# Call to recruit Army, Marine infantry as 'elite branch'



## Devildoc (Feb 15, 2019)

Interesting arguments.

Retired General: Train, Pay Army and Marine Infantry as an Elite Force


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 15, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Interesting arguments.
> 
> Retired General: Train, Pay Army and Marine Infantry as an Elite Force


Where do you send them when they fuck up?

The threat of getting booted from a SOF unit helps keep guys in check.
Do we make them Cav Scouts?


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 15, 2019)

Give them black berets too! Nonsense like this reminds me why I left the Army.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 15, 2019)

Marine Infantry is already an elite force. We could argue that point, I guess, but it's one reason why the original Raider battalions were disbanded. No need for an "elite within an elite."


----------



## Box (Feb 15, 2019)

This exclusive way of thinking is unsat - Infantry needs to be an all inclusive force - ready to integrate all comers at a moments notice.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Feb 15, 2019)

I think if you ramp up an infantry unit’s selection process to be SOF-esque , you’re going to have a lot of empty slots. I think the thought is great, but when you check out the attrition rates from the other thread, it is a wake up call.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2019)

Army Infantry will be modernizing to the future battle fields. The argument could be made that our light divisions are as elite as any other light Infantry unit (not talking about Rangers here, that's a different animal all together). But it could be done,  better screening and training at Sand Hill, more advanced training for 11B/C's going to light divisions vs heavy. They would need to come up with a asi or control group so branch doesn't send fat boys to light units,  etc. 

Can they produce a Ranger division or multiple Ranger divisions? Fuck no, but they could definitely shape our light divisions up to more traditional commando style light Infantry.

Airborne school use to include a shit ton of patrolling and light infantryman skills in the course (WW2 era). I see no reason why the same could not be repeated, send the unsuccessfuls down to heavy divisions, etc. 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Feb 15, 2019)

Which country are we being compared to when trying to create this elite infantry force? IMO our Army and Marine infantry are elite. if we need to go into a country, kill everyone, and leave, we’re pretty damn successful. Occupation is another animal in itself and not really what we’re designed for, but we’ve always managed to adapt and overcome.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2019)

ShadowSpear said:


> Which country are we being compared to when trying to create this elite infantry force? IMO our Army and Marine infantry are elite. if we need to go into a country, kill everyone, and leave, we’re pretty damn successful. Occupation is another animal in itself and not really what we’re designed for.



Well, the issue is not as much as "are we good at what we currently do" as it is the changing dynamic and how our light divisions will have to adjust. More so the need for a more scalpel like approach vs sledgehammer. Intergrading more tech, fires and maneuver in close proximity to urban populations. I'm not saying we are not good at it,  just that we will have to become better and adapt.

A lot of this is coming from the Ukrainian /Russian conflict.  Russia is much better than anyone thought and SIGINT, Intergraded UAV and indirect fires, as well as electronic warfare. To be honest, I feel for the younger generations, as it's going to be a motherfucker if Russia starts to export their developing capabilities. 

Brass tacks,  our Infantry is going to need to become, smaller,  smarter, faster,  more lethal with direct and indirect fires,  close proximity maneuvers and develop and master tech capabilities.  

I suspect SIGINT,  electronic warfare, and armed and unarmed UAV integration is more where the General is pushing for a more SOF like/capable Infantry vs a more Ranger like Infantry with regards to selection,  training and equipment. 

However, I'm just making a semi-educated guess.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 15, 2019)

I believe the foundational gist of the article isn't necessarily to compare infantry to SOF, but rather treat them like SOF with regard to targeted recruitment, selection, training, bonuses, etc.  The author also brought up the Navy nuke sub programs where they do the same thing: one a sailor is in, the rest of his career is pretty much set in that field.  The author talks about the history of infantry was as a filler, where people go because they weren't 'good enough' (my words) for other branches, and that it is the wrong mindset.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Feb 15, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Well, the issue is not as much as "are we good at what we currently do" as it is the changing dynamic and how our light divisions will have to adjust. More so the need for a more scalpel like approach vs sledgehammer. Intergrading more tech, fires and maneuver in close proximity to urban populations. I'm not saying we are not good at it,  just that we will have to become better and adapt.
> 
> A lot of this is coming from the Ukrainian /Russian conflict.  Russia is much better than anyone thought and SIGINT, Intergraded UAV and indirect fires, as well as electronic warfare. To be honest, I feel for the younger generations, as it's going to be a motherfucker if Russia starts to export their developing capabilities.
> 
> ...



I totally agree when it comes to our evolving forces, but I think a smaller infantry would only hurt us, especially with a conflict relating to China/Taiwan/South China Sea over the horizon. We’re out gunned when it comes to ground troops, but I think that having the technological edge will only take us so far. At the end of the day (in my personal opinion) we will still need numbers when it comes to conventional conflicts with super powers (and as a deterrent).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2019)

ShadowSpear said:


> I totally agree when it comes to our evolving forces, but I think a smaller infantry would only hurt us, especially with a conflict relating to China/Taiwan/South China Sea over the horizon. We’re out gunned when it comes to ground troops, but I think that having the technological edge will only take us so far. At the end of the day (in my personal opinion) we will still need numbers when it comes to conventional conflicts with super powers (and as a deterrent).



I fully agree with regards to our heavy divisions,  plus that shit up,  because that will be what we need in that context. 

Light doesn't fit well in that model, at least not as well as they do in smaller proxy stuff that is being projected in Europe. 

I don't have the time to paint the picture with links and video's right now, of why I'm saying what I'm saying, and why many high ranking officers are making comments like "we need more lethal/agile SOF like Infantry".

But I'll get after it tonight or tomorrow, it's pretty damn scary shit and will give context to my prior commitments.


----------



## Cookie_ (Feb 15, 2019)

I understand, in principle, where the general is coming from; but, as @Box points out, it fails to take in integration with the distro, medics, quartermasters, logistics, signal, etc guys who help these units run.

Anything we do to improve our base infantry is going to require improving our combat support guys/gals.
 It seems to me the best solution is either; 

A. The expansion of Ranger Regiment and Force Recon, to allow for a broader base of "elite" infantry using already established organizations

or

B. Improvements and refocusing at the baseline level of troops in infantry and combat support skills, with more focus on keeping those skills in practice outside of basic/AIT/"yearly" refresher training


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I don't have the time to paint the picture with links and video's right now, of why I'm saying what I'm saying, and why many high ranking officers are making comments like "we need more lethal/agile SOF like Infantry".



I thought that’s what the 173rd was for?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2019)

Army Will Add 2 Months to Infantry Course to Make Grunts More Lethal

Mattis Wants Ground Combat Units to Be More Lethal in the Close Fight

The Integrated Joint Force: A Lethal Solution for Ensuring Military Preeminence | RealClearDefense






If you google "Russian hybrid warfare and Us Army" and you will find a few pdf's from the Army war college and Fort Benning with regards to how we and NATO are reshaping to fit the current threat,  etc. 

There are also several YouTube videos as well as small articles of high ranking officers, studying and commenting on how we need to change,  adapt, etc. I've been somewhat keeping up with it, hints my comments. 

One of the most interesting and terrifying revelations, is how Russia is using ECM's to block communications and technology, while using SIGINT to triangulate positions, specific units,  using UAV to confirm location, tracking and in many cases using mass indirect fires to destroy units. And they are pretty damn good at it, like really fucking good. 

Our Infantry has never faced those types of tactics before,  and honestly, without some revamping and a whole hell of a lot of integration, probably wouldn't come out so well.

Anyway,  some interesting stuff floating around with regards to this stuff specifically. Worth the time to read, watch, debate, IMHO. Better than the normal politics bullshit we've been discussing as of late. 

$.02


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> One of the most interesting and terrifying revelations, is how Russia is using ECM's to block communications and technology, while using SIGINT to triangulate positions, specific units,  using UAV to confirm location, tracking and in many cases using mass indirect fires to destroy units. And they are pretty damn good at it, like really fucking good.



I wonder where they got that from?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> I understand, in principle, where the general is coming from; but, as @Box points out, it fails to take in integration with the distro, medics, quartermasters, logistics, signal, etc guys who help these units run.
> 
> Anything we do to improve our base infantry is going to require improving our combat support guys/gals.
> It seems to me the best solution is either;
> ...



Yes, but almost a reorganizing of units all together (IE.  SIGINT, EW, UAV, at the company level) 

Yeah,  a lot needs to change at all levels.


----------



## AWP (Feb 15, 2019)

Roll back to WWII...Airborne units and the 10th Mtn. were "elite" in the grand scheme of things. Training was tough and you could find yourself with a new home if you didn't measure up. There wasn't a formal selection program per se, everyone was a volunteer (especially in the ABN units), and they utilized their unique skill sets while also performing as line infantry when needed. Go back to that general model and I understand, otherwise...great position paper, bro.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 15, 2019)

I read the article, and now I'm sorry I did.  This idea is dumb as hell, and is completely unworkable.  

This is the "Green New Deal" of the military.  It gives all the blue cord huggers something to cheer about and gets the authors' name back in the headlines but it's stupid and unworkable.  "Oh, we'll just find 100,000+ men and women who have all these skills even though we're missing our recruiting numbers, and we'll pay them with money we don't have, give them training they don't need, and try to give them jobs that SOF and the services won't let them do."    This is the same line of reasoning that gave the black beret to the entire force.  That did absolutely nothing to increase moral, lethality, or esprit.  This won't either.

General purpose Infantry are an "essential" part of our military.  They are not an "elite" part.

Gee, if only we had an elite infantry element in the military already...


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2019)

You rang Sir?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 15, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yes, but almost a reorganizing of units all together (IE.  SIGINT, EW, UAV, at the company level)
> 
> Yeah,  a lot needs to change at all levels.


Like we did during the cold war?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 16, 2019)

Not to step on any toes, but what's so bad about the infantry getting better training, pay, and gear? Again. Not trying to step on toes here or throw shade, but SOF and Rangers can't be everywhere at every time. Also, pretty sure it's usually the grunts who get tasked with the most drudgerous day to day work outside the wire. I know this is going to sound demeaning, but SOF and their components aren't treated with the same expendability that 'Infantry Joe' is. 

Just food for thought.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Not to step on any toes, but what's so bad about the infantry getting better training, pay, and gear? Again. Not trying to step on toes here or throw shade, but SOF and Rangers can't be everywhere at every time. Also, pretty sure it's usually the grunts who get tasked with the most drudgerous day to day work outside the wire. I know this is going to sound demeaning, but SOF and their components aren't treated with the same expendability that 'Infantry Joe' is.
> 
> Just food for thought.



Disclaimer: Not a Ranger or SOF guy.

The “system” is geared to support Special Operations and not at all regular Army ops.  Support troops and the national infrastructure that supports the supporters isn’t geared to provide same quality of service.

If they get same training and gear, the effectiveness will diminished without the support.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 16, 2019)

lindy said:


> Disclaimer: Not a Ranger or SOF guy.
> 
> The “system” is geared to support Special Operations and not at all regular Army ops.  Support troops and the national infrastructure that supports the supporters isn’t geared to provide same quality of service.
> 
> If they get same training and gear, the effectiveness will diminished without the support.


I know I'm going to sound like a retard, but what do mean? 

Add on: I know the acquisitions process for the Army is stupidly retarded. Hence guys buying gear/optics on their own dime. Or am I missing something? I'm probably missing something.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> what do mean?



Granted it’s a movie, but the majority of the film Zero Dark Thirty was about the work finding the target, refining it, and maintaining it. There was very little “pew pew” comparatively. Then, when the guys are back preparing for the next go, even MORE people are combining through the SSE (the shit in bags) and putting all the puzzle pieces together.

There is very little, if any, of that level of support available to Joe 11B.

The support work is done via priority and by the time Joe’s ready to do something, there’s not many resources left available.


----------



## Jaknight (Feb 16, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Army Will Add 2 Months to Infantry Course to Make Grunts More Lethal
> 
> Mattis Wants Ground Combat Units to Be More Lethal in the Close Fight
> 
> ...


 I read in one of these reports I forget which one I’ll try to find it. On how The Russians like to use snipers that can accurately shoot a mile. Place them in the back and have them wreck havoc on enemy forces. The Report said Artillery was the only counter measure to this I believe


----------



## Cookie_ (Feb 16, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> What do mean?



Your infantry/combat arms can only perform so well without a good support team; the further the gap between support/infantry skills and abilities, the less optimization. 

The author of the article mentions Rangers as his ideal infantry force. I'd argue that Regiment is the ideal less because of the infantry alone, and more because every MOS, from 11B-94W, will go through Ranger School and RASP; that makes the gap between combat/support MOS guys much thinner.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 16, 2019)

I think better training and elevated entry standards would significantly improve the infantry. The Raiders and Rangers didn’t have a huge support tail in World War II but still performed spectacularly conducting mostly conventional infantry missions. I think everyone is reading this article through a CT lens and may be missing the mark. For example, SOF units dedicate a lot of their support to locate their targets. It takes much less work to find an enemy tank brigade than a terrorist. Also, I think support requirements, and priorities, will shift dramatically when you are talking about brigade and division sized engagements.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 16, 2019)

I think a lot of y'all are seeing this in the wrong view point. 

Large scale war, our light infantry divisions are used for securing high value targets and denying movement and controlling terrain. They go in, they hold something long enough for heavy shit to move in. It's been that way since WW2.

Low intensity conflict, they historically act as occupational forces, deny and disrupt patrols, etc.  

The type of low intensity conflict we have been observing in Ukraine, is very different and far more sophisticated than what we have seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. There is not enough SOF in NATO to deal with that problem. I'm not talking COIN, I'm not talking about FID or the like. I'm talking about the need to rapided deployment of massive light forces to counter this Russian style hybrid warfare, in Europe. To be able to fight and sustain in an environment where, EW, SIGINT, ISR,  and deadly mass indirect fires are being used against us. While waiting for the big guns to arrive.

Our heavy divisions are fine, practice, practice, practice. Our light divisions are a stop gap,  between heavy showing up and Eruopen countries being taken over, such as happened in Crimea. We have very little heavy in europe, we should start staging more. But that doesn't change that our light divisions and brigades need to get better. Unless we tell Europe to get fucked,  which is possible as much as it is insane, but if that is the case it's a moot point.  

As for the building up the support assets within our light divisions and brigades. No argument there, absolutely, they gotta get better too. 

EW, SIGINT, more UAV capabilities, better CAS and indirect capabilities, it's all gotta get better. Nobody is saying build Ranger divisions or an equivalent. But, being more selective in who goes to a light div/bct, having better training as part of that selection and or assessment (let's call it a lightfighter A&S) that determines where a Joe goes (light or heavy). Or having better in house training, such as weapons, explosives, breaching, tactics, infil/exfil, SSE, ECM, language and cultural training, etc, how in the hell can that be a bad thing? How would better tech, Intel, and logistics support for light be a bad thing (hell use it as a stepping stone for guys wanting to go into SOF units)?

Why would better sign on bonus be bad, or special pays for the guys who will be deployed more and will be engaging the enemy? Why is it okay to bonus and give special pays for cyber, recruiters, doctors, lawyers and just about everyone else except the guys pulling the trigger? 

The Infantry is already distinguished, that shit is already there, it is already evident enough when I wear my blue cord/crossrifles on my ASU, or walk into the room wearing my EIB or CIB on my chest. 

Again, if Europe is going to be told to get fucked,  than yeah who cares, until that shit is in our hemisphere. But if we are going to continue to meet the global threats, specifically the Russian threat. Than we need to get better... Period. 

@Marauder06, that article is quoting a retired general who was hired as part of a team by former SECDEF Mattis, to asses and plan on how to make ground forces more lethal and effective, specifically to meet the threats I posted about above.  I don't think he is grand-standing or attempting to stay relevant, or just making crazy talk. As to the rest of your comments, I couldn't disagree with you more, within the context of what I am describing in my post...besides, that shit just wasn't nice man. Intel-weenie jokes to follow!


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 16, 2019)

No homo. Love for @Teufel and @Diamondback 2/2


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2019)

@Diamondback 2/2 and @Teufel , do you really think we’ll ever see war like that again? Humans are now very adept at killing large numbers of people with minimal effort.

I personally don’t think governments would consider such losses as acceptable but I really would like to hear your opinions.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> The Infantry is already distinguished, that shit is already there, it is already evident enough when I wear my blue cord/crossrifles on my ASU, or walk into the room wearing my EIB or CIB on my chest.



I’d already have hacked the dick pics from your phone and displayed them on the PowerPoint by the time walked from your car to the conference room.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 16, 2019)

lindy said:


> @Diamondback 2/2 and @Teufel , do you really think we’ll ever see war like that again? Humans are now very adept at killing large numbers of people with minimal effort.
> 
> I personally don’t think governments would consider such losses as acceptable but I really would like to hear your opinions.



As in like WW3 without nukes,  or countering Russia in Europe as I spelled out?

I think anything is possible, I don't see how a Army commander can develop an effective response plan for the joint chiefs, if the capabilities don't exist. But blowing Crimea off the map as a response to Russia seizing it,  seems a bit more extreme than dropping several light brigades in and pushing their forces back, or at least having the demonstrated capability to do so. 

I'm not sure what the future holds,  I'm just going off of what I'm seeing,  reading and listening to.  When someone like Mad Dog Mattis says we need to get more lethal on the ground,  and reports like that of what's been observed in Ukraine are saying the same thing,  I tend to take it at face value as that is what we need to do.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2019)

Remember @Diamondback 2/2 , those aren’t Russian forces in eastern Ukraine but Donetsk and Luhansk independent fighters...with Russian military experience...and families in Russia...and new equipment from Russia.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 16, 2019)

lindy said:


> @Diamondback 2/2 and @Teufel , do you really think we’ll ever see war like that again? Humans are now very adept at killing large numbers of people with minimal effort.
> 
> I personally don’t think governments would consider such losses as acceptable but I really would like to hear your opinions.


Man I would love to agree with you but a lot of very smart people said the same thing before both World Wars. I really hope you are right but I think we need to be prepared for full scale conflict and it’s going to take a robust combined arms approach to do that. The tip of that kind of spear would be infantry forces and we should do our best to improve their combat effectiveness. Keep in mind that we would almost certainly have to rapidly mobilize our youth to win such a conflict; our fielded forces would provide the bones to build a much larger organization from.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 16, 2019)

I also think improving our infantry would signal to our adversaries that we are preparing ourselves for large scale conflict and provide some small deterrent to such action. 

Honestly I think our next conflict will take place through cyberspace. Why blast each other apart if you can hold critical infrastructure at risk and disrupt public services to achieve your political will. The trick will be keeping your adversary from escalating into kinetic conflict through information operations.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 16, 2019)

I think every infantry Soldier and Marine should know how to call in CAS, artillery, medevacs, resupply etc. I'm not sure how these skills are taught nowadays--if they're taught--but if not, they need to be. When I got to my team in the bush, even though I was a machine-gunner, the first thing they handed me was the PRC-25. "Learn it, because your life depends upon it," I was told. If you're the last man standing, comm is your lifeline.

Also combat first aid. If your Corpsman or Medic is shot in the gut, he can't help anybody including himself.

Also demolitions. Everybody should know how to blow shit up without blowing themselves up.

I know I'm outdated, and it's great to know how to fire and maneuver, fire team rushes, movement to cover, and how to strip down and reassemble all your squad organics in the dark...but proficiency (not just rudimentary bullshit) in comm and first aid is a must. And if they can extend infantry training to include some of these critical skills, so much the better.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I think a lot of y'all are seeing this in the wrong view point.
> 
> Large scale war, our light infantry divisions are used for securing high value targets and denying movement and controlling terrain. They go in, they hold something long enough for heavy shit to move in. It's been that way since WW2.
> 
> ...



That was an interesting and thoughtful post, and deserves a lengthy reply:

Large-scale war, CT/COIN, or anything in between, our infantry is used for anything the Army needs.  That's why they are part of the "General Purpose Force."  They are the "Queen of Battle" because they can go anywhere and do anything, from fighting ISIS to fighting Ebola, from delivering flood relief to flooding an enemy country with paratroopers.  

I'm well aware of who MG Scales is, he and I have written for some of the same publications and I've followed his stories on blogs and on news shows for years.  He's got lots of ideas about how to make the Army better, and I think his motivations are legit.  Unfortunately some of the things he suggests, like no one should be assessed straight into the infantry (i.e. you have to do an enlistment as something else) and this "Infantry New Deal," are very bad ones.   "_No Marine can go infantry until they do a full enlistment or they're in their mid-20s!_"  _"Every Infantryman is special and deserves another participation trophy!"_ lol ok sir...  

These are the kinds of ideas given by someone who never has to consider the realities of implementation.  I'm sure a lot of currently-serving generals, especially in the Marine Corps, are reading these things like "WTF... ."  This article also makes it sound like the author is unfamiliar with modern Army doctrine.  "Infantry isn't a branch... it's a function...," he says.  That's completely wrong--see also:  Infantry Branch.  Also, "Infantry" isn't its own warfighting  function.  It's part of "movement and maneuver."



Moreover, the author is holding up the Marines and SOF as a model, yet AFAIK he never spent any time in either.|  He's in love with the Infantry, but he was a Field Artillery officer.  Of course one may have well-informed opinions on things without direct experience, but that does not make them authoritative.  And admiring something from afar doesn't really help get into the weeds of how something works, and why.  It appears MG Scales has fallen into the "Zero Dark Thirty" trap of seeing the success of SOF and wanting to try to replicate that across the force.

His idea about largescale elite infantry runs contrary to the SOF Truths, especially #3:


"Mass producing SOF" is exactly what MG Scales is advocating, a whole "elite" Infantry Branch of Rangers.  He literally said as much in the article:  " ...it seems to me that the sweet spot in that is the Ranger Regiment."  "Let's say instead of having 3,000 Ranger-quality, light infantry, we have 55,000."  55,000 Rangers, trained, equipped, and motivated on Regiment standards?  Damn, we probably wouldn't even need much GPF if we had that many Rangers.

...but we don't, and if we're smart we will never pretend we do.  

Take a look at how long it takes to train people to be elite:


Now look at the demographics of SOF operators, and mentally compare them to the average Infantryman:



The Ranger Regiment's training time and demographics are different, but they're still a standard that most 11Bs will never meet.  One of the reasons the Regiment is so good, is because they're small, they're well-funded, they're prestigious, and most importantly because they have a culture of excellence.  Almost none of that is true in most general purpose forces.

The "additional training and resources" thing is a non-argument.  The Army is ALREADY working hard at getting the best equipment and most effective training down to the tip of the spear.

With regard to the special pays other MOSs receive... we pay them that because we have to.  We don't have to give incentive pay for Infantrymen (most of the time, anyway), so we don't.  Our Army has limited resources and unlimited requirements.  The more budget we put into pay, allowances, benefits, and feel-good measures like the one suggested in the article, the less we will have for things like training, equipment, and research.  It's a dilemma.  

We already pay some Infantry soldiers extra for things that are unusual or exceptional, such as Airborne.  And as you said, since you are already "distinguished" with your Infantry accouterments, how much more recognition do you need?

General purpose infantry are not SOF and never will be.  Some of the GPF are elite infantry (82nd, 101st) but when called upon, they do what the Army needs.  Trying to make everyone "special" will have the exact opposite effect of what was intended.  See also:  black beret.

As for the intel weenie comment, don't forget that I came in under the branch detail program and was Infantry before I was MI.  I probably have more time in crossed rifles than most of the one-term Infantrymen on this board.  But I also did a lot of other things after, so my entire identity isn't wrapped up in a blue cord.  I like to think that gives me a little bit of objectivity, by having dipped my foot in the blue pool but also seen things from an outside perspective.

The bottom line here is that this is an unfeasible idea, for any number of reasons, some of which I've enumerated above.  This is another silly suggestion made by someone who doesn't understand or doesn't care about the implications of something like this.  Like I said before, I think the author's motivations are good.  But this is the lastest in a series of very, very bad ideas.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 16, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> That was an interesting and thoughtful post, and deserves a lengthy reply:
> 
> Large-scale war, CT/COIN, or anything in between, our infantry is used for anything the Army needs.  That's why they are part of the "General Purpose Force."  They are the "Queen of Battle" because they can go anywhere and do anything, from fighting ISIS to fighting Ebola, from delivering flood relief to flooding an enemy country with paratroopers.
> 
> ...


I don’t disagree. Article aside, I personally don’t think you need to make the infantry into SOF....just make them better. I think you could make the School of Infantry harder, increase training and readiness standards, and raise the GT score requirement though. Add some better training and equipment, and you’re on the path to a much stronger ground combat element. I acknowledge this might still be difficult for the Army because of its size but the Marine Corps could probably do it across the seven active duty regiments. The commandant already increased the number of combat support personnel in every infantry battalion. Every company will have organic EW/SIGINT Marines and UAV operators for example.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 16, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> That was an interesting and thoughtful post, and deserves a lengthy reply:
> 
> Large-scale war, CT/COIN, or anything in between, our infantry is used for anything the Army needs.  That's why they are part of the "General Purpose Force."  They are the "Queen of Battle" because they can go anywhere and do anything, from fighting ISIS to fighting Ebola, from delivering flood relief to flooding an enemy country with paratroopers.
> 
> ...




I like this post. I also agree that if the generals intention is to make all infantry SOF,  that it's a stupid idea. However, I still feel there is plenty of room to build and advance light infantry capabilities, specifically how I had spelled out in my other post. Thanks for the great reply.


----------



## AWP (Feb 18, 2019)

At a base level, the Army and Marines exist to take a scared 19 YO, give him/ her an automatic weapon, and place them at a 10-digit grid coordinate; everything else supports that. At some point, an adversary or their proxy has to either stand on your earth or make the threat real to make victory final. Even without large scale conflicts as a nation we should do our best to make sure that rifleman (rifleperson?) has the direct or indirect support needed to pew pew pew until properly relieved.

As always, the devil's in the details.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 20, 2019)

A bit long, fast forward through the intro BS, and get to the meat and potatoes of General Mattis. 5 years ago, and before what happened in Crimea and DonBas. Anyway,  excellent speech...


----------

