# "Originals" vs. "Newbies:"  A Special Forces Allegory



## Marauder06 (Jun 20, 2015)

For the SF-qualified members of the board:  any thoughts about this article?

_"There was once an ODA that was based on a remote hilltop. They lived quietly amongst the neighboring villages of natives, spoke the same tongue, and were even supported by the villages in many ways. There were never any squabbles, but there were also never any real joint projects to improve the hilltop or the quality of life for the ODA or the Villagers. The ODA kept to themselves, and only interacted when necessary, feeling that their fortified position would fend off any threats and their mere reputation would stop anyone from even planning to take their spot.

One day, another ODA rucked up to a nearby hilltop and started building their base of operations..."_



The “Newbies” and the “Originals:” which is the future of Special Forces?


----------



## Etype (Jun 28, 2015)

Every new organization I've been in, I've heard, "that's not how we did it in (insert year/whatever here)." Right, and in 1865 we stood in formation and slaughtered each other.

Times, tactics, techniques, best practices, etc. change, and every organization has people in it who are fiercely resistant to change.

Dinosaurs will die.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 2, 2015)

This article is pretty allegorical, but part of what's always interested me about SF is that they seem inherently willing to adapt and form relationships and bonds with their indigenous counterparts. Part of the reason Infantry has less appeal for me is because I don't want to occupy a country whose residents I have disdain for, who I don't understand, and who I fear and distrust. 

If I'm putting my ass on the line to improve the lives of a country's residents, living, eating, and talking with them just seems like good business. SF seems likes it lives that idea and integrates with its population on the micro level to better accomplish an overall strategy at the macro level. Perhaps its methodology changes generation to generation, but a willingness to integrate and understand local populations seems like a core tenet of the SF mission and it's one of the many things that continues to impress me about Special Forces.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 2, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> If I'm putting my ass on the line to improve the lives of a country's residents, living, eating, and talking with them just seems like good business. SF seems likes it lives that idea and integrates with its population on the micro level to better accomplish an overall strategy at the macro level. Perhaps its methodology changes generation to generation, but a willingness to integrate and understand local populations seems like a core tenet of the SF mission and it's one of the many things that continues to impress me about Special Forces.



I think you hit the nail on the head...this is why I applied for SFAS.  I saw what the SFODAs were doing in my area, and it was everything I wanted to do, but wasn't allowed to do.  It was the best professional decision I made.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 2, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head...this is why I applied for SFAS.  I saw what the SFODAs were doing in my area, and it was everything I wanted to do, but wasn't allowed to do.  It was the best professional decision I made.


Thanks, @Viper1. Good to know.


----------



## Etype (Jul 10, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> This article is pretty allegorical, but part of what's always interested me about SF is that they seem inherently willing to adapt and form relationships and bonds with their indigenous counterparts. Part of the reason Infantry has less appeal for me is because I don't want to occupy a country whose residents I have disdain for, who I don't understand, and who I fear and distrust.
> 
> If I'm putting my ass on the line to improve the lives of a country's residents, living, eating, and talking with them just seems like good business. SF seems likes it lives that idea and integrates with its population on the micro level to better accomplish an overall strategy at the macro level. Perhaps its methodology changes generation to generation, but a willingness to integrate and understand local populations seems like a core tenet of the SF mission and it's one of the many things that continues to impress me about Special Forces.


Just remember that the living with, eating with, etc. is a means to your end. The goal isn't to truly become friends with them, but to make them do you will. Bonds are inevitable, but the goal is manipulation.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 10, 2015)

Etype said:


> Just remember that the living with, eating with, etc. is a means to your end. The goal isn't to truly become friends with them, but to make them do you will. Bonds are inevitable, but the goal is manipulation.



That's what sucks about Special Forces. We so habitually back the wrong horse that a career-SF Sniper is telling a shithead on the internet (me) to not get too attached to the people he's training to fight, both with and for him.

From its inception, in post-WWII Europe with Operation Gladio, which was essentially a string of state-sponsored false flag operations (into which multiple foreign governments have launched investigations), to Vietnam, which was a bloody maelstrom that we didn't even have a dog in the fight of, and ended about as poorly as a campaign could end, to El Salvador, during which we trained Death Squads at the School of the Americas (there are people in my family tree that died as a result of these actions), to Panama, which would've been sweet if we hadn't bailed and left a wake of looting and rape, to Iraq, where we've basically decimated the country that has since spawned ISIL/ISIS and whose disgraced army is fueling. The mission has rather quickly evolved into perpetuating states of conflict for economic interests rather than national interest. 

Don't get me wrong - I think the past, present, and future of warfare is UW and FID. I am in awe of the capabilities of SF, and weaponizing an indigenous population is ingenious. But it'd be a hell of a lot more effective if we were backing people we'd be happy to sacrifice ourselves for, and using humans as ammo in our force multiplication is only justifiable if our goals are noble. We play shitty games abroad, and it sucks, because if we were the righteous fist of vengeance and vigilance, SF would be the most badass organization in world history. Our endgame needs to rival our capabilities. The notion that there's dudes out there who wake up and go "Well, today I'm gonna fly 5,000 miles and make friends with some bearded motherfucker who shits in a bush and train his eleven sons how to shoot an AK, AMD, CAR, or motherfucking Khyber Pass FAL, and then fight along side them and maybe get hit by a fucking Russian surplus mortar that some fucking Mooj stole 30 years ago from an over-run soviet base that my CO trained them to take" is humbling, but the fact that that caliber of guy is wasted on going to some shithole like Iraq for no fucking reason is a fucking heartbreaker to me. And yes, I have read those reports that the CIA bought the Iraqi WMD right out from under indigenous forces, but that just makes it all the more AAAAARGH-worthy to me. They'd just _sell them? _Motherfucking SERIOUSLY? We didn't need dudes who can overthrow a country to get them? 

Right now, the men outmatch the mission, and that is the greatest travesty of all.

Disclaimer: I don't mean this as an insult. That said, there's guys here who are smart enough to know I respect them and don't mean this as an insult and there's guys that aren't, so... let 'er rip. This is gonna get eaten apart, but I said what I said and I stand by it - SF is fucking awesome; or our foreign policy isn't. I truly, sincerely, do not presume to tell you vastly-braver motherfuckers how to live your lives or how they've been spent. They're yours; I can't tell you how to spend them and I certainly can't criticize the way you did. That isn't what this is.

This is probably where I get banned, so please know I didn't mean this as disrespect.

Also, sorry, Panama should read "wherein we deposed an American-trained military official who succeeded a populist military leader-turned-political leader after backing him and then discrediting him as a Narco, despite the fact that he was on the CIA payroll under a CIA Director-turned-President under whom Cocaine proliferation in the United States rose 300% up until his very undignified capture.


----------



## AWP (Jul 10, 2015)




----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 10, 2015)




----------



## policemedic (Jul 10, 2015)

Freefalling said:


>



I can interpret what he said, but my momma taught me better manners.

God save the United States Coast Guard.


----------



## Etype (Jul 10, 2015)

I have to like what @Six-Two said, because I can't disagree or hate it...

What I can disagree with, is the UW bit- the US has never really done UW except in the early stages of Afghanistan and in WWII.


----------



## AWP (Jul 10, 2015)

Etype said:


> I have to like what @Six-Two said, because I can't disagree or hate it...
> 
> What I can disagree with, is the UW bit- the US has never really done UW except in the early stages of Afghanistan and in WWII.



I thought his valid points were lost in a sea of whargarbl; some good intent poorly executed.

When you say we never really did UW, do you mean as a strategic whole? We did UW in Vietnam and some in Korea, but those were usually isolated incidents and not a sustained campaign with an end state.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 10, 2015)

I'd have to disagree that we don't really do UW. Maybe just not at your level?


----------



## Etype (Jul 10, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I'd have to disagree that we don't really do UW. Maybe just not at your level?


UW involves coercing, disrupting, or overthrowing a legitimate gov't or occupying force through use of an underground, auxiliary, and/or guerilla force. It happened in maybe the first few weeks of Iraq and Afghanistan, but wasn't really the case in the UW poster boy which was Vietnam.

The minimum and most benign definition could include disruption or coercion through an underground. You could really stretch those minimum requirements to apply to a few places- but it's nothing like the romanticized book definition.

If you want  good examples of UW, look to Iran's involvement in Lebanon and Iraq, and ISIS of  course.

BTW, what is my level?


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 10, 2015)

Etype said:


> UW involves coercing, disrupting, or overthrowing a legitimate gov't or occupying force through use of an underground, auxiliary, and/or guerilla force. It happened in maybe the first few weeks of Iraq and Afghanistan, but wasn't really the case in the UW poster boy which was Vietnam.
> 
> The minimum and most benign definition could include disruption or coercion through an underground. You could really stretch those minimum requirements to apply to a few places- but it's nothing like the romanticized book definition.
> 
> ...


 
I would suggest going to the UW operational design course, or even some of the SOF joint staff courses provided by JPRA. I'm not suggesting that the examples you have given aren't just, but that it's a little bit more nuanced and joint. In the context of ARSOF, I'd maybe agree with you that there are limited contemporary examples that would be shared here.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 10, 2015)

Etype said:


> UW involves coercing, disrupting, or overthrowing a legitimate gov't or occupying force through use of an underground, auxiliary, and/or guerilla force. It happened in maybe the first few weeks of Iraq and Afghanistan, but wasn't really the case in the UW poster boy which was Vietnam.
> 
> The minimum and most benign definition could include disruption or coercion through an underground. You could really stretch those minimum requirements to apply to a few places- but it's nothing like the romanticized book definition.
> 
> ...





Florida173 said:


> I would suggest going to the UW operational design course, or even some of the SOF joint staff courses provided by JPRA. I'm not suggesting that the examples you have given aren't just, but that it's a little bit more nuanced and joint. In the context of ARSOF, I'd maybe agree with you that there are limited contemporary examples that would be shared here.



@Etype are you defining UW by its belligerents in the examples you cited (OEF, WWII)? Or its methodologies, troop commitments; combination thereof, etc.? 

@Florida173 I think Etype's examples hold up under the definition of UW.
I'd say our most successful UW mission predates UW doctrine and was led by an Engineer. I'd include the Jedburgh teams, and the SAS-forebearers' harrassment campaigns in Nazi-occupied Western Europe and Norther Africa, respectively, as well as the SOE's activities in Greece in the 1940s.
All of the above had an exceedingly small footprint against a vastly larger force. 
I'd also include our covert support in Angola in there as an analog to Iran's activities in the greater Levant. I'd say our support for the Contras in Nicaragua was UW, though it was undertaken by primarily by the CIA rather than SF and resulted in horrifying human rights abuses. 

Finally, I'd include the Triple Nickel guys in there as the latest to take on the mantle of UW. Unfortunately, that mission was cut short before it even began due to our undermining of the Northern Alliance in the five years prior/support for the Taliban for the sake of "stability" and the assassination of a crucial ally, and again with the shift to conventional tactics and occupation. Time will probably reveal some activities against AQIM in the Maghreb as Unconventional Warfare as well.  

But the unifying factor in all of these seems to be a giant dissonance between mission and overarching policy, basically resulting in us fighting ourselves, in Vietnam, Afghanistan, against ISIL, and so on and so forth.


----------



## Etype (Jul 10, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> Time will probably reveal some activities against AQIM in the Maghreb as Unconventional Warfare as well.


Going back to how it is defined, UW is conducted against a government or occupying force.

UW by definition, can be broken down into three categories- which also makes it easier to understand than the sentence/paragraph definition -

1. Goal
1. Coerce
     2. Disrupt
     3. Overthrow​2. Target
1. Government
     2. Occupying Force​3. Mechanism
1. Auxiliary
     2. Underground
     3. Guerilla Force​
To satisfy the definition doctrinal, you need to pick at least one from category one, pick one from category two, and have at least an underground or guerilla force (the auxiliary exists to support the underground or g-force).

So bringing this full circle to AQIM, I'm not intimately familiar with AFRICOM, but I'm sure there are places where they could be considered an occupying force.



Florida173 said:


> I would suggest going to the UW operational design course, or even some of the SOF joint staff courses provided by JPRA. I'm not suggesting that the examples you have given aren't just, but that it's a little bit more nuanced and joint. In the context of ARSOF, I'd maybe agree with you that there are limited contemporary examples that would be shared here.


To touch on what you might be alluding to, you can have an underground and auxiliaries that exist in a perpetual Phase I or latent/incipient phase (depending on which definition of phases you like).

In that sense, UW may be happening around the world.


----------



## AWP (Jul 10, 2015)

@Six-Two just a few points of order:
- Citing Wikipedia, even if the article's correct, is intellectually lazy and wouldn't fly in any serious environments. Wikipedia might work in 6th or 7th grade, but isn't taken seriously elsewhere. Which leads me to...
-...you don't have to link to something like the LRDG. Just type "LRDG" and we can do the research on our own if we think there's something wrong.

Either make your post with legit sources or make your post and we'll challenge your assertions, at which time you'll need some serious sources. Your writing style and constant use of Wikipedia doesn't give you a lot of credibility. Even when you're right it turns people off. Less is more.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 10, 2015)

I didn't realize this was so formal. It was meant for reference, not as proof positive of my assertions.  Still, noted for future posts.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 10, 2015)

That's a dick response. 

Observation -

You have become noticeably more confrontational since your recent "I haven't enlisted yet"'post.   

Theory -

You feel the members here have nothing to offer you anymore and so you have decided to go out with a bang.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 10, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That's a dick response.
> Observation -
> You have become noticeably more confrontational since your recent "I haven't enlisted yet"'post.



More cavalier, certainly. Nobody likes getting dogpiled on, especially for just trying to get information to make a deeply personal and life-changing decision. Ditto for being derided for hitting a snag in my enlistment that was both out of my control and _in no way any of your business_. Getting shit from what amounts, basically, to some guy on the internet for not hitting his timeline for my life is pretty low on my list. So if I'm gonna get grief any way I cut it, I may as well speak my mind. That said, apologies to @Freefalling if that came off more brusque than direct.



Ooh-Rah said:


> Theory -
> You feel the members here have nothing to offer you anymore and so you have decided to go out with a bang.



I'm not sure what the members had to offer me to begin with. That wasn't why I joined. There's no member here who can wave a magic wand and get me into an ODA or shave 3 minutes off my 5-mile. I joined to get a sense of and interact with the guys I was thinking of applying to work with.

Just to be crystal clear - I _sincerely_ don't mean to be argumentative  or disrespectful to you, but you have no right whatsoever to give me grief over something you have no information on, and if a ban on an internet forum is the penalty for standing up for myself, so be it. I welcome constructive criticism, but sometimes it just crosses a line that detracts from the atmosphere of discussion and personal development that I assume most people are are here for.

Anyway, sorry to go off-topic.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 10, 2015)

@Six-Two

You know what, you are right. Shitty night for me personally - I should not have posted what I did above. I was in a mood tonight - shouldn't have taken it out on you nor derailed this thread. My apologies for going after you. Not warranted.


----------



## AWP (Jul 11, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> I didn't realize this was so formal. It was meant for reference, not as proof positive of my assertions.  Still, noted for future posts.



FWIW, even long time members aren't given a Wikipedia pass unless they acknowledge it in some way. "This is Wikipedia but I checked some of the sources and they are good" or "Here's a Wiki link (notice the singular)and I can track down better sources tonight when I'm home/ off my phone/ at work."

At this point (as in *all posts after this one, the one you're reading*), let's move forward with the discussion on SF/ UW/ FID.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 11, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> FWIW, even long time members aren't given a Wikipedia pass unless they acknowledge it in some way. "This is Wikipedia but I checked some of the sources and they are good" or "Here's a Wiki link (notice the singular)and I can track down better sources tonight when I'm home/ off my phone/ at work."



Understood. Didn't mean to be lazy, just trying to put together a quick frame of reference to qualify my perspective. But you're right; I shouldn't let being part of the Wikipedia generation undermine a good bit of discourse. If anything in particular sticks out as bogus, let me know and I'll do my best to back it up with non-Wiki citations.


----------



## AWP (Jul 11, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> Understood.



I'm rapidly losing patience with you. Twice in the last week I posted "knock it off and go back to the OP" and twice you've decided to get in the last word. I'm kind of at a loss. Are you arrogant, do you not care, is your situational awareness lacking, are you drunk or high or......something? Anything? What the hell? Like it or not, like me or not, it doesn't matter.

I say this for the benefit of everyone reading:

If a staff member (those of us with red tags) tells you to knock it off or stop posting, then you knock it off. That's the discussion. The Alpha and Omega.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 11, 2015)

Etype said:


> Going back to how it is defined, UW is conducted against a government or occupying force.
> So bringing this full circle to AQIM, I'm not intimately familiar with AFRICOM, but I'm sure there are places where they could be considered an occupying force.



According to this RAND assessment, it looks like AQIM control a significant - though diminishing - portion of Northern Mali, largely beat back by DA from French troops. Most recent development is that French SF killed a ranking leader, and French paper Le Figaro asserts that Delta personnel fought AQIM elsewhere, but none of that fits the UW Criteria.


----------



## Etype (Jul 11, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> According to this RAND assessment, it looks like AQIM control a significant - though diminishing - portion of Northern Mali, largely beat back by DA from French troops. Most recent development is that French SF killed a ranking leader, and French paper Le Figaro asserts that Delta personnel fought AQIM elsewhere, but none of that fits the UW Criteria.


That would fall under combating terrorism, most likely. Maybe FID, possibly SFA.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 11, 2015)

Etype said:


> That would fall under combating terrorism, most likely. Maybe FID, possibly SFA.


SFA?


----------



## Totentanz (Jul 11, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> SFA?



Security Force Assistance


----------



## Etype (Jul 11, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> SFA?


SFA is FID, except the threat is external.

Example-
In Vietnam, assisting the ARVN against the NVA would classify as SFA, helping them fight the VC would be FID- external vs. internal threat, using modern definitions.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Maybe just not at your level?



 Aren't you a National Guard support guy?


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 11, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Aren't you a National Guard support guy?



:wall:


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> :wall:



Well when you say some condescending ass shit you get it right back.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 11, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Well when you say some condescending ass shit you get it right back.



Glad you could get involved. tell me how me being in the national guard has any relevancy to this conversation? Even as a guard guy I've been doing j3x stuff for the last 6 years and that doesn't even include what my day job at socom is, or is this because I called you out for talking about ACCM stuff in the other thread?  

Go troll somewhere else.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Glad you could get involved. tell me how me being in the national guard has any relevancy to this conversation? Even as a guard guy I've been doing j3x stuff for the last 6 years and that doesn't even include what my day job at socom is, so go troll somewhere else.



Friend, you have the wrong idea of your place in the food chain here, and probably in the real world as well. Talking down to 2 operators, one of whom has intimate knowledge of our UW efforts abroad is not the way to gain credibility. Hinting at your supposed knowledge/credibility makes you come across as a smug asshole at best, and a perpetrating fag at worst. I'm not shying away, I know my place here, in a conversation about a community of which I am actually a part. 

Being in the guard plays a small part, that you aren't an SF guy, and therefore have no doctrinal UW mission, plays an even bigger part. I would be happy to accept your opinion on things if you didn't hint at shit you prolly heard about, while intimating it is classified, that makes everything you say brim with bullshit.

Again, I know my place. Do you know yours?


----------



## Totentanz (Jul 11, 2015)

Enough with the dick-measuring.  Knowing the political and security ramifications at the national and regional levels in an AO is a baseline expectation for any member of a SOF element - not something that's held at some magical strategic command where enlightenment is achieved.

ETA: specifically, reference SOF imperatives 1,2, and 5.  You could make the argument for #10 as well.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 11, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Friend, you have the wrong idea of your place in the food chain here, and probably in the real world as well. Talking down to 2 operators, one of whom has intimate knowledge of our UW efforts abroad is not the way to gain credibility. Hinting at your supposed knowledge/credibility makes you come across as a smug asshole at best, and a perpetrating fag at worst. I'm not shying away, I know my place here, in a conversation about a community of which I am actually a part.
> 
> Being in the guard plays a small part, that you aren't an SF guy, and therefore have no doctrinal UW mission, plays an even bigger part. I would be happy to accept your opinion on things if you didn't hint at shit you prolly heard about, while intimating it is classified, that makes everything you say brim with bullshit.
> 
> Again, I know my place. Do you know yours?



Let's go back to what the issue is here. I suggested that @Etype might not be seeing any UW stuff because it's not happening at his level.  Nothing condescending about that at all. I see it happening on a daily basis at the TSOC and SOCOM levels. Not quite sure what you would think I meant by that.  I even suggested some great courses regarding UW from the operational design course aimed for more the J5 folks to the SOF staff PR courses for the UAR stuff. There are plenty of UW functions happening every day and even @Etype caught on to what I was saying with not necessarily a perpetual phase 1 but what I do for phase 0.

Now saying that I was "talking down to 2 operators" is maybe being a bit overly sensitive. Talking down to people that aren't tabbed because you think you are somehow better is pretty messed up. I can appreciate the accomplishment of having gone through the pipeline, but don't think any higher or lower of people that go through different pipelines. The difference is that my job is exclusively a UW mission and it has nothing to do with my one weekend a month and a few weeks a year that I maintain to jump out of aircraft and go to the occasional Gryphon Group. I'm not with 19th or 20th by the way. As far as you thinking that anything I've said is brim with bullshit, by all means call me out on it specifically in a private message and we can discuss it.

My problem is that ARSOF has been so drunk off of DA for more than a decade that they have lost out on many of the other missions.  This is obvious from some realigning within ARSOF and even been discussed on this board at length. I'm pretty sure this may also be why we haven't seen too many overt examples other than some that have been suggested by @Etype and @Six-Two.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 12, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Glad you could get involved. tell me how me being in the national guard has any relevancy to this conversation? Even as a guard guy I've been doing j3x stuff for the last 6 years and that doesn't even include what my day job at socom is, or is this because I called you out for talking about ACCM stuff in the other thread?
> 
> Go troll somewhere else.



You are about 8 seconds away from getting a 2 point warning.  Rethink your position.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 12, 2015)

This thread is cursed


----------



## AWP (Jul 12, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> This thread is cursed



No one's making you participate, but nice observation or something.

I'll defer to the SF Qualified gents on the board or the OP, @Marauder06 so if they want this cleaned and reopened they know how to find me. What a bloody coat hanger this has become...


----------

