# Info wanted, ASOT etc



## tigerstr (Feb 9, 2008)

Hi all,

I am looking for some info on SF advanced training and “specialty” detachments, without violating OPSEC. Primarily I am looking for some info on difference between ASOT levels (I,II,III) and  a lets say “broad description” of ASOT training in general.

I assume  that Level I is now part of Q course while II is part of 18F 18A and 180A training and III is the specialty training but these is largely an assumption. Can any MOS get Level III?

It is public knowledge that each SF Company is supposed to have an MFF and a UWO Detachment, but are there any “ASOT” detachments,? Are these the so-called “long haired teams”, or is it just  the ASOT Level III/II qualified individuals in regular detachments?

Does a Group have a number of “mountain” and SFAUC designated detachements in each Company /Battalion as it used to be, according to open sources? ( I know SFAUC is supposed to be part of training for all detachments now). 

Do detachments specialize in 1-2 missions at most (p.e DA/SR or UW/FID etc)  as I believe was the norm (at least in theory) some years ago?

Any info (without OPSEC violations) would be appreciated. 

I spend years learning (and catching up with developments) about SF by reading most publications available plus FMs etc available, and practically I am trying to “fill the gaps".


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2008)

I would be very careful about what questions are answered here.....


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 9, 2008)

demo18c said:
			
		

> All team specialize in basic missions that you mentioned. Each group has a company that specializes in DA called the CCIF(open source so i mentioned it). We go to a school much more advanced than SFAUC called SFARTEAC. Im sure you saw the Delta video on here. You can easily change the name and put one of the 5 companies in the title...but they are varsity.
> 
> As for the long haired teams someone else can answer that.



Thanks for the quick reply demo18c, appreciate it 

I am quite familiar with CIF Companies and ther designations, since there is some open source info on them and SFARTAET-Course (which I assume is a direct descendant of the old SOT Course).

You guys sure get a hell of a lot of training, but the way it is described in some books and publications, most high profile missions (used to?) go to "tier 1" units, which i imagine can be frustrating.


----------



## moobob (Feb 9, 2008)

demo18c said:
			
		

> As for the long haired teams someone else can answer that.



Not much you can really say about them without violating OPSEC.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 9, 2008)

moobob said:


> Not much you can really say about them without violating OPSEC.




Well, i got some other questions in that post. Besides the fact that their name itself betrays most of the story, i am not asking for a description of their (special) activities or otherwise (in case someone reading this is familiar with the associated  doctrinal terms). I am asking if they are associated eith ASOT teams.

I am asking because i read in a proffesional publication (infantry magazine)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-118986341.html here is piece of it: 

"I believe that a SF Advanced Special Operations Techniques (ASOT)-trained ODA (Operational Detachment-Alpha) would be indispensable to an infantry battalion. When dealing with a guerrilla that conceals himself among the populace (much like drug dealers), human intelligence (HUMINT) is probably the most effective way of developing information about the guerrilla that can be turned into tactical intelligence. An ASOT ODA is specifically geared towards HUMINT. The precinct detectives develop information on criminal activities, which is then turned into indictments and arrest warrants. Like the detectives, an ASOT ODA is trained to develop local HUMINT sources in order to develop information that can then be turned into tactical intelligence".


----------



## Rabid Badger (Feb 9, 2008)

tigerstr said:


> Well, i got some other questions in that post. Besides the fact that their name itself betrays most of the story, i am not asking for a description of their (special) activities or otherwise (in case someone reading this is familiar with the associated  doctrinal terms). I am asking if they are associated eith ASOT teams.
> 
> I am asking because i read in a proffesional publication (infantry magazine)
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-118986341.html here is piece of it:
> ...



I'd say you've found what you were looking for then. Not to sound like a jack-ass, but just because information is open source, doesn't mean it should be posted here on SS. If it's out there and findable, good luck finding it. ;)

A lot of open source info is 'found' but is near and dear to a lot of our hearts and a lot of us feel feel that this info shouldn't be passed around like porn site passwords. :uhh::uhh:

:2c::2c:


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 9, 2008)

razor_baghdad said:


> I'd say you've found what you were looking for then. Not to sound like a jack-ass, but just because information is open source, doesn't mean it should be posted here on SS. If it's out there and findable, good luck finding it. ;)
> 
> A lot of open source info is 'found' but is near and dear to a lot of our hearts and a lot of us feel feel that this info shouldn't be passed around like porn site passwords. :uhh::uhh:
> 
> :2c::2c:



I understand your concerns razor_baghdad and most propably you are right about some bits and pieces that can be found on the web. In the future i will refrain from posting publicly info like that.

On the other hand there is a threshold between shrouding in secrecy at the time lots of volunteers even "from the street" (18x as an example) are needed to fill the ranks, (and probably need extra info to get motivated so to speak) and realy sensitive OPSEC info.

In this case, your comment was justified and taken


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 9, 2008)

In reference to your post containing the excerpt from Infantry Magazine:  Infantry battalions don't need ASOT-trained SF guys detailed to them- they need their own organic MI assets trained, equipped, trusted, and ALLOWED to do their jobs.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 9, 2008)

tigerstr said:


> ...On the other hand there is a threshold between shrouding in secrecy at the time lots of volunteers even "from the street" (18x as an example) are needed to fill the ranks, (and probably need extra info to get motivated so to speak) and realy sensitive OPSEC info...



There is no "other hand!"

Topics such as the one you have questions about are difficult to discuss without violating OPSEC.  I give a rat's ass what can be found "open source."  Because you found a small piece of the puzzle doesnt mean we are going to lay the rest out in front of you.  

Furthermore I could care less what you think would be good for the 18X's to know so they can make a decision to enlist or not.  They need not be so concerned  with such things and focus more on the 25m target.  If they are serious about wanting to enlist in SF then knowing what we do (generally speaking) should be enough of an incentive.  If all they are seeking is the cool, super sexy schools and this is their deciding factor when choosing to enlist in SF, let them look elsewhere.  We have enough of those guys around and we need no more.  

And for the record we arent having a hard time finding guys to fill the ranks...  There are always enough guys who say they want it, just not enough wanting it enough...


Crip


----------



## car (Feb 9, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> There is no "other hand!"
> 
> Topics such as the one you have questions about are difficult to discuss without violating OPSEC.  I give a rat's ass what can be found "open source."  Because you found a small piece of the puzzle doesnt mean we are going to lay the rest out in front of you.
> 
> ...



x2

There's a section within my intel shop (and think most other intel shops, now) called OSINT - Open Source Intelligence. I have trained intel guys searching Open Sources for information. It's mostly unclassified stuff, but when they see something classifed or sensitive, a flare goes up to the rest of community - "Some asshole said too much again..."


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 9, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> There is no "other hand!"
> 
> Topics such as the one you have questions about are difficult to discuss without violating OPSEC.
> 
> Crip



Thanks for your kind reply. I thought "difficult" was different from "impossible", specially for some people...

No need to get upset anyway. 

Questions were careful (I already said it was a mistake putting that particular link, while answering to another remark). 

You could do the same (be carefull not to violate OPSEC) while trying to answer. 

If you notice the original post, I am also asking some questions that are not that difficult to answer, without violating OPSEC in any way.

I would not like to get into the 18X controversy. My guess (and second hand knowledge, from what I read in "Special Warfare") is that the idea is working.

Never said SF is not getting enough recruits. I just said that this particular period is really demanding.

And I already explained that i dont want "the full picture" just info that would not violate OPSEC.

Just take the time to read it


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 9, 2008)

tigerstr:

I was hoping you would have picked up what I was putting down a lil better but since you didnt...

We will not be discussing this specific topic under no uncertain circumstances,  with you any further.  Wanting to know isnt needing to know. 

Did I make myself clear enough?

Crip


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2008)

Well....um, the Manning's are 2 for 2 in the Super Bowl. That's kinda' cool.

Send hate mail to:
Freefalling
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/member.php?u=43

Thread closed. I think we've done enough here.


----------

