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

[Brill]

Cback,

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

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

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

 

[TLDR20]

Cback,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TLDR20]

Cback,

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

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

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

 

[moobob]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[moobob]

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

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

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

 

[TLDR20]

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

 

[moobob]

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

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

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

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

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

 

[MilkTruckCoPilot]

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

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

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

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

Just my .02

 

[surgicalcric]

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

This has been addressed before J.

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

 

[moobob]

This has been addressed before J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[surgicalcric]

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

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

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

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

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

Besides this thread isnt about SFAS, its about EAST

 

[Brill]

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

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

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

Just my .02

Milk Truck,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[surgicalcric]

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

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

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

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

 

[shortbrownguy]

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

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

 

[Brill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[shortbrownguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

SBG sends.

 

[RetPara]

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

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

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

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

 

[Marauder06]

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

 

[Marauder06]

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