Really? I would be extremely interested in hearing a validated response as to "Why."
Okay, first off I had had around 5 beers at the time of writing this, two of them being of the 6% variety, and another 3 one being that bells 30th anniversary and the expedition stout to compare it to, and a St Bernardus Christmas ale coming in at 11%, 10.5 and 10 percent respectively so I might have been a bit silly in the end with the prolonged ooorah and no qualifiers with comments such as this. Its 10pm when I saw this and Im just getting over the hangover after sleeping most of the day. My humble apologies.
Next to address this point, this was a view totally, arbitrarily, contrived. I should have said that this conception in my mind might have had nothing to do with reality. My impressions of Rangers were mostly from the Bowden book, no real world experience with them whatsoever, and this is where I got the idea (like in my post it was just that, AN IDEA) the leadership seemed to be lacking. I mean in the book they seemed incompetent and relying on the CAG dudes to lead them. Being a Marine I always found our NCOs heads and tails above others in any branch on the big side of things, and perhaps the BHD book played into that perception in a "I can totally see that" way in my mind.
Now with a little bit more knowledge from dealing with Rangers and Ranger tabbed folk, I can see their method of leadership is much more congruent with that of the Marine Corps philosophy than of the big army and is top notch. That and more research on just what the Rangers do. I really wasn't all that interested in them back in the day as the prevailing thought in the Marines and even some in the army was that the Rangers were "the Army's Marines". That was just what we thought. We were wrong.
My view that they have evolved (a lot) and have become much more refined stands however. Yeah everybody's TTPs evolved, but the Rangers to me seemed to have made a huge leap.
It was NOT my intent to offend rather the opposite. So sorry.
You've been to SFAS? When?
SF guys' GT scores average about the same as those for Intel people, but you knew that, right?
Sep 2005. Yes I did sir. We had a fuel guy attend the brief in Wurzburg. He could not attend SFAS because of this heheh.
My post did mention specifically DA so thats why I referred to "smarter ones go to CAG". This was just a "best and brightest" saying FOR DA. Would I be incorrect that the smartest and best physically of Rangers would be the guys to make it into that group? SF is absolutely the same, but as I said I think since he was looking at Rangers, Id imagine he was looking at their mission set as well, which if he was "la creme de la creme" then for that mission set you'd go for that group. I would never slight SF and have much love for guys there. I essentially came into the army to go SF. I know I joined the Marine Corps first, and Im glad I did, but growing up, seeing movies or documentaries, the guys I thought were the best or perhaps coolest were the Green Berets. Hell, my favorite GI freaking Joes were Flint and Falcon heheh. Sorry Rangers.
The "smart as an intel guy" was just being kind of funny or allegorical. I know the SF guys have the 110 GT requirement and I would imagine other SOF units would as well (as Freefalling pointed out). I was not trying to slight anyone. Not sure why some are thinking that way.... Im on this forum for the opposite reason.
My humblest apologies!