# Army: 6 New Security Force Assistance Brigades



## Dienekes (Feb 26, 2017)

The title pretty much says it all but more here. I thought SFA kinda fell under the core SF mission of FID? Is this good to free up SF to do more/ different things, or will this be bungled like most seem to think how Big Army handles things like this? What do those who've BTDT think?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Unless they are going to be NCO only brigades...No its a terrible idea, Pvt Snuffy has zero cultural awareness, understanding, or give a fuck to fulfill that mission. And yes I speak from experience as I was a young E4 who didn't get it. Spending your days teaching haji, to say cuss words and take video of "welcome to 7/11 would you like a slurpy" does zero good for developing an host nations army.

$.02


----------



## 104TN (Feb 27, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Unless they are going to be NCO only brigades...No its a terrible idea, Pvt Snuffy has zero cultural awareness, understanding, or give a fuck to fulfill that mission. And yes I speak from experience as I was a young E4 who didn't get it. Spending your days teaching haji, to say cuss words and take video of "welcome to 7/11 would you like a slurpy" does zero good for developing an host nations army.
> 
> $.02


There was a link hidden in Dienekes' post, but the SFABs will be comprised of NCOs SSG and above and officers CPT and above. 

The idea is that if needed, the Army could have a cohort of junior soldiers fall in on the experienced cadre organic to the SFABs and have a BCT stood-up faster than building one from scratch (and at a lower cost than keeping an idle BCT fully staffed).

Security Force Assistance Brigade 
New academy will train Security Force Assistance Brigades


----------



## AWP (Feb 27, 2017)

2005: Great idea.
2017: More O-6 and E-9 slots.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 27, 2017)

104TN said:


> There was a link hidden in Dienekes' post, but the SFABs will be comprised of NCOs SSG and above and officers CPT and above.
> 
> The idea is that if needed, the Army could have a cohort of junior soldiers fall in on the experienced cadre organic to the SFABs and have a BCT stood-up faster than building one from scratch (and at a lower cost than keeping an idle BCT fully staffed).
> 
> ...



If that's the execution and it actually plays out like that, good.  With a drawn-down force, the big question is what will happen if/when it needs to re-expand.  It may not be the perfect plan, and in true government fashion I'm sure there will be shortcomings, but it's far better than the 2007-2009 "open the flood gates and hope it all works out".  Having an expansion plan is, IMO, a good thing.

The one major question I have to ask... as @AWP noted, this is something of a construct of the current conflict.  Are we playing into the blunder of preparing for the last war rather than the next one?


----------



## Gunz (Feb 27, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Unless they are going to be NCO only brigades...No its a terrible idea, Pvt Snuffy has zero cultural awareness, understanding, or give a fuck to fulfill that mission. And yes I speak from experience as I was a young E4 who didn't get it. Spending your days teaching haji, to say cuss words and take video of "welcome to 7/11 would you like a slurpy" does zero good for developing an host nations army.
> 
> $.02



Disagree somewhat with your view (although probably a moot point anyway since E's won't be involved in SFAB)...but take volunteer Es and NCOs with high GCT and combat arms course scores and teach them properly and much can be achieved. I use the Marine's Combined Action Program as an example of success, where junior NCOs and Es conducted FID/COIN/CA along with intense small-unit combat operations.

But granted, without proper training, (and even _with_ training) your "average" Pvt Snuffy would be in over his head.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 27, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Disagree somewhat with your view (although probably a moot point anyway since E's won't be involved in SFAB)...but take volunteer Es and NCOs with high GCT and combat arms course scores and teach them properly and much can be achieved. I use the Marine's Combined Action Program as an example of success, where junior NCOs and Es conducted FID/COIN/CA along with intense small-unit combat operations.
> 
> But granted, without proper training, (and even _with_ training) your "average" Pvt Snuffy would be in over his head.



From what I've seen of these in train-up and execution, unless things have changed substantially, the senior NCOs and Officers will also be in over their head.  The Army has done an unbelievably shitty job - IMO - of building the necessary doctrine, training, and resource requirements to build a meaningful advise/assist capability.  These SFABs have done a poor job of building capacity in foreign militaries in our efforts in IZ and AF so I'm not sure what has changed to make them effective in this iteration. 

In my mind, there are two major shortcomings - irrespective of the make-up of the units:

1. Strategically, what is the kind of force we're trying to build?  The model we've used in IZ and AF is to build a shittier version of our own forces - then excuse how terrible they are (always at the end, never the beginning) by saying it's 'Afghan good-enough' or some other bullshit.  We're an expeditionary force that puts primacy on technology, firepower, and a professional NCO corps to ensure we're agile, flexible, adaptable, and lethal down to the very small-unit level.  That's an incredibly expensive long-term project that requires generational training and professionalism.  None of the countries we're going to has the time, money, or institutions to draw-on to build that force.  Yet, we still take our model and put it over the top - Napoleonic staff, centralized basic training, national force, primacy on small-unit leadership, mission command, firepower, and technology-dependent mobility.  We ignore the baseline reality of these countries - they need militaries for internal security and defense.  Their strengths are local knowledge and ties, familial relationships, a tough citizenry used to privation.  History is replete (even our own) with other models on building Armies with those traits - the regimental model, the militia/regular model.  But of course, we don't use those because what the fuck do any of our Soldiers/leaders know about training that shit?

2. Doctrinally we have difficulty building curriculum to train our own methods - much less a model we want for someone else.  Maneuver is probably more solid but speaking for my own warfighting function - intelligence - we have nothing to look to IOT understand how to evaluate training.  Does a force that's deployed to the same area for 10 years really need to understand IPB in an expeditionary manner?  Why do we need to teach them to evaluate an environment they've worked/lived in for most of their lives?  If they don't have any of the classified collection or dissemination systems we do why are we spending time teaching them the methods we use that are primarily driven/constrained by those factors?  Wouldn't we want to focus on HUMINT collection, tactical questioning/screening, interrogation, BDA, CoIST, and the things low-tech Armies generally excel at?  If we do, nobody is telling that to anyone in Army MI.  There's no manual you can open to learn how/what to teach to non-cleared partners, help set up their schools, or evaluate their training.  We can teach them to generate powerpoint though - after we've bought them computers, software, and generators to power the computers of course (and possibly how to read) - we're shit hot at that.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Yet, we still take our model and put it over the top
> We ignore the baseline reality of these countries



According to this, the military methods seem to follow our methods in democratization and lots of other stuff. I wonder is it general ignorance or is it hubris? Can nothing else work if it does not have the American stamp of approval or is it our cultural biases that prevent us from looking out further into the world to find solutions? Are we just inept at implementing practical solutions or are the real solutions counter to the US interests that our leaders actually work toward? Not to change the topic of the thread nor do they require answer but these are just some of the thoughts that I had reading your post. It seems we have failed to learn from the same failures for the past couple decades.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> From what I've seen of these in train-up and execution, unless things have changed substantially, the senior NCOs and Officers will also be in over their head.  The Army has done an unbelievably shitty job - IMO - of building the necessary doctrine, training, and resource requirements to build a meaningful advise/assist capability.  These SFABs have done a poor job of building capacity in foreign militaries in our efforts in IZ and AF so I'm not sure what has changed to make them effective in this iteration.
> 
> In my mind, there are two major shortcomings - irrespective of the make-up of the units:
> 
> ...




I'm reminded of Lawrence who argued against trying to train irregular tribal warriors in the manner of the British Army. It wouldn't have worked anyway. They were too independent and individualistic to submit to that kind of discipline.

The Combined Action Groups tried to exploit the strengths of our local militia counterparts, as did Special Forces with their tribal and CIDG forces. Yes, we supplied weapons and various resources, but we let them show us the trails, the best ambush sites, let their knowledge of local politics and village relationships guide us in our operational planning. It wasn't perfect and was often frustrating but it wasn't our goal to turn them into American soldiers. They'd been fighting far longer than any of us. Big Army didn't get it then. SF was a sideshow to Westmoreland and he looked upon Marine Combined Action units as an experiment that had no real business in his conventional perception of warfare.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 27, 2017)

104TN said:


> The idea is that if needed, the Army could have a cohort of junior soldiers fall in on the experienced cadre organic to the SFABs and have a BCT stood-up faster than building one from scratch (and at a lower cost than keeping an idle BCT fully staffed).



One of the Strategists in the 5 Shop back in the day, and I say that because both of us have since left, talked about how the Army made philosophical decisions that he just didn't agree with.  It prioritized readiness over force structure.  And although he would think this is an awesome idea, we need a lot more of them, not specifically on the SFAB mission, but being caretaker units that can expand in times of war and then keeping a certain amount of BDEs at a T1.  I don't think the Army is changing it's philosophy, but always thought the training mission fell more in line with SF and previous individual augments to a MAC.

Evaluating the Officers and NCOs will be an interesting task so that they remain competitive.  As I remember many cautioning me against the AFPAK Hands program.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 27, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> According to this, the military methods seem to follow our methods in democratization and lots of other stuff. I wonder is it general ignorance or is it hubris? Can nothing else work if it does not have the American stamp of approval or is it our cultural biases that prevent us from looking out further into the world to find solutions? Are we just inept at implementing practical solutions or are the real solutions counter to the US interests that our leaders actually work toward? Not to change the topic of the thread nor do they require answer but these are just some of the thoughts that I had reading your post. It seems we have failed to learn from the same failures for the past couple decades.



I tend to think it's more operational inertia in the mode of 'to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'

We give missions to a commander - BDE, DIV, Corps - who has experience commanding Army units to build foreign armies - at least in IZ and AF.  Of course, they're going to think 'Army' means the thing they've commanded and served in their entire lives.  It takes a different perspective to wonder what type, what institutions, what functions, what recruiting strategy, what will this thing look like in 20 years - a whole host of factors - instead of just saying 'well, I got a mission on no-notice to build an Army - and I only know one kind of Army - so let's get cracking, I've got 12 months tops.'

That to me is one of the terrible things about our lionization of our performance in these two wars.  We keep saying we got COIN right - as though it's true (and in my opinion it is definitely not true) - so we're unwilling to look at the strategic and operational mistakes we made and how we might do it differently.  The SFABs are doubling down and institutionalizing the shitty, ineffective band-aids we came up with during the war.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> That to me is one of the terrible things about our lionization of our performance in these two wars.  *We keep saying we got COIN right *- as though it's true (and in my opinion it is definitely not true) - so we're unwilling to look at the strategic and operational mistakes we made and how we might do it differently.  The SFABs are doubling down and institutionalizing the shitty, ineffective band-aids we came up with during the war.



This is, IMO, one of the biggest weaknesses of our thinking.  Checking the right blocks mean that the results we want should pour out, and when they don't, we either a) say they do and declare victory anyway, b) implement a bunch of "fixes" to change the blocks that need to be checked (which frequently clashes with reality, especially when it doesn't address all situations) or c) blank stare and ignore the problem.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 27, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> This is, IMO, one of the biggest weaknesses of our thinking.  Checking the right blocks mean that the results we want should pour out, and when they don't, we either a) say they do and declare victory anyway, b) implement a bunch of "fixes" to change the blocks that need to be checked (which frequently clashes with reality, especially when it doesn't address all situations) or c) blank stare and ignore the problem.



It's like a template or a formula for COIN that isn't flexible and doesn't account for innovation or initiative or creativity on the spot.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> One of the Strategists in the 5 Shop back in the day, and I say that because both of us have since left, talked about how the Army made philosophical decisions that he just didn't agree with.  It prioritized readiness over force structure.  And although he would think this is an awesome idea, we need a lot more of them, not specifically on the SFAB mission, but being caretaker units that can expand in times of war and then keeping a certain amount of BDEs at a T1.  I don't think the Army is changing it's philosophy, but always thought the training mission fell more in line with SF and previous individual augments to a MAC.
> 
> Evaluating the Officers and NCOs will be an interesting task so that they remain competitive.  *As I remember many cautioning me against the AFPAK Hands program.*



Many of the Army's "special" programs that they tell people are going to be career-enhancing turn out to be graveyards for officers' careers.  For example. MiTTs and AFPAK Hands were supposed to be so important, and so great, but they were so far outside of the norm of what people who actually sit on boards did (which got them to where they are, so that is "the right path" as far as they are concerned) that it greatly disadvantaged them when it came to their peer competitors.  I was in a briefing a couple of years ago when the promotion rates for AFPAK Hands was disclosed.  Single-digit-percentage selection for command and promotion to O6.  Those guys got wrecked when it came to career advancement.


----------



## pardus (Feb 27, 2017)

Honestly, I think the general American mindset is just not conducive to COIN or the training of foreign forces, thus creating a major obstacle right out of the gate. 
Sure there are some people that can do it, but they need to be lead by people with the appropriate mindset and willingness to commit 100% to that mission, and frankly that magical combination is just not realistic IMO.

My .02c


----------



## Gunz (Feb 28, 2017)

pardus said:


> Honestly, I think the general American mindset is just not conducive to COIN or the training of foreign forces, thus creating a major obstacle right out of the gate.
> Sure there are some people that can do it, but they need to be lead by people with the appropriate mindset and willingness to commit 100% to that mission, and frankly that magical combination is just not realistic IMO.
> 
> My .02c




Spot on. It don't come in a can.


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 1, 2017)

War on the Rocks has a different opinion than the prevailing on SS that seems valuable: Replaced? For what it's worth the author is an SF officer.

BLUF: The author suggests that if SF doesn't reevaluate its stance to emphasize being the nation's primary foreign advisors as opposed to the purely UW experts it will relegate itself to niche status soon.  He purely points out that the SF refocus away from DA to "get back to the roots" of UW could have the unforeseen consequences of too much specialization.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 1, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> War on the Rocks has a different opinion than the prevailing on SS that seems valuable: Replaced? For what it's worth the author is an SF officer.
> 
> BLUF: The author suggests that if SF doesn't reevaluate its stance to emphasize being the nation's primary foreign advisors as opposed to the purely UW experts it will relegate itself to niche status soon.  He purely points out that the SF refocus away from DA to "get back to the roots" of UW could have the unforeseen consequences of too much specialization.




Good article. I had no idea FID was being conducted by Guard, Reserve and IRR recalls. You get what you pay for. Put inexperienced or inadequately trained personnel in an advisory capacity with host nation forces and you'll eventually get friction, resentment, green on blues or outright treachery. Americans tend to be impatient with indigs, and impatience and cultural insensitivity aren't a good mix.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Good article. I had no idea FID was being conducted by Guard, Reserve and IRR recalls. You get what you pay for. Put inexperienced or inadequately trained personnel in an advisory capacity with host nation forces and you'll eventually get friction, resentment, green on blues or outright treachery. Americans tend to be impatient with indigs, and impatience and cultural insensitivity aren't a good mix.


If you look hard at the military assistance program to Greece back in 1947 you had a tremendous hodge podge of personnel being assigned or volunteering.  From High Performers to shit stains, it worked I suppose, Greece didn't fall to communism.


----------



## Teufel (Mar 1, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> War on the Rocks has a different opinion than the prevailing on SS that seems valuable: Replaced? For what it's worth the author is an SF officer.
> 
> BLUF: The author suggests that if SF doesn't reevaluate its stance to emphasize being the nation's primary foreign advisors as opposed to the purely UW experts it will relegate itself to niche status soon.  He purely points out that the SF refocus away from DA to "get back to the roots" of UW could have the unforeseen consequences of too much specialization.



The author is spot on. In my experience conventional forces trained the Iraqi and Afghani armies while SOF trained commandos and conducted raids. We, the Marine Corps and the Army, deployed hundreds, if not thousands, of embedded training teams to both countries that were cobbled together out of voluntold personnel with minimal training. I can't speak for the Army but I noticed a trend where the "least strongest" company commander got picked to be the training team leader, often after a dismal performance at an evaluated exercise. This wasn't always the case but not uncommon. 15 years of war and we couldn't figure out how to staff those training teams in a better fashion. These security assistance brigades are a bit late to the party but they are a good idea given the tasks the conventional Army and Marine Corps have been tasked with in the past.


----------



## 104TN (Mar 1, 2017)

Teufel said:


> The author is spot on. In my experience conventional forces trained the Iraqi and Afghani armies while SOF trained commandos and conducted raids. We, the Marine Corps and the Army, deployed hundreds, if not thousands, of embedded training teams to both countries that were cobbled together out of voluntold personnel with minimal training. I can't speak for the Army but I noticed a trend where the "least strongest" company commander got picked to be the training team leader, often after a dismal performance at an evaluated exercise. This wasn't always the case but not uncommon. 15 years of war and we couldn't figure out how to staff those training teams in a better fashion. These security assistance brigades are a bit late to the party but they are a good idea given the tasks the conventional Army and Marine Corps have been tasked with in the past.



My hope is that Big Green standing up an academy means the soldiers manning these units will have a baseline level of competency that's grounded in doctrine vs just winging it.

What'll be interesting is how relevant/effective that doctrine is.


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 1, 2017)

104TN said:


> My hope is that Big Green standing up an academy means the soldiers manning these units will have a baseline level of competency that's grounded in doctrine vs just winging it.
> 
> What'll be interesting is how relevant/effective that doctrine is.



And what the competence standards will be (and how they differ across the six SFABs)


----------



## AWP (Mar 1, 2017)

How long will they spend in these units? A 3 year tour (or whatever) and out is a huge mistake.


----------



## CDG (Mar 3, 2017)

Perspective on this from a Special Forces Colonel.  I don't have a dog in this fight, but what he's saying makes sense to me. 

A Green Beret’s Ode to Big Army’s New Security Force Assistance Brigades


----------



## Teufel (Mar 3, 2017)

Maybe I'm ignorant but I thought the whole point of the SF originally was to produce conventional forces, not indigenous SOF. You don't need indig SOF if the indig can't provide basic security and essential services.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 3, 2017)

CDG said:


> Perspective on this from a Special Forces Colonel.  I don't have a dog in this fight, but what he's saying makes sense to me.
> 
> A Green Beret’s Ode to Big Army’s New Security Force Assistance Brigades



That was a thoughtful, well-argued piece.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 4, 2017)

Interesting that he downplayed SF's role to push how many conventional forces advised during Vietnam.  There are a lot of books out there, Tobias Wolf wrote about his time as an advisor to an ARVN Artillery Battalion during "In Pharaoh's Army."


----------



## AWP (Oct 24, 2017)

Soldier Systems just did a write up on the unit. I kind of gagged a little, but this isn't on SoldierSystems (one of my daily visits on the web).

Forces Focus - 1st Security Forces Assistance Brigade - Soldier Systems Daily



> Nicknamed “The Legion”, the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade is one of the US Army’s newest units.



The United States Army | Fort Benning | Tenant | 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade

Uhhh...5th SFG(A) has used "the Legion" for about ever. I'm sure Big Army isn't trying to take anything else that resembles SF.







Nice tab....


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 24, 2017)

I guess it makes sense, if they're adopting one of SF's core mission they should adapt SF's unit insignia and outright steal one of their unit nicknames.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 24, 2017)

Gosh it is certainly a weird time in the Army.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 24, 2017)

The good idea fairy seems to be running rampant again.The mission statement sounds very familiar....ETA: Sounds like a more long term approach to the use of MIT.


----------



## AWP (Oct 26, 2017)

I'm sure this is a joke, right? 1st Degree Trolling for the win?

Ask SSD - "Is There A New SF Group?" - Soldier Systems Daily


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 27, 2017)

We could just be like the British Army or the Air Force and have beret colors for trades.


----------



## CDG (Oct 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> I'm sure this is a joke, right? 1st Degree Trolling for the win?
> 
> Ask SSD - "Is There A New SF Group?" - Soldier Systems Daily


Just pathetic. Some very insecure people making decisions. "Well Jim, what I want is to make people think we're SF, but I don't want to have to PT, stay up late, be uncomfortable, or do anything else that's hard."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 27, 2017)

That's pretty fucked up, first the whole steal the black beret from the Rangers, now this bullshit. It's about time to just do away with that stupid head gear altogether. Which obviously nobody will go for and everyone will have a drama filled bitch session for the next 15 years over it.

Really not sure why they are building brigade level advisory units. I mean I'm sure it will stream line things, but without the language and cultural skills, it's going to be no different than any other brigades doing the same. Idk, not my problem anymore.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 27, 2017)

WTF would the Army do without patches and berets?


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> I'm sure this is a joke, right? 1st Degree Trolling for the win?
> 
> Ask SSD - "Is There A New SF Group?" - Soldier Systems Daily



So when I first saw it I thought, "No big deal, probably an SF-qual'd guy assigned to the new brigade, and they let him were his green beret.  We did the same thing in the 160th and JSOC."

But then I read the article and it says that this is an "olive" beret (vs. SF's "hunter green") and it's a real thing in this unit?


----------



## Topkick (Oct 27, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> WTF would the Army do without patches and berets?



Hated wearing a beret...fuckin impractical and many troops looked stupid like a pizza maker. Would've saved a lot of time and money without the patches.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 27, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> WTF would the Army do without patches and berets?




Everybody wants to be special. This era of warfare has spotlighted the importance of SOF. Just look at all the beards and operator caps in the civilian world. Conventional units have taken a backseat.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 27, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Everybody wants to be special. This era of warfare has spotlighted the importance of SOF. Just look at all the beards and operator caps in the civilian world. Conventional units have taken a backseat.



I agree, and I guess if you're a boss it's a cheap way to give it to them - uniform changes.  Setting standards and resourcing 'special' units is extraordinarily expensive - this is a way to make a unit 'elite' without spending much.  Makes me think of the 'an elite infantry' discussion.

I listened to a podcast (spycast from 25 July 2017) the other day interviewing James Stejskal, who served in and wrote a book about detachment Berlin - the SF unit assigned to stay behind and organize/conduct sabotage/insurgency in the event of a Soviet invasion.  The unit is really interesting and a lot of what they did in terms of tradecraft has served other SMU elements well (even though they were not an SMU).  One of the things he talked about was the hardest for some members - causing them to leave - was having to forgo wearing their SF tab, green beret, and special skill badges - instead having to wear the uniform and pretend to be MPs.  That esprit shit can cut both ways.


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> But then I read the article and it says that this is an "olive" beret (vs. SF's "hunter green") and it's a real thing in this unit?



It is so outlandish I think it is a hoax. It has to be, right?



Il Duce said:


> I listened to a podcast (spycast from 25 July 2017) the other day interviewing James Stejskal, who served in and wrote a book about detachment Berlin - the SF unit assigned to stay behind and organize/conduct sabotage/insurgency in the event of a Soviet invasion.  The unit is really interesting and a lot of what they did in terms of tradecraft has served other SMU elements well (even though they were not an SMU).  One of the things he talked about was the hardest for some members - causing them to leave - was having to forgo wearing their SF tab, green beret, and special skill badges - instead having to wear the uniform and pretend to be MPs.  That esprit shit can cut both ways.



There's a book about the Det., I wrote a short review in the book section. That unit is fascinating and I wish more were available. They were so unique it would be hard to place them in a modern "box." SMU? CIF? Somewhere in between? They were such a unique unit with a unique mission they defy any label.

"In the event of Armageddon, we totes need you to stay WAY behind the lines and cause damage."
"For reals. I'm in."

Our country, any country, is practically doomed when we can't find such men and women.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> One of the things he talked about was the hardest for some members - causing them to leave - was having to forgo wearing their SF tab, green beret, and special skill badges - instead having to wear the uniform and pretend to be MP



Huh. Completely believable.  What fun is it to be special, if no one know you are special.


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh. Completely believable.  What fun is it to be special, if no one know you are special.



How would it end if I snatched an EGA from a Marine's uniform?

Sometimes badges aren't a status symbol for an individual, they are a mark of a brotherhood/ club/ clan/ gathering.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 27, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> WTF would the Army do without patches and berets?


I've heard some old salt Jarheads ask about getting their Division patches back on the uniform like it was during WWII...that never goes anywhere outside of the piss trough.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> How would it end if I snatched an EGA from a Marine's uniform?
> 
> Sometimes badges aren't a status symbol for an individual, they are a mark of a brotherhood/ club/ clan/ gathering.



That's what I'm saying - you can get incredible effort from people based on the narrative/story/esprit you build around symbols (see flag/confederate monument/elite infantry discussions) but there can be costs associated too.  Should the symbol ever really outweigh the mission?  If we could win in Afghanistan by letting everyone where berets, scrolls, globe & anchor would it be ok to do it?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> Sometimes badges aren't a status symbol for an individual, they are a mark of a brotherhood/ club/ clan/ gathering.



To be clear....I'm not criticizing.  I wear an EGA on my finger everyday, it is part of my identity.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh. Completely believable.  What fun is it to be special, if no one know you are special.



Exactly.  It's no fun to be part of a secret club if no one knows you're in it.

Ego is a hard thing to keep in check.  Just look at the discussion for what a "green tag" means here on the site.  People want to be part of something different, and special, and more importantly, they don't want "_you"_ to be a part of it.

In the Task Force, we wore semi-sterile uniforms with no unit patches, badges, or tabs when we were downrange.  Sometimes we didn't wear name tags or rank.  The reasoning was because we wanted to "blend in" with the conventional units.  But the real reason was ego.  Not wearing patches, and especially not wearing name tapes, made you different and therefore special.  My argument was always that if we wanted to blend in we'd wear a COSCOM patch and E6 rank, and no one would ever give us a second look.  ...but then we wouldn't be "special" anymore so that idea got shot down.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I agree, and I guess if you're a boss it's a cheap way to give it to them - uniform changes.  Setting standards and resourcing 'special' units is extraordinarily expensive - this is a way to make a unit 'elite' without spending much.  Makes me think of the 'an elite infantry' discussion.
> 
> I listened to a podcast (spycast from 25 July 2017) the other day interviewing James Stejskal, who served in and wrote a book about detachment Berlin - the SF unit assigned to stay behind and organize/conduct sabotage/insurgency in the event of a Soviet invasion.  The unit is really interesting and a lot of what they did in terms of tradecraft has served other SMU elements well (even though they were not an SMU).  One of the things he talked about was the hardest for some members - causing them to leave - was having to forgo wearing their SF tab, green beret, and special skill badges - instead having to wear the uniform and pretend to be MPs.  That esprit shit can cut both ways.



Here's the thing though...



			
				Soldier Systems Daily said:
			
		

> Additionally, candidates for the unit must pass a selection and Advisor Academy as well as SERE training. SFAB candidates must also score an 85 of better on the Defense Language Aptitude Battery becuase the Army plans on offering language training for unit personnnel. However, unit members are eligible for a $5,000 Assignment Incentive Bonus.



I think filling this unit is going to be extraordinarily expensive to fill...and they want to stand up 6 of them:
1. DLAB
2. Selection
3. SERE
4. Language Training


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> That's what I'm saying - you can get incredible effort from people based on the narrative/story/esprit you build around symbols (see flag/confederate monument/elite infantry discussions) but there can be costs associated too.  Should the symbol ever really outweigh the mission?  If we could win in Afghanistan by letting everyone where berets, scrolls, globe & anchor would it be ok to do it?



This is a great question.  You and I were in Korea together and were in the first Army division to field the black beret.  The idea was that we'd create some kind of Ranger-like mystique and morale by taking that symbol and applying it to the whole Army.  Or something.

What we learned with the beret debacle was that you can transfer the trappings of a unit but you can't transfer its ethos.

I'm still not entirely convinced that this green-ish beret and the USASFC-looking unit patch and everything are legit, or at least that's not how the'll end up.  But then again, we have the black beret...  

Bottom line, "SF-lite" isn't going to win the war in Afghanistan for us, no matter what color their headgear is and no matter how hard they try to copy SF.  At the end of the day they are MiTT 2.0 and will probably be as successful as the last time we tried it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here's the thing though...
> 
> I think filling this unit is going to be extraordinarily expensive to fill...and they want to stand up 6 of them:
> 1. DLAB
> ...



$5000 signing bonus and a green beret without having to go through the trouble of becoming a Green Beret!  Sign me up!  /sarc.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...What fun is it to be special, if no one know you are special...



NO FUN_ AT ALL!_


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> NO FUN_ AT ALL!_
> View attachment 20108


----------



## Topkick (Oct 27, 2017)

Ocoka said:


>



I still just don't feel right crackin on this guy. But, he kinda asks for it...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 27, 2017)

Have no fear, Change.org is here!

Sign the Petition

_The United States Army has designed and trained a new "specialized" unit known as the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade who's core mission is to advise and assist the training of foreign partner military forces in counter-terrorism and host nation security operations. 

The U.S. tax payers spent millions of dollars for the U.S. Army to develop this new unit and capabilities. The problem is, this mission and a unit designed to conduct these mission already exists. 

They are known as the elite U.S. Army Special Forces, or "The Green Berets"

The 1st SFAB command has stolen our heritage by co-opting the legendary "Recondo" patch from our Vietnam era Green Berets, stolen the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group's unofficial name of "The V Legion" and made as their own. 
_


----------



## Topkick (Oct 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The United States Army has designed and trained a new "specialized" unit known as the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade who's core mission is to advise and assist the training of foreign partner military forces in counter-terrorism and host nation security operations.



Formerly known as MiTT teams


----------



## Teufel (Oct 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here's the thing though...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is an obvious counter argument. The Army Special Forces, an expensive unit to fill and maintain, are Foreign Internal Defense experts that largely abdicated this role (training the indigenous GPF, not indigenous SOF) to big Army during OIF and OEF. The Army, and the Marine Corps, formed mobile training teams out of hide to perform a doctrinally SOF mission while SOCOM focused on raids and training indigenous commandos that no one needed. Please refer to the implosion of the Iraqi military after OIF ended if you need a FID measure of  effectiveness.

BLUF: Big Army can’t task the SF and needs an organic force to fill this FID gap in the future. It’s a no brainer to me. Stealing SF uniform items is weird but that seems to be Army SOP.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 27, 2017)

That all being said....


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 28, 2017)

Teufel said:


> That all being said....
> View attachment 20115


It's almost as if a cheap Chinese knockoff hit the market...


----------



## Teufel (Oct 28, 2017)

You got to earn this beret dawg!! Get that light green trash out of here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 28, 2017)

Of course it's in WTF Moments: 


	
	






__ https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/posts/10156012270478606


----------



## x SF med (Oct 28, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> But then I read the article and it says that this is an "olive" beret (vs. SF's "hunter green") and it's a real thing in this unit?



the SF beret is actually Rifle Green.  the branch color is Jungle Green


----------



## AWP (Oct 28, 2017)

It isn't getting any better IMO. Allegedly, this is legit and they have a new tab.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 29, 2017)

"Seen much combat?"


----------



## Poccington (Oct 29, 2017)

It's as if whoever came up with the idea for the beret colour, naming them "The Legion", giving them a tab etc was a non select at SFAS and is now just saying "Fuck you" to SF troops.

I mean when you look at it, it's genuinely bizarre.


----------



## AWP (Oct 29, 2017)

Poccington said:


> It's as if whoever came up with the idea for the beret colour, naming them "The Legion", giving them a tab etc was a non select at SFAS and is now just saying "Fuck you" to SF troops.
> 
> I mean when you look at it, it's genuinely bizarre.



I first heard of that general thought a billion years ago when I enlisted: Someone who couldn't make the cut of (insert unit here) does their absolute best to screw over said unit whenever presented with the opportunity. I thought it was a joke.

Nope. It is real.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 29, 2017)

AWP said:


> I first heard of that general thought a billion years ago when I enlisted: Someone who couldn't make the cut of (insert unit here) does their absolute best to screw over said unit whenever presented with the opportunity. I thought it was a joke.
> 
> Nope. It is real.


Isn’t the Army Chief of Staff a SF Soldier?


----------



## AWP (Oct 29, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Isn’t the Army Chief of Staff a SF Soldier?



And a 5th Group alumni, no less.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 29, 2017)

So...do non-SF folk get the "Combat Advisor" patch even if they've never been in combat? A little much, don't you think? How about "Military Advisor"? Or ain't that sexy enough?


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 29, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> View attachment 20130
> 
> 
> So...do non-SF folk get the "Combat Advisor" patch even if they've never been in combat? A little much, don't you think? How about "Military Advisor"? Or ain't that sexy enough?



I think it's like the rest of our unit patches.  Most people assigned to the 101st aren't airborne and none are on airborne status - but the airborne tap is a part of the unit patch.  There's no airborne tab you wear other than as a part of the unit patch.  I think this is like that - combat advisor is a part of the patch, not an independent tab for wear.

The more I've thought about this the less I've cared - maybe a bunch of SF folks are going nuts.  To me, uniforms in the Army are about utility, symbolism, and esprit.  If the Army thinks giving someone a beret and a patch connects them symbolically to the types of missions they need to do and increases esprit go for it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think it's like the rest of our unit patches.  Most people assigned to the 101st aren't airborne and none are on airborne status - but the airborne tap is a part of the unit patch.  There's no airborne tab you wear other than as a part of the unit patch.  I think this is like that - combat advisor is a part of the patch, not an independent tab for wear.
> 
> The more I've thought about this the less I've cared - maybe a bunch of SF folks are going nuts.  To me, uniforms in the Army are about utility, symbolism, and esprit.  If the Army thinks giving someone a beret and a patch connects them symbolically to the types of missions they need to do and increases esprit go for it.



Sorry dude, no. 

The Green Beret was awarded by President Kennedy specifically for the USA SF. Green Berets - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

You don’t take one groups things and give them to someone else to increase esprit de corps. That comes through going through hard training, striving and earning something. 

Taking a bunch of cav scouts and giving the green berets doesn’t increase their “utility” and it just makes them symbolic of how lacking in common sense the Army is.


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> The more I've thought about this the less I've cared - maybe a bunch of SF folks are going nuts.  To me, uniforms in the Army are about utility, symbolism, and esprit.  If the Army thinks giving someone a beret and a patch connects them symbolically to the types of missions they need to do and increases esprit go for it.



I gotta disagree pretty hard here.  The symbolism and esprit associated with certain things, like green berets and long tabs, have been earned by the men who stood up those units and ran the missions that gave, and continue to give, those units their mystique and reputations.  If people want the esprit that goes with those items, and the recognition, then they can put themselves in the arena just like all the others who actually earned it.  The Army fucked this one up, big time, and appears to be doubling down on its mistakes.  There are plenty of things they can do to increase the esprit de corps of a new unit without outright thievery of another units insignia, motto, etc.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 29, 2017)

That's why to this very day, I still like the way we do it in the Marine Corps. You simply wear the insignia that you "earned."

Keeps things pretty simple! You earned it -- you wear it..


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> If the Army thinks giving someone a beret and a patch connects them symbolically to the types of missions they need to do and increases esprit go for it.



While I will not even try to pretend earning the title Marine is on the same level of earning a Green Beret, I can tell you that receiving that insignia from my Senior Drill Instructor as he address me as "Marine",  was one of the most positively emotional events of my life.  I, and most Marines for that matter, would be pretty fucking unamused if The Corps did something to diminish the meaning of that symbolism.

For Green Berets?  Jesus, I can only try to imagine the fury they must feel to see the symbols of their years of work, schooling and accomplishment, be literally given out to soldiers who will easily be confused by the uninformed as SF.  

As the Navy and The Corps will tell you, it is tradition and lore that contribute to the feeling belonging and uniqueness we feel.  You dilute that tradition, you dilute the passion and love/hate for that branch.  That is not a good thing.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 29, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think it's like the rest of our unit patches. Most people assigned to the 101st aren't airborne and none are on airborne status - but the airborne tap is a part of the unit patch. There's no airborne tab you wear other than as a part of the unit patch.



Understandably historic context with regards to 101st. I think 10th Mountain airborne is the only odd situation I've seen, but still just a unit specificity.


----------



## SaintKP (Oct 29, 2017)

I've been thinking about this for a little bit now and as an outsider looking in I can understand where both sides are coming from. It's difficult to adopt something that another group is renown for and make it your own without it seeming like a direct copy, especially when it's a sort of niche objective/product. For example the company I work for recently launched a new product that is extremely similar to one of our local competitors main shtick. Needless to say the comparisons and arguments of whether or not it was a direct copy happened almost immediately. While both products are different yet still occupy the same area, comparisons and arguments happened immediately. Could we have changed the product up some and to differentiate it a little more? Maybe, but it also drew a ton of people in immediately due to the associated knowledge of the competitors product.

However just because you're trying to reinvent the wheel, doesn't mean you can paint it a slightly different shade and call it your own new thing. Symbolism is an strong emotoptional catalyst for people. Colors, symbols, smells, sounds, all have a supreme effect on the human psyche often triggerung strong feeling and emotions in people whether it be pride, nostalgia, happiness, fear, etc.

When you blatantly rob another groups extremely deep, storied tradition and history to just change the color and the shape and call it this new and improved thing is a slap in the face to those who worked tirelessly to make the original what it is. At best it's short sighted and ignorant.

Not to mention the fact that the patch looks cheap and almost fake in my opinion.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 29, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Taking a bunch of cav scouts and giving the green berets doesn’t increase their “utility” and it just makes them symbolic of how lacking in common sense the Army is.



I agree with most of what you posted. But, do you really have to do the whole cav scout insult thing here? I mean, from what I've read these units are mostly made up of leg infantry.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 29, 2017)

1. Take the FID mission and add a larger foot print - Check
2. Use similar patches and head gear, so it looks like you are part of SF to other countries - Check
3. Use the idea for kingdom building and budget - Check
3. Do the mission better than SF - Doubt it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2017)

Topkick said:


> But, do you really have to do the whole cav scout insult thing here?



Top, I say this with all respect and no sarcasm intended.  You are fighting a losing battle on this one...in a thread about tradition, a friendly jab against the longtime Shadow Spear whipping boy is kinda funny.

That said...

All...let's be "one and done" on the Cav thing in this thread.  Keep the additional jokes and meme's to yourself...there is good debate happening here, please don't derail into an unnecessary distraction.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 29, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Sorry dude, no.
> 
> The Green Beret was awarded by President Kennedy specifically for the USA SF. Green Berets - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ...





CDG said:


> I gotta disagree pretty hard here.  The symbolism and esprit associated with certain things, like green berets and long tabs, have been earned by the men who stood up those units and ran the missions that gave, and continue to give, those units their mystique and reputations.  If people want the esprit that goes with those items, and the recognition, then they can put themselves in the arena just like all the others who actually earned it.  The Army fucked this one up, big time, and appears to be doubling down on its mistakes.  There are plenty of things they can do to increase the esprit de corps of a new unit without outright thievery of another units insignia, motto, etc.



I hear you, and I'm not arguing everyone should feel the way I do - but just saying I don't get worked up about this.  

There's no argument to me any beret or patch increases utility - and I think that's the case regardless of unit type.

To me this is about symbolism and esprit - which function entirely as a matter of context.  It looks to me like the Army feels this is going to send the message to these units that they are elite and part of the FID tradition of SF.  Now, as to whether that will make anyone do their jobs better or function in a superior fashion - I think probably not.  Then again, I'm not convinced the degree of give-a-shit a unit/Soldier puts into their symbols/uniform vs the training and leadership provided makes a huge amount of different.  

Also, how much ass-pain should be felt based on the 'degradation' of a symbol?  Ranger Regiment hasn't seemed to turn into a bag of shit by switching out the black beret for the tan?  Of course, the Army hasn't turned into a bunch of Rangers by adopting the black beret either.  Airborne units in WWII were elite - head and shoulders above normal leg units in terms of the conditioning and training they went through.  But, was it really 3 weeks of airborne school that got them that way?  Of course not, it was all the training and vetting they went through before and after airborne school.

It's the same argument that gets trotted out whenever standards are changed.  Will your globe and anchor, blue chord, Ranger tab, etc. be worth less if a woman earns it, if they change pull-up standards, if they get rid of desert phase, if you have to do additional SHARP training, and on and on.

Again, I'm not saying anyone's argument is wrong.  I'm just saying for me and the way I look at these kinds of issues I don't think it matters that much.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Top, I say this with all respect and no sarcasm intended.  You are fighting a losing battle on this one...in a thread about tradition, a friendly jab against the longtime Shadow Spear whipping boy is kinda funny.
> 
> That said...
> 
> All...let's be "one and done" on the Cav thing in this thread.  Keep the additional jokes and meme's to yourself...there is good debate happening here, please don't derail into an unnecessary distraction.


As the resident horse cavalryman...I've gotten over it. 

However, to the point that Il Duce is attempting to make...give them a uniform, they'll have a esprit de corps...no, no they won't.

You can establish a unit with good morale by bringing in good leaders.  But Esprit De Corps is built over generations.  It's about being in 1-1 CAV, or being in the 501st or being in 1-1IN.  Esprit De Corps is separate from morale.  And Esprit De Corps is something the Army has been sucking at for a very long time: see uniform reinvention.

Berets...the first folks wearing black ones were tankers, way back in WWII.  Then Tanks and Cav units (See GEN Donn Starry) wore them in the early 70s until it became restricted to wear for Rangers in '79.  So what's the point here...not much on berets other than that the whole Army shouldn't have gone to black in '01.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 29, 2017)

.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2017)

I will say this. I haven’t seen anything but the one picture. I haven’t seen any official statements or anything.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 29, 2017)

I’m sure this would have been received very differently if this new unit was created without new headgear.


----------



## AWP (Oct 29, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I will say this. I haven’t seen anything but the one picture. I haven’t seen any official statements or anything.



This is the closest I've found.
The rumors are true: New berets for the Army’s military training advisers

This thing is so outlandish I thought it was some epic trolling, but it all looks legit.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 29, 2017)

If this is true, and mother army feels like everybody should get a trophy, why not just establish a challenging course to earn a qualification badge? Like airborne, air assault, etc. It still puts you in a cool guy club and makes more sense than a beret and tab. Make it good training that shows you met the standard to be a combat advisor.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2017)

In theory they're going to have a selection course...but the Army wants to stand up 6 brigades of this type.  Oof.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 29, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> In theory they're going to have a selection course...but the Army wants to stand up 6 brigades of this type.  Oof.



I did time as an OC. A battalion of OCs consisted of about 50 Personnel. So that can be misleading.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I did time as an OC. A battalion of OCs consisted of about 50 Personnel. So that can be misleading.


1st SFAB is organized with 7 BNs.  50x7: 350. 350x6: 2100.

If their selection course is a longer form of the OC/T Academy at Irwin...that's not really a selection.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 29, 2017)

Right. My main point was just that a battalion can be any amount of Personnel.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 29, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I’m sure this would have been received very differently if this new unit was created without new headgear.


Prior to the headgear debacle, I had been seriously looking at the NG SFAB that is being stood up. I like the mission set and increased deployability and I am to old for real selections and "cool guy" schools. Now? Not so much.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 30, 2017)

After doing more research, this is going to be a fuckn disaster, sooner than later.  train FN, and be able to siphon off to fill leader positions in the RA and NG when needed...  a friggin panacea for leadership globally and locally...   this is not going to begin or end well at all.

I give it 6 months to the first international incident from these clowns, and possibly another front opening up for the US.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 31, 2017)

Pretty quick response...going with a brown beret now and no "Legion" name.

"In accordance with Army guidance, we will select a new unit name. The Army has also decided the SFABs will wear a Brown Infantry Beret like those worn by many armies. Our new name and photos of the beret will be published once the final decisions are approved."

Forces Focus - Soldier Systems Daily


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 31, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Pretty quick response...going with a brown beret now and no "Legion" name.
> 
> "In accordance with Army guidance, we will select a new unit name. The Army has also decided the SFABs will wear a Brown Infantry Beret like those worn by many armies. Our new name and photos of the beret will be published once the final decisions are approved."
> 
> Forces Focus - Soldier Systems Daily



That must have been one serious shit-storm that happened within Big Army. 

Those of you with a dog in this fight, satisfied, or still not good enough?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That must have been one serious shit-storm that happened within Big Army.
> 
> Those of you with a dog in this fight, satisfied, or still not good enough?



It’s fine with me.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 31, 2017)

Found it interesting that in the Army times interview with GEN Milley he stated;

“Special Forces does not train the Afghan National Army. They don’t train them now. They never have. Same thing in Iraq,” he added. “There’s a reason for that. One, that’s way beyond the capacity of Special Forces. It’s also beyond the skill set.”

In 2002 3rd SFG (A) was training the first ANA.....

Army chief dispels rumors, misconceptions about SFAB berets, tabs


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 31, 2017)

And this is why, for roughly 240 years, the Corps didn't give you a pin for your uniform if you were in a SOF environment, aside from jump and scuba.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 31, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Found it interesting that in the Army times interview with GEN Milley he stated;
> 
> “Special Forces does not train the Afghan National Army. They don’t train them now. They never have. Same thing in Iraq,” he added. “There’s a reason for that. One, that’s way beyond the capacity of Special Forces. It’s also beyond the skill set.”
> 
> ...


GEN MILLEY IS FAKE NEWS...someone did not do the staff work.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 31, 2017)

He’s not wrong though. It’s great that the SF trained some ANA in 2002 but conventional forces cobbled together training teams to train the ANA and IA for the other 15 years (and counting) while SOCOM focused on creating indigenous raid forces. This unit makes a lot of sense given the past two years of GWOT. Future wars will almost certainly require our conventional forces to train partner forces. We should create units to do that for us so we don’t have to Frankenstein units together like we’ve done for 16 plus years. That’s what the SFAB does.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 31, 2017)

I’ll add a caveat here before I get dogpiled for my last comment. I spent over a decade of my life putting evil men to the sword. We did raid after raid to decapitate AQ/TB leadership. We were extremely effective tactically but 15 years later I don’t know how much that really mattered strategically. I want my kids to inherit my GI Bill not the GWOT.


----------



## AWP (Oct 31, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Pretty quick response...going with a brown beret now and no "Legion" name.
> 
> "In accordance with Army guidance, we will select a new unit name. The Army has also decided the SFABs will wear a Brown Infantry Beret like those worn by many armies. Our new name and photos of the beret will be published once the final decisions are approved."
> 
> Forces Focus - Soldier Systems Daily



Good. For once it sounds like Internet Outrage did some good in the world.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 31, 2017)

Teufel said:


> He’s not wrong though. It’s great that the SF trained some ANA in 2002 but conventional forces cobbled together training teams to train the ANA and IA for the other 15 years (and counting) while SOCOM focused on creating indigenous raid forces. This unit makes a lot of sense given the past two years of GWOT. Future wars will almost certainly require our conventional forces to train partner forces. We should create units to do that for us so we don’t have to Frankenstein units together like we’ve done for 16 plus years. That’s what the SFAB does.



Why wouldn't conventional forces train conventional forces? They don't need a tab and beret to do that. SFAB seems like a solid plan but like any other conventional unit, the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia indentifies what you do.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 31, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Why wouldn't conventional forces train conventional forces? They don't need a tab and beret to do that. SFAB seems like a solid plan but like any other conventional unit, the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia indentifies what you do.



Infantry units have several mission essential tasks. Train indigenous forces is not one of them.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 31, 2017)

Teufel said:


> The infantry has several mission essential tasks. Train indigenous forces is not one of them.



Army MiTT teams have been made up of conventional troops, to include Infantry, since the early years of the GWOT. This seems to be just a continuation of MiTT in a more structured way. They can and do train IA, which is conventional. I can't speak on ANA.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 31, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Army MiTT teams have been made up of conventional troops, to include Infantry, since the early years of the GWOT. This seems to be just a continuation of MiTT in a more structured way. They can and do train IA, which is conventional. I can't speak on ANA.


I really don’t know what you are trying to argue. MiTT was bad because it robbed units of key personnel to create ad hoc teams to perform a critical mission they weren’t really trained to do. The SFAB solves this problem for future conflicts. 

My service does not issue tabs and berets so I don’t personally care about that decision but I completely understand why many do.


----------



## x SF med (Nov 1, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Found it interesting that in the Army times interview with GEN Milley he stated;
> 
> “Special Forces does not train the Afghan National Army. They don’t train them now. They never have. Same thing in Iraq,” he added. “There’s a reason for that. One, that’s way beyond the capacity of Special Forces.* It’s also beyond the skill set.*”
> 
> ...




"...To train, advise, organize and assist indigenous forces in their fights against oppressive governments..."  Gen Milley does not know the basic tenets of SF...  clownshoes.


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Nov 1, 2017)

Goddamnit.

A function within AFSOC snagged the rights to the brown beret 2-3 months ago, they're in production and hit the streets in January.


----------



## Topkick (Nov 1, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I really don’t know what you are trying to argue. MiTT was bad because it robbed units of key personnel to create ad hoc teams to perform a critical mission they weren’t really trained to do. The SFAB solves this problem for future conflicts.
> 
> My service does not issue tabs and berets so I don’t personally care about that decision but I completely understand why many do.



No argument. I wrote in my OP that SFAB seems like a solid plan. My point was that the Army could  just give them a shoulder patch , like they do all other units.
No need for a beret and tab. Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 1, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Army MiTT teams have been made up of conventional troops, to include Infantry, since the early years of the GWOT. This seems to be just a continuation of MiTT in a more structured way. They can and do train IA, which is conventional. I can't speak on ANA.



I agree that this seems like MiTT 2.0 .  Not inspiring a lot of confidence.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 1, 2017)

I feel like there's a great Duffleblog headline awaiting us about 'SFAB Cultural Appropriation'


----------



## Teufel (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I agree that this seems like MiTT 2.0 .  Not inspiring a lot of confidence.



Except that these Soldiers are manned, trained, and equipped to accomplish that mission. Embedded/Military Training Teams were created to fill a gap that SOCOM could not or would not fill. This mission set will likely be an enduring requirement in the future and requires a permanent solution.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 1, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Except that these Soldiers are manned, trained, and equipped to accomplish that mission. Embedded/Military Training Teams were created to fill a gap that SOCOM could not or would not fill. This mission set will likely be an enduring requirement in the future and requires a permanent solution.



MiTTs were also manned, trained and equipped for security force assistance.  The problem IMO isn't who is doing the training, it's who is being trained.

I think that the Army is preparing for a problem that it wants to have, rather than the problem it does have.  The problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria aren't military problems, they are political/ideological/institutional ones.  If we want to make a difference there we need to start standing up brigades of economists, lawyers and LEOs, under the aegis of the State Department, not taking away our very limited Army combat brigades to support a TTP that we've seen time and time again simply does not work.

We already have too much on our plate as it is.  What's coming off to support the 16 weeks of language training and the 6 weeks of SFAB training and all of the other stuff that they haven't thought of yet but are going to need to train on to make this work?  How are they going to do language sustainment?  What languages are they even going to train on?  And what happens to all of that great training and SFAB experience when people PCS back into the Big Army?  Or are we standing up a new SFAB MOS where people stay for their whole careers?  And if we're going to do that, maybe we stand up a whole new branch, joint/combined/interagency. Because that's what it's going to take to make this work.

And what's going to happen to these fancy SFABs when some manpower-draining contingency like Iraq crops up in the future (looking at you, North Korea)?  We don't have a draft, most of America is too fat, too dumb, or too criminal to join, and no matter how we fight in the future, we're going to need thousands of people on the ground.  It would be better to designate one brigade per division as the DRB-S, the Division Ready Brigade-SFAB like you have the DRB for contingencies.  That way they can stay sharp on basic soldier skills and prep for the SFAB mission just like they would any other contingency.

Bottom line, our general purpose forces are GPF for a reason.  The kind of half-assed over-specialization envisioned for SFABs is not likely to increase lethality, survivability, or mission accomplishment.  In fact, it will probably have the opposite effect.

This is a bad idea, already poorly executed.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 1, 2017)

The SFAB concept seems to be more like Hollow/Caretaker unit structures built for expansion in war time.  You know, an actual high intensity conflict that we'll need to have a major expansion.  You have 6 BDE's worth of Staff's ready to go and stand up.  But since we cut units all of the time and give their footprints to someone else, where are these guys going?


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> MiTTs were also manned, trained and equipped for security force assistance.  The problem IMO isn't who is doing the training, it's who is being trained.
> 
> I think that the Army is preparing for a problem that it wants to have, rather than the problem it does have.  The problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria aren't military problems, they are political/ideological/institutional ones.  If we want to make a difference there we need to start standing up brigades of economists, lawyers and LEOs, under the aegis of the State Department, not taking away our very limited Army combat brigades to support a TTP that we've seen time and time again simply does not work.
> 
> ...



I'm also skeptical of the utility of these units - and the strategy that underpins them.  But, I'm not sure if I'm as comfortable saying it's not a gap - or that it's impossible to train these types of units to do this job.

It just feels like to me we're doubling-down on a tactical/operational solution that didn't work in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We're saying 'no, no - if we just do it right it will work' - which I think we've also said about the failed COIN doctrine.

There absolutely - IMO - is a need to be able to stand up a HN military force capable of defending it's borders and maintaining internal security.  I think not only do Iraq and Afghanistan show that need but we've got 2nd and 3rd world countries all over the place that likely have the same requirements.  Further, I think we do have a gap in our capability as an Army/DoD to provide the means to assist in the formation of those forces.

My issue is I'm not sure training at the BN/BDE level is where those forces have failed.  As I think you alluded to - if you don't have the political and institutional structures to recruit, man, train and equip those types of forces somebody taking over a portion of the BN/BDE level training isn't going to fix the problem - as it clearly didn't do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Further, if you were in a situation where the government had the ability to recruit, man, and pay a conventional force - just lacked the training ability to forge individual and collective skills at the BN/BDE/DIV level - is this the force that is best to accomplish that task?  When we wanted to build large numbers of those types of units (WWII) we didn't build them from scratch then drop in a bunch of advisors or cadre.  We gave them solid doctrine, an individual/collective training pipeline, then invested our experienced cadre into collective training exercises.  I understand this is not WWII but how is language training, scoring better than average on your PT test, and wearing a culturally appropriated beret going to give you the ability to institutionalize those skills?  Would a Soldier like that even qualify to be cadre at a CTC or instructor at TRADOC - i.e. be given 20% of that responsibility for our own forces?

I think it just gets back to the old bromide you used to tell me as a LT 'the enemy doesn't reinforce failure - why should we?'


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 1, 2017)

The great personal irony of this situation for me is if I don't retire this summer as planned, I'll probably be in one of these brigades.


----------



## Topkick (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> The great personal irony of this situation for me is if I don't retire this summer as planned, I'll probably be in one of these brigades.



This may cause more people to retire sooner.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 1, 2017)

Topkick said:


> This may cause more people to retire sooner.



I kind of think it will be the opposite.  This is the Army's shiny new object and I think people will be jumping for the opportunity.  People will definitely be jumping for the $5k bonus.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> We already have too much on our plate as it is.  What's coming off to support the 16 weeks of language training and the 6 weeks of SFAB training and all of the other stuff that they haven't thought of yet but are going to need to train on to make this work?  How are they going to do language sustainment?  What languages are they even going to train on?  And what happens to all of that great training and SFAB experience when people PCS back into the Big Army?  Or are we standing up a new SFAB MOS where people stay for their whole careers?  And if we're going to do that, maybe we stand up a whole new branch, joint/combined/interagency. Because that's what it's going to take to make this work.



To add to the above, we (perhaps not as a nation, but certainly as a government) have a history of trying something, making less-than-acceptable progress, then moving the goalposts until we can just declare victory where we sit, rather than actually conducting an honest evaluation of where we are, where we should be (and where we can be realistically within current constraints), and what's required to get to where we need to be.

I might be overly cynical, but I'm having trouble finding faith that when the dust settles, the Army will be conducting this mission the way they have described it.


----------



## Topkick (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I kind of think it will be the opposite.  This is the Army's shiny new object and I think people will be jumping for the opportunity.  People will definitely be jumping for the $5k bonus.



I hope you are right but those crusty vets who have seen or been a part of MiTT may not want to stick around for it.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> MiTTs were also manned, trained and equipped for security force assistance.  The problem IMO isn't who is doing the training, it's who is being trained.
> 
> I think that the Army is preparing for a problem that it wants to have, rather than the problem it does have.  The problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria aren't military problems, they are political/ideological/institutional ones.  If we want to make a difference there we need to start standing up brigades of economists, lawyers and LEOs, under the aegis of the State Department, not taking away our very limited Army combat brigades to support a TTP that we've seen time and time again simply does not work.
> 
> ...


The military training teams, in my experience, were cobbled together from across the force with no selection process of any kind, given training that ranged from “figure it out as you go” to a few months of formal training, and given an incredibly complex mission to accomplish. I think the real shortfall did not occur at the squad or platoon level but rather at the brigade and higher level, especially with regards to logistics and operational planning.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 1, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> To add to the above, we (perhaps not as a nation, but certainly as a government) have a history of trying something, making less-than-acceptable progress, then moving the goalposts until we can just declare victory where we sit, rather than actually conducting an honest evaluation of where we are, where we should be (and where we can be realistically within current constraints), and what's required to get to where we need to be.
> 
> I might be overly cynical, but I'm having trouble finding faith that when the dust settles, the Army will be conducting this mission the way they have described it.



Good points.

A lot of the ideas for the SFAB brief well but are impossible to implement.  The company that @Il Duce and I were in was the linguist company for the Second Infantry Division in Korea.  To get the kind of language proficiency one needs to actually be useful in that language takes something on the order of 16 months, not 16 weeks.  And once you achieve proficiency, you have to maintain it or you'll lose it.  Language maintenance consumed a large portion of our training week.  When I commanded the support company in 5th Group, the language proficiency expected of the SF soldiers was 0+/0+, and even then some couldn't sustain it because they were consumed with all of the other tasks expected from them.

And even if you train someone up to a usable degree, will it be a usable language?  OK, so you train someone in Arabic.  Maybe Egyptian dialect.  Is that going to be helpful when they get sent into Pakistan?  No?  So why bother with it at all? 

Kill the SFAB idea, make the training a school that confers an ASI (additional skill identifier), assign individual brigades the SFAB mission on a rotating basis.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Good points.
> 
> A lot of the ideas for the SFAB brief well but are impossible to implement.  The company that @Il Duce and I were in was the linguist company for the Second Infantry Division in Korea.  To get the kind of language proficiency one needs to actually be useful in that language takes something on the order of 16 months, not 16 weeks.  And once you achieve proficiency, you have to maintain it or you'll lose it.  Language maintenance consumed a large portion of our training week.  When I commanded the support company in 5th Group, the language proficiency expected of the SF soldiers was 0+/0+, and even then some couldn't sustain it because they were consumed with all of the other tasks expected from them.
> 
> ...



Also, what does the language get you?  You're telling me some 'expert' from an SFAB is going to teach me to run BN/BDE level operations when they've got the language skills of Jean-Claude VanDamme in Bloodsport?  No way, even if they had the technical expertise beyond the language - and I'm not convinced any training the SFAB does is going to impart that expertise.  Plus, as @Marauder06 says that maybe gets you set for a couple countries.

To me, any country with the resources, organization, and commitment to field BN/BDE sized units to train ought to have the ability to provide interpreters.  That to me is a part of the strategic problem in the first place - without the right commitment from the HN, the will to organize and fight, it doesn't matter how much training we do with their yahoos that show up.  They're going to lose, we're just delaying the inevitable.  Without a better way to pick folks with a chance of winning before dropping a few Trillion dollars on them we're wasting everyone's time.

Uh-oh, it appears I've stepped on a cynicism mine...


----------



## Teufel (Nov 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Good points.
> 
> A lot of the ideas for the SFAB brief well but are impossible to implement.  The company that @Il Duce and I were in was the linguist company for the Second Infantry Division in Korea.  To get the kind of language proficiency one needs to actually be useful in that language takes something on the order of 16 months, not 16 weeks.  And once you achieve proficiency, you have to maintain it or you'll lose it.  Language maintenance consumed a large portion of our training week.  When I commanded the support company in 5th Group, the language proficiency expected of the SF soldiers was 0+/0+, and even then some couldn't sustain it because they were consumed with all of the other tasks expected from them.
> 
> ...



This is a good idea. I don’t understand the language requirement either. Just get Terps.


----------



## AWP (Nov 1, 2017)

The Army's hubris is tragically funny. We're going to send soldiers who are (in theory) very good at their jobs within the American system to a foreign nation...and replicate our system? All of the language and cultural training in the world can't overcome cultures that are built over hundreds upon hundreds of years. We're going to train these soldiers to adapt an American system built within our cultural norms to countries that could be the polar opposite of ours?

Where's the State Department's "SFAB" in all of this? Yeah, fail.

Look at SF soldiers: they spend their careers focused on a region. One could argue training at the platoon and company level is much easier than formulating battalions and larger. Big Army's solution is to run some soldiers through a couple of schools and then PCS them after 3-4 years? Return them back to their primary MOS?

The Army's not even bringing a 50% solution to the table.


----------



## Topkick (Nov 2, 2017)

One improvement should be a better quality of soldier assigned to the mission. With MITT, we were asked to give up soldiers to that mission. Don't think for a minute that unit leadership gave up their studs.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> The great personal irony of this situation for me is if I don't retire this summer as planned, I'll probably be in one of these brigades.



You should have taken the AFA gig.



Marauder06 said:


> I kind of think it will be the opposite.  This is the Army's shiny new object and I think people will be jumping for the opportunity.  People will definitely be jumping for the $5k bonus.



Why is a bonus required?
Promotion rates for those assigned here will suck, and I am using past experience as a guide.
Will each Brigade have an assigned AO, or deploy "when it's their turn"?

Maybe plus up USASOC (with a mini-selection) and send those Soldiers off to do Bde and higher staff level training?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 2, 2017)

This sounds like AFPAK Hands on steroids when I was exploring the program and everyone telling me don't do it because the promotion rates for those in the program was a fat zero.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 2, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> You should have taken the AFA gig.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The best way to train someone be to a Brigade staff member is to assign them to a Brigade staff for three years.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 2, 2017)

Who stays on a Brigade Staff in the Army for three years? The Chemo?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 2, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Who stays on a Brigade Staff in the Army for three years? The Chemo?



I’m not in the Army so I don’t know how long people stay in their billets at Brigade. Our MEU/Regiment/Division  principals tend to stick around for 2-3 years.

My point is that you can’t send someone to a course to learn how to be an effective Brigade S3 for example. The best way to learn it is to do it, and usually that means you had to hit all the building blocks before that step as well.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 3, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> You should have taken the AFA gig.



I tried brother, but the Army had other plans.  It all worked out for us in the end.



DA SWO said:


> Why is a bonus required?
> Promotion rates for those assigned here will suck, and I am using past experience as a guide.
> Will each Brigade have an assigned AO, or deploy "when it's their turn"?
> 
> Maybe plus up USASOC (with a mini-selection) and send those Soldiers off to do Bde and higher staff level training?



The Army is throwing big $$$ around because they know people are going to be reluctant to sign up after the "Af-Pak Hands" abortion and attitudes about the MiTT program.

I wonder if we would be better off doing something along the lines of what you suggested, plussing up the TSOCs with Os, WOs, and SNCOs who know logistics, intel, policy, economics, politics, and strategy.  

It's not really that hard to teach people how to fight.  Teaching them everything that goes into winning, and sustaining the win, is very difficult.  That's where we've been failing in Afghanistan and Iraq.  That's the problem the Army should be fighting.


----------



## AWP (Nov 3, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> It's not really that hard to teach people how to fight.  Teaching them everything that goes into winning, and sustaining the win, is very difficult.  That's where we've been failing in Afghanistan and Iraq.  That's the problem the Army should be fighting.



Very true, but if State doesn't RSVP to the party in kind it won't matter what the Army does or doesn't do. The kinds of conflicts/ near conflicts where we would deploy an SFAB team makes State's participation essential to the effort.

The Army could clone Steven Hawking, place him in a mech, and arm him with a lightsaber and it won't matter. All of the genius and lethality in the world won't matter without a coherent foreign policy administered by State. As we all know, we can't even develop a coherent foreign policy.

Thye SFAB's are wasted money. We might as well set it on fire than fund more senior NCO/ O slots to feed and clothe.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 16, 2017)

Go to SFAB...be SOF-Like...Get SOF-kit
1st SFAB Issued Crye Precision’s Adaptive Vest System - Soldier Systems Daily


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 4, 2018)

A friend of mine and colleague from my 10th MTN days wrote this article for strategy bridge just published: Turning the Corner in Afghanistan

I think he's spot on, I wish Foreign Affairs would feature his article as a rebuttal of the McChrystal piece they ran last issue.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 8, 2018)

Your full insignia primer: It’s official: Army unveils brown beret, new patch for military advisers, SFAB


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 8, 2018)

Huh, so these guys are pretty much Green Berets with a more hip and modern color?
 And that flash doesn't look too familiar....

LOL


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 8, 2018)

I see this mission getting sucked up by SOCOM in the future.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 8, 2018)

Wait...so Army SFAB and Air Force CAA's are BOTH getting the brown beret? How did that happen?


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Feb 8, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Wait...so Army SFAB and Air Force CAA's are BOTH getting the brown beret? How did that happen?



Looks like SFAB's beret is a slightly lighter shade of brown than the CAA beret. That said, I think there was a degree of fatalism on the part of the CAA community that allowed this to happen. HAF and AFSOC were not too thrilled about the CAA beret to begin with, so I'm sure they weren't too worried about trying to dissuade the Army.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 8, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Wait...so Army SFAB and Air Force CAA's are BOTH getting the brown beret? How did that happen?


Why would the Army care about the Air Force beret choices?


----------



## AWP (Feb 8, 2018)

SFAB: For those times when you're afraid of Camp Mackall....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 8, 2018)




----------



## Gunz (Feb 9, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Why would the Army care about the Air Force beret choices?




Well, hell, I don't know. A beret used to be a coveted thing, right? The fuckin _GREEN BERETS_. @x SF med , (my punctuation and spelling teacher) and my bro @Viper1 and other HS dudes on SS...How would Special Forces dudes feel if, say, the Marine Admin Clerks adopted a _Green Beret..._only maybe a slightly different shade of green? How would Rangers feel if Navy SEALs adopted a tan beret? How the fuck would my bro @Muppet feel if Cav Scouts got a maroon beret?

Fuck, man. Let's get this beret shit fucking ironed out.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Well, hell, I don't know. A beret used to be a coveted thing, right? The fuckin _GREEN BERETS_. @x SF med , (my punctuation and spelling teacher) and my bro @Viper1 and other HS dudes on SS...How would Special Forces dudes feel if, say, the Marine Admin Clerks adopted a _Green Beret..._only maybe a slightly different shade of green? How would Rangers feel if Navy SEALs adopted a tan beret? How the fuck would my bro @Muppet feel if Cav Scouts got a maroon beret?
> 
> Fuck, man. Let's get this beret shit fucking ironed out.


Better yet,  a maroon cowboy hat.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Well, hell, I don't know. A beret used to be a coveted thing, right? The fuckin _GREEN BERETS_. @x SF med , (my punctuation and spelling teacher) and my bro @Viper1 and other HS dudes on SS...How would Special Forces dudes feel if, say, the Marine Admin Clerks adopted a _Green Beret..._only maybe a slightly different shade of green? How would Rangers feel if Navy SEALs adopted a tan beret? How the fuck would my bro @Muppet feel if Cav Scouts got a maroon beret?
> 
> Fuck, man. Let's get this beret shit fucking ironed out.



This is more of an internal fight than anything that happens in the country club.  SF has a true gripe, Air Force, separate service, move on.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 9, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> This is more of an internal fight than anything that happens in the country club.  SF has a true gripe, Air Force, separate service, move on.




Yeah, I get it. I just think the whole beret thing has gone a bit over the top, no pun intended. You either pack the gear or you don't.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 9, 2018)

It's not the headgear, it's the job.  
Let the SFAB's try to do the job with which they've been tasked.  I don't think it's going to go well; SF has the selection process in place to choose the right guys, and weed out the wrong guys for the job; the SFABs are going to do a 3 year tasker, then head back to wherever they came from.  In SF, that's called RFS, in an SFAB it'll be a completion award.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> How would Rangers feel if Navy SEALs adopted a tan beret? .



I mean, the Rangers used to have a black beret, until the entire rest of the Army adopted it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 10, 2018)

CDG said:


> I mean, the Rangers used to have a black beret, until the entire rest of the Army adopted it.



Agree.  Screwing with the Ranger Regiment's traditions probably seems like SOP to them at this point.


----------



## Andoni (Feb 10, 2018)

CDG said:


> I mean, the Rangers used to have a black beret, until the entire rest of the Army adopted it.



Whenever I showed up as being attached to a unit-  that day bumped June 14th, 2001, the day the black beret went Army wide- to the second worst day of the every man's Army career. I forget a lot of dates, but I know June 14, 2001. 😂


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 10, 2018)

CDG said:


> I mean, the Rangers used to have a black beret, until the entire rest of the Army adopted it.


I'm sure the Tankers got mad when the Rangers started wearing the Black beret...


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm sure the Tankers got mad when the Rangers started wearing the Black beret...


Who cares what tankers think....


----------



## Etype (Mar 7, 2018)

AWP said:


> Very true, but if State doesn't RSVP to the party in kind it won't matter what the Army does or doesn't do.


It's like deja vu all over again for the fourth time. There have been whole years that have gone by where places like Arghandab and Marjah are completely quiet, but government doesn't capitalize on the window of opportunity created by the military.


----------



## pardus (Mar 7, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm sure the Tankers got mad when the Rangers started wearing the Black beret...



Did US Tankers ever wear the black beret?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 7, 2018)

[QUOTE=


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 7, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I think so. U.S. Military Beret History



Berets still do. "In 1951, the Marine Corps experimented with green and blue berets, but dismissed them because they looked too “foreign” and “feminine.”"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 7, 2018)

pardus said:


> Did US Tankers ever wear the black beret?


Yes, when local commanders were first given the authority, Donn Starry authorized wear at the Armor Center in '73.  It was a big Donn Starry thing too.  What can I say, Armor guys can be interesting but a beret in a tank makes a lot more sense than a ball cap or PC.


----------



## pardus (Mar 7, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I think so. U.S. Military Beret History
> 
> I could not quite remember being so busy with highschool and all



Interesting snippet of history there!
I'm sure it's been mentioned in the past on SS, but the tan beret was first used in US service during the Vietnam war, by members of the US Army Tracking Team, out of respect for their New Zealand SAS instructors who trained the initial teams in Malaysia (and may or may not have accompanied them on operations unofficially in VN).
So you see, the Rangers  stole a beret too!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 7, 2018)

[QUOTE=


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 11, 2018)

Saw this link, for those interested.

Join the Security Force Assistance Brigade


----------



## Gunz (Apr 12, 2018)

I'd take that beret and 5-grand in a cocaine heartbeat.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 1, 2019)

Well that didn't go as planned....

The Army's much-hyped advise-and-assist brigade couldn't find enough soldiers to actually advise and assist, SIGAR chief says

_"Staffing of the SFABs is based on recruiting active-duty Army and National Guard volunteers, but while advisory experience is preferred, about 20 percent of the 1st SFAB had never previously deployed," Sopko said. "And even though the Army offered a number of incentives for volunteers, the 1st SFAB was filling billets right up to the day that they departed."

The 1st SFAB didn't just suffer from recruitment challenges, but retention issues as well. The reason is simple, Sopko said on Tuesday: Adviser roles "continue to be seen as not career enhancing in the military, which contributes to high attrition rates — up to 70 percent for the 1st SFAB."_


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Aug 1, 2019)

Color me shocked.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 1, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Well that didn't go as planned....
> 
> The Army's much-hyped advise-and-assist brigade couldn't find enough soldiers to actually advise and assist, SIGAR chief says
> 
> ...


How very High Drag, Low Speed, of them.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 1, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Well that didn't go as planned....
> 
> The Army's much-hyped advise-and-assist brigade couldn't find enough soldiers to actually advise and assist, SIGAR chief says
> 
> ...


i.e. their promotion rates suck.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 2, 2019)

This was a stupid idea from the get-go.  Those of us who have been in the Army for a minute remember the promises that were made about programs like the MiTTs, and the new hotness that was the Af-Pak Hands Programs.  Both of those were, at best, neutral for a Soldier's career.  IIRC, the AfPak Hands program had a promotion rate that was well below that of the rest of the Army.  So much for the "best and brightest."

And with the SVAB, my understanding is that you're signing up for two-count-them-two pumps downrange.  Most of the experienced officers and NCOs out there in the operational force have been there, done that, and don't want to do it again as part of a churched-up advise and assist mission, with or without a fancy new beret.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 2, 2019)




----------



## AWP (Aug 2, 2019)

The funny thing is, if you go back to the first page or two of this thread WE SAW THIS COMING. The SFAB's made a bunch of nobodies on the internet look like genuises.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 2, 2019)

.


----------



## Box (Aug 2, 2019)

Seeing this coming was almost as hard as trying to forecast that the sun will set in the west later today........


----------



## Gunz (Aug 2, 2019)

x SF med said:


> After doing more research, this is going to be a fuckn disaster, sooner than later.  train FN, and be able to siphon off to fill leader positions in the RA and NG when needed...  a friggin panacea for leadership globally and locally...   this is not going to begin or end well at all.
> 
> I give it 6 months to the first international incident from these clowns, and possibly another front opening up for the US.



Troll nailed it, Oct '17.

See, there's a reason I named my dog after him.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 5, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> This was a stupid idea from the get-go.  Those of us who have been in the Army for a minute remember the promises that were made about programs like the MiTTs, and the new hotness that was the Af-Pak Hands Programs.  Both of those were, at best, neutral for a Soldier's career.  IIRC, the AfPak Hands program had a promotion rate that was well below that of the rest of the Army.  So much for the "best and brightest."
> 
> And with the SVAB, my understanding is that you're signing up for two-count-them-two pumps downrange.  Most of the experienced officers and NCOs out there in the operational force have been there, done that, and don't want to do it again as part of a churched-up advise and assist mission, with or without a fancy new beret.


They are standing up and filling the 4th and 5th brigades at Carson and JBLM respectively. SF branch has already sent some officers to SFABs, including two BN commanders. Both made O-6 but my assessment is they would have made O-6 without the SFAB command. 

In terms of leadership, they did take a good look at the right brigade and battalion commanders to select. SF branch peers are impressed with their quality. 

The officers we’ve sent are staying busy as S-3s and XOs. It’s not a unit to take a knee in, and post RSMA rotations they are expected to rotate into the various AORs as advisors. We’ll see how that pans out


----------



## MikeDelta (Aug 5, 2019)

Just got this photo from a young trooper (PFC) I rented a room to, and befriended before he enlisted.

He is on the very mission (in Africa) this thread is about. I jokingly told him that he has popped his AK photo-op deployment cherry.

Mod Edit -

Cool photo, but since it is not you, wanted to be sure he would be good with you posting it on the open board?

Ooh Rah


----------



## Kaldak (Aug 5, 2019)

@MikeDelta no photo showing up.


----------



## MikeDelta (Aug 5, 2019)

MikeDelta said:


> Just got this photo from a young trooper (PFC) I rented a room to, and befriended before he enlisted.
> 
> He is on the very mission (in Africa) this thread is about. I jokingly told him that he has popped his AK photo-op deployment cherry.
> 
> ...



Understood. I’ll ask him, he’ll be stateside very soon and needs to be a ShadowSpear member anyway.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 5, 2019)

Here are my thoughts. I don't think it's a bad idea to have some dedicated units to cover down on the FID mission. The problem is obviously the execution of how they are staffed, their patch, beret, trying to make them something "special" etc.

I also think attempting to do a cross comparison to SF is kinda crazy. SF has highly trained and experienced leaders who have cultural and language training above and beyond any regular Army unit will ever have. That's like comparing a E1 to a E8 in the same career field. They just ain't comparable. 

I also think it's crazy that SF would want to take on all of the FID mission's of the modern era, with fulfilling their other core mission's. A lot of FID out there, and a lot of different types. Training up HN SOF/COMMANDO type units is more likely where SF money and time is better spent, along with their UW mission sets. I don't see where having conventional guys in a specific unit teaching conventional army shit to the HN conventional troops is a bad idea. 

But what the hell do I know. We trained and fought with ICDC company, they were shit, had shit equipment and if we weren't there they would sell off their shit and do fuckall when it came to mission's. Of course we had no control over their recruitment, basic training, leadership selection, or MTO/E. We did teach them a lot of cuss words though...


----------



## Dimethylamine (May 2, 2022)

Forgive me if it seems like I'm hijacking this thread for asking a question about my own career.  So, I've had the opportunity to get trained by some 5th SFAB types for a CPX pre-mob.  I learned more about MDMP than I care about (seriously, it was a painful but valuable experience especially as a new 1LT).

Fast forward one more year, I get an email asking if I would like to have the opportunity to try out for 54th SFAB in the TXNG.  The 'tour' would be 30 months, which I'm not opposed to, nor the travel as they'll reimburse me on DTS.  My long term goal is still 19th Group, but I feel this opportunity would help me out and hopefully get me into some good schools like Ranger School and maybe other classes that I didn't know exist.  I don't know how much 30-36 months of dedication to SFAB would do to my timeline.

Any advice?  How do people feel about using SFAB experience to segway to a SOF?

Editted for content


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 3, 2022)

Dimethylamine said:


> Forgive me if it seems like I'm hijacking this thread for asking a question about my own career.


That’s ultimately the mission of this site; glad to see guys asking these questions again.


----------



## Viper1 (May 3, 2022)

Dimethylamine said:


> Forgive me if it seems like I'm hijacking this thread for asking a question about my own career.  So, I've had the opportunity to get trained by some 5th SFAB types for a CPX pre-mob.  I learned more about MDMP than I care about (seriously, it was a painful but valuable experience especially as a new 1LT).
> 
> Fast forward one more year, I get an email asking if I would like to have the opportunity to try out for 54th SFAB in the TXNG.  The 'tour' would be 30 months, which I'm not opposed to, nor the travel as they'll reimburse me on DTS.  My long term goal is still 19th Group, but I feel this opportunity would help me out and hopefully get me into some good schools like Ranger School and maybe other classes that I didn't know exist.  I don't know how much 30-36 months of dedication to SFAB would do to my timeline.
> 
> ...


Keep working towards your goal and use the experiences you are offered to get you there. It all compounds.


----------



## Dimethylamine (May 3, 2022)

Viper1 said:


> Keep working towards your goal and use the experiences you are offered to get you there. It all compounds.



You don't think I will have too much TIG after this is all said and done?  Another CPT that was ahead of me missed his ride for SFAS because he had too much TIG as a Captain.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2022)

A friend of mine who is a pre board Major just took command of a battalion in an SFAB. So I'm not so sure about the try outs lol. (She's a great officer though)


----------



## Dimethylamine (May 25, 2022)

Back to the drawing board I go.  SFAB is a no go; you need to be a Captain and I'm not there yet.  On the bright side, I get to go back to the FIST, so I get to be around infantry types more often.  I'm not a huge fan of being on the gunline, so I feel the infantry training will suit me well. Our state is also sending more people to Ranger school, so I'm going to try to get on board with that.


----------

