# SF history question



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2015)

Good day, Gentlemen. As I love history, I read everything I can get my hands on...military history, world, US, political, whatever. I was reading a book that referenced officers in SF in the 60s, said that officers did not go through a selection or through SFQC 1950s/early 60s, and were assigned to SF. I am curious when they started, and was it a natural progression/extension, or was there some "watershed" event that precipitated it? Curious for my own historical edification only. Thanks.


----------



## x SF med (Nov 17, 2015)

OJT was one way to become SF in the early days.  BUT, the majority of the Officers and Enlisted SF went through the SFQC or SFOC.


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2015)

x SF med said:


> OJT was one way to become SF in the early days.  BUT, the majority of the Officers and Enlisted SF went through the SFQC or SFOC.



Didn't the lion's share of OJT guys belong to the Mike force/ QRF units?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 17, 2015)

I don't know how true it is, but an old man that used to let me hang around when I was a kid (Korea & Vietnam vet & Green Beret) told me that the original Green Beret's didn't really have a selection/qualification course in the beginning. He said something about that they did a lot of unit level training and recruited specific MOS's and veteran soldiers to form the initial SFG's. Kind of a lot of trial and error type stuff. I do remember he was really big on Montagnards and their cross bows, spoke 4 languages and retired a CSM. 

Not sure how accurate I remember what he told me, but its seemed to be that the Korea and Vietnam guys kinda wrote the book for what is now. 

Wish I could remember his name, I spent a lot of time helping him around his old antique shop until he sold that place. Very captivating stories and 100% a serious dude.

Edit: To fix Montagnards, thanks LL.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 18, 2015)

Thank you all, for your responses. My mentor growing up retired from the Army in 1974, 15 of his 20 years in SF, so my knowledge is largely from his perspective, that of an NCO. The book I am reading is not kind on many officers of the 50s/early 60s, essentially saying they are dropped into many of their positions as "place-markers" (my word) in their careers in which they bide time to get to another unit to ensure upward mobility. I will point out that the officers in discussion are at company level and higher, and the book heaps praise on ODA commanders.


----------



## x SF med (Nov 18, 2015)

Prior to SF being it's own Branch in the Army, Officers had to move back to conventional units to get required Staff and Command slots to keep up with their YG comrades, or get stuck as career CPTs or MAJs, it was the way of the world back then, and it colored how the career SF NCOs looked at Officers.  Until 1985, SF could be be a career killer for many Officers.



Freefalling said:


> Didn't the lion's share of OJT guys belong to the Mike force/ QRF units?


Yes.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Dec 30, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Prior to SF being it's own Branch in the Army, Officers had to move back to conventional units to get required Staff and Command slots to keep up with their YG comrades, or get stuck as career CPTs or MAJs, it was the way of the world back then, and it colored how the career SF NCOs looked at Officers.  Until 1985, SF could be be a career killer for many Officers.



I know I'm resurrecting here, but did the 5th SF Group execution incident of the double agent with the C.I.A generally seal this fate until SOCOM was formed?  I mean, 5th Group was among the most decorated units in Vietnam weren't they?  I would have assumed that that alone would have at least changed some of the career killing friction.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 30, 2015)

BuckysBadger24 said:


> I know I'm resurrecting here, but did the 5th SF Group execution incident of the double agent with the C.I.A generally seal this fate until SOCOM was formed?  I mean, 5th Group was among the most decorated units in Vietnam weren't they?  I would have assumed that that alone would have at least changed some of the career killing friction.



I have no clue what you are asking here...


----------



## RetPara (Dec 30, 2015)

No.  I can remember my BC in the 82nd (former Phoenix program, former CAG CDR, former JSOC CG) telling LT's in the early 80-mid 80's that SF would kill their careers.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Dec 30, 2015)

x SF med said:


> I have no clue what you are asking here...



I was getting at whether that incident sealed SF being a career killer after a war in which 5th Group was among the most decorated units, or whether that assessment simply just continued business as usual irregardless of the stain it could have put on SF's reputation or their impressive record during the war.  Essentially just asking if there were specific reasons for advancement in SF post-Vietnam being so difficult (namely the incident I described) or if Big Army echelon simply continued disliking SF for the same reasons they did when it was stood up?


----------



## AWP (Dec 30, 2015)

BuckysBadger24 said:


> I was getting at whether that incident sealed SF being a career killer after a war in which 5th Group was among the most decorated units, or whether that assessment simply just continued business as usual irregardless of the stain it could have put on SF's reputation or their impressive record during the war.  Essentially just asking if there were specific reasons for advancement in SF post-Vietnam being so difficult (namely the incident I described) or if Big Army echelon simply continued disliking SF for the same reasons they did when it was stood up?



SF was a career killer before that incident, so nothing changed. That was a one-off event by a few people IIRC.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Dec 30, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> SF was a career killer before that incident, so nothing changed. That was a one-off event by a few people IIRC.



Understood.  Fucked up, but understood.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 31, 2015)

Until the 1980's SF was a career killer for Officers mainly because the SF mission was not in line with the Big Army goals of a large land war in Europe.  It was not until the significant rise in Terrorism that SF was recognized as what it should be - a force multiplier and a bunch of Warrior-ambassadors who could do a lot with very little in the eway of Big Army support.  There was a recognized need for the branch from the 1930's until it got stood up in the mid eighties, but there was little traction for taking the best the Army had and sequestering them in the unconventional arena.  Blinders in the long and short range for the Army.


----------

