

In all honesty, I firmly believe that this A&S will never get off the ground until 18 series Commanders at the O5 and O6 level start clamoring for this to get done and for it to get done right. Because if they want to guarantee quality SOT-A's working alongside with their ODA's it's going to have to take USASOC, or higher level, command influence to get HRC to come to grips with this being the right thing to do. Honestly the whole thing has really soured me with how badly inner Army politics can effect the guys on the ground and their combat readiness.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 26, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> I'm part of the contingent that's developing the SOT-A Pipeline. The course has actually already been validated and the career pipeline is fully developed. Five iterations of the pilot course have already been run and cadre to be assigned would be a mixture of experienced SOT-A's and 18 series with an E8 Ranger Tabbed SOT-A as the NCOIC. JFK SWC wants to own it and run it and 2 locations have been settled upon as being the final choice with one already having held the five earlier events during the pilot iteration. The problems with it though do not lie with the course but with the highest levels of the Army.
> 
> When I started working on this thing 3 years ago, with the 6 or 7 other guys that have helped to get it to this point, I was clueless as to how difficult it would be. I assumed the difficulty would be writing and developing the concept, or the course requirements, or finding available locations to hold the course. None of that was true. All of that was the easy part in comparison. I had no idea that the major problem we would face was MACOM politics. Essentially it comes down to this, USASFC wants it and they will spend the money for it and because of that they want to recruit and keep their 35Ps that become SOT-As. HRC says no, we will continue to assign all low density MOS', to include 35Ps and if you choose to send them SFSOC I & II (SOT-A A&S), BAC, SERE-C, and Ranger School well then good on you but we want them back when they're E7's. Should the 35P's we send you fail or quit the SFSOC I & II pipeline well you can't send them back to HRC for reassignment until their 3 year assignment at Group is done. That's the fight in a nutshell. USASFC, and rightly so, wants more power over the assignment process and HRC doesn't want to give any of it up.
> 
> In all honesty, I firmly believe that this A&S will never get off the ground until 18 series Commanders at the O5 and O6 level start clamoring for this to get done and for it to get done right. Because if they want to guarantee quality SOT-A's working alongside with their ODA's it's going to have to take USASOC, or higher level, command influence to get HRC to come to grips with this being the right thing to do. Honestly the whole thing has really soured me with how badly inner Army politics can effect the guys on the ground and their combat readiness.


I hated it because once again HRC proves how totally fucked up and clueless they are.
I saw the same shit when we were trying to activate 10CWS and create a shredout for the careerfield.
I think most personnel folks suck, and should be fed to sharks.


----------



## AWP (Feb 26, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> Whole post


 
Maybe USASOC needs a SOT-A MOS. HRC can't take what they don't own. Open a limited number of slots to guys who will "cross train" into the new MOS and then fill it from IET soldiers. It may take a decade or so to build the force you need, but it would free that career field from dealing with Big Army.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 26, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Maybe USASOC needs a SOT-A MOS. HRC can't take what they don't own. Open a limited number of slots to guys who will "cross train" into the new MOS and then fill it from IET soldiers. It may take a decade or so to build the force you need, but it would free that career field from dealing with Big Army.


Might be easier to make the SOT-A MOS an 18 series MOS.


----------



## RangerRowe (Feb 26, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Maybe USASOC needs a SOT-A MOS. HRC can't take what they don't own. Open a limited number of slots to guys who will "cross train" into the new MOS and then fill it from IET soldiers. It may take a decade or so to build the force you need, but it would free that career field from dealing with Big Army.


Creating a new MOS or adding a new ASI to the current 35P MOS that is SOT-A specific is actually in discussion now as a possible solution to this problem.


SOWT said:


> Might be easier to make the SOT-A MOS an 18 series MOS.


Many of the guys in SS that were in SF or a SOT-A in the late 90's, early 2000, will remember that at one time 98G's (the old 35P MOS) were the only MOS authorized to go to SFAS and SFQC and still keep 98G as their primary MOS. A SOT-A could go to SFAS, skip BAC and Language, go through SUT, 18E MOS Phase, Robin Sage and come out with a Long Tab but stay a 98G with an 18E Secondary MOS. That stopped before 9/11 when USASFC really started having trouble keeping retention and recruitment goals and JFK SWC could not justify sending guys all the way through the Q Course that never ended up on an ODA.  

More recently some of you may have heard about the 18G MOS that was proposed a couple of years back, which was exactly that, a SOT-A type 18 Series MOS. The problem was that, for reasons I cannot discuss on this forum, the 35P, 35N and 35S MOS' have certain authorizations and clearance authorities that only they are allowed to have. NSA refuses to give those same authorities to a non-35P/N/S Series MOS so the 18G idea became DOA.


----------



## pardus (Feb 26, 2013)

This is just disgusting.
People who bring internal politics into the Military to the point of it being detrimental to the fight should be courts martialed and dishonorably discharged IMO.


----------



## AWP (Feb 26, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> Creating a new MOS or adding a new ASI to the current 35P MOS that is SOT-A specific is actually in discussion now as a possible solution to this problem.


 
Creating an ASI won't suffice, they will leave Group at some point because HRC still owns them. Throwing an ASI at the problem is like giving water to a dying man: it provides comfort and nothing more.

Along that line and as to the NSA issue, even creating a new MOS will be moot if that MOS exists elsewhere in the Army.  Additionally, without certain exclusions, the MOS could still provide soldiers for recruiting or drill sergeant duty (maybe the others already have this exclusion and/ or I'm pointing out the obvious to you).

One final issue I see as an outsider, and maybe the MTOE has changed, but you used to only have authorization for three SOT-A's per BN. While I don't think we should discuss current slots here, I'll say that 3 SOT-A's per BN is not enough and adding more creates additional slots to help justify a new MOS.

As a former SIGDET guy who has been out of the game far too long, I thoroughly support what you're doing. I've seen SOT-A's struggle with every issue under the sun. Training, funding, equiping, clearances, manning, etc. are nothing new. As long as that MOS falls under Big Army, it won't matter what designation it carries; everything old will be new again.

I feel for you guys.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 26, 2013)

I don't know about an ASI, but an SQI could do the trick. At least, it works pretty well for the guys who hold SQI "T" and "U", keeping them in the units and away from HRC....


----------



## RangerRowe (Feb 26, 2013)

goon175 said:


> I don't know about an ASI, but an SQI could do the trick. At least, it works pretty well for the guys who hold SQI "T" and "U", keeping them in the units and away from HRC....


SOT-A's already have the "V" SQI and I think it was thought that that would prevent losing them but it hasn't. Maybe a new SQI that denotes that 35P as specifically a SOT-A would do the trick.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 26, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> SOT-A's already have the "V" SQI and I think it was thought that that would prevent losing them but it hasn't. Maybe a new SQI that denotes that 35P as specifically a SOT-A would do the trick.


Yeah, create another 35 Series MOS to keep NSA happy (which is admin Bullshit BTW).


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 26, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> I...
> 
> In all honesty, I firmly believe that this A&S will never get off the ground until 18 series Commanders at the O5 and O6 level start clamoring for this to get done and for it to get done right. Because if they want to guarantee quality SOT-A's working alongside with their ODA's it's going to have to take USASOC, or higher level, command influence to get HRC to come to grips with this being the right thing to do. Honestly the whole thing has really soured me with how badly inner Army politics can effect the guys on the ground and their combat readiness.


 
The above is exactly right.  Sorry, enablers of all stripes supporting SF Groups, but USASFC doesn't care about you.  

Your commander probably cares about you.  The ODAs you support might care about you.  Your Group too, maybe.  But USASFC doesn't.  If they did, they'd have, among other things, a screening, assessment, selection, and training program for all of you, to 1) perform quality control over who gets assigned, and 2) retain those with the skills and aptitude to function at a high level as support personnel inside an SF unit.  You know, the same kinds of things that almost every other ARSOF and Army-dominant national SOF unit does. Until and unless that changes, you're just another red-hat keeping the bills paid, the money flowing, the arms room inspected, and the coffee warm. Everything else, an ODA is going to try to do itself.  And I don't blame them.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 26, 2013)

The "V" SQI doesn't restrict anyone to any unit though, like the "U" and "T" does. You can be Victor qualified and still be assigned to any unit in the Army.


----------



## CBRNSergeant (Feb 26, 2013)

I realize that much of the thread here is focusing on SOT-A's, but regarding informal A&S programs, there is the issue of the other, lesser known 'V' slots in Group belonging to the Chemical Reconnaissance Detachments. Soldiers on these teams are expected to eventually graduate Ranger School, as their mission of providing CBRN recon and SSE to the ODAs require a certain level of tactical expertise. However, when I was with 5th Group a few years back, these guys would also be slotted to attend courses like SFAUC, SERE, and other ARSOF specific training to round out their skill set and provide the CRD with fully capable individuals. It would seem to me that each of the Groups is doing what they can to circumvent USASFCs lack of interest in implementing any kind of comprehensive A&S for their enablers. Also during my time at Campbell, senior leadership in the GSB put together something called SOSOP, or the Special Operations Support Orientation Program, that was designed to weed out unfit enablers. I recall it being referred to as a kind of a shorter and less intense 'Green Platoon' for 5th Group support guys. I went through that and it was not really anything much, although a few guys didn't make it. I don't know if this program has gained any support elsewhere.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 26, 2013)

Was this after 2004?

What happened to the guys who didn't make it?


----------



## CBRNSergeant (Feb 26, 2013)

This was in 2009; I PCSed in early 2010. Not sure what happened to the washouts, but I had heard the plan was to send them 'down the street' to the 101st.  After I had left, a buddy of mine said that GSB started really cracking down on guys, requiring everyone to run a full marathon, sending people to boards to determine if they 'were right for Group', etc.  Since I am PCSing soon to Eglin, I will be able to see if that trend has continued or not.


----------



## AWP (Feb 26, 2013)

CBRNSergeant said:


> requiring everyone to run a full marathon,


 
What other tasks did they need to perform? Climb Everest? Drafted to an NFL practice squad? Backflip a 250cc dirtbike?

I'm not knocking you, but that is the dumbest criteria I've heard in a long time.


----------



## CBRNSergeant (Feb 26, 2013)

Hey, I just said they were looking to weed people out at the time; I agree the tasks were kind of meaningless and arbitrary.  That was after I left, so I'm not sure how all of that played out.  The SOSOP idea was a little more put-together, if not especially challenging.  There were team-based exercises, day and night land-nav, and we used the Air Assault ruck path that Campbell had just redone.  SOSOP was at least an evaluation of soldier skills and teamwork.


----------



## pardus (Feb 26, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> What other tasks did they need to perform? Climb Everest? Drafted to an NFL practice squad? Backflip a 250cc dirtbike?
> 
> I'm not knocking you, but that is the dumbest criteria I've heard in a long time.


 
Yeah, sounds like bullshit.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 27, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> ...More recently some of you may have heard about the 18G MOS that was proposed a couple of years back, which was exactly that, a SOT-A type 18 Series MOS. The problem was that, for reasons I cannot discuss on this forum, the 35P, 35N and 35S MOS' have certain authorizations and clearance authorities that only they are allowed to have. NSA refuses to give those same authorities to a non-35P/N/S Series MOS so the 18G idea became DOA.


 
The 18G was to be far more than just a SOT-A and it came to a dead end for more reasons than just the NSA issue...


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2013)

Before this deployment, I really didn't understand why USASFC has so much disdain for SOT-A members.  Now I get it: ODAs have had bad experiences (e.g. Squidward's hike) and senior leaders, who have had similar, are now in a position to enforce the "SOT-As...oh hell no".

If this is a MOS problem, WHY does the same situation NOT exist within RSTB and the OSTs?  Because:

1) their 1SG (35Z5V) is a leader with zero BS tolerance
2) they have a screening process (RASP)
3) the supported unit (Ranger BNs) understand the role of the OSTs and what they bring to the fight: unique technical capabilities AND accept the OSTs have the same fighting skills as line Rangers
4) they have a proven combat record

Why are the 35-series guys staying in Ranger BN?

Back on topic...what do the MISO guys do anyway?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 27, 2013)

CBRNSergeant said:


> Hey, I just said they were looking to weed people out at the time; I agree the tasks were kind of meaningless and arbitrary. That was after I left, so I'm not sure how all of that played out. The SOSOP idea was a little more put-together, if not especially challenging. There were team-based exercises, day and night land-nav, and we used the Air Assault ruck path that Campbell had just redone. SOSOP was at least an evaluation of soldier skills and teamwork.


I think the run a marathon comment was what generated the questions? responses.
What does running 26 miles have to do with being a good Soldier?


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Feb 27, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I think the run a marathon comment was what generated the questions? responses.
> What does running 26 miles have to do with being a good Soldier?


 
About as much sense as being an effective Crossfit athlete....


----------



## pardus (Feb 27, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I think the run a marathon comment was what generated the questions? responses.
> What does running 26 miles have to do with being a good Soldier?


 
Exactly. How many Rangers/SF/PJs/SEALs etc... can get up and run a marathon, tomorrow?


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Feb 27, 2013)

lindy said:


> Before this deployment, I really didn't understand why USASFC has so much disdain for SOT-A members. Now I get it: ODAs have had bad experiences (e.g. Squidward's hike) and senior leaders, who have had similar, are now in a position to enforce the "SOT-As...oh hell no".
> 
> If this is a MOS problem, WHY does the same situation NOT exist within RSTB and the OSTs? Because:
> 
> ...


 

That and your post.


----------



## RangerRowe (Feb 27, 2013)

CBRNSergeant said:


> I realize that much of the thread here is focusing on SOT-A's, but regarding informal A&S programs, there is the issue of the other, lesser known 'V' slots in Group belonging to the Chemical Reconnaissance Detachments. Soldiers on these teams are expected to eventually graduate Ranger School, as their mission of providing CBRN recon and SSE to the ODAs require a certain level of tactical expertise. However, when I was with 5th Group a few years back, these guys would also be slotted to attend courses like SFAUC, SERE, and other ARSOF specific training to round out their skill set and provide the CRD with fully capable individuals. It would seem to me that each of the Groups is doing what they can to circumvent USASFCs lack of interest in implementing any kind of comprehensive A&S for their enablers. Also during my time at Campbell, senior leadership in the GSB put together something called SOSOP, or the Special Operations Support Orientation Program, that was designed to weed out unfit enablers. I recall it being referred to as a kind of a shorter and less intense 'Green Platoon' for 5th Group support guys. I went through that and it was not really anything much, although a few guys didn't make it. I don't know if this program has gained any support elsewhere.


I've never been in GSB but I remember when they did this and needless to say they no longer do it. I think the reason was because running a marathon for an assessment is ridiculous, none of the soldiers in the line companies could get anything done because entire shops in GSB were gone for days on "field problems", and at the end of the day all the MOS' in GSB are low density so even if they wanted to get rid of non-hackers they couldn't because HRC just laughed at them. I'm sure there was a real super dirtbag or two that got sent to the 101st on 1SG drug deals but for the most part the entire event was a waste of effort.


surgicalcric said:


> The 18G was to be far more than just a SOT-A and it came to a dead end for more reasons than just the NSA issue...


Oh Lord don't get me started on the 18G! I don't how it was at your Group Cric but I remember when we got the brief on it and they described it as the MOS that would do the EW and CNO of the SOT-As and the TSE and TTL of the 18E's. They said the plan to build senior cadre for the MOS was to send select senior 18E's through the 6 week SOT-A portion of the course and then take senior, established SOT-A's, and then send them through SFAS, SUT, and Robin SAGE and give them their tab. All I remember is the entire room burst into laughter and from then on the MOS was known in 5th Group as 18Go-Go Gadget. 



lindy said:


> Before this deployment, I really didn't understand why USASFC has so much disdain for SOT-A members. Now I get it: ODAs have had bad experiences (e.g. Squidward's hike) and senior leaders, who have had similar, are now in a position to enforce the "SOT-As...oh hell no".
> 
> If this is a MOS problem, WHY does the same situation NOT exist within RSTB and the OSTs? Because:
> 
> ...


TRUTH!

IMHO not all enablers need an A&S, ad hoc, established or otherwise. Maybe a board pertinent to your MOS and a PT test to ensure competence but that's about it. The SOT-A's though are on the freaking ground, walking the same mountains and living in the same team houses as the dudes on the teams, and there are only 40 of them total in a Group. It just doesn't make sense to not know if they can shoot, move and communicate and deal with severe amounts of stress before they ever get to a team. In the end what invariably happens is that teams and companies come to know their favorite SOT-A's and by name request them for every exercise, training event and deployment they get. The rest get sent to an ODA that realizes they got a shit bag and in turn makes them the radio watch monkey. Which is the exact right thing to do. The wrong thing is for USASFC and USASOC to continue to let it happen. SF created the idea of on-the-ground SOF SIGINT. They freaking invented it in the 60's. Every other SOF element saw it and realized SF was on to something. NSW-TACEW, MARSOC Radio Recon PLT and Ranger OST's are all copies of the original SOD/SOT-A idea. The difference is they cracked the nut and made it an A&S required position and are now surpassing the SF community in something SF originally created. It's crazy! :wall:


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 27, 2013)

This thread has drifted so far off its original topic I'm changing its title.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 27, 2013)

RangerRowe said:


> ...I don't how it was at your Group Cric but I remember when we got the brief on it...


 
Not so much about individual Groups.  I got my info from the G3 USASFC as the concept was being chalk-talked...


----------



## Polar Bear (Feb 27, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I think the run a marathon comment was what generated the questions? responses.
> What does running 26 miles have to do with being a good Soldier?


both look good in spandex?


----------

