# Thinking Red : Improving Intel Suppor to SF Groups



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2010)

All-

I'm writing my masters' thesis on "improving intel support to the SF Group," I'll be posting my papers here for your information and comment.  Suggestions welcome.


----------



## Swill (Feb 2, 2010)

1) Selection/Assessment: Hire the consistent performers who maintain the Army standard but prefer to exceed it
2) SF Intel Analyst Training Program: Teach what SF values but cannot be hired for in large numbers: cultural understanding, SF Planning, cross training for single sourcers, etc. Start guys out on the right foot. OJT should fill in the gaps, not be the program
3) SF Intel ASI: Indentify those who're fully qualified. Written Personal Qualification Standards for each step of the way (one of the things I miss most about the Navy). Event Tested. Board certified. (cough, Flight Lead Ride, cough)
4) Tenure: Independent career track for career SOF intel

Timely thesis, sir!
From the 2010 QDR:
“the QDR places emphasis on adding more troops and improving the support for [SOF] troops.
That support will include... an additional 2,800 combat and support personnel who would improve intelligence... for the special operations forces in coming years, according to Gates.”


----------



## moobob (Feb 8, 2010)

There should be a selection process for joining an SF Group MID. At the very least, records screening and an interview. There needs to be a more clearly defined role for MI CI/HUMINT personnel. Perhaps there is a pretty clearly defined role per the SF Intel FM, but I haven't met many people that have actually read that FM.

Just as in the Regular Army, HUMINT guys sometimes have to do self-promotion in order to have a job. Some ODAs/Companies are in tune with what capabilities they bring to the table, some aren't. It doesn't help when the senior guy in a HUMINT section reclassed to 35M from being a cook, as an E-7, and goes to Group as a first assignment. That's something I saw in 08.


----------



## moobob (Feb 8, 2010)

The entire situation would be made a bit easier if there was some type of selection process for SF support personnel, especially MI. This shouldn't be another needs of the Army assignment.

160th has Green Platoon. All batt boys go through RIP/ROP or whatever they are calling it these days. Just my opinion, with limited experience in one Group, but there is a pretty big and unnecessary disconnect between SF and their support guys. ODAs are relatively self sufficient, but I can see huge improvements if the hiring of support personnel was more selective...


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 22, 2010)

I've talked with a couple of the senior people at USASFC and SWCS, and have some things lined up with USASOC.  There's actually a little more support for some type of screening/assessment process for enablers than I expected.  USASOC even has a draft plan.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 11, 2010)

There can be support from the TSOCs.  I think most of the SF groups prefer receiving support from their own group without asking for help from USASOC or the TSOCs


----------



## Brill (Nov 17, 2010)

I would agree that SOT-As need some type of Selection & Training course including pre-selection screening (personality traits, language ability, reputation, etc) and some type of gut check.  I do wonder why Navy Tactical Cryptologic Support teams and  Marine Radio Recon bubbas both have selections and establish training programs but yet we still do not. I don't get why SOT-A training is OJT and varies between the BNs or SFGs.  Heck, I would advocate that SOT-As be incorporated into Robin Sage so the new SF guys understand what we can do (kind of).   Should we go through SUT and the Echo course?

Do PJs, CCTs, SOWT, and even TAC-Ps need all their advanced training to do their core jobs?  One could argue they don't, however they already have some "street cred" from their advanced training which we only get AFTER we're already in the MID (and even then it's dependent on several factors).  Other than SOT-As, are there any other Combat Support MOSes that are V coded? (seriously, I am unaware of any but admit my knowledge is limited.)

Do 35Ps assigned to the RSTB attend ROP?  What about the Ps trying out for the appropriate SMUs?

So why should we be any different?  The entire SOT-A community and guys we support would benefit from a weeding out process: Can I get along with this guy for months on end in close quarters?  Is he going to bring his Magic Cards on deployment?  Can I trust him to be there when it sucks and I need him?


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 21, 2010)

> Heck, I would advocate that SOT-As be incorporated into Robin Sage so the new SF guys understand what we can do (kind of). Should we go through SUT and the Echo course?



That's an excellent point and I actually make that very suggestion in my paper.  The earlier you introduce intel enablers to the 18 series guys, the more likely the ops guys are to tap into their enabler support.  The flip side to that is that the intel enablers had better be able to consistently meet expectations; too often I felt that the intel side wasn't holding up their (our) end of the bargain.


----------



## surgicalcric (Nov 21, 2010)

lindy said:
			
		

> Other than SOT-As, are there any other Combat Support MOSes that are V coded?



How many of those "V coded" SOT-A's have been to Ranger School?

I dont believe the answer to SF guys knowing a SOT-A's capabilities is their incorporation into Robin Sage, anymore-so than any other support slice.  Robin Sage exists as a culmination exercise for the SFQC whereby students learn how to practice all they have been taught in the previous months and are graded on their performance, not learn to work with guys from MIDET/SIGCEN/SUPCEN...  Incorporation exercises should be planned between ODA's and the SOT-As just like we conduct training with others

As for sending them to SUT and the Echo course, neither would make them better at being a SOT-A or the associated tasks expected of them by the mission.

 I do agree there should be a selection process for ALL support guys wishing to come over to SF.  I like the Green Platoon idea and believe it should focus on a candidate's ability to perform their job (all MOS's) to the proficiency needed by SF, in the conduct of our core mission(s).

Just some observations and opinions based on working with SOT-A's...

Crip


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 21, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> How many of those "V coded" SOT-A's have been to Ranger School?
> 
> ...



That's a good point.  I can tell you how many were Ranger graduates for the time I was in command of the Group MID and the Group Support Company- zero.  In fact IIRC there was only one tabbed guy in the whole MID (no it wasn't me).

I'm not sure that having my guys be Ranger qualified would have made them better SOT-As per se, but I think it would have been a credibility boost for them in garrison and during pre-deployment training when they were dealing with the 18-series folks.  The tab/no tab issue didn't seem to be an issue at all operationally, because it didn't matter what you wore on your sleeve, you could either give the team what they wanted or you couldn't.  Ultimately we stopped wearing patches and tabs forward anyway so it was moot.

Another reason there weren't any Ranger grads was that in some cases the only time those intel types would have gotten a slot is in Group, and for a lot of the older guys, by the time they got there they were either not interested or incapable physically of completing the course.  Additionally, IIRC many of them were on 4 to six month port-starboard operational rotations, and didn't want to spend three of the four months they were back home, separated from their families.  I thought that was valid.  Some guys just didn't want to go, I was OK with that too.  For a number of reasons/excuses, I don't remember anyone going the 2+ years I was with that unit.

I disagree about the utility of intel enablers participating in 18-specific training like the 18F course and the Echo course, and especially about participating in Robin Sage.  I think it would be enormously useful to expose the 18-series trainees to intel enabler support during the Q-course, and if USASOC and USASFC were willing to expend the resources and establish an enabler assessment, selection, and training pipeline (based loosely on the 160th model), they could tie the training together in the Robin Sage culmination exercise.

Before anyone says that this is too difficult to do or will never happen, take a look at what SWCS and JSOC are doing with the exploitation enabler course out at Range 37.  That's a stunning example of both the F3EAD process, and the value of ops/intel fusion.

edited to change "Charlie" to "Echo."


----------



## Crusader74 (Nov 21, 2010)

SOT-A's are not 18 series MOS?


----------



## surgicalcric (Nov 21, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> ...I'm not sure that having my guys be Ranger qualified would have made them better SOT-As per se, but I think it would have been a credibility boost for them in garrison and during pre-deployment training...
> 
> I disagree about the utility of intel enablers participating in 18-specific training like the 18F course and the Charlie course, and especially about participating in Robin Sage.  I think it would be enormously useful to expose the 18-series trainees to intel enabler support during the Q-course, and if USASOC and USASFC were willing to expend the resources and establish an enabler assessment, selection, and training pipeline (based loosely on the 160th model), they could tie the training together in the Robin Sage culmination exercise...



I am not sure Ranger school would help with their job either; they sure do want to take part in other "HSLD" training though (MFF, SFAUC, etc.)  I would like to see more of them go to Ranger School though if for nothing more than the reasons you previously listed.

I understand wanting interaction with the teams/intel guys but again the reasons you listed don't justify breaking up the team guys training on UW (RS is the part of the course-the only part-where the focus is totally on it) for integration.  I don't disagree that its important but again, the SFQC isnt the place for it nomore-so than interjecting other support guys (CA, PSYOPs, conventional guys, etc)  into the course.  The integration exercises should be left for team/company/bn training exercises...

That being said, the 18 F course (which isn't an entry level MOS) I understand.  The Fox  can work closely with other intel guys.  Then again I suppose you could stretch it and use the same logic for the integration of the HUMINT/CI guys into the ASOT course (which I would be against as well, mostly due to the compressed course length of our guys.)  Again I believe that is best saved for after guys figure out how to conduct UW by themselves.

And while I am on it Sir, why the Charlie course of all things?


----------



## surgicalcric (Nov 21, 2010)

Irish said:


> SOT-A's are not 18 series MOS?



Nope.  They are Cryptolinguists...


----------



## Crusader74 (Nov 21, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> Nope.  They are Cryptolinguists...



Cheers Crip.


----------



## Brill (Nov 21, 2010)

M06,

First, I would like to clarify that, in my opinion, 35P (Cryptologic Comunications Interceptor  	(Linguist)...just being anal JD!) skills SHOULD be considered different that the necessary tactical & technical skills needed by a SOT-A.  I would even go one step further: SOT-As should have their own MOS since  our job is unique to the CMF 35 and has completely different  requirements.  Which other 35Ps are required to be able to infil/exfil with an ODA?  Operate independently?  If our guidance is to infil with the ODAs, why do we not have MFF or CDQC qual'd guys?  Operate independently, to me, means a SOT-A should include a JM, everyone be physically fit, attend SERE, all be EMT qual'd, have a SOTACC, a Pathinder, etc.

How does MI branch KEEP a motivated 35P who can shoot, move, and communicate with the SF guys if he could go to Selection and then the Q?  The bonus for a 35P4S (RU) was pretty sweet compared to even a 18E4.

Crip,
The majority of my 35P training has not prepared me to be a SOT-A (admittedly my path to 20th is different than most).  The biggest issues that I've noted in my short time as a Support Soldier is getting the right soldier on the Team and integration into the ODAs.  How do you take a four guys who you've NEVER worked with, shot with, etc. and leave the wire with them?  How can I, as a TL, shorten that time period where your team trusts my guys?

I suggested SUT since, as I understand it, that is the basis for team tactics (followed by Team SOP).  I believe that we MUST be as tactically (and medically for that matter) competent as the guys we're traveling with.  I suggested the Echo course because we have similar requirements: networking, making commo, and carrying heavy rucks.  My thinking behind Ranger school is patrolling, leadership, & the suck fest: if a guy makes it, he has the confidence that he can handle the tough stuff (I myself need to lead from the front) and suffer in silence.

I would agree that Sage is probably not the best place to introduce something new into mix when the teams are focused on UW.  I am adamant that we get more time with the line companies but, like everyone in the Guard, how can we use our time wisely once a month: MOS or collective training?  I am advocating our MID "devote" one SOT-A to each Company...of course travel is an issue.

I value your experience and your opinion.  I'm not advocating SOT-A's change their headgear but rather improve our image (tactical proficiency) and not be considered a liability when the primary plan encounters friction.

"Too light to fight, to heavy to run"


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 21, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> ...
> 
> And while I am on it Sir, why the Charlie course of all things?



I totally dorked that up- I meant the Echo course.  :confused: lol, it would be interesting to send a bunch of cryppies to a combat engineer and construction course, though.


----------



## surgicalcric (Nov 22, 2010)

lindy said:


> ...I would agree that Sage is probably not the best place to introduce something new into mix when the teams are focused on UW.  I am adamant that we get more time with the line companies but, like everyone in the Guard, how can we use our time wisely once a month: MOS or collective training?  I am advocating our MID "devote" one SOT-A to each Company...of course travel is an issue.
> 
> I value your experience and your opinion.  I'm not advocating SOT-A's change their headgear but rather improve our image (tactical proficiency) and not be considered a liability when the primary plan encounters friction.
> 
> "Too light to fight, to heavy to run"


he

Well I had a grande reply typed but apparently I took to long in writing it and the system logged me out so I lost it.

In short, if you want to do some training with the ODA guys just call a company SGM and ask about their training schedule (that is after you have the approval of your boss) and inquire about training with his ODA's.  He will know what ODAs are doing what and point you in the right direction.  Some teams are constantly doing training concepts where they go places to train (Midsouth, Gryphon Group, AM General, go climbing, skiiing, etc...) and if you hit them up at the right time and you can figure out how to justify it you could tag along on their Concept.

Some guys like having support guys around and others just want it to be  the ODA guys for the most part.  If you want to train with them then you  need to be able to sell your guys.  We dont expect you to be team guys  -or you would be.  What we do expect is you to be fit, proficient at  your job, willing to learn whatever the ODA wants to teach you, and have  a good attitude.  Show up with all the previously mentioned and the  team guys will help with your shooting, tactics and medicine.  That's  the way my team functions...

Talk with your boss and find out the availability of funds for training and what kind of stuff the MI DET commander will support you on; do training concepts for any and everything you would like to do as a team then piggy back onto some stuff team guys are doing; talk with the Group AS2 Lt Nelson - I know for a fact he has plenty of stuff to keep your guys busy training with other alphabet soup guys (training is training right...)

FWIW, we recently attended HAVEACE, which was preceded by 10 days of team training on Eglin AFB.  We took 8 BN support guys (2 mechanics, 2 CRD guys, a commo guy, an armorer, a JAG paralegal, and an intel analyst) with us - not so they could support us but so they could get some training they otherwise wouldn't get.  In addition to the scheduled training at HAVEACE we worked with them on CQM, CQB, crew-served weapons, and TC3 to name a few things.

 We take the approach that anytime we are training other guys we are just becoming more proficient at our jobs and at the same time increasing the knowledge of the guys we are training and making them better adaptable, tactically sound soldiers.

Sorry for getting off topic a bit...

Crip


----------



## AWP (Nov 22, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> We take the approach that anytime we are training other guys we are just becoming more proficient at our jobs and at the same time increasing the knowledge of the guys we are training and making them better adaptable, tactically sound soldiers



Where was this mentality 10-15 years ago?

Sigh.

Anyway, something support guys forget is that they are "Support" hence the name of the company they are assigned to. One thing I dearly wish I had done, even if it didn't go anywhere, was ask the line companies "What can we do to help you guys? What can we learn to better support you?" We swallowed our canned COMMEXs and never challenged the status quo, never stepped outside of our comfort zone...even if the ODA's/ B's didn't respond or work with us so we could better support them, we'd have at least made the effort. Looking back, I can see that my old SIGDET had the energy and drive, but we could have channeled that a little better.

Sorry to interject into a fine thread. I do wish all parties the best of luck in finding some common ground.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 22, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> Well I had a grande reply typed but apparently I took to long in writing it and the system logged me out so I lost it.



I hate it when that happens, it's such a pain in the ass.


----------



## Brill (Nov 22, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> What we do expect is you to be fit, proficient at  your job, willing to learn whatever the ODA wants to teach you, and have  a good attitude.
> 
> Crip



Man, I think you're right on with the "improving Intel support to SF Groups" thread.  I do appreciate your insight and advice: I admittedly still have much to learn about SF operations.
I wish I was going with you guys (my civilian job got in the way).

Be safe.


----------



## surgicalcric (Nov 22, 2010)

lindy said:


> ...I wish I was going with you guys (my civilian job got in the way).
> 
> Be safe.



Who needs a civilian job...  I haven't had one since 2004...

If you need something let me know.

Crip


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 26, 2010)

Here is a version of the thesis I mentioned in the first post in this thread.  I've put off posting it until now because I wanted to run it by the senior MI and SF officers who gave me interviews before I made the comments they gave me public, and I haven't been able to do that yet.  I decided that I could post the majority of the thesis and redact the interview portions, that's why there are things missing and portions replaced with the word "REDACTED."  Once I'm able to get a copy of the thesis to them and they OK what I attributed to them, I'll post the whole thing.  This verification is something I'm doing on my own and was not a requirement of the interviewees, I just want to make sure I quoted them correctly and in context; I think I owe at least that much to them.

Although this has been turned in and graded, this is still very much a work in progress, as you will see when you read it.  Additionally, it looks like some of the things I recommend are already OBE (i.e. someone else already had the idea and it's getting implemented).

There are also places in the text that seem out of place in a discussion about SOF- keep in mind that this was written to support a masters program in management and leadership, so there were certain theories and topics that had to be covered.

My plan is to ensure that I've got my facts straight and my recommendations are valid, and then look to get some of the thesis published as separate articles.  What I would be very interested in is ensuring that the thesis is factually accurate (e.g. the history of SF is correct, that my descriptions of the SF training pipeline are accurate, etc.).  I'm also interested in feedback on EAST (the enabler assessment, selection, and training program), the establishment of a skill identifier for SF support, the F3EAD portion, and the force management part, since these may all become separate articles in the future.  I'm already working with a friend of mine on an F3EAD article (we have been for a long time, we really just need to call it done).

The above was a long way of saying, "here's the thesis I said I'd post, your comments are welcome."

Feel free to PM me if you think there is anything in here that shouldn't be.


----------



## Brill (Nov 29, 2010)

Sir,

I like the overall idea however I do not see the advantage of sending both Combat Support and Combat Service Support soldiers through an EAST program, let alone MI officers.  I would prefer to work with a MID commander who understands our jobs and enables us to excel (e.g. keeping the rest of the BSC out of our hair).

Happy to see others thinking about improvements.

Lindy


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2010)

Thanks for the feedback Lindy.


----------



## Brill (Nov 29, 2010)

Do you have access to JWICS?  There are at least 3 papers by former NDIC students on SOT-A improvements.  I know it's not really your goal but a start (improving Intel to SF support).

I do think that staffing another MID for each new SF BN is going to be a challenge trying to put the right soldier in the right job.  I'm not sure how we're going to do it in the Guard.


----------



## surgicalcric (Nov 29, 2010)

Lindy, I have to disagree with your assertion that not all support personnel need attend.  I believe the Regiment would do well to implement the EAST program for ALL support personnel.  Regardless if the soldier is a mechanic, intel analyst, or supply guy he needs to be on top of his game personally and professionally and a good fit for the environment he will work in.

That said, I hope this (or something similar) comes to fruition.  And like Lindy am curious how 19th/20th Groups will deal with it.  The NG SF Groups need QC as much as anyone however unless the NGB decides to pay for travel I can see the NG having some serious issues.

Crip


----------



## Brill (Nov 29, 2010)

surgicalcric said:


> Lindy, I have to disagree with your assertion that not all support personnel need attend.  I believe the Regiment would do well to implement the EAST program for ALL support personnel.  Regardless if the soldier is a mechanic, intel analyst, or supply guy he needs to be on top of his game personally and professionally and a good fit for the job.
> 
> That said, I am anxious to see if this (or something similar) comes to fruition and how 19th/20th Groups will deal with it.  The NG SF Groups need QC as much as anyone however unless the NGB decides to pay for travel I can see the NG having some serious issues.
> 
> Crip



I have to defer to your experience on this: I have yet to get dirty with the guys.  I'm still trying to affect change in my own little 4-man world. I will say one thing though: drilling with Spt Co is WAY different than with the NQP guys.  Not bad, just different.

It would be nice if NGB ponied up a little travelin' money: my MID commander and I both travel from WDC for drill...but he's an officer so he can afford it right?  

Who said SDAP for SOT-As?


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2010)

lindy said:


> Do you have access to JWICS?  There are at least 3 papers by former NDIC students on SOT-A improvements.  I know it's not really your goal but a start (improving Intel to SF support).



That's interesting; I wonder if any of them cited the article I did on this topic back in '04.

I was actually going to do an expanded version of this paper for my NDIC thesis; I decided to do EXINT instead.



lindy said:


> I do think that staffing another MID for each new SF BN is going to be a challenge trying to put the right soldier in the right job.  I'm not sure how we're going to do it in the Guard.



There are going to be two MIDs per Bn now?


----------



## Brill (Nov 29, 2010)

I was referring to the 4th BNs.  I believe it will be difficult to staff two additional MIDs in the Guard with experienced MI soldiers.

Staying on topic...kind of...do you have any insight how the 75th RR made the transition to the RSTB?  My experience was before they got the MICO.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2010)

Got you.  I was wondering where they were going to get an additional MID per battalion- and what they were going to have those guys doing.

Sorry, I don't have any info about how the Regiment made the transition to RSTB.


----------



## moobob (Nov 29, 2010)

I think it would be good to take a look at what has been happening in conventional MI. Specifically, how the divisional MI battalions have been disbanded and reorganized into BSTB MI Companies. Throughout our military history, having independent units even at the Brigade level has been a challenge due to communications and support. The Army thought up the concept of Units of Action, and we have ended up with the BCTs we have in their current form.

Part of the reason for having a Divisional MI Battalion control all MI assets for a Division, in my view, has to do with having an advocate for MI in the organization with enough rank to ensure proper training and utilization of MI soldiers. Under the current structure, senior MI leadership is much more separated from MI Co's (I'm excluding BfSBs) and I see some serious pitfalls when compared to the old structure. There seems to be a push to want to push MI assets to the lowest level possible, but I believe that the absence of a MI Battalion Commander and CSM is going to and has lead to some instances of serious misutilization of MI soldiers, and had some negative effects on their professional development.

How many times have SOT-A's and HUMINT assets been moved from Group to Battalion level over the years? There are advantages and disadvantages to both setups, but with the current lack of an MI training program for SF like you mentioned in your thesis... some of the supposed advantages of having people like SOT-A's at the BN level (i.e. teamwork) don't really materialize without strong leadership and relationships at the lowest level.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2010)

Some very good points in your post.  I commanded the 5th Group MID and the GSC, and was in command when the bulk of the SOT-As and the CI guys went from Group back down to Battalion.  I was in favor of the move at the time.  Now I'm not so sure it was the best COA.


----------



## Brill (Nov 30, 2010)

Good article and relevant to the topic.

http://news.soc.mil/releases/News Archive/2010/November/101129-02.html



> *10th SFG (A) initiates Group Reception and  Integration Training*
> 
> By Sgt. 1st Class Michael R. Noggle
> FORT CARSON, Colo. (USASOC News Service, Nov. 29, 2010) – In  a  program designed to integrate and welcome new Soldiers in to the  Special  Forces community, members of the 10th Special Forces Group   (Airborne), began a Group Reception and Integration Training here Nov.  1-5.
> ...



Agree 100%.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Dec 1, 2010)

Nice article. I'm in agreement also. It would be nice to see it branch out and filter down into the NG's Groups.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2010)

I could not concur more with this statement:

_



			The master sergeant added, "The truth is,* it’s a privilege to be in an SF unit*, whether you are support or SF. *Guys should stay here because of their ability, not because they are assigned here.*"
		
Click to expand...

_
I think they had something like that at 5th Group right as I was leaving, and it's better than nothing, which is what we had before.

The problem with this model is, it happens _after_ guys already get to Group.  For an A&S to be effective, you need to have it all happen_ before_ the guy reports to the unit.  Based on the limited information in the article above, it seems like all that is being evaluated is if a guy can do some PT and pass a unit history test.  Both of those aspects are important,  but when is the enabler tested on his actual ability to do his MOS?  And what happens to someone who doesn't "pass" this unit-level training?  Is it "needs of the Army" reassignment, or does Group have to suck up either a shitbag or a gapped position?  Wouldn't it be nice to screen these guys beforehand to weed out the misfits and get people in who can actually contribute to the mission?

When an 18B for example comes in fresh off the pipeline, there are certain standards of grade you can expect from him.  While OJT must occur, you can still expect him to be able to do x, y, and z.  Your enablers should be no different.  That's why SF needs a program like EAST.  The support side is not going to get better as long as SF is willing to accept pot luck assignments and the leavings from other SOF units.


----------



## surgicalcric (Dec 1, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> ...The support side is not going to get better as long as SF is willing to accept pot luck assignments and the leavings from other SOF units.



Very well put Sir...

Crip


----------



## Brill (Dec 1, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> When an 18B for example comes in fresh off the pipeline, there are certain standards of grade you can expect from him.  While OJT must occur, you can still expect him to be able to do x, y, and z.  Your enablers should be no different.



Sir,

Sure sounds like you are advocating that support soldiers, like SOT-As, have their own MOS and pipeline vice just an ASI.  If we had our own MOS specific to ARSOF Support, we (as a community) would have more control of the output but ultimately reputation would still be very valuable.  We're still small enough to know each other and who puts out...and who doesn't.

Again, USASOC doesn't have to create anything new here: MARSOF, and NAVSOF both have programs to select, train, employ, and RETAIN qualified and competent tactical SIGINTers that directly support their SOF in the field.

Why not run us through SFAS to determine our fitness level, our mindset, and our ability to get along with a group while under stress?  Then send us through SOT-A MOS specific training IF we get selected.

I believe this idea may have been tried/talked about previously but clearly it hasn't come to fruition.

Lindy


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2010)

Lindy-

Good points.  One of the reasons I'm trying to make a clear distinction between SFAS and EAST is because when I was with Group, I saw too many support guys spending too much time trying to *be *SF instead of trying to *support* SF.  I think the SF pipeline is very adept at turning out sufficiently vetted and trained 18 series personnel; we need an enabler pipeline to provide a reciprocal level of proficiency for our support troops.  I think that the respective pipelines should overlap in Robin Sage, but since they're two distinct skill sets, they require two distinct training pipelines.  I think it's too consuming in terms of time and resources to train a guy to be SF and to be an SF enabler.  And honestly, how many enablers are going to revert back to a support MOS if they make it as a Green Beret?  Probably not many.




> Again, USASOC doesn't have to create anything new here: MARSOF, and NAVSOF both have programs to select, train, employ, and RETAIN qualified and competent tactical SIGINTers that directly support their SOF in the field.



That's exactly right; I think I mentioned earlier that SF is the only ARSOF unit I know of that doesn't have some type of centralized screening process for enablers.  They could borrow from any number of other SOF organizations and make a system peculiar for SF.

I am advocating for both EAST and an ASI.  The SOF support ASI wouldn't just be for SF enablers, anyone who successfully supported SOF would be awarded it.  That way when recruiters or branch managers are looking for assignment fills, they can query the database and tell it to "pull the records for everyone with this ASI," making the recruiting process much more effective and efficient.


----------



## Etype (Dec 3, 2010)

The biggest problem with SF support is they are treated with kid gloves. Instead of holding their feet to the fire and forcing them to perform, we have this 'we need to take good care of these guys so they will take good care of us,' mentality- which turns into, 'you can't say or do shit to a support guys, no matter how big of shit bag he might be.' It's the same thing that ends up happening with a lot of civilian employees. Some turd spends 20 years on the army welfare system, then double dips for another 20 years- this time with even greater impunity.

In my first couple months in SF, I had a support guy working in the arms room give me some BS about why he couldn't do his job, he tied it up with a comment along the lines of, "How long have you been in SF? hahaha, you're just a cherry, you have no idea how SF works, if you don't make me happy you'll never get the shit you need at a firebase." I responded with something along the lines of, "Ok, but I've been in the US ARMY for about 7 years now and am higher ranking than you, so do some pushups you morbidly obese POS." I wasn't aware yet that NCOs didn't smoke mouthy subordinates and that standards like height and weight and APFT we're more of a mild suggestion than a minimum standard.

Just some of my thoughts on some, not all, support guys.
Ok, I'm done now.


----------



## moobob (Dec 3, 2010)

Because there is no hiring/accession process for SF Support guys, what you get is an entirely personality driven relationship. The support guys that want to be there, are competent, and hard workers have to build their reputations, just like anyone.

My first couple years in a previous unit, in group, I had a supervisor that was a dirtbag and should have been quality controlled out of the unit. He left a bad taste in the mouth of anyone he came across, and his subordinates, who all mostly had good reputations, were dragged down by the guy. Somewhat happy ending to the story: We went to SERE C together and he quit on the last day. He had been working a deal to go to another group, and still was able to pcs to that group a few weeks after he quit SERE. Now his new unit is pissed they got conned into taking him, and on the verge of firing him.

At the same time, the acting MID NCOIC was kicked off a firebase and fired by an ODA. He still ended up working as a MID NCOIC.

Even if it is a Goddamn interview, there has to be some kind of hiring process for SF support other than needs of the Army... ESPECIALLY for MI guys.


----------



## Etype (Dec 3, 2010)

At very minimum-

Interview
PT test/height and weight
Last several NCOERs or counseling packet


----------



## Polar Bear (Dec 3, 2010)

why not use washouts from SFAS? The guys that get the 6 month invite back. 2 year min serving in the support MOS. They see whats going on in SF, after one year they can ask for a wavier to attened SFAS again in there 2nd year. I was 11B and OJT supply, I would have jumped at the chance.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 3, 2010)

Etype said:


> The biggest problem with SF support is they are treated with kid gloves...



I was only in Group a short time, but I never witnessed or heard about anything like what you described.  I'm sorry that happened and I hope that fat bastard will soon be doing the walk of shame across the street to the nearest conventional unit.  Of course the fact that he's a shitbird is probably why his fat ass is in the arms room to begin with...

At any rate, I think you may have misidentified the problem.  At the end of the day, every support guy in a Group reports to someone with a tab.  If the support side isn't meeting the mission, then it's up to SF to fix it.   The biggest problem with SF support is not that they are treated with kid gloves, but that USASFC has not made (or is not willing to make) the investment necessary to ensure that elite operators in SF are complemented by elite enablers.  Why are you guys still the only comparable SOF unit without an A&S for your support troops? (rhetorical question, not directed at you Etype)  Other SOF elements have managed to do it.  I recognize that SF is the largest SOF formation in the inventory and it would be expensive and time-consuming to get an enabler assessment, selection, and training program off the ground, but that's what it is going to take to fix the problem that we all seem to agree exists at the Group level.

I had two SOF assignments after leaving Group.  I've seen the difference between enablers who are in a unit because they got assigned there by their branch, and those enablers who had to compete to be the unit.  There is no comparison; the "needs of the Army" crowd will cumulatively always be less capable than the "varsity" enabler crowd.  This has nothing to do with the operators they support, it has everything to do with how those enablers got into the unit, and what they have to do to stay there.  There are always some good people in the "needs" crowd, and every once in a while you'll get a turd in the "varsity" crowd.  But by screening, training, and holding people accountable, the "varsity" crowd as a group will always be better.

If SF wants enabler support to improve, then SF needs to step up, recognize the problem, and commit resources to its solution.  The solution I'm advocating in my thesis isn't perfect, but it's a good start and is probably better than what we have now- it is certainly better than what we had when I was with Group.  With a little more research and planning, and combining it what what USASOC and USASFC are already trying to put together on the enabler side, USASFC could create an incredible training pipeline to pair the world-class operators in SF with world-class enablers.

If it seems like I'm passionate about this subject, it's because I am.  5th Group was extraordinarily good to me, and I'm still reaping the benefits of my time there.  At the same time, I'm frustrated because I know that with just a little effort, the enabler side of Group- especially the intel enabler side- could be enormously improved, and that might just save some lives on the battlefield.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 4, 2010)

I am an outsider to this topic but I have a question.  What is the selection process like for these elite enablers?  Is it a physical selection?  At force all the Recon Marines had to take an indoc to get in regardless of where they came from, but enablers were selected based on their ability to do their jobs, not their physical performance.  Of course, they are Marines so they can't be fat and 0ut of shape but their professional capabilities were weighed higher than their physical capabilities.  That being said, enablers were not authorized company PT gear until they passed the indoc.  We always had really good HUMINT, EOD and SIGINT support.  If someone had an attitude, sucked at his job or didn't meet the standard he was given orders somewhere else.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 4, 2010)

The processes for SOF enablers trying to get to units other than SF generally include a records review, a basic assessment of physical, intellectual, and mental fitness, a demonstration of job proficiency, and an interview board.  Not all units utilize all areas I just mentioned, and the specifics of each organization is protected information.  The goal is to ensure that the individual has a basic level of physical and mental fitness, has no skeletons in the closet that could be detrimental to mission accomplishment, can perform his or her job at a high level, and can fit in with the culture of the gaining unit.

Unless something has changed recently, the process for intel enablers going to Group is the same needs-of-the-Army, requirements-driven process that fills the rest of the Army.  A guy could go to 10th Group just as easily as 10th Mountain.  MI Branch will send an individual who meets the standards of grade for the open billet, irrespective of a lot of other considerations that most of us would consider important.  This means that some good people get to Group, and some pretty crummy people get there.  The problem with the crummy people getting there is that they tend to stick around because they know they have it good there, and they can't function well in Big Army.  Because they suck, the 18-series folks stop relying on them and start doing whatever enabler task it is themselves, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle of unmet low expectations from enablers.

I want to make clear here that I'm speaking from my own experience and am in no way trying to bash SF or intel, just to point out a problem.  Moreover, my experience was limited to one Group, others may have had different experiences.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 4, 2010)

That sounds like a pretty good selection process.  You can't bounce out non performers from group?  Released for standards?


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Dec 4, 2010)

Speaking from the  perspective of one Group and one Batt., you can  bounce out non performers from  Group. I've watched it happen. Guys are dbags and they are sent down the road to another unit.   I've also seen a guy moved from the SOT-B section to supply for failing to put out. (nothing against supply)

When Group was recruiting for SOT-A at DLI the recruiters were doing an interview/PFT. Our section interviews new guys before allowing them in. Two were turned away last month. All of this seems to fall on leadership. This wasn't always the case though.

Why doesn't the SOT-A just conduct a indoc like the Radio Recon Platoon bubbas on the Marine side?


----------



## Etype (Dec 4, 2010)

The selection process for Group support guys is showing up to basic, ait, and jump school.  That's about it.  Guys go there straight out jump school.


----------



## moobob (Dec 4, 2010)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> Why doesn't the SOT-A just conduct a indoc like the Radio Recon Platoon bubbas on the Marine side?



The mission still gets accomplished on the shoulders of the competent guys. I think that very few people realize there is a problem, or that there is a better way of doing business. Of those few, noone is willing to put pen to paper and come up with what Mara is basically laying out for them... or build the system necessary for fixing this.

With OPTEMPO and everything else that is going on, I don't think this issue has really been anyone's priority.


----------



## moobob (Dec 4, 2010)

Also, these support indoctrination training programs that have come and gone within the individual Groups are well intentioned, but don't do anything to solve the problem... You're still getting needs of the Army troops, for "elite" units. Certain support MOS's in Group are pretty much guaranteed to deploy with ODA's and see combat on a regular basis... You'd think this would be a bigger priority among the leadership than it has been.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 4, 2010)

Etype said:


> The selection process for Group support guys is showing up to basic, ait, and jump school.  That's about it.  Guys go there straight out jump school.



Yes, I agree.  And sometimes they don't even go to jump school first .  They're "selected" by their branch managers, who only look at pay grade and MOS.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 4, 2010)

Teufel said:


> That sounds like a pretty good selection process.  You can't bounce out non performers from group?  Released for standards?



You can boot enablers out of Group, but it takes the same pain-in-the-ass admin process that it takes in a conventional unit.  There is no RFS because there is no standard to which they are being held, except for the general Army standard, unless it's an arbitrary standard imposed by the individual's chain of command.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Dec 4, 2010)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> Speaking from the perspective of one Group and one Batt., you can bounce out non performers from Group. I've watched it happen. Guys are dbags and they are sent down the road to another unit. I've also seen a guy moved from the SOT-B section to supply for failing to put out. (nothing against supply)
> 
> Our section interviews new guys before allowing them in. Two were turned away last month. All of this seems to fall on leadership. This wasn't always the case though.



This is also with a Guard unit. All of this transpired after a change in leadership happened at the company and section level.
Before....not so much


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 5, 2010)

I was thinking about this thread today in church (it was a long sermon) and I think I made a fundamental error.

What I should have done either before writing this thesis, or as a part of it, is to establish the parameters to validate whether or not a problem exists in the first place.  If there is no problem, then no solution is required.

I *think* there is a problem with no AST pipeline for enablers, but I'm not in charge of anything related to SF anymore and haven't been for years.  Maybe the situation with enablers in Group is the way it is because the people in charge at the Group level and below want it that way; maybe enabler support is adequate as is and does not require the application of resources to develop and implement.  I don't think that's the case, but I shouldn't assume.

What I should have done was survey all of the Group commanders, CSMs, S2s, MID and GSC commanders and their respective SEAs, some folks at USASFC and SWCS, and a sampling of team members and 18-series types at the company levels.  Even if only half of the people surveyed responded, I would have gotten a feel for what expectations of enablers are from the people who they support, and could have relied on something more relevant than my own intuition to start building the EAST program.  If I were to do it again or if someone else were to take what I've done and built on it, I'd recommend gathering quantifiable data to frame the problem first, before coming up with the solution.

I still think EAST would benefit SF enormously, but I should have checked to see what is needed first before coming up with an elaborate plan.  The only thing worse than needing help is getting "help" you didn't ask for, don't want, and can't use.  I've been there...


----------



## Brill (Dec 5, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> I was thinking about this thread today in church (it was a long sermon) and I think I made a fundamental error.
> 
> What I should have done either before writing this thesis, or as a part of it, is to establish the parameters to validate whether or not a problem exists in the first place.  If there is no problem, then no solution is required...
> 
> I still think EAST would benefit SF enormously, but I should have checked to see what is needed first before coming up with an elaborate plan.  The only thing worse than needing help is getting "help" you didn't ask for, don't want, and can't use.  I've been there...



Who wrote this in post #5?  ;)




> I've talked with a couple of the senior people at USASFC and SWCS, and  have some things lined up with USASOC.  There's actually a little more  support for some type of screening/assessment process for enablers than I  expected.  USASOC even has a draft plan.



You're just sayin' what everyone else is thinkin'.  ALL the posts in this thread advocate SOME type of improvement to the SF support elements.


----------



## moobob (Dec 5, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> What I should have done either before writing this thesis, or as a part of it, is to establish the parameters to validate whether or not a problem exists in the first place.  If there is no problem, then no solution is required.



The first step is admitting you have a....

As I alluded to before, I don't think very many people out there realize that there is a problem... and there is definitely a problem. The mission still gets accomplished, and always has gotten accomplished. Your average Special Forces ODA is going to accomplish any mission with very little regard to how adequate their support is.

So, if they get a dirtbag attached, it is usually an inconvenience and not something that is going to equal mission failure. SF should have a near-guarantee that the guys supporting them are the top 10% of their field, but until SF demands that... not gonna happen.


----------



## Brill (Dec 5, 2010)

Attached is a dated USMC Radio Recon Team PPT brief (in the process of getting more info) and here's a URL with some history with their selection course http://www.radioreconplt.com/history.htm

I know that NavSpecWar TacInfoOps for CTIs (a Navy 35P) have an interview, records screen, and PT test (similar to an Airborne PFT).  Both USMC and USN do NOT accept first tour intel guys: must have experience before applying to their respective programs.

(Added for a different perspective how the other tactical SOF S2-type units select their people.)


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 5, 2010)

One of the prerequisites is "no badge hunters,"   lol

That looks like a very good example of a tailored AST program for intel enablers going to that particular unit.  I wonder what their thruput is, how much it costs, and what the unit thinks of the program.


----------



## Brill (Dec 5, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> I wonder what their thruput is, how much it costs, and what the unit thinks of the program.



I'm on it and will let you know soonest.


----------



## KBAR-04 (Dec 7, 2010)

You really want the best intel guys possible. Keep in mind as SF guys are mostly employed as part of JSOTF's(at least lately) that your intel support is multi service.I was the J2 supporting the 3rd group, as well as numerous coalition allies and I had a staff composed of all the services. You do need guys experienced in the employment of SOF and their requirements as well as being well  versed in the threat.


----------



## moobob (Dec 21, 2010)

There is an article written by a former GSC commander (3rd) in the current issue of Special Warfare Magazine that has a proposed support selection program.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 21, 2010)

He better have cited my article ;)

Do you have a link?  The latest edition I found online ended in like July and I didn't see anything about A&S.


----------



## moobob (Dec 21, 2010)

Negative, current edition isn't up online. Don't think you were quoted, and the proposed program and entire article is very similar to yours iirc.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2010)

moobob said:


> Don't think you were quoted, and the proposed program and entire article is very similar to yours iirc.



Stephen Ambrose approves.

Break---

I'll never understand sending some of the world's best doorkickers down range and supporting them with enablers determined by chance, with little specialized training, and deploying them with a devil-may-care attitude.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 22, 2010)

From a marksmanship/weapons training view and only a training view, I have found that most of the SF support that came through our training a few years back were not adequately trained. However this was the case for conventional support as well. I found that there was a lot of talk from all sides “well I was showed this by this ODA” seemed to be the most used line.

On the other side I was very involved in training some MI personnel from the 201’st MI Btn (conventional interrogators), where a group was being prepped for some special teams (I can’t remember what they called them). But these soldiers were a mixed group, some took training very serious and some got sent packing. The soldiers who took it serious left the training locked the fuck on, and I would have took any one of them into combat.

With these past experiences, I would say that there should be a training regime. Whatever you want to call it (Indoc, selection, assessment ect). Ranger Regiment seems to have it right, at least on paper from what I can tell. Have a standardized training course that provides enhanced skills, that also acts as screening process for the individual soldier. If they are not performing to standard or giving 100%, then send them down the road. I don’t believe this needs to be a special course or standardized through all of SF, but it could be done as a Grp or Btn level commander course.

I am surprised that this is not already being done (or maybe it is I would not know) but it is nothing new. As a NG soldier I had to go through a 15 day AT Indoc to just go to the Btn scout plt, it was no special big deal and was not even required for the other btn’s. Just our Btn who did it, and we ended up conducting it for other Btn’s who did not have an Indoc.


----------



## RetPara (Dec 23, 2010)

DISCLAIMER.  The following is based on information on the situation upon my retirement in 1995.... a little dated.

Damn...  you kids are rehashing this shit....  AGAIN?

The title of this thread is mis-leading.  This is not about improving the quality of intell support to SF units.  It's really about how to have quality people assigned and build credibility in garrison with the ODA's.  IF you were really talking about better Intell support, I doubt that such a conversation could take place below compartment-ed level.

The assignment of personnel to SF MI units has been a topic since at least the late 70's.

I will not speak to the specific topic of SOT-A's, but generically to the topic of MI personnel in general.

So I will start at the root issue.

*"How do you get quality people assigned to USASFC MI units?"*
a.  PERSCOM (or whatever they're calling it this week) try's to work on the round peg in the round hold system.  This is especially true in Enlisted assignments.  Till you hit the MSG/1SG (P) you are at the mercy of the assignment CLERK (GS-5) who works for a civil service assignments manager.  The NCO who is the latest Branch Manager....  is there to key those pesky soldiers out of the civilians hair.  To create any type of quality control will take an initiative from USASFC G-1 supported by USASOC and USSOCOM's "1" shop.  Pulling the control of assignments like that is a major challenge as their sticky little paws will just hang on with a death grip like its the last beer at a Friday Rehab party.

b.  CONUS to CONUS PCS has to be approved.

c.  Generally PERSCOM will attempt to assign airborne troops to SF support... but if they run out...  It's meat market time.

d.  The Ranger Regiment has an established program for support troops coming to the Regiment.  SF could do the same; IF they pushed for it.

e.  There is/was a ASI for Intell Weenies for SOF Support.  Don't know if it's still used or not.

f.  SF is unique in that the 18 series has their Operations\Intelligence Course (ASI?).  These are Senior NCO's, not lower enlisted or junior NCO's.


*"Challenges Unique To SF Intell Support"*
a.  Predominately in the Army the most active Intelligence Analysts are the Specialist Mafia and Junior NCO's.  By the time an Intell Weenie becomes a Senior NCO, they're doing mostly NCO shit and damn little Intell shit.

b.  The analysts from the Group or Bn are those who have to interact directly with the ODA's.  Generally with the ODA Intell Sgt (ODA IS), who is a senior SFC or even a MSG.  Not a good fit.  While the MI troop may have a good background, sometimes the ODA IS has been studying the culture, language, and area for several years and may have on the ground time.  This is not a good fit.  While the anlayst brings access to HSLD info, the ODA IS may have issues dealing with a support person who is much younger, different gender, and of some what lower rank.  I have often seen instances of the ODA IS not wanting any kind of a finished product; but wants the analyst just to feed them raw intell and stay out of the way. (Seen it happen more than once.)


*"The Cure"*

USASFC has to establish a multi-week, central "Orientation Program" at Fort Bragg for ALL non-18 Series Officers, NCO's, and Soldiers.  If the program is NOT successfully complete they are reassigned on the specific home post.  The Ranger's have established their support soldiers program since 9/11.

No first tour Intell people assigned.  That includes reclassified NCO's.  Second tour in MI at a minimum.

The above is the easy part.  Gaining acceptance and credibility in the eyes of the ODA IS's and their teams.  That can only be accomplished by getting the MI folks down with the teams.  This will have to come down from USASFC G-3 in their annual training guidance.  ODA's will often deploy with a support slice.  This slice needs to be incorporated into ODA training and funding for training.


----------



## surgicalcric (Dec 23, 2010)

RetPara said:


> f.  SF is unique in that the 18 series has their Operations\Intelligence Course (ASI?).  These are Senior NCO's, not lower enlisted or junior NCO's.



It is a SF MOS not an ASI, 18F.  He is also either an E6 or E7 not generally an E8 though I have seen exceptions to this on certain teams...


----------



## RetPara (Dec 24, 2010)

I've seen variations on the theme with the Tm Cdr, Tm Sgt, Tm Intell Sgt were the ones running the effort also.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jan 3, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> I do agree there should be a selection process for ALL support guys wishing to come over to SF.  I like the Green Platoon idea and believe it should focus on a candidate's ability to perform their job (all MOS's) to the proficiency needed by SF, in the conduct of our core mission(s).
> 
> Just some observations and opinions based on working with SOT-A's...
> 
> Crip



There is a 'Robin Sage' type exercise in the works for SOT-A's / CA / and the CRD's....soon to be announced.

This is a type of selection process for all involved. I'll post more when I know more.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2011)

RB said:


> There is a 'Robin Sage' type exercise in the works for SOT-A's / CA / and the CRD's....soon to be announced.
> 
> This is a type of selection process for all involved. I'll post more when I know more.



Jesus, that means SOT-As are going to have to be trained in a real school vice OJT.  Who's going to instruct?  We (35P_S) are already at 75%...there's nobody left to pull from.  A good Det SGT would never "let" one of his top performers leave the line to go teach.  I see contractors filling the role.

I'm looking forward to the details RB.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 3, 2011)

Isn't Robin Sage a culmination exercise?  What training are they going to get in advance of the exercise, and what screening criteria are in place to make sure they're cut out for the job before the exercise even takes place?


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jan 3, 2011)

lindy said:


> Jesus, that means SOT-As are going to have to be trained in a real school vice OJT.  Who's going to instruct?  We (35P_S) are already at 75%...there's nobody left to pull from.  A good Det SGT would never "let" one of his top performers leave the line to go teach.  *I see contractors filling the role.*
> 
> I'm looking forward to the details RB.



Bingo. SF contractors and retired CA O's from the Intel side.

We've also had CA in the classroom for the last few years teaching ASK and the next level of 'upperclassmen' CA is on the hook to attend the 'advanced course'.

The Intel 'selection' that you'll see will include the MID's side by side with SF in the field so that the newer soldiers will understand their role upon arriving to the Det's.

Dated, but this is unclass and is a review of the type training to be included.

Slides 15-17 are mentionable, but the new contract should be awarded soon and will be an eye-opener to the Intel support field.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/43/4385/A438574.html


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Jan 3, 2011)

I heard a rumor 6 months ago of a SOT-A school starting up at Bragg...

I'm assuming this is only for newly enlisted soldiers?


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 27, 2011)

Has anyone read the manual on the subject matter on the SOCOM highside page?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 27, 2011)

Manual on what subject matter?  Someone devised an enabler training program so complicated it has to be classified?


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 28, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Manual on what subject matter?  Someone devised an enabler training program so complicated it has to be classified?




"Intelligence support to SOF"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 28, 2011)

I'll check it out when I'm at work next week.


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2011)

Short and to the point.  I like it!

No.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 28, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Manual on what subject matter?  Someone devised an enabler training program so complicated it has to be classified?




forgot... not called an "enabler" any more...


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jan 28, 2011)

lindy said:


> Staying on topic...kind of...do you have any insight how the 75th RR made the transition to the RSTB?  My experience was before they got the MICO.



A little late to the party.

They had to make concessions with having support personnel go through RIP/ROP during that time and started advertising openings heavily for qualified applicants.  This was when Regiment incorporated the wear of the maroon beret to distinguish those from RIP/ROP graduates.  Once the formation of RSTB and E co slots had stabilized they sent all those that did not attend RIP/ROP to a mini assessment were they received their tan beret.  Failure meant possible reassignment but I saw that more for those support NCO's and Officer's who failed to attend and graduate Ranger School.

There were some growing pains and enough dissatisfaction to go around with the process that once everything was operational they went back to the "one standard for all". RIP/ROP/RASP


----------



## Brill (Feb 12, 2011)

Any updates re: Selection for Direct Support personnel?

On a side note...I recently saw a memo regarding a request for SDAP and a selection was mentioned (as well as special skills required, screening process, limited eligibility, yadda, yadda yadda).


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Mar 3, 2011)

lindy said:


> Any updates re: Selection for Direct Support personnel?
> 
> On a side note...I recently saw a memo regarding a request for SDAP and a selection was mentioned (as well as special skills required, screening process, limited eligibility, yadda, yadda yadda).




I'm curious as well, anything new?


----------

