# Intel Enabler Assessment, Selection and Training Program (for SF support)



## Marauder06 (Jun 22, 2011)

This is the latest version of a topic that has been on my mind since I was in 5th Group back in 2003. Basically, the underlying issue is that there is no centralized, large-scale screening process whatsoever for enablers (i.e. anyone not 18-series) looking to go to Group. On the intel side, an assignment to Group is as easy as picking up the phone and asking your branch manager to slot you against an available opening. This results, in my opinion, in more than their fair share of non-hackers making their way into an SF support assignment. Once in the unit, many of non-hackers choose to stay indefinitely, while the "good" enablers choose to move on to other SOF units or return to the regular Army. Over time, this situation sometimes helps create a vicious circle of unmet expectations and low opinion of the effectiveness of intelligence enablers, culminating in a non-optimal level of support.

Having had the opportunity to work with or at least observe most of the rest of the major U.S. SOF units, I've seen the difference that a screening process can make, and learned the importance of a structured training program to the ability of intelligence enablers to "hit the ground running" and be able to keep up with the people they support.

Many people have written that a problem exists, but few have provided a detailed plan that might be able to address some of the fundamental issues. This paper is my attempt to do that. It is derived in part from a thesis I wrote last year, which in turn was a followup of a previous work I did that was published about five years ago.

My goal in posting this here is to solicit input before I post it at a couple of other sites I frequent, in advance of sending it out to be published. Comments are welcome; current or prior service in an SF Group is not a requirement. I am particularly looking for corrections to any factual errors that this paper might contain; if USASFC or USASOC have already stood up a similiar program, for example, that would be a really good thing for me to know before I try to get this published ;) .

I want to close by thanking the SF and SF support contingent on the site who have already provided very useful and insightful comments (that doesn't mean they agreed with me or that I agreed with them, it just means that I value their input :) ).

Thank you for your time, I hope you find the read interesting.


----------



## Cochise (Jun 23, 2011)

A very insightful read, sir.  I don't have any valuable experience in the SOF support world as of yet so unfortunately I cannot provide any recommendations or critique.  The EAST program sounds like a very viable option and hopefully it gets a much deserved look from Higher.

Once again, you've humbled me as an intel professional.  Well done!


----------



## x SF med (Jun 23, 2011)

Sir, quit being sensible and logical...  people will think you are actually an NCO if you use common sense for the good of the military.:-"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 23, 2011)

The NCOs do all the work, I'm just here to make it look pretty.

Oh, and to take the credit.  Got to have something for the ol' evals.  :cool:


----------



## QC (Jun 23, 2011)

A pretty sound argument. If other unit have the capability, it begs the question. 
BTW, in the endnotes I see there's a paper on no growth for SF past 2017. (a bit of topic but I'm curious.)
How would this impact on your proposal?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 24, 2011)

Thank you for the comments.

I don't think it should impact EAST at all, since the program is an expansion of current _capabilities_, not an expansion of current _manning levels_.


----------



## QC (Jun 24, 2011)

Ok, cheers.


----------



## Brill (Jun 25, 2011)

Sir,

I'm on the road moving out to Colorado but will provide comments soon.  Just a quick glance: 210 APFT is way too low.  We're required us to have min score of 270.

L


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2011)

Who is requiring you to have a 270?  The only requirement I know of for a needs-of-the-Army assignment is 180, with 60 points in each event.  Are you sure that's not a "goal" vs. a "requirement?"

Isn't 210 the minimum for EIB and to pass the PT test at Ranger School?


----------



## dirtmover (Jun 26, 2011)

Very insightful Sir.  One thing that could stop this awesome idea in its tracts is funding.  With all the Defense cuts I can see everyone trying to hang on to every penny even though this program is sorely needed.  If this was not the intent of your paper then I am sorry, but I would be curious to hear how you would solve that problem.


----------



## RetPara (Jun 27, 2011)

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, MARY, AND JOESEPH!!!!!!! ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE? You publish that and your career will go so low that you'll be looking up at flogged whale shit son!!!!! Your a officer for Christ's sake; you keep spouting that common sense shit and man you'll be looking for another job.

Intelligence Training Battalion at SWCS? You mean there be one.... like now?

* The personal essay is a great idea. Unless there is some kind of remedial writing classes being held at unit or USAICS level... a lot of young people will not get by that. The ability to write a grammatically correct sentence is not a wide ranging skill set these days.

*Will MI slots still be open to women?

*What if no MI officer in the applicants chain of command will give him a letter of recommendation, through no fault of his own, but because they're stereotypical MI dickhead officer who doesn't want to lose one of their top 10%. (Seen it.)

* Ruck march with 35 pound load? Seriously... make it 50 pounds with no consideration for body size or build. Packing lists don't take that into account.

* Oral presentation is a great idea. NCO level candidates should do an extended with brief with a partially hostile audience..... Your normal SF SSG/SFC who is a MI Hater.... An NCO has to be able to defend his analytical position up to and including the point where a Team Dog tells them "This is fucking bullshit" and throws a chair or coffee cup at the briefer. (BTDT - Teams can be pretty rough to handle once they sense blood in the water.)

* They psychological tests concern me. If they pass the tests as normal, they'll be accepted, but won't fit in. The ones that fail would fit in.... but may need daily meds. (You've gone yours again when you wrote this.)


----------



## Brill (Jun 27, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Who is requiring you to have a 270?  The only requirement I know of for a needs-of-the-Army assignment is 180, with 60 points in each event.  Are you sure that's not a "goal" vs. a "requirement?"
> 
> Isn't 210 the minimum for EIB and to pass the PT test at Ranger School?



Correction: we're required to score min 70% (for my age group that means 10 p/u, 21 s/u, and they let me use a Rascal for the run). A SOT-A with 210 would not last on a team very long.


----------



## x SF med (Jun 27, 2011)

Well...  Teufel really is an officer.... he took an NCO's idea and ran with it...  the scary thing is, he is of the same ilk as Mara, just a different Service...  we have 2 of them...  it's a disease that may not be stopped...

(Oh I hope there is not a retrovirus that affects NCO's and makes them think like officers...  that would be nasty bad and evil....)


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 27, 2011)

RetPara said:


> JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, MARY, AND JOESEPH!!!!!!! ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE? You publish that and your career will go so low that you'll be looking up at flogged whale shit son!!!!! Your a officer for Christ's sake; you keep spouting that common sense shit and man you'll be looking for another job.



Nothing this article can do for/to me either way career-wise at this point. Game on! ;)



RetPara said:


> Intelligence Training Battalion at SWCS? You mean there be one.... like now?


 I think it actually activates next month, but yeah, there's one at SWCS. Trains both enablers and 18-series. Pretty good menu of courses. Also, one of the members here tipped me off to a training program for SOTAs that I didn't know about previously (he PM'd me about it so I'm not going to mention his name or put out the details of the program in case he doesn't want it out there).



RetPara said:


> * The personal essay is a great idea. Unless there is some kind of remedial writing classes being held at unit or USAICS level... a lot of young people will not get by that. The ability to write a grammatically correct sentence is not a wide ranging skill set these days.


 Yeah, no kidding right  Kids these days... they need to spend more time in front of an open book instead of in front of the ol' xBox.



RetPara said:


> *Will MI slots still be open to women?


 I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be.



RetPara said:


> *What if no MI officer in the applicants chain of command will give him a letter of recommendation, through no fault of his own, but because they're stereotypical MI dickhead officer who doesn't want to lose one of their top 10%. (Seen it.)


 Good point. Maybe I'll reword it to be a recommendation from "someone in the grade of O5 or above who personally knows the applicant." Any MI officer who can't get an LOR from SOMEONE either 1) sucks, or 2) doesn't know enough people to be a viable applicant.[/quote]



RetPara said:


> * Ruck march with 35 pound load? Seriously... make it 50 pounds with no consideration for body size or build. Packing lists don't take that into account.


 I think 35 pounds is EIB standard, that should be good enough for guys who are going to be footmarching back and forth to a desk in Group.



RetPara said:


> * Oral presentation is a great idea. NCO level candidates should do an extended with brief with a partially hostile audience..... Your normal SF SSG/SFC who is a MI Hater.... An NCO has to be able to defend his analytical position up to and including the point where a Team Dog tells them "This is fucking bullshit" and throws a chair or coffee cup at the briefer. (DADT - Teams can be pretty rough to handle once they sense blood in the water.)


 lol- an assessment for a SOF unit I was a part of was a LOT like that. No throwing things, but let's just say it wasn't friendly. I got the job, but I didn't think I was going to. Especially after they kicked me out of the room to "deliberate" (i.e. "go to lunch") for an hour and a half we me sweating it out in the waiting area. Bastards. ;)



RetPara said:


> * They psychological tests concern me. If they pass the tests as normal, they'll be accepted, but won't fit in. The ones that fail would fit in.... but may need daily meds. (You've gone yours again when you wrote this.)


 You can tweak the tests for "this is the kind of profile we're looking for," and exclude all others. But when you do that, you have to be prepared for the results... ;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 27, 2011)

lindy said:


> Correction: we're required to score min 70% (for my age group that means 10 p/u, 21 s/u, and they let me use a Rascal for the run). A SOT-A with 210 would not last on a team very long.



Roger.  There's no reason why the standard for certain MOSs can't be higher.  Or something in the accessions packet, "The minimum standard for successful completion of Phase 1 of EAST is 210 on the APFT.  However, EAST candidates who successfully completed the course and moved on to an assignment had the following scores... ."



x SF med said:


> Well... Teufel really is an officer.... he took an NCO's idea and ran with it... the scary thing is, he is of the same ilk as Mara, just a different Service... we have 2 of them... it's a disease that may not be stopped...
> 
> (Oh I hope there is not a retrovirus that affects NCO's and makes them think like officers... that would be nasty bad and evil....)


Comparing me to Teufel?  I'm flattered to be included in that kind of company. :cool:



dirtmover said:


> Very insightful Sir. One thing that could stop this awesome idea in its tracts is funding. With all the Defense cuts I can see everyone trying to hang on to every penny even though this program is sorely needed. If this was not the intent of your paper then I am sorry, but I would be curious to hear how you would solve that problem.



Funding is always tough, but at the end of the day, the things that people consider important get funded.  If USASFC, USASOC, and/or SOCOM think this idea has value, they'll make something happen.  If USASFC is smart about it, they'll tell USASOC, SOCOM, and maybe even JSOC, "yeah we'll do this and we'll train your guys too if you want, but you have to cough up manpower and money.  We'll provide the land, the buildings, and the curriculum."  Most of the other SOF units have something in place, it will be tougher for USASFC because I think they have the most intel enablers of anyone subordinate to USASOC, but they can put it together if they really want it.



Cochise said:


> A very insightful read, sir. I don't have any valuable experience in the SOF support world as of yet so unfortunately I cannot provide any recommendations or critique. The EAST program sounds like a very viable option and hopefully it gets a much deserved look from Higher.



Thanks Cochise, maybe you can be one of the first EAST graduates?  ;)


----------



## Brill (Jun 27, 2011)

Correct: there is traction for formal & standardized SOT-A training however, it seems like some type of selection process before they arrive to Group would benefit all concerned.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 27, 2011)

lindy said:


> Correct: there is traction for formal & standardized SOT-A training however, it seems like some type of selection process before they arrive to Group would benefit all concerned.


Almost all of the SOT-A folks I have seen have been consummate professionals, and studs. I have been nothing but impressed with those guys.


----------



## RetPara (Jun 29, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> I think 35 pounds is EIB standard, that should be good enough for guys who are going to be footmarching back and forth to a desk in Group.



Actually some of the Analysts, at least at the Battalion level will actually deploy with an ODA.   One of the first 5th Grp Teams had a 96B along with them in A'stan.  A 96B was killed in a fight in El Sal back in the 80's when the training camp he was in was over-run.  Some of the subsequent discussions of the fight indicated that he may of been specifically targeted.

IME 50lb is the LOD for assessing/testing the conditioning of a soldier.  The starting point for training is 35lb, not a realistic test or combat weight.  The team dogs are going to be carrying loads at the 75lb level and above.  The MI weenies have got to carry their own weight and then some.

The five mile/40 minute run may test aerobic conditioning... but unless the test conditions include a full combat kit - uniform, boots, protective vest/helment, & weapon...  it doesn't really matter how fast you can run.


----------



## Brill (Jun 29, 2011)

Fully agree with Para.

"...my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

Here is a problem I see with this program(you do address it briefly at the bottom of page 4 of your paper). Bare with me now as it may come across as dooshy, elitist, or stupid. Guys in support jobs in group already think they are the coolest thing since sliced bread, they consistently roll around perpetrating the fraud, that they are "in group". Well yes you are but what do you do there? If these guys were given a Selection, they would then be "just as good as team guys". Oh yeah? Cause no your fucking not. Maybe, maybe the more mature ones would get over this, maybe, but the younger ones no doubt would have this attitude. This would eventually cause a whole lotta drama. I have had SOT-A's tell me they are as well trained as an 18E. Oh yeah? You can lead up to a BN of foreign troops into close combat with the enemy? You have been through a SFAUCC, BA, Level 3, and all the other schools that team guys go through? No you haven't, but I am damn sure you are a good SOT-A, and I respect the shit out of those guys, but one or two dudes saying shit like that ruins the reputation of all support guys, period. To the support guys on here, this is not meant at all in any way to degrade or talk down about support guys. However a few bad apples spoil the rest.


----------



## Brill (Jun 29, 2011)

Cback,

Your comments come across as having experienced some issues that we'd like to fix within the MI Dets. Selection could chose the right (and mature soldier) who can attach to any ODA and be effective. All of us want to be the Team the Companies "fight" over.

When the ODA/SOT-A dynamic works: it's a game changer! But when it doesn't, it sucks for both of us. Mostly for us though because you all operate independently...us...VERY rarely.

Selection simply means they are trainable and have qualities we're looking for...and a never ending process!


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

lindy said:


> Cback,
> 
> Your comments come across as having experienced some issues that we'd like to fix within the MI Dets. Selection could chose the right (and mature soldier) who can attach to any ODA and be effective. All of us want to be the Team the Companies "fight" over.
> 
> ...



I will say this about the SOT-A's.. They are very good at their jobs. I have yet to see one who is incompetent, which is saying a lot about support guys in group, for me at least. However at the same time, when paired with a team full of pipe-hitters(espescially dive teams for some reason) they tend not to mesh. Also a problem I have seen is either an exaggeration of skills, or complaining that you have so many skills that you are being underutilitized. Well that is for the ground commander/AOB commander to determine, not your E-6 SOT-A ass to determine. Are team guys guilty of the same thing? Absolutely, but we are team guys and there is obviously a bias. Do you know what I am saying?

My semi-rant above was not really at all directed at SOT-A/B's, as I said I have the utmost respect for them, however the people who work in your shops, not so much. My rant was more directed at the other "enablers" who actually make my job way more difficult, to the point where it often feels like I am supporting BN instead of the other way around.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2011)

lindy said:


> Cback,
> 
> . Selection could chose the right (and mature soldier) who can attach to any ODA and be effective. All of us want to be the Team the Companies "fight" over.



This is something that I think can never really happen. All guys don't fit with all other guys. Alot of SF guys get fired from their first team, for straight up personality conflicts, dude could be the hardest worker, but just doesn't mesh. All personalities do not mesh. I feel like this is a myth that needs to be exposed. I personally do not get along with certain types of people, it doesn't matter if I go to hell and back with that person, I will not like them personally. Same goes for "meshing" with a team. You could be freaking god incarnate in a SOT-A soldier, but if the guys don't like you, you will not fit in with an ODA. No matter how good you are. We will respect you and and your work ethic, but you will not "mesh". Shit I don't mesh with other SF guys in the company, but I do respect them and their work ethic. Now that I have said that, I think you are right, when all the stars align SOT-A's and an ODA can be very dangerous, and will definitely change the game.

Also whether it is correct or not, one misunderstanding will ruin a support cell to a team. I think S1 is universally despised by every team guy(at least in my group). Why? Because they are consistently fucking up. MI is a close second. I won't go into why on here, but feel free to PM the reason. I am done ranting for a while.


----------



## moobob (Jul 1, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> However at the same time, when paired with a team full of pipe-hitters(espescially dive teams for some reason) they tend not to mesh.



Does any dive team get along with other teams, much less enablers? LOL

One MTOE design that is supposed to mitigate some of the meshing issues with SOT-As is that they are a V coded, Airborne Ranger slot. The problem is, there is no selection process, so you have guys that wouldn't hack it. Out of the ones that can, you're asking them to spend two months, assuming they don't recycle, out of their maybe 6 month dwell time between deployments to attend a school that gives you a cool tab, but doesn't benefit their primary purpose... An ODA wants a SOT-A when they need the capability they provide, not to be a cool guy small unit tactics guru, shooter/door kicker extraordinaire.

As for exaggerating capabilities... I hope you are not speaking MOS-wise. I have seen issues come up where team guys have unrealistic expectations of what a SOT-A should be able to do, speaking MOS skills not tactical. That is based on their own assessment on what a SOT-A is, not what they are briefed or have experienced. On the flip side, some SOT-As have difficulty explaining their capabilities to teams. Most SOT-A dudes try to adopt the team guy, type A personality to "fit in," but SIGINT guys aren't always known for their people skills. In maybe half of their other possible assignments, they'd be working in a cubicle in a dark basement in shifts. Then again, I witnessed a SOT-A fully articulate how a certain something works, in pretty simple terms, the team still had this assumption that they could do something more with it and kept asking for the same thing.

They really do have a very technical geewhiz job, and it can sometimes be very hard to explain some of the inner workings.


----------



## moobob (Jul 1, 2011)

Funny that you mentioned that because I don't get along with #1 Intel Analysts. Everyone hates S-1.

I've always gotten along with SOT-As and have never had issues with a team. I spent the beginning of my career in that world, but I moved on to other things. Everything in Group is personality driven. If you have the right mix of personality and competence you will be able to effectively support most teams. A selection process would ensure that the issues we've described are a lot more rare.

Definitely a good thing, but the support side of the house is not an SF priority, so we shall see...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 1, 2011)

Moobob, you were in my BN, you know the issues we had with support, so I don't feel the need too explain the issues
 To you. A I also said, after working with the SOT-A's, I think they are the best enablers we have. My observations are really towards the S1, S2, c&e sometimes and the motorpool. The sigdet guys are normally reall good as well. These are my limited observations.


----------



## moobob (Jul 1, 2011)

While SOT-As are a needs of the army assignment, motivated soldiers do tend to request that assignment.

My final thoughts on the topic is that SF support assignments need to reach the level where, like Regt, 160th etc, you are only getting motivated volunteers.

Some kind of training program like the one Mara has written up would be beneficial. Each MI MOS in Group has their unique requirements for SF-world tailored training. Won't get into that. MOSs outside of MI pretty much fall into 1. S-1 types that will not be Direct Support to an ODA or ODB/AOB and 2. Mechanics, Cooks, and other MOSs that often will. I don't think everyone should necessarily need the same training.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 1, 2011)

Why not just make them all go through SFAS? At least that way they have earned a right to be there, been selected by SF and are GTG in their eyes. Then have them do their job, go to Ranger school or whatever else they need. 75th sends their support through RASP and Ranger school when they promote, why not send SF support through SFAS (maybe the Q course down the road if they choose that route)? That might give SF the ability to better vett prior to someone going through the Q and ending up on a team. Seems to work well for the Rangers...


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Jul 1, 2011)

lindy said:


> Correct: there is traction for formal & standardized SOT-A training however, it seems like some type of selection process before they arrive to Group would benefit all concerned.



The hope is that in the future the course mentioned will morph into such a gate to pass through. Perhaps it will one day mirror something along the lines of what Radio Recon runs for it's indoc. The problem I'm told with implementing that idea now is manning. SOT-A's are hurting for people and instead of having 3 4-5 man teams you are at times barely filling 3 per team in some Groups. This is just what I'm told. I can't speak for the AD side but on the Guard side we are undermanned. Is it the same on your end Lindy?

The outline for the school looks to be a good one. It would (or will depending on the schools success) ease some of the OJT that must go on for new SOT-A's. Nobody is going to become proficient at the tasks layed out but it give people a clue as to what the job is. Guys are absolutely clueless as to what's expected when they report. I know I would of been in the same boat if I had gone off what I picked up at school. Forunately I had spent some time with the SOT-A's prior to heading off.

The school at Goodbuddy is worthless IMO, although I hear positive things on the 35N side of the house.

Just my .02


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 1, 2011)

JAB said:


> ...why not send SF support through SFAS (maybe the Q course down the road if they choose that route)? That might give SF the ability to better vett prior to someone going through the Q and ending up on a team. *Seems to work well for the Rangers*...



This has been addressed before J.

What makes for a good SF soldiers, a good support soldier may not make.


----------



## moobob (Jul 2, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> This has been addressed before J.
> 
> What makes for a good SF soldiers, a good support soldier may not make.



Looking back at history, the profile of your 'typical' SF soldier has changed quite a bit since they started SFAS.

Does  SFAS, which isn't up for discussion in detail, select guys that are the best fit for UW and dealing with foreign cultures, or does it select good soldiers who can get along with others. I think that is a slightly different thing, and something I wonder about whenever I meet a young SF dude that quietly would rather be in Ranger batt.

You obviously need guys that can endure hardship and lead/follow, but you can even see differences in the typical physical type of SF soldiers now and 20 years ago.

Another area is language ability. SF's language capability is essentially non-existent, compared to years ago. A number of reasons for that...

And yes, SFAS would not be a good selection for support guys. Different animal.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 2, 2011)

moobob said:


> Looking back at history, the profile of your 'typical' SF soldier has changed quite a bit since they started SFAS.
> 
> Does SFAS, which isn't up for discussion in detail, select guys that are the best fit for UW and dealing with foreign cultures, or does it select good soldiers who can get along with others. I think that is a slightly different thing, and something I wonder about whenever I meet a young SF dude that quietly would rather be in Ranger batt.
> ...



The profile of the typical SF soldier has changed quite a bit and not for the better IMHO.  This is one of the reasons we are having so much issue with being SF; too many conventionally minded guys in SF.  The day it became a numbers game is the day things began slipping...

I will take an 8 man ODA dedicated to UW  a fullteam with 1/2 being gun bunnies who took the "wrong walk" or should have applied for an Option 40 contract.

I could go on and on but I would just be repeating what myself and several other of my Brothers have said before.

Besides this thread isnt about SFAS, its about EAST


----------



## Brill (Jul 2, 2011)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> The hope is that in the future the course mentioned will morph into such a gate to pass through. Perhaps it will one day mirror something along the lines of what Radio Recon runs for it's indoc. The problem I'm told with implementing that idea now is manning. SOT-A's are hurting for people and instead of having 3 4-5 man teams you are at times barely filling 3 per team in some Groups. This is just what I'm told. I can't speak for the AD side but on the Guard side we are undermanned. Is it the same on your end Lindy?
> 
> The outline for the school looks to be a good one. It would (or will depending on the schools success) ease some of the OJT that must go on for new SOT-A's. Nobody is going to become proficient at the tasks layed out but it give people a clue as to what the job is. Guys are absolutely clueless as to what's expected when they report. I know I would of been in the same boat if I had gone off what I picked up at school. Forunately I had spent some time with the SOT-A's prior to heading off.
> 
> ...



Milk Truck,

Actually, we're almost fully manned and in the process of getting them all qual'd up too.  I've heard some great things about the course, which includes briefing skills (how to brief) and outlining what is and (more importantly) what ISN'T classified.  This may assist with the misunderstandings of what we can/cannot do.

Having been an instructor at GAFB, I feel the core skills of the 35P MOS that are learned there, serve to assist the SOT-A in many ways.  If you understand what you SHOULD (could) be doing, you can adjust and modify your skillset to the end user (the ODA).

I also like the idea of a RASP kinda-thingy for Support soldiers in Group...a gut check to see how bad we want to be support soldiers.

I also agree with moboob (sorry...dislexia...ok, not really I just like boob): some of the weirdest stuff I've ever seen was standing CQ at DLI including LARP. Linguists: we're a fricken' weird bunch!

Anyone know why INSCOM stopped sending us to the Q?  I assume too many crossed over to the 18-series side rather than stay 98-series but that was before my time.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 3, 2011)

lindy said:


> ...Anyone know why INSCOM stopped sending us to the Q? I assume too many crossed over to the 18-series side rather than stay 98-series but that was before my time.



The need for guys not selected to attend the SFQC, and then be assigned to an ODA, is and was non-existent.  CDRs at several levels realized it was a monumental waste of time, resources, and money training guys to fill slots they were not going to fill.

The SFQC is there to train Unconventional Warfare SME's to live and work in austere conditions with little to no support training partisan forces, nothing more - nothing less. I have brought this topic up to quite a few of my peers, here and otherwise and we don't see the need to have support guys, enablers or otherwise, in the SFQC to include attending Robin Sage. Robin Sage serves, as I have said before, as a UW culmination exercise not a targeting exercise based off OEF-A or OIF models. RS isnt a CAPEX to show off what you can/cannot do either. It is about the ODA on the ground living in that environment doing their jobs without a lot of technology.

The fascination you guys have with attending the SFQC baffles me...


----------



## shortbrownguy (Jul 3, 2011)

JAB said:


> Why not just make them all go through SFAS? At least that way they have earned a right to be there, been selected by SF and are GTG in their eyes. Then have them do their job, go to Ranger school or whatever else they need. 75th sends their support through RASP and Ranger school when they promote, why not send SF support through SFAS (maybe the Q course down the road if they choose that route)? That might give SF the ability to better vett prior to someone going through the Q and ending up on a team. Seems to work well for the Rangers...


SFAS is designed to select the best candidate to become a Special Forces soldier. Although an easy solution, I don't feel we should have to split our attention to select candidates for both career fields. In saying that, I could entertain the idea of a selection course based on the SFAS model. It could be spear headed by a competent 18 series, and ran by its own committee(senior support personnel on SWC rotation).
Just to be clear, this is not my volunteer statement...;)


----------



## Brill (Jul 3, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> The SFQC is there to train Unconventional Warfare SME's to live and work in austere conditions with little to no support training partisan forces, nothing more - nothing less. ...RS...is about the ODA on the ground living in that environment *doing their jobs without a lot of technology*.
> 
> The fascination you guys have with attending the SFQC baffles me...



Yeah, *that definitely ain't us*. It's a HUGE PITA for us to get authorization to train non-US forces.

I'm reminded of a song..."Yes, I love technology, but not as much as you, you see... But I still love technology... Always and forever." 



> Besides this thread isn't about SFAS, its about EAST



I believe we all, both SF and support guys, agree that we need/would welcome some sort of formalized process to determine a soldier's desire/commitment to belong to USASFC. I'm lucky: the guys on my Team are insanely dedicated to their job and I trust them 110%.    Oh, and NOBODY plays Dungeons and Dragons either!!!!


----------



## shortbrownguy (Jul 3, 2011)

moobob said:


> Looking back at history, the profile of your 'typical' SF soldier has changed quite a bit since they started SFAS.
> 
> Does SFAS, which isn't up for discussion in detail, select guys that are the best fit for UW and dealing with foreign cultures, or does it select good soldiers who can get along with others. I think that is a slightly different thing, and something I wonder about whenever I meet a young SF dude that quietly would rather be in Ranger batt.
> 
> ...


The SF soldier morphs into what is necessary at any given time. After years and years of DA, many of the younger SF soldiers have never learned or forgotten the "other" SF missions. If they are not happy, those who quietly wish they were in Ranger Batt need to speak up and go to Ranger Batt Believe me, I love getting my kill on, but at some point you have to shift gears and teach "them" how to take care of themselves...By, with, and through.
The OPTEMPO of the GWOT has caused the level of language proficiency to diminish over the last few years, particularly in the SFG's who have had a more significant roll. With the realignment of AOR's and the current push for language proficiency from higher, language proficiency should begin to rise to previous levels.
Unfortunately many do not know all of the facets of the SF mission. The term "Quiet Professional" has been our mantra since its inception, and maybe its time to let the cat out of the bag.
That is a whole discussion that needs it's own thread...

SBG sends.


----------



## RetPara (Jul 4, 2011)

lindy said:


> I also agree with moboob (sorry...dislexia...ok, not really I just like boob): some of the weirdest stuff I've ever seen was standing CQ at DLI including LARP. Linguists: we're a fricken' weird bunch!


DLI used to be the only DOD school with an accepted suicide rate.   You take the some of the "smartest" people that can be enlisted, then put them into the equivalent of a 4 year college program condensed in to months.   Some people will fall apart from the pressure.  Then add the soldier-ization training on top it....  shit will get downright strange.



lindy said:


> Anyone know why INSCOM stopped sending us to the Q? I assume too many crossed over to the 18-series side rather than stay 98-series but that was before my time.


Multiple reasons.  It was a waste of money/time and the skills that were learned as a light or heavy weapons guy didn't do a damn thing for their primary role, and it was a waste of a SFQC slot.  SFQC exists to create qualified soldiers to serve on a ODA.  When a 98 got back to the MI Det or Company, he had a tab.  So fucking what, more than a few could not make the adjustment of being back in MI.  Then MI branch sure as hell would not release a 98 series to go 18 series.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 26, 2011)

Thanks for the help on this, everyone. I received clearance to publish, so I sent it across the street to PS.com for their input. When I get it back I'll make the final changes and send it in.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 11, 2011)

Here is the final version, I'm sending this out today. Thank you everyone who provided input.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 11, 2011)

shortbrownguy said:


> The SF soldier morphs into what is necessary at any given time. ...Unfortunately many do not know all of the facets of the SF mission. The term "Quiet Professional" has been our mantra since its inception, and maybe its time to let the cat out of the bag.
> That is a whole discussion that needs it's own thread...
> 
> SBG sends.



Who are you and why are you using SBGs name?:eek:

Nice post my brother.


----------

