# What do you Rangers think of this?



## Future (May 28, 2009)

http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/rangers_afghanistan_and_iraq.html

“Although the Rangers are considered to be elite conventional infantry, conventional US Army generals refuse to utilize 
them in units of sufficient size to make a real difference. The reason for that refusal is simple. Rangers are a finely 
honed instrument of war. US conventional generals of the past twenty years, shy away from war fighting units because 
the generals themselves are not warriors or warfighters. They are “diplomats in mufti,” uniformed politics who advance the 
cause of “peace by negotiations and appeasement dollars,” not combat. They see themselves as careful and cautious 
international policemen. That is why they despise warfighting and warriors.
That is also why they have atomized and fragmented US Army Ranger units. They send them to the various theaters of 
war as back up forces for special operations or as guards or simply men who sit and wait. US conventional generals 
knowingly deprive their finest soldiers of their reason for living, combat. They don’t use most of them and eventually turn 
them against the US Army. Thus conventional generals are running off ranger-enlisted personnel because they want an 
army of policemen, not warriors.
In the meantime the legions of US Army Rangers merely sit and wait. They are rarely used in combat roles and when 
they are, they are deployed as squads or platoons. US conventional generals don’t want a tough bunch of combat 
veterans handing around.”


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 28, 2009)

That is pretty silly, and it is obvious the person who wrote it doesn't know what he is talking about. I guess all the KIA's from Regiment are from pulling security in Iraq and Afghanistan


----------



## Looon (May 28, 2009)

I would agree if we were talking about Swartzkoph(sp?) back in the first Gulf war.

Now? Don't agree at all.:2c:


----------



## Future (May 28, 2009)

Apparently the book gets its information from 3 Ranger officer interviews.


----------



## tookback yesterday (May 28, 2009)

they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 28, 2009)

In reading this it made me think about a lot of LRS units...

As for 75th RR being conventional infantry, I always thought they were SOF (light infantry)?:uhh:




tookback yesterday said:


> they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)



Go kill your self! ;)


j/k the military looks down on that kind of thing now...


----------



## Tyrant (May 28, 2009)

All true, yep.


----------



## 8'Duece (May 28, 2009)

Tyrant said:


> All true, yep.



The only time I was around Rangers one of them shit in my MRE. :uhh:

I hate you guy's !!


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2009)

tookback yesterday said:


> they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 29, 2009)

tookback yesterday said:


> they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)



It's a wonder why you have a little red dot near your name.


----------



## RustyShackleford (May 29, 2009)

Tyrant said:


> All true, yep.



Lol!


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (May 29, 2009)

tookback yesterday said:


> they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)


 
They would never do that!  They would have to give up all their cool patches and faggy french hats! :eek::doh:


----------



## dknob (May 29, 2009)

I think the author means that the Battalions are being misused as in the fact that they are not being deployed as a whole Bn to one specific area.

I mean, 3 PLTs, 3 CO's, thats 9 platoons... (I was gone in '07, before the time of DCo), it would be very uncommon for 2 platoons to be in the same city/town. So I think thats what he means when they are being misused.

As far as sitting around and not fighting? Load of complete shit. OPTEMPO was ridiculous. He's confusing us with MARSOC


----------



## CBTech (May 30, 2009)

Future said:


> US conventional generals of the pa...be in that 5 sided building over there in DC.


----------



## 2TIMERGRFZZO (May 30, 2009)

When they became a part of USASOC their utility became more focused. There are a lot of conventional missions they could do, but most of those can be done well by light infantry or paratroopers.

They work for Special Ops Commanders and most of those ops don't involve large numbers of forces.


----------



## tookback yesterday (May 31, 2009)

tookback yesterday said:


> they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)




....Or not....:uhh:


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 31, 2009)

tookback yesterday said:


> ....Or not....:uhh:



Just stop typing.


----------



## Bravo Five Romeo (Jun 2, 2009)

That lately Ranger battalions have not conducted battalion sized assaults has more to do with the nature of the targets out there and is actually a compliment to the flexibility and the capabilities of the Ranger Battalions and their ability to take on various smaller company and platoon sized operations as needed.

I have no doubt that if we were to go to war with Iran and we needed to seize an airfield defended by an Iranian infantry regiment deep inside Iran... you would see a full Ranger battalion in action.


----------



## 7point62 (Jun 4, 2009)

tookback yesterday said:


> they could convert the Rangers to the Marine Corps.:)




Disrespectful to both coming from somebody who doesn't know his elbow from a hot rock.


----------



## Teufel (Jun 4, 2009)

dknob said:


> I think the author means that the Battalions are being misused as in the fact that they are not being deployed as a whole Bn to one specific area.
> 
> I mean, 3 PLTs, 3 CO's, thats 9 platoons... (I was gone in '07, before the time of DCo), it would be very uncommon for 2 platoons to be in the same city/town. So I think thats what he means when they are being misused.
> 
> As far as sitting around and not fighting? Load of complete shit. OPTEMPO was ridiculous. He's confusing us with MARSOC



Because MARSOC is sitting around and not fighting?  What an arrogant, unprofessional and entirely unnecessary statement.  All the MARSOC units I have seen have been involved in plenty of fighting.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jun 4, 2009)

Teufel said:


> Because MARSOC is sitting around and not fighting?  What an arrogant, unprofessional and entirely unnecessary statement.  All the MARSOC units I have seen have been involved in plenty of fighting.




Agreed.  You need to check yourself dknob.


----------



## dknob (Jun 4, 2009)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> Agreed.  You need to check yourself dknob.



I meant in the beginning of OEF and OIF. Before MARSOC creation. I just use that name as a reference to Force Recon units, who were sidelined (common knowledge) in the beginning stages of both wars. I obviously didn't mean any disrespect. I am just going off of what I have read over the years regarding Marine SOF units not being utilized in any SOF capabilities because USMC top brass refused to let them be included into SOCOM.


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jun 5, 2009)

Why does this troll thread still exist? Who the fuck cares what some officers from Regiment have to say cause I surely don't.
View attachment 7856


----------



## Teufel (Jun 5, 2009)

dknob said:


> I meant in the beginning of OEF and OIF. Before MARSOC creation. I just use that name as a reference to Force Recon units, who were sidelined (common knowledge) in the beginning stages of both wars. I obviously didn't mean any disrespect. I am just going off of what I have read over the years regarding Marine SOF units not being utilized in any SOF capabilities because USMC top brass refused to let them be included into SOCOM.



That is true, as the premier DA and SR unit in the Marine Corps, the two Force Recon companies have been under utilized during the war and were sent to little known places such as the battle of An Nasariyah, battle of An Najaf, battle of Fallujah.  SOCOM doesn't have a monopoly on war you know.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 6, 2009)

I have nothing but the up most respect for the men who serve in Ranger regiment, they are the best of the best and 100% the premier raid, assault and seizure force that the US MILITARY has to offer! 

Nuff said, Marines no offense…


----------



## Teufel (Jun 6, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> I have nothing but the up most respect for the men who serve in Ranger regiment, they are the best of the best and 100% the premier raid, assault and seizure force that the US MILITARY has to offer!
> 
> Nuff said, Marines no offense…



None taken.  It used to be a requirement for all leadership at 1st Force to be Ranger school graduates.  This included the company CO (LtCol).


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 6, 2009)

Well.. I know that Regiment did at least two combat jumps into Iraq before I did mine and that now I see them listed as support for different TFs around.  So what is it that they are not doing that they need to be?


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jun 6, 2009)

Teufel said:


> None taken.  It used to be a requirement for all leadership at 1st Force to be Ranger school graduates.  This included the company CO (LtCol).



Not sure if you are aware or not, but there is a huge difference between Regiment and Ranger School.


----------



## Teufel (Jun 6, 2009)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> Not sure if you are aware or not, but there is a huge difference between Regiment and Ranger School.



I know.  Just showing how much respect that the 1st Force chain of command had for the course.  Most assistant team leaders and up were Ranger and RSLC qualified.  I know two guys who went through the Q course as Marines in the 90s but they stopped doing that.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jun 6, 2009)

Teufel said:


> I know.  Just showing how much respect that the 1st Force chain of command had for the course.  Most assistant team leaders and up were Ranger and RSLC qualified.  I know two guys who went through the Q course as Marines in the 90s but they stopped doing that.



There was actually a Recon guy in my Ranger School class, and the fucker got honor grad


----------



## Teufel (Jun 6, 2009)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> There was actually a Recon guy in my Ranger School class, and the fucker got honor grad



Ain't that a B.


----------



## jtprgr375 (Jul 26, 2009)

I guess i just dreamed about getting blown up and shot at, phew.....   it seemed so real though.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 26, 2009)

The article hints at some of the problems that have caused problems for the Ranger units since the modern Ranger units were formed in WW II. One has to take a close look at Ranger history before dismissing the article entirely.

Many conventional commanders tend to misuse Ranger Companies and Battalions. It happened in WW II, Korea and to some extent in Vietnam.

Placing the Ranger BNs under SOCOM, helps to reduce such misuse, however, they still face demands from theater commanders and pressure from local conventional Division commanders, etc. when they are operating in their AO.

Of course, it would also appear at times that SOCOM falls prey, to the thinking of the Commanders influence that the article talks about as well as the quest for better funding, etc.

The fact is that both the Special Forces Groups and the Ranger BNs will always be in danger of misuse as well as actual deactivation if many high ranking people got their way.


----------



## varsity (Jul 26, 2009)

> US conventional generals
> knowingly deprive their finest soldiers of their reason for living, combat. They don’t use most of them and eventually turn
> them against the US Army.



I would say that this statement has some merit.  But, that is just me.  I have seen situations that would support this statement.  

Getting rid of JSOA's anybody?  Come on, really?

ODA's falling under the Battle space commander, who isn't SOF.  

I just jumped into this conversation, but that's how I feel.


----------



## Dirty Harry 375 (Jul 26, 2009)

It is not really a bad thing for Rangers to be deployed into country as platoon or company elements, depending on where you go. When going on a caputure or kill raid in Iraq or raiding compounds in Afghanistan you don't need an overwhelming amount of soldiers when you have a solid well trained platoon or company of Rangers. 
And that article which was written after speaking with "Ranger Officers" there is a big difference if its some officer who went to Ranger School and thats it compared to an Officer who led in Ranger Bat or Ranger Regt and last time I checked all our Ranger Officers were right on the ground with us getting into the fight. 
Let the conventional part of the military do their thing and lets Spec Ops be Spec Ops.


----------



## jtprgr375 (Jul 26, 2009)

hmmmm........ dirty i think you are on to something.....


----------

