DarshSingh
Unverified
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2025
- Messages
- 7
I’m looking for informed perspectives from current or former Rangers / SOF personnel.
My long-term goal is to eventually assess for CAG (Delta). I understand that selection is independent of branch and that performance, maturity, and operational credibility matter more than titles — but I’m trying to decide which entry path best supports that end state.
I’m currently weighing two routes:
Option 1: Officer Route
Pros (as I see them):
- College → ROTC / OCS → Infantry Officer
- IBOLC → RASP 2 → Ranger Platoon Leader
- Progression through PL/XO time, company-grade leadership
Concerns:
- Earlier leadership experience
- Broader operational and planning exposure
- Strong professional development
Option 2: Enlisted Route
- Less direct trigger time
- Shorter window at the platoon level
- Risk of being pulled away from tactical roles earlier
Pros (as I see them):
- Enlist with Option 40
- RASP 1 → Ranger Battalion
- Team Leader / Squad Leader progression over multiple deployments
Concerns:
- Longer time in direct-action roles
- Deeper small-unit experience
- More sustained exposure to high-tempo operations
What I’m specifically trying to understand:
- Later access to higher-level planning and command
- Potential ceiling without commissioning later
I’m not asking for shortcuts — I’m prepared to earn my place either way. I just want to choose the path that best aligns with long-term performance, not ego.
- From a CAG assessment standpoint, does one background tend to prepare candidates better than the other?
- Is depth of enlisted experience valued more than breadth of officer leadership, or vice versa?
- For those who’ve seen both, which route realistically gives a better chance to build the kind of reputation and skill set selectors look for?
Appreciate any insight from those who’ve been there or worked alongside both.
To clarify: I’m not in a rush to assess. I’m focused on becoming excellent at whatever role I’m in first — Ranger first, everything else second.