# Army Times: SOF unleashed on the world



## goon175 (Jan 26, 2012)

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/...obal-expansion-for-special-operations-012612/


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 26, 2012)

well looks like optempo for SOF isn't gonna go down with iraq done and Afghan gonna be winding down eventually, though as they say "idle hands are the devils playground."


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 26, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> well looks like optempo for SOF isn't gonna go down with iraq done and Afghan gonna be winding down eventually, though as they say "idle hands are the devils playground."


The OPs Tempo was high before 9/11.  Hopefully leaving Iraq will allow us to re-engage in Nations we have visited in a while.


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 27, 2012)

I think the article is interesting.  Admiral McRaven will, without a doubt, champion the cause for SOF in the coming drawdown and I believe Secretary Panetta has good intentions as well.  The outline for McRaven's plan seems to include SOF as a whole, which is typically uncharacteristic for him.  I say that because McRaven authored the book _Spec Ops: Case Sudies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice_, in which he offers analysis of eight direct action operations (six during WWII, the Son Tay Raid and Entebbe).  The problem that I had with his book was that it should have been titled Spec Ops: Case Studies in Direct Action.  It seems that Admiral McRaven may have grown to realize the full spectrum of special operations if this is indeed _his_ plan.

The second to the last paragraph bothers me.  Dozier states: “If it means handing more over to the military, it could be an improvement from a transparency perspective,' said Andrea Prasow, counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, which has also pushed for the White House to make public how a suspect ends up on the target list."  The thought that the Human Rights Watch wants the US to disclose our targeting methodologies is disturbing at best. 

Interesting article, thanks for posting it.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 27, 2012)

SOWT said:


> The OPs Tempo was high before 9/11.  Hopefully leaving Iraq will allow us to re-engage in Nations we have visited in a while.



Good point, I can imagine now with Iraq having been the focus for such a long time and a big pull on manpower resources that there is more than a few countries that have been neglected and need re-focus on. Iraq....damn seems like forever since I was a fresh faced PFC doing combat patrols there.....sigh...


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2012)

It seems like the higher-ups are starting to focus more on what SF's roles has traditionally been.  In the SOCOM Doctrine there is also a lot of talk about FID, UW, and the like.  The emphasis for the entire spectrum of SOF seems to be shifting towards a teaching/mentoring approach as opposed to all the DA.  I know some members here have long felt that SF specifically has gotten too far from its original plan and gotten too focused on the "sexy" stuff to the detriment of other skills like language.   I would think that most of SF would be happy about the shifting focus, but would also maybe feel a little put out that SOCOM seems to think they can give the FID/UW mission to anybody.  Also, traditionally DA oriented units like the 75th or the SEAL Teams are now seemingly being pushed in a different direction.  How does that play out?  Am I way off base?


----------



## dknob (Jan 27, 2012)

SOWT said:


> The OPs Tempo was high before 9/11. Hopefully leaving Iraq will allow us to re-engage in Nations we have visited in a while.


 
I've met many Army SMU types that will disagree with that statement :)

I've heard nothing but horror stories about complacency and fear by the defense folks of the Clinton era who were too risk averse to even send our best guy on operations aside from the Balkans.


----------



## dknob (Jan 27, 2012)

CDG said:


> It seems like the higher-ups are starting to focus more on what SF's roles has traditionally been. In the SOCOM Doctrine there is also a lot of talk about FID, UW, and the like. The emphasis for the entire spectrum of SOF seems to be shifting towards a teaching/mentoring approach as opposed to all the DA. I know some members here have long felt that SF specifically has gotten too far from its original plan and gotten too focused on the "sexy" stuff to the detriment of other skills like language. I would think that most of SF would be happy about the shifting focus, but would also maybe feel a little put out that SOCOM seems to think they can give the FID/UW mission to anybody. Also, traditionally DA oriented units like the 75th or the SEAL Teams are now seemingly being pushed in a different direction. How does that play out? Am I way off base?


 
I don't foresee the 75th being thrust in a global conflict against terrorists. We have been utilized only in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two warzones.

While the SEALs and SF are deploying all over the world. Including continuously to places like the Philippines and HOA. No 75th there.

The future is SF and JSOC. I think the 75th and the SEALs (unless some get tasked with FID/JCETs) are going to be standing on the sidelines a lot in McRaven's future plan.


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2012)

dknob said:


> I don't foresee the 75th being thrust in a global conflict against terrorists. We have been utilized only in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two warzones.
> 
> While the SEALs and SF are deploying all over the world. Including continuously to places like the Philippines and HOA. No 75th there.
> 
> The future is SF and JSOC. I think the 75th and the SEALs (unless some get tasked with FID/JCETs) are going to be standing on the sidelines a lot in McRaven's future plan.


 
How about the use of advisors from the SEALs or the 75th as an augment?  I knew guys from both units when I was in HOA that were there in that role.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 27, 2012)

The part of other non traditional operations bothers me. I have seen a trend to use the Military against our own citizens and that is scary to me. I know a lot of people think that is all hype and just trust the leaders they will do right. I am not so sure of that anymore. The Military should not be allowed to operate on US soil against citizens. The National guard is a totally different thing and there is some real time things that show the NG should not deal in civil unrest either.
Time will tell how we deal with facilities that are twice as old as the oldest members of the military. Infrastructure that still has cement sewer systems and cast iron plumbing. These facilities need money and attention to give the warrior a safe sound place to wind down between deployments.
There is a lot of history to predict where these cuts are going but I am willing to wait and see. Retention is good with a solid benefit package if you remove those benefits where does retention go? Look at the retirement figures for the highest enlisted ranks and ask yourself can you live on that amount of money every month in retirement? I hope we do this draw down and training the right way and everybody who gave so much is taken care of.


----------



## dknob (Jan 27, 2012)

There will always be one to two guys from the 75th doing some kind of advising outside of OEF-A/OIF. And we have our RRC guys who can offer much more to McRaven's strategy then the line guys can.

All I'm saying is I don't foresee Ranger platoons running around HOA or Yemen anytime soon. A few guys don't signify a Regimental deployment.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 27, 2012)

dknob said:


> I've met many Army SMU types that will disagree with that statement
> 
> I've heard nothing but horror stories about complacency and fear by the defense folks of the Clinton era who were too risk averse to even send our best guy on operations aside from the Balkans.


 
Lot of non-SMU ops going on. FID was a huge door opener for us, SF deployed a lot (85 countries per year on an average IIRC).


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 27, 2012)

Manolito said:


> The part of other non traditional operations bothers me. I have seen a trend to use the Military against our own citizens and that is scary to me. I know a lot of people think that is all hype and just trust the leaders they will do right. I am not so sure of that anymore. The Military should not be allowed to operate on US soil against citizens. The National guard is a totally different thing and there is some real time things that show the NG should not deal in civil unrest either.
> Time will tell how we deal with facilities that are twice as old as the oldest members of the military. Infrastructure that still has cement sewer systems and cast iron plumbing. These facilities need money and attention to give the warrior a safe sound place to wind down between deployments.
> There is a lot of history to predict where these cuts are going but I am willing to wait and see. Retention is good with a solid benefit package if you remove those benefits where does retention go? Look at the retirement figures for the highest enlisted ranks and ask yourself can you live on that amount of money every month in retirement? I hope we do this draw down and training the right way and everybody who gave so much is taken care of.



The US military is actually forbidden from engaging in police actions in the US under the posse commitatus act except under EXTREME conditions like nuclear terrorist attack and such. The NG fall under command of the governor of the state and thus can be used at his discretion. It scares me to, and to have a nerd moment and quote battlestar galactica (even though it's a perfect quote for this topic) and commander Adama "there's a reason you separate the military from the police: one protects and serves the people, and the other fights the enemies of the state. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> The US military is actually forbidden from engaging in police actions in the US under the posse commitatus act except under EXTREME conditions like nuclear terrorist attack and such.


 
WMD is one of the three exceptions to PC, the other two being an insurrection or a Federal quarantine.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 27, 2012)

CDG said:


> WMD is one of the three exceptions to PC, the other two being an insurrection or a Federal quarantine.



Actually other exceptions are in the event of extreme natural disaster, chem/bio attack, and a majority vote by congress.....wait that last part....ah crap.


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2012)

I stand corrected.  Just another example of why you can't believe everything you learn in class. I did find  an interesting article about PC while I was learning that I was wrong. 

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil347.pdf


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 27, 2012)

CDG said:


> I stand corrected.  Just another example of why you can't believe everything you learn in class. I did find  an interesting article about PC while I was learning that I was wrong.
> 
> http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil347.pdf



You also have to take into consideration that the military being used as a police force would require the passing of martial law which except again in extreme conditions is itself illegal since it suspends habeus corpus and due process. 

Also one has to remember that despite plenty of training in overlapping areas with police forces, military are NOT trained in law enforcement and when compared to a police officer do not have the type of training that is usually given to police that make them what they are. Finally, it's a proven fact as shown through history that there is nothing more corrosive to not only the people's trust in their government and the military but to the military itself than having to police it's own people.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 27, 2012)

Johhny Boy
You made a very good point however Posse Commitatus has been suspended several times once by Bush that I know of and I am not sure how the patriot act plays into this but I know some scolars have argued the point. http://beepdf.com/doc/31166/bush_suspends_posse_comitatus_active_military_pour_into_new_orleans.html
I think we all agree seperation is needed but I think our government and not just Obamma is playing with the socialist ideas.


----------



## Sendero (Jan 27, 2012)

Just another reason I love this site.  Started reading a very good thread on "SOF unleashed on the world" that segued to whether/when our military can be unleashed on us as citizens.  I just learned a lot regarding Posse Commitatus.


----------



## tigerstr (Jan 27, 2012)

CDG said:


> How about the use of advisors from the SEALs or the 75th as an augment? I knew guys from both units when I was in HOA that were there in that role.


 
SEALs are getting involved in the "persistent enagement" side of SOF as much as they can.

Language is becoming part of their pipeline and they also created  "Anchor Teams", small teams of experienced SEALs that will specialise for years in a particular country and deploy there more than once in their career.  

MARSOC has been moving in the same direction, almost since inception.

It seems that the "by through with" aspect of SOF, as exemplified by the SF, is gaining traction (or maybe becoming prominent) in most SOF elements these days.

The question I would like to ask is, do you thing that mnaybe the pendulum is swinging too much in this direction nowadays?

I mean how about people that joined or will join the SEALs or MARSOC and are not really fond of working with natives, surrogates, etc.

And the qualities needed to be an advisor/trainer/diplomat, do they really apply to a hard-charging but young SEAL or Marine?


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 27, 2012)

Great thread


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> SEALs are getting involved in the "persistent enagement" side of SOF as much as they can.
> 
> Language is becoming part of their pipeline and they also created "Anchor Teams", small teams of experienced SEALs that will specialise for years in a particular country and deploy there more than once in their career.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting, I did not know the things you mentioned in reference to the SEAL Teams.

My opinion means jackshit on whether or not the pendulum is swinging too much one way or the other. I will leave that question to guys with SOF experience.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 27, 2012)

Posse Commitatus was pretty much thrown out the window when the NDAA 2012 was signed into law.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 28, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Posse Commitatus was pretty much thrown out the window when the NDAA 2012 was signed into law.


 
Not quite. The NDAA allows detainment into military facilities of the individuals that fit the category they laid out, doesn't allow troops to actually go busting in doors in America and grab people. Also hasn't given em permission to start posting federal troops on the streets and rounding people up....yet. 

I'm a history major and I seem to recall at least one famous incident involving federal troops entering a city to restore law....hmmm what was that? Oh right, the draft riots of NYC in 1863. Just one SMALL example of why PS is a good idea. It's not the most infamous example but the first of many that comes to mind. There was a REASON why Roman troops were not allowed within the city walls of Rome itself after the end of Caesar's rule, crossing the Rubicon anyone?


----------



## Headshot (Jan 28, 2012)

Fuck Army Times!  I did a dog an pony show years ago with the first gen SAW and it sucked!  So this Colonel walks up while I'm clearing my bagillionth feed jam and says to the AT guy, "you will strike that from your notes" and then looks at me and says "soldier, you will use what you are issued and make it work, is tha_t clear"  Yessir!  _


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2012)

May want to research JTF-LA, JTF-Detroit, and "The Little Rock 9".  AD Army has a recent history of working on American streets.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rio.htm

Ultimately, the Guard deployed 10,465 troops that were subsumed by Joint Task Force-Los Angeles Headquarters. JTF-LA was put together by the Regular Army's U.S. Forces Command in Atlanta which assigned *2,023 troops from the 7th Infantry Division and 1,508 Marines from Camp Pendleton*.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/detroit-1967.htm

At the same time, the Michigan National Guard was federalized and placed under command of the *U.S. Army's XVIII Airborne Corps from Fort Bragg, N.C. One brigade each from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were flown to Selfridge Air National Guard Base and joined Task Force Detroit* under the command of Lt. Gen. John Throckmorton. A total of 10,253 Michigan ARNG federally mobilized from 23 July - 2 August 1967; authorized by EO 11364 of 24 July 1967.

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/ak1.htm

When Faubus did not restore order, *President Eisenhower dispatched 101st Airborne Division paratroopers to Little Rock and put the Arkansas National Guard under federal command*. By 3 a.m., soldiers surrounded the school, bayonets fixed.

Regarding the thread, there are too many "special" soldiers in USASOC.  If everyone is special then nobody is special.  Wasn't an Airborne soldier considered at one time a tough school and a gut check?  I assure you that is NOT the case now and it no longer is considered an elite school.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 28, 2012)

In the LA riots and the others mentioned, incidents like that there is a bit of a fuzzy line in regards to that and PC, but PC states troops can be used in that sort of a scenario if it fits within the provisions of the act (extreme civil unrest) and at the express order of the president. Not to mention the governor is usually the one to ask for this if he feels the NG troops under his command cannot handle the situation without help. 

Plus we all know the 1960's and 70's were times in which there was massive social and political upheaval, and sadly little things like the law could be trampled on in times like that. PC tends to be something that prevents a police state not the suppression of mass rioting by the people.


----------



## AWP (Jan 28, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> SEALs are getting involved in the "persistent enagement" side of SOF as much as they can.
> 
> Language is becoming part of their pipeline and they also created "Anchor Teams", small teams of experienced SEALs that will specialise for years in a particular country and deploy there more than once in their career.
> 
> ...


 
Could you cite your sources?


----------



## goon175 (Jan 28, 2012)

> And the qualities needed to be an advisor/trainer/diplomat, do they really apply to a hard-charging but young SEAL or Marine?


 
MARSOC is actualy one of the only major SOF units that you cannot go into straight off the street right now. So, I don't think they quite fit into that category.


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> In the LA riots and the others mentioned, incidents like that there is a bit of a fuzzy line in regards to that and PC, but PC states troops can be used in that sort of a scenario if it fits within the provisions of the act (extreme civil unrest) and at the express order of the president. Not to mention the governor is usually the one to ask for this if he feels the NG troops under his command cannot handle the situation without help.
> 
> Plus we all know the 1960's and 70's were times in which there was massive social and political upheaval, and sadly little things like the law could be trampled on in times like that. PC tends to be something that prevents a police state not the suppression of mass rioting by the people.


 
At risk of totally derailing this thread...

Uh...did you happen to travel anywhere in CONUS shortly after 9/11?  Those Guard guys who were...guarding...airports, train stations, etc were on Title 10 orders and were not under control of their respective governors.  They were AD USMIL.

Coasties zipping up the Potomac on a RHIB with mounted 240B's?  Sure they're not subject to the PC Act but law enforcement with a crew served weapon?  ANG fighters flying CAP over significant events in CONUS?  Law enforcement?  A SOF DA raid OCONUS but the target is brought back to GITMO for trial...law enforcement?  Very gray indeed.

Good thing the days of massive social and political upheaval are behind us.  Or are they?

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/trebilcock.htm

*Erosion of the Act*
While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. *Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.*
One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the “war on drugs.” Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. *This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in *10 U.S.C., sections 371–381.* This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areas—immigration control and tariff enforcement.*
The use of the military in opposing drug smuggling and illegal immigration was a significant step away from the act’s central tenet that there was no proper role for the military in the direct enforcement of the laws. The legislative history explains that this new policy is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military involvement still amounted to an indirect and logistical support of civilian law enforcement and not direct enforcement.[9]


----------



## tigerstr (Jan 28, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Could you cite your sources?


 

NSW publishes an official magazine called "ETHOS" you can find it here . Then, download issue 12 ( Jan-March 2011) and check pages 14 -17. Its about Language and on page 17 Anchor Teams. All info is OPSEC cleared and in the public domain.

For Anchor Teams, if you google it as SEAL "Anchor Teams" you can find some more info


----------



## tigerstr (Jan 28, 2012)

goon175 said:


> MARSOC is actualy one of the only major SOF units that you cannot go into straight off the street right now. So, I don't think they quite fit into that category.


 

True, you cant apply off the street, but until the latest change in prereqs, even E-3 could apply and were officialy considered. Now its E-4 with at least 3 years in, (MARSOC official website) and on the other end, which is also important, no more than 10 years if an E-6 and with less than 1.5 years TIG.

This makes for higher age/experience than in the other major SOF, but this is not the experience level that *used to be* required for SF in years past, before 9/11 and the WOT.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 28, 2012)

I agree, but what the requirements were in the past for SF have no bearing on the fact that MARSOC isn't a bunch of young recon bubba's running around. Also, an E-3 in the USMC is not the same as an E-3 in the Army. The USMC has E-3 team leaders and E-4 squad leaders at times. I have even seen an E-5 PL.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 28, 2012)

^True though only for the infantry types because of a broken promotion system. MARSOC recruits outside that. Needless to say anybody applying to MARSOC is on their second enlistment. I'm just wondering when SF will get back to this.


JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Not quite. The NDAA allows detainment into military facilities of the individuals that fit the category they laid out, doesn't allow troops to actually go busting in doors in America and grab people. Also hasn't given em permission to start posting federal troops on the streets and rounding people up....yet.
> 
> I'm a history major and I seem to recall at least one famous incident involving federal troops entering a city to restore law....hmmm what was that? Oh right, the draft riots of NYC in 1863. Just one SMALL example of why PS is a good idea. It's not the most infamous example but the first of many that comes to mind. There was a REASON why Roman troops were not allowed within the city walls of Rome itself after the end of Caesar's rule, crossing the Rubicon anyone?


Not really. The NDAA pretty much acknowledged the homeland was a battlefield allowing the use of Federal troops when deemed necessary by the President. That category of individual was also left very vague. It was written in plain English.


----------



## AWP (Jan 28, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> NSW publishes an official magazine called "ETHOS" you can find it here . Then, download issue 12 ( Jan-March 2011) and check pages 14 -17. Its about Language and on page 17 Anchor Teams. All info is OPSEC cleared and in the public domain.
> 
> For Anchor Teams, if you google it as SEAL "Anchor Teams" you can find some more info


 
Good deal. Thank you.


----------



## tigerstr (Jan 28, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I agree, but what the requirements were in the past for SF have no bearing on the fact that MARSOC isn't a bunch of young recon bubba's running around. Also, an E-3 in the USMC is not the same as an E-3 in the Army. The USMC has E-3 team leaders and E-4 squad leaders at times. I have even seen an E-5 PL.


 

No objection here - but let me make a more elaborate point so that we understand each other. 

Up to now if someone wanted to be a SEAL he had a perception about SEALs,  that did not have much to do with teaching and being a diplomat, although FID was always a mission, and regional orientation was part of the teams before the change in how Teams/Platoons deploy.

Are things getting different for a unit taking immense pride in their DA/SR skills? Should they?

Perception of the main mission has been a problem in SF, and is widely acknowledged by members even in this forum. I am talking about the “I speak 5.56 and its enough” mentality. 

Now the second but associated point. Consider a young Marine or Army guy who wants something more, but is not much into teaching/ diplomacy or getting very involved with host nation personnel etc.

In the Army side, from what 75th Regiment members say, it’s not really easy to transfer if you are an 11B E-5/E-6 as the Regiment currently likes to “grow its own”. It can be done, but…(has been mentioned in other threads and other forums) 

And in the Marine side, the only SOF unit is MARSOC. Recon is another way to go but IF you feel that you want to get to MARSOC at a later point, you have to be very careful with your TIS/TIG. 

What  I am getting at is that maybe it would be better to have a ladder concept where someone could start from one level of SOF requiring some hard charging attributes and ( if he is capable) be permitted to gradually evolve into another level requiring more experience, maturity, non kinetic things in general.

Using Marines as an example, right now according to official policy, an experienced E-6 with Force Recon experience, in his late twenties/early thirties would probably need a waiver ( I don’t know if there is one- I know there isn’t for reserve E-6s) to get to MARSOC. 

This same Marine will get a shot at being a Platoon Chief in FR or Recon as a GySGT and then he will be distancing himself from the operational side altogether, while in MARSOC he could have been a Team Chief, as Master Sergeant, with 17+ years of service behind him.

I am not saying that my view is correct, but would like to know your take on things since some of you have been there and done that.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 28, 2012)

I guess it comes down to...if you want to do sexy DA stuff in a special operations capacity, then join the branch that alows you to do that.

Remember, not everyone wants to do UW/FID, but some of those guys end up in units whose main mission is UW/FID, due to a misconception of that units purpose.

I will use myself as an example. I wanted to do cool guy DA stuff, I researched every SOF unit and every branch of service, and settled on a goal of wanting to be a Ranger. If guys don't do their own research and as a result don't have the opportunities to do the stuff they want to do, well, then that is on them.

Also remember...units want to maintain relevance...and right now it seems as though the pendelum is swinging in the UW/FID direction, so now I think units are trying to advertise their capability in that arena.

In my personal opinion, and please don't take it as any more than that, I think we run into problems when units try to be good at EVERYTHING and chase after whatever is the "in" thing to be good at at the moment.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 28, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> What I am getting at is that maybe it would be better to have a ladder concept where someone could start from one level of SOF requiring some hard charging attributes and ( if he is capable) be permitted to gradually evolve into another level requiring more experience, maturity, non kinetic things in general.


This actually works in reverse. A young 18x could grow up doing non-kinetic things and then make the hop to CAG and suddenly be doing nothing, but DA. It is interesting that the Army doesn't really have a place for someone that wants to strictly 'speak 5.56' at a SOF-level unless you started out there. I think that's part of the problem with SF getting some 'meatheads.' It's possible that the 75th will get NCO heavy in the future and possibly fix this. I know it's been talked about by the head honchos over there.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 28, 2012)

> It's possible that the 75th will get NCO heavy in the future and possibly fix this. I know it's been talked about by the head honchos over there.


 
Not trying to derail the thread, but CSM Merrit told us on my last deployment that he wanted the lowest ranking person in the 75th that is a part of the strike force to be a corporal. I guess it didn't happen on his watch, which is dissapointing, he had some really good, progressive ideas on where he wanted Regiment to go while he was RSM.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 28, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I guess it comes down to...if you want to do sexy DA stuff in a special operations capacity, then join the branch that alows you to do that.
> 
> Remember, not everyone wants to do UW/FID, but some of those guys end up in units whose main mission is UW/FID.
> 
> ...


 
Just speaking from personal experience but I agree with that statement. From day one in boot camp your told "Marines are killers, Marines destroy their enemies" and all that. We've gone from Fallujah assaults to COIN and trying to win over the population to win against a insurgency. I'm not saying Marines can't do COIN and won't follow orders, they had some excellent examples of doing this well in Vietnam, but that sort of mission rankled me and other infantry types as "not our job, we should be killing shit not hand holding" at the time.

Being older, wiser, and more experienced (and with a lil less piss and vinegar about "kill kill kill") I can see how the mission set has changed and focus has also changed, but at the time you had plenty of that and to this day still have plenty of that. Doesn't help that the average age in the Corps is 19, and young Marines are all about guts, glory, and killing shit COD style lol!


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 28, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> ...I think that's part of the problem with SF getting some 'meatheads.'


 
The trouble with "SF getting meatheads" comes down to the senior officers at SWTG, USASFC, and USASOC saying yes, because the guy that tells the king he isnt wearing pants doesnt get promoted, instead of doing the right thing by the Regiment. We have suffered since the push - thanks Rumsfeld - to create a larger SOF community.

It isnt just us this issue is limited to: Ranger Regiment, 160th, SEALs and "other units," have and will continue to suffer in varying degrees until someone with a set of nuts and concern for the unit and not their career says, enough.

Crip


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I will use myself as an example. I wanted to do cool guy DA stuff...


 
...but then "they" found your hidden stash of 5 fingers and fast forward a bit, you end up in the great state of NY.  Were you there when Hillary was your Senator?


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> The trouble with "SF getting meatheads" comes down to the senior officers at SWTG, USASFC, and USASOC saying yes, *because the guy that tells the king he isnt wearing pants doesnt get promoted, instead of doing the right thing* by the Regiment. We have suffered since the push - thanks Rumsfeld - to create a larger SOF community.
> 
> It isnt just us this issue is limited to: Ranger Regiment, 160th, SEALs and "other units," have and will continue to suffer in varying degrees until someone with a set of nuts and concern for the unit and not their career says, enough.
> 
> Crip


 
Brother, I believe this "disease" of pussification or call it The Peter Principle has spread to the USG as well as certain sectors of our military.  If you rock the boat, your team may love you but the leadership will CRUSH your team and blame the leader of the "insurection".  I personally don't want to be associated with any element, USG or mil, that does not allow me to enable others to kill people and/or break their stuff (the ultimate mission of the DOD).

I'm taking my ball and going home....to Homeland f'ing Security!


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 28, 2012)

lindy said:


> ...If you rock the boat, your team may love you but the leadership will CRUSH your team and blame the leader of the "insurection"...


 
You been talking to my Team Sergeant and Team Leader about me?  

Crip


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> You been talking to my Team Sergeant and Team Leader about me?
> 
> Crip


 
HA!  No man, I'm going through this myself at "work".

"This is BS and not an effective use of taxpayer funding.  It's a waste of the talent and diverse experience we have here."

"You cannot talk to me like that."

  "Well, perhaps that is exactly why this shit is so fucked up here.  Because nobody has told you the truth or gave you an opposing viewpoint."

"We will see.  I warned you about your delivery.  Consider this your second counseling."

"No problem dude.  I consider this horseshit just like this job and your micromanagement "style".  The IG visit should be interesting."


----------



## goon175 (Jan 28, 2012)

> ...but then "they" found your hidden stash of 5 fingers and fast forward a bit, you end up in the great state of NY. Were you there when Hillary was your Senator?


 
You guys are killing me....
I swear I wasn't the only one in USASOC that had a pair of them...jeez!


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 28, 2012)

lindy said:


> HA!  No man, I'm going through this myself at "work".
> 
> "This is BS and not an effective use of taxpayer funding.  It's a waste of the talent and diverse experience we have here."
> 
> ...



How did that IG visit go anyhow?


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 28, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Not trying to derail the thread, but CSM Merrit told us on my last deployment that he wanted the lowest ranking person in the 75th that is a part of the strike force to be a corporal. I guess it didn't happen on his watch, which is dissapointing, he had some really good, progressive ideas on where he wanted Regiment to go while he was RSM.


 
I love me some SGM Merrit; however, to say that the lowest ranking member in 75th should be a Corporal is nuts!  Rangers are light infantry.  The reason they are so successful is that they have are masters of light infantry tactics and enforce extreme discipline in their soldiers.  A change of their MTOE would severely disrupt those principles.  Why does Army leadership insist on fixing shit that isn't broken?  A dude coming to SF from Regiment has instant credibility because SF guys know that he was raised in a certain environment and has been properly mentored.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 29, 2012)

JJ sloan said:


> I love me some SGM Merrit; however, to say that the lowest ranking member in 75th should be a Corporal is nuts! Rangers are light infantry. The reason they are so successful is that they have are masters of light infantry tactics and enforce extreme discipline in their soldiers. A change of their MTOE would severely disrupt those principles. Why does Army leadership insist on fixing shit that isn't broken? A dude coming to SF from Regiment has instant credibility because SF guys know that he was raised in a certain environment and has been properly mentored.


Why exactly is it nuts? That Corporal will still be a 'Joe' that will be taught by those senior of him much in the same way SF teaches their junior guys. At one time not everybody in SF was a NCO. The biggest difference is everybody will have gone through RASP and Ranger School, a leadership school, and as far as individual responsibility goes more will be expected of each individual and as a result more respect will be given. Quite frankly nobody at Regiment cares what guys at SF think of guys hopping over there. If they have their way nobody will desire to make that sort of move in the first place. Rangers will still be masters of their trade.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 29, 2012)

He wasn't talking about changing the environment or the mission. Rather, allowing guys to have rank that reflects the responsibility that they hold. The Regiment has changed a lot in the past 10 years, and things are not the same as they used to be. Basically the structure he was going for was shooting for was a SSG Squad Leader (which is already the standard), a SSG ATL, a SGT BTL, and then a SGT and CPL per team. The leadership, discipline, hard training would not change. It's not like any position in the 75th that actually goes out on target is anything like their counterparts in the big army. Comparing an 11b, 13F, or 68W  in batt. to someone of the same rank in the big army is not even possible these days, as the skill sets are completely different.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 29, 2012)

goon175 said:


> He wasn't talking about changing the environment or the mission. Rather, allowing guys to have rank that reflects the responsibility that they hold. The Regiment has changed a lot in the past 10 years, and things are not the same as they used to be. Basically the structure he was going for was shooting for was a SSG Squad Leader (which is already the standard), a SSG ATL, a SGT BTL, and then a SGT and CPL per team. The leadership, discipline, hard training would not change. It's not like any position in the 75th that actually goes out on target is anything like their counterparts in the big army. Comparing an 11b, 13F, or 68W  in batt. to someone of the same rank in the big army is not even possible these days, as the skill sets are completely different.



Goon you know as well as I do that NCO's aren't as abundant as they could be. I can't speak from experience regiment wise but what's laid out on paper (Sgt as squad leader and such) doesn't always translate over to real life as well due to man power and traIning. Can always recall it needing to be in the Corps a SSGT for squad leader and such on down but would rarely see that. We had CPL's (E4) as plt sgt's sometimes and LCPL's (E3) as squad leaders in some units. Hell we had a GYSGT (E7) as a platoon cmdr at one point, and when he got reassigned has two CPL's as plt.cmdr and plt.sgt.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 29, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Goon you know as well as I do that NCO's aren't as abundant as they could be. I can't speak from experience regiment wise but what's laid out on paper (Sgt as squad leader and such) doesn't always translate over to real life as well due to man power and traIning. Can always recall it needing to be in the Corps a SSGT for squad leader and such on down but would rarely see that. We had CPL's (E4) as plt sgt's sometimes and LCPL's (E3) as squad leaders in some units. Hell we had a GYSGT (E7) as a platoon cmdr at one point, and when he got reassigned has two CPL's as plt.cmdr and plt.sgt.


This isn't really an issue in the 75th or the Army in general. The rank structure is already like this for officers. We have CPTs as PLs, Majors as Company Commanders. This would just slide the NCOs in the same direction. Actually the problem right now is having enough Joes to fill out the squads. It would work for the better because now a E-5 from some other unit could show up to Regiment and not fill in a leadership slot and get up to speed in the exact same manner as a brand new guy fixing some of the Joe shortage.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 29, 2012)

And I think the 75th RR is probably the only unit in the military that has E-4 11b's that have SERE, EMT-I, master breacher, CDQC, a Ranger tab, a purple heart, and arcom w/ V (yes, this is an actual person not a made up example). Again, just re-enforcing the need for rank to reflect responsibility and skill set, not to mention combat experience.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 29, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> This isn't really an issue in the 75th or the Army in general. The rank structure is already like this for officers. We have CPTs as PLs, Majors as Company Commanders. This would just slide the NCOs in the same direction. Actually the problem right now is having enough Joes to fill out the squads. It would work for the better because now a E-5 from some other unit could show up to Regiment and not fill in a leadership slot and get up to speed in the exact same manner as a brand new guy fixing some of the Joe shortage.



Personally I like that. As a NCO your expected to show up with a certain skill set and level of maturity but some don't take into consideration your in a new playing field operations wise or that you might have been out of the loop in another area of expertise for awhile, so that make sense to me as it gives the NCO the ability to adapt to new surroundings/doctrine/training and learn from there. It's a smart move and one I whole heartedly support. Personally I'd prefer to see it more like that in all branches. I've worked with many a fine 2nd LT in the Corps but from a infantry perspective they are too green and inexperienced to be leading men into combat. Giving them a smaller unit of men like a sqd to get familiar with that many men and moving up seems like the right way to me. Just one more reason my heart is set on becoming part of yorker brotherhood.



goon175 said:


> And I think the 75th RR is probably the only unit in the military that has E-4 11b's that have SERE, EMT-I, master breacher, CDQC, a Ranger tab, a purple heart, and arcom w/ V (yes, this is an actual person not a made up example). Again, just re-enforcing the need for rank to reflect responsibility and skill set, not to mention combat experience.



That is a good point, and one I won't argue. While it does happen in other units/branches it is rare to come across a skill set like that in units with NCO's like that outside the regiment.


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 29, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Why exactly is it nuts? That Corporal will still be a 'Joe' that will be taught by those senior of him much in the same way SF teaches their junior guys. At one time not everybody in SF was a NCO. The biggest difference is everybody will have gone through RASP and Ranger School, a leadership school, and as far as individual responsibility goes more will be expected of each individual and as a result more respect will be given. Quite frankly nobody at Regiment cares what guys at SF think of guys hopping over there. If they have their way nobody will desire to make that sort of move in the first place. Rangers will still be masters of their trade.


 
I was raised in 2/75...  I know what guys over there think of SF.  That was not my point.  Again, Rangers are *light infantry*.  What light infanry unit has that type of MTOE?  I think that young soldiers who have not been damaged by the regular Army are a large part of Regiment's success.  Start importing Corporals and let's see where that goes.  Don't fix shit that isn't broken.  Dudes have to be content to put in the work required to acheive rank and status rather than expect it to be given to them because they went to "hooah school" and RASP.




goon175 said:


> And I think the 75th RR is probably the only unit in the military that has E-4 11b's that have SERE, EMT-I, master breacher, CDQC, a Ranger tab, a purple heart, and arcom w/ V (yes, this is an actual person not a made up example). Again, just re-enforcing the need for rank to reflect responsibility and skill set, not to mention combat experience.


 
I see your point; however, the expample you provide is an E-4 with those skillsets.  Are corporals not E-4s?  So, by your standards, he has acheived the rank and status that he deserves (no disrespect intended toward him).  The soldiers in Regiment that bear extended responsibilities, for the most part, do not hold slots on line squads.  As for combat experience, I know young privates in the 101st that have a shit ton of combat experience.  Maybe we should make all infantry units NCO heavy.  Afterall, they go to Ranger School too!

This is just my point of view.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for 75th Ranger Regiment and its roster of stellar individuals.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 29, 2012)

JJ sloan said:


> I was raised in 2/75...  I know what guys over there think of SF.  That was not my point.  Again, Rangers are *light infantry*.  What light infanry unit has that type of MTOE?  I think that young soldiers who have not been damaged by the regular Army are a large part of Regiment's success.  Start importing Corporals and let's see where that goes.  Don't fix shit that isn't broken.  Dudes have to be content to put in the work required to acheive rank and status rather than expect it to be given to them because they went to "hooah school" and RASP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All units, from combat to support need good NCO leadership. NCO heavy? Not necessarily, plenty of young warriors not NCO who have plenty of combat experience, but in time they'll make good NCO's who have that combat experience to back up their rank and training.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 29, 2012)

JJ sloan said:


> I was raised in 2/75... I know what guys over there think of SF. That was not my point. Again, Rangers are *light infantry*. What light infanry unit has that type of MTOE? I think that young soldiers who have not been damaged by the regular Army are a large part of Regiment's success. Start importing Corporals and let's see where that goes. Don't fix shit that isn't broken. Dudes have to be content to put in the work required to acheive rank and status rather than expect it to be given to them because they went to "hooah school" and RASP.


I wasn't trying to talk crap about SF, just stating facts about 75th leadership. What light infantry unit has that type of MTOE? Well shit the 75th would. I think you would agree no other light infantry unit exist like it. The MTOE is already non-standard as it is. The equipment is already non-standard as it is. Everybody has longer hair, different attitudes, different training, different mission etc. I think saying the rank structure should be the same because all other units are like that when everything else is different is pretty foolish. Will some of the imports suck? Yeah sure, but so did some of the homegrown guys. I mean shit half my RIP class got RFSed in the first year. They were all homegrown. Part of the lack of respect towards imports is 1. They weren't Privates and didn't go through the suck. 2. They're sucking up a leadership position from someone else, and don't know what they're doing. Once everybody is tabbed and a E-5 gets to be a Joe and mentored by those around him, it'll be a non-issue. I mean are you telling me all the guys from the 75th that are now in SF suck and are not trainable? The 75th is also having manning issues. It needs to be a more attractive environment to work in. No offense, but hard-headed CSMs that want it to be 1989 are part of the problem. Shit quite honestly is broken.





> I see your point; however, the expample you provide is an E-4 with those skillsets. Are corporals not E-4s? So, by your standards, he has acheived the rank and status that he deserves (no disrespect intended toward him). The soldiers in Regiment that bear extended responsibilities, for the most part, do not hold slots on line squads. As for combat experience, I know young privates in the 101st that have a shit ton of combat experience. Maybe we should make all infantry units NCO heavy. Afterall, they go to Ranger School too!


Well yeah sure when 100% of the 101st is tabbed out, and that's the goal for the 75th, they can consider all being NCOs. The 75th is just better trying to align themselves with others in SOCOM. It's quite literally the only unit with non-NCOs.

This is just my point of view. I have nothing but the utmost respect for 75th Ranger Regiment and its roster of stellar individuals.[/quote]


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 29, 2012)

I meant that to read '...all the guys not from the 75th that are now in SF...'


----------



## 0699 (Jan 29, 2012)

goon175 said:


> And I think the 75th RR is probably the only unit in the military that has E-4 11b's that have SERE, EMT-I, master breacher, CDQC, a Ranger tab, a purple heart, and arcom w/ V (yes, this is an actual person not a made up example). Again, just re-enforcing the need for rank to reflect responsibility and skill set, not to mention combat experience.


 
If the lowest rank in the 75th was an E-4, does this mean the Ranger Regiment would no longer "grow their own?"  From what I've learned, there is a major stigma attached with coming to Regiment as an NCO; how would this be changed?


----------



## goon175 (Jan 29, 2012)

I see what you are saying JJ, but I think we just have two different opinions on the issue, which is what makes this site great!

Edit:



> Again, Rangers are *light infantry*. What light infanry unit has that type of MTOE?


 
The way Regiment works today has really moved away from a standard infantry MTOE, and even the Regimental leadership does not see the 75th as just light infantry anymore. I will touch on MTOE first. We now have 7 man squads, as opposed to 9 man, which is standard MTOE, each battalion has its own support company, which is not standard infantry MTOE, as brian brought up, the lowest ranking officer is a Captain now, and we also have organic dog and TSE sections, which is not standard for an infantry battalion.

This is the beginning for my premise that the Ranger Regiment is a special operations unit, not a light infantry unit, and should be manned in a similar fashion as other special operations units. If you look at FM 3-05.50 (2008), you will see that they are labeled as a special operations direct action force, that CAN BE employed as light infantry, if properly augmented. Light Infantry operations are a capability, not a primary mission. The primary mission reads:



> The mission of the 75th Ranger Regiment is to plan and conduct special military operations against strategic and operational targets in pursuit of national or theater objectives.


 
What I am really trying to get at here, is that the 75th Ranger Regiment is as much light infantry as SEAL's are just navy divers, or PJ's are just medics.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 29, 2012)

0699 said:


> If the lowest rank in the 75th was an E-4, does this mean the Ranger Regiment would no longer "grow their own?" From what I've learned, there is a major stigma attached with coming to Regiment as an NCO; how would this be changed?


No you automatically become a E-4 when you graduate Ranger School regardless of TIS or TIG requirements though he would be lat promoted to Corporal. I already touched on part of the stigma above. 1. Import NCOs were not Privates and did not go through the hardships of being a Private. This is a selection in itself, so they basically cheated the system. If everybody goes to Ranger School as part of the pipeline than nobody was a Private. 2. Import NCOs take up a leadership slot and often don't know what they are doing. It's a steep learning curve. If a E-5 can come to Battalion and just be a Joe than he can be mentored like how Privates use to be. Under this system E-4 and E-5s could just be shooters while a senior E-5 would be a BTL and your ATL would be a E-6. I think they actually wanted E-8 PSGs and such as well, but didn't want to fight the DA on promoting guys that didn't have PSG time ie E-7s would only have SL time. It would effectively destroy the stigma imports have, have more mature, better payed soldiers, and more experience leaders at every level. I really can't see why anybody would not see this as a good thing.


----------



## tigerstr (Jan 29, 2012)

goon175 said:


> to be. Basically the structure he was shooting for was a SSG Squad Leader (which is already the standard), a SSG ATL, a SGT BTL, and then a SGT and CPL per team. The leadership, discipline, hard training would not change. It's not like any position in the 75th that actually goes out on target is anything like their counterparts in the big army. Comparing an 11b, 13F, or 68W in batt. to someone of the same rank in the big army is not even possible these days, as the skill sets are completely different.


 
I imagine ATL is Assistant Team Leader, but what does BTL mean?


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 29, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> I imagine ATL is Assistant Team Leader, but what does BTL mean?


 
Alpha Team Leader and Bravo Team Leader...


----------



## tigerstr (Jan 29, 2012)

Thanks, this clears it up. But is it not a little unusual to have a Squad with such an official grade structure?
I can undestand it randomly happenin in practice, but making a Table of Organisation where the 2 (fire?) teams have leaders of different rank is kind of odd isnt it? 

I dare say that maybe part of the problem is attempting to keep the oprganisational nomenclature ( in lack of a better term) of an infantry unit, while actually this is no longer the main purpose of the unit?


----------



## 0699 (Jan 29, 2012)

I may be even more confused now...



Brian1/75 said:


> No *you automatically become a E-4 when you graduate Ranger School regardless of TIS or TIG requirements* though he would be lat promoted to Corporal. I already touched on part of the stigma above. 1. Import NCOs were not Privates and did not go through the hardships of being a Private. This is a selection in itself, so they basically cheated the system. If everybody goes to Ranger School as part of the pipeline than nobody was a Private. 2. Import NCOs take up a leadership slot and often don't know what they are doing. It's a steep learning curve. If a E-5 can come to Battalion and just be a Joe than he can be mentored like how Privates use to be. Under this system E-4 and E-5s could just be shooters while a senior E-5 would be a BTL and your ATL would be a E-6. I think they actually wanted E-8 PSGs and such as well, but didn't want to fight the DA on promoting guys that didn't have PSG time ie E-7s would only have SL time. It would effectively destroy the stigma imports have, have more mature, better payed soldiers, and more experience leaders at every level. I really can't see why anybody would not see this as a good thing.


 
So someone could join the Army fresh off of Easy Street, go through boot camp and Ranger School (do you mean the TRADOC "Ranger School" or RASP?) and be promoted to E-4?  If that's the case, I don't see how it would provide a better and more experienced soldier to the Regiment.  It seems like all it would do is increase the rank held by members of that unit.  And would everyone that completes Ranger School be promoted, even guys from big Army?  It seems like it would create an atmosphere of "instant NCOs" without the experience and credibility to back it up.  There would still be those NCOs that came in from big Army that would appear with experiences and habits (both good and bad) that would still influence the unit.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 29, 2012)

Yes, he means TRADOC's Ranger School. In Regiment, you are automatically promoted to E-4 after completion, in the big army you are eligible for E-5 immediately, as long as you meet TIS requirements.


----------



## Brill (Jan 29, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Ranger school actually a leadership school?

https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/WBAR.html


----------



## Etype (Jan 29, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> It's a steep learning curve. If a E-5 can come to Battalion and just be a Joe than he can be mentored like how Privates use to be. Under this system E-4 and E-5s could just be shooters while a senior E-5 would be a BTL and your ATL would be a E-6. I think they actually wanted E-8 PSGs and such as well,


That's one of the saving graces for non-combat arms guys coming into SF, and for 18Xs. They have awhile to go before they are actually in a leadership position within the team. Hell, I was a team leader when I started the Q-Course. I got promoted to E-6 in the course, but I was at the bottom all over again when I got to my team- both in rank and in title.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 29, 2012)

0699 said:


> I may be even more confused now...
> 
> 
> 
> So someone could join the Army fresh off of Easy Street, go through boot camp and Ranger School (do you mean the TRADOC "Ranger School" or RASP?) and be promoted to E-4? If that's the case, I don't see how it would provide a better and more experienced soldier to the Regiment. It seems like all it would do is increase the rank held by members of that unit. And would everyone that completes Ranger School be promoted, even guys from big Army? It seems like it would create an atmosphere of "instant NCOs" without the experience and credibility to back it up. There would still be those NCOs that came in from big Army that would appear with experiences and habits (both good and bad) that would still influence the unit.


Well to be serious, 18x's come off the street and almost instantaneously make E-5, and with little team time make E-6. SEALs come off the street and complete BUD/S and SQT within a year and are automatically promoted to Petty Officer. Yes, guys would make Corporal quickly. And hell they'd make E-5 probably around the rate they do now. Difference being is they would be a shooter all that time, but be held to a higher standard of responsibility. There would be no hey you're a Private. It'd be you're a fucking NCO act like it or get RFSed. Quite frankly, being a Corporal has more to do with putting a guy on equal footing as a E-5 shooter. Having E-5 shooters means having lots of experience and having a bigger recruiting pool as Etype talked about. You're talking about guys that we're team leaders in the regular Army that now will go back to being a Joe. Or even non-combat arms that can now integrate into a team. You're a 76LO2 and want to come to Battalion? Cool, go through RASP and Ranger School and we'll put you on a fireteam as an E-5 and you'll have nothing to worry about. As far as experience for new guys, you're talking about nearly a year of schooling just to be operational. The e-4 deal is a regular Army thing. If you're in 82nd and go to Ranger School immediately you will be automatically promoted to E-4 and highly likely be a TL as soon as possible.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 29, 2012)

Etype said:


> That's one of the saving graces for non-combat arms guys coming into SF, and for 18Xs. They have awhile to go before they are actually in a leadership position within the team. Hell, I was a team leader when I started the Q-Course. I got promoted to E-6 in the course, but I was at the bottom all over again when I got to my team- both in rank and in title.


 
Likewise, I made E5 at the beginning of the 18D course and E6 about 1/2 through my first rotation - which occurred right after graduation.    Despite being an E5/6 I was the junior medic and told to sit down and STFU and learn.  

It takes time to become a leader.  

Crip


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2012)

I apologize for this thread going completely off track.

But to clarify CSM Merrits comments, his proposed pipeline in order to justify the higher rank from the get-go was as follows:
-BCT/AIT
-Airborne School
-Pre RASP
-RASP
-SURT
-Ranger School
-WLC
-One additional skill set (such as one of the following: master breacher, EMT-I, SERE, master driver, Ranger Language Program, etc.)
-Go to battalion.

This would be the pipeline for those that go out on target (11 series, 13F, 68W, 25C/U). The 13F, 68W, and 25 series would not have the additional skill set requirement at the end, as they already have additional training after RASP.

This creates an environment where the Ranger can go to the unit and learn and train with his unit, and become proficient as a unit, without having to spend large amounts of time away from the unit for things like Ranger School. The way he explained his "vision" was that even though the baseline rank was higher, you still answered to someone. I think his specific wording was "just because you are both the same rank, doesn't mean you are both wearing that green leader tab on your shoulder". So, the hallmark discipline that Regiment is known for would still be there. Retention would increase. Morale would increase. RFS packets would dramatically drop. I really think it is a win-win-win situation. As I said before, Regiment has undergone some huge changes in the past few years, and I think for those who know about and have seen these changes, this idea is really not that far-fetched, and was brought up by the CSM for good reason. Of course there will always be resistance to change, but hey, there was resistance to guys getting SDAP and demo pay, but that is in place now as well.


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 30, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I apologize for this thread going completely off track.
> 
> But to clarify CSM Merrits comments, his proposed pipeline in order to justify the higher rank from the get-go was as follows:
> -BCT/AIT
> ...


 

Ok, this makes much more sense to me.  I thought the intention was to recruit from the ranks of the existing Army, which I think would seriously degrade the Regiment.  To send Rangers through a pipeline like the rest of SOF is a much more credible proposal.  The year I spent in Batallion prior to going to Ranger School was pure hell but I was ready.  The only problem I see with this proposal is that the graduation rate for batt boys will likely take a turn for the worst.  However, shitbags will be weeded out in the pipeline rather than burdening NCOs in the battalions with that job.


----------



## Etype (Jan 30, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Well to be serious, 18x's come off the street and almost instantaneously make E-5


They usually make E-5 at the end of the Q-Course, which is about 2 years into their military service.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2012)

> Ok, this makes much more sense to me. I thought the intention was to recruit from the ranks of the existing Army, which I think would seriously degrade the Regiment. To send Rangers through a pipeline like the rest of SOF is a much more credible proposal. The year I spent in Batallion prior to going to Ranger School was pure hell but I was ready. The only problem I see with this proposal is that the graduation rate for batt boys will likely take a turn for the worst. However, shitbags will be weeded out in the pipeline rather than burdening NCOs in the battalions with that job.


 
Ah ok, I should have lead with that! I can definately see what were concerned with now, I agreee that recruiting solely from the ranks of the army vs. homegrown would be a serious degredation of the force. I think it would allow for those exceptional performers to get in, but would still like to see the majority start their career in batt. Yeah, the graduation rate will go down, but everyone will know that they aren't in batt. yet, so I don't think it will reflect badly on the Regiment. Having to deal with less RFS packets not only makes for better continuity in the squad and platoon, but it also makes for less personal time being used up by that TL or SL who has to stay after work getting everything ready to make his case. Everyone is still pretty damn busy these days, and the more time the guys can spend at home with their families, the better.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jan 30, 2012)

Etype said:


> They usually make E-5 at the end of the Q-Course, which is about 2 years into their military service.


Interesting I've heard stories of guys getting promoted in the Q and arriving at their teams and getting promoted again soon after. Still quite quick.


----------



## dknob (Jan 30, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> This actually works in reverse. A young 18x could grow up doing non-kinetic things and then make the hop to CAG and suddenly be doing nothing, but DA. It is interesting that the Army doesn't really have a place for someone that wants to strictly 'speak 5.56' at a SOF-level unless you started out there. I think that's part of the problem with SF getting some 'meatheads.' It's possible that the 75th will get NCO heavy in the future and possibly fix this. I know it's been talked about by the head honchos over there.


This kind of goes into the topic I was writing about at an earlier thread. About the US Army not having a "middle ground" Direct action unit between 75th and CAG. If we had a unit more along the lines of SASR, the Army would retain some of its best shooters who just don't have what it takes to be in CAG (which is like 90% + of us).


----------



## dknob (Jan 30, 2012)

The smokings will continue until morale improves!


----------



## Etype (Jan 30, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Interesting I've heard stories of guys getting promoted in the Q and arriving at their teams and getting promoted again soon after. Still quite quick.


They still have to meet the TIS requirements that big army imposes, 18Xs with non-D MOS spend a couple years on a team as an E-5.


----------



## Brill (Jan 30, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> How did that IG visit go anyhow?


 
Total thread derailment but it went JUST like this:

USAF MSgt stops by my desk this morning: "Hey man, the IG folks will be stopping by here but they're going to set up times to talk to individuals later today."

Me: "Ok cool."

They stop by get a brief about my desk (not by me of course) and I wait...wait...wait...wait...

1530..."Hey, what's the deal with the IG?"  "Oh, they're done and they left."

F me very much.

The icing on the cake...my supervisor denied my Military Leave for some Guard training in Feb.  So now I'm going to be AWOL.  Sweet!!!

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 30, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Yes, he means TRADOC's Ranger School. In Regiment, you are automatically promoted to E-4 after completion, in the big army you are eligible for E-5 immediately, as long as you meet TIS requirements.


 
I was not aware of that.  Learned something new; I'll take the rest of the week off. 



goon175 said:


> I apologize for this thread going completely off track.
> 
> But to clarify CSM Merrits comments, his proposed pipeline in order to justify the higher rank from the get-go was as follows:
> -BCT/AIT
> ...


 
This makes a little more sense to me.  I had heard that the 18 series of MOSs results in promotions upon completions, but I didn't know 1) that other schools had the same thing and 2) Rangers went through as much training before they went their battalions.

The Corps has nothing like this that I've ever heard of.  There was a "contract corporal" system back in the 80s where if you joined for 6 years in certain high-need MOSs, you'd be guaranteed automatic promotion to Corporal at the 18 month mark, but it died (thankfully) a pretty quick death.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2012)

> Rangers went through as much training before they went their battalions.


 
That is a proposed pipeline, it is not in effect at this time.
Current pipeline:
11series and all support mos's (non nco)- Basic/AIT, airborne, pre-rasp, rasp then to battalion. top performers go to surt/ranger school straight out of rasp
68W- basic/ait, airborne, pre rasp, rasp, pre socm, socm. sometimes they go to surt/ranger school before socm, but this is not common
13F/25U/C- basic, ait, airborne, pre-rasp, rasp, regimental commo course, go to batt.


----------



## Etype (Jan 30, 2012)

Is SERE a very sought after school in Ranger Regiment?  Which one do you folks go to?
I wouldn't think it would be sought after if it was not a requirement.  It would be a terrible situation to be SERE qualified and detained with a bunch of non-SERE qual'ed dudes- it'd probably make me loose my mind.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2012)

There are plenty of SERE slots available, but it really just comes down to guys asking to go. From what I have seen, it isn't at the top of every guys list of courses to attend during the training cycle, I guess just because they would rather go to things like master breacher and some of the civilian shooting courses out there. I know plenty of guys who have gone, and they all say more guys should go to it, that it is the most professional and worth while course to attend. At 1/75, most guys went to the rucker course, and from the few 2/75 guys I have talked to, it seems they went to the one at fairchild. I never really heard of anyone attending you guys' up at bragg, I assume because they keep those slots filled with guys that are in the Q.

But, as I mentioned above, there are quite a few guys who think it should be apart of the initial pipeline, for obvious reasons (or so it would seem).


----------



## Etype (Jan 30, 2012)

I much rather would've had a ranger with me than the fat CA captain that went through with me.  He couldn't climb during escape, couldn't walk during evasion, and cried during resistance.

It's a good school, great experience, full of self-defining "moments", a bit of history, and a lot of fun.  The biggest lesson, and this may seem self evident, but survival and resistance suck.  The whole Bravo Two-Zero approach is the way to go, at least in my opinion.  I'd self-rescue across the state of North Carolina before spending another doing another tour in that shit hole, and would probably do the same across Afghanistan- even if it doesn't work out, at least I'd be my own man to the bitter end.  But I digress, back to the thread, as briefed.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2012)

Yeah, from what I hear, the "R" in SERE really sucks!


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2012)

Going back to the original article, I am very interested to see how the different SOF units posture and "advertise" themselves to both stay relevant, and to keep getting the funding that they are used to from the GWOT. It seems obvious that the pendelum is swinging to the FID/UW skill set as we have already discussed. On the one hand, we have things going like the SF mission in Africa right now, but then again I think or want to think that these in and out raids like we saw the other day in the HOA will also become common place, keeping the need for us to stay sharp on the DA side as well.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 30, 2012)

I had guys from Lewis in my SERE class at Fairchild.
They had an informal agreement that 2/75 guys could walk on if there was a slot.


----------

