Peacetime role of the regiment?

[DA SWO]

I have great faith in the Army's ability to bring back spits and starches. Otherwise I agree.
Reed

Not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Spits and starches are fucking retarded.

You know what you have? FUCKING CLASS B's. WEAR THEM INSTEAD. Seriously. Fuck taking a tactical uniform and damaging it permanently as well as taking field gear and never actually being able to use it for the field.... wear the shit you're issued specifically for that purpose.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Not necessarily a bad thing.

While appearance is a part of good order and discipline, too many regular Army career E-6's felt that their ability to soldier hinged solely on freshly starched BDUs and spit-shined jump boots. Many of these career E-6's would spot Rusty on any given Army post on any given day while wearing a PC (like a baseball cap) rather than a beret and yell: "Yo soulja, fix yo head gear!"

 

[Muppet]

I never was a Ranger but life in the 82nd. (mid. 90's) was similar with spits and inspections. Always had to have starched B.D.U.'s and spit shined either jungles or jump boots. Laying the TA-50 on the poncho on your bed was retarded also. You know what else was retarded? Wearing the starched B.D.U.'s to the motor pool for P.M.C.S. of the ambulances. What's the point? Only time we wore P.C.'s were in the field. Always wore the berets. Hell, in Saudi Arabia we had to rake the fucking sand for inspection and that was during a fucking deployment. Dudes were starching the desert B.D.U.'s and boonie caps. W.T.F.

F.M.

 

[AWP]

Dudes were starching the desert B.D.U.'s and boonie caps. W.T.F.

That craze hit Bagram for about 6-8 months in 2009 or early 2010. Starched ACU's/ ABU's...

The reality is that there's some future CSM or Battalion Commander out there who will bring it back, or at least try.

As to my original post, my thanks to @amlove21 for "getting it." I can't speak to the Regiment's needs, but if the emotional cost of serving in a peacetime military is too much, stay at home. High and tights? Polished boots for the motor pool? Madre de Dios! While I think they are stupid, someone will bring them back. The good units will continue to prepare men (and now women) to earn an arrowhead device on their next campaign ribbon. The bad will think Jessica Lynch can't happen to them.

Personally, I'd take the haircut. YMMV

 

[goon175]

but if the emotional cost of serving in a peacetime military is too much, stay at home.

I think that is precisely what is/may happen.

 

[goon175]

So, @Marauder06 just wrote something over in the NSW forum that I think directly applies to the Regiment. I took his post and changed a few things, mainly replacing "SEAL" with "Ranger", changes are in bold:

A comparative advantage implies that you produce a marketable product more effectively than your competitors. The "comparative" part of "comparative advantage" means there is something else with which to compare one's own production. The clear implication here is that Rangers do DA better than everyone else. I'd be interested to see how the author quantifies the implication that SEALs do DA better and that they produce more effective DA forces comparative to other SOF units.

The problem with comparative advantage is, of course, that it's possible to over-specialize in one area of trade to the exclusion of other production possibilities. This means when the market in your one particular good is saturated, or if no one is buying, then you have specialized yourself out of the market.

IMO, the SOF "market" is saturated with people who do competent DA: SEALs, SF, Rangers, Delta, MARSOC, etc. Every one of those organizations is going to be competing for missions, money, and manpower as our military constricts. Again IMO, organizations that are able to satisfy more national-level requirements are going to be better postured to ensure their long-term legitimacy and relevancy. Those who choose to overspecialize, especially in something like DA which many might consider the least complicated of SOF's traditional missions, might run the risk of getting left behind in the funding and operational use battles that are coming up or getting rolled up into someone else's task force instead of operating independently.

Lycurgus and other SEAL members, are you concerned that the evolution to a "we do DA only" Ranger force might ultimately mean the marginalization of Rangers in the long term? The next commander of SOCOM is likely not going to be a SEAL, and it is not likely that another SEAL will head up JSOC in the near future. With the drawdown, a reduction in missions, and commanders coming from other communities, is it wiser to focus the Ranger mission more narrowly, or to open the aperture?

 

[Ranger Psych]

The thing is... every single mission the 75th has ever taken on sans historical unit lineage (LRRP as a prime example) has been solely focused on DA missions.

Airfield seizures
High value/importance targets
Raids

It's what we always trained for. Over the course of a decade plus we executed those primary missions of the airfield stuff, then follow on missions were..... Raids, ambushes, more raids, and some face time we had to learn how to do on the fly... and could learn to do primarily due to the higher requirements of the Regiment as far as both individual Rangers as well as within the command structure of the Regiment itself.

Did things get refined to a specific science within the confines of the assets at our disposal, new resources pushed to us, etc? Hell yeah. The thing is, all of the refinement is directly applicable to the big "basic missions" that the Regiment will always be tasked with first, for future battlefields.

This isn't in any way trying to marginalize the additional duties and capabilities within the Regiment for other activities... but both the entry into Afghanistan and Iraq specifically demonstrated the continuing ability of Regiment to "do what we're meant to do"... kick ass, take airfields, then continue to kick ass in every follow-on that higher thinks up. Even if it's shit we have honestly never done before.

 

[YoSoyMuyImportante]

...Funding. The Regiment enjoyed some VERY generous funding during the GWOT years, even above what some other SOF units were getting. Will we see this go away, stay the same, or even increase?...

As far as this one goes, being in supply I've witnessed firsthand the effects that the drawback of the GWOT has had on funding. For example, all funding for me to make purchases has been frozen for at least the next three months. Instead, I had to submit a list of essentials that I thought we might consume in that time period and the PBO is making a battalion-wide purchase for all companies. Dividing up the total cost of the purchase, it's severely less than we would normally get on a month to month basis, and we can't even make LPR's. On top that, this last deployment, it was uncharacteristically difficult to get most of our purchases approved. Under normal circumstances, we have no issue whatsoever getting whatever we ask for.

 

[goon175]

As far as this one goes, being in supply I've witnessed firsthand the effects that the drawback of the GWOT has had on funding. For example, all funding for me to make purchases has been frozen for at least the next three months. Instead, I had to submit a list of essentials that I thought we might consume in that time period and the PBO is making a battalion-wide purchase for all companies. Dividing up the total cost of the purchase, it's severely less than we would normally get on a month to month basis, and we can't even make LPR's. On top that, this last deployment, it was uncharacteristically difficult to get most of our purchases approved. Under normal circumstances, we have no issue whatsoever getting whatever we ask for.

Thats not a good sign if things are that tight while were still deploying...

 

[DA SWO]

As far as this one goes, being in supply I've witnessed firsthand the effects that the drawback of the GWOT has had on funding. For example, all funding for me to make purchases has been frozen for at least the next three months. Instead, I had to submit a list of essentials that I thought we might consume in that time period and the PBO is making a battalion-wide purchase for all companies. Dividing up the total cost of the purchase, it's severely less than we would normally get on a month to month basis, and we can't even make LPR's. On top that, this last deployment, it was uncharacteristically difficult to get most of our purchases approved. Under normal circumstances, we have no issue whatsoever getting whatever we ask for.

Thats not a good sign if things are that tight while were still deploying...

I would bet that part of that is fallout from the Iraq draw down where we ordered stuff without checking to see if it was available.

Budget is going to be tight, guys who have lived wartime funding for a decade will have to make a huge adjustment as funding dries up, even for the high speed units.

 

[goon175]

So, it seems that the long term policy in Afghanistan is to withdraw the majority of troops, only leaving behind small elements for training and counter terror operations:

the Strategic Partnership Agreement commits Afghanistan to provide U.S. personnel access to and use of Afghan facilities through 2014 and beyond. The Agreement provides for the possibility of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014, for the purposes of training Afghan Forces and targeting the remnants of al-Qaeda, and commits the United States and Afghanistan to initiate negotiations on a Bilateral Security Agreement to supersede our current Status of Forces Agreement.

source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-in-afghanistan/

I am predicting that the 75th will be among the units that still deploy in support of CT operations post-2014, although I don't believe they will be deploying as a battalion. I think a company or two per rotation is likely, and missions per deployment will be in the single digits, with much of the trip being devoted to training. Also, I think it will be likely that we either enter another conflict or have short term engagements similar to what we saw in the 80's and 90's that the 75th will be involved in.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

So, it seems that the long term policy in Afghanistan is to withdraw the majority of troops, only leaving behind small elements for training and counter terror operations:


source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-in-afghanistan/

I am predicting that the 75th will be among the units that still deploy in support of CT operations post-2014, although I don't believe they will be deploying as a battalion. I think a company or two per rotation is likely, and missions per deployment will be in the single digits, with much of the trip being devoted to training. Also, I think it will be likely that we either enter another conflict or have short term engagements similar to what we saw in the 80's and 90's that the 75th will be involved in.

This isn't meant to sound sarcastic at all but- do you truly believe the US would enter a "major" conflict in the next 5 years, what with the national attitude being what it is after OIF and with the continuation of OEF? Save for a major Pearl Harbor/ 9-11 type attack that rallies people across social, economic and party lines, it seems the chances for the U.S. entering into anything on par with what has been going on in Iraq or Afghanistan seems slim.

 

[racing_kitty]

Save for a major Pearl Harbor/ 9-11 type attack that rallies people across social, economic and party lines, it seems the chances for the U.S. entering into anything on par with what has been going on in Iraq or Afghanistan seems slim.

My personal opinion is that we would have to eat a nuke before we get involved in another conflict that has even a remote chance of a united populace standing behind it within the next five years, maybe even ten. Even with the fallout falling, there will be talking heads on at least one channel asking if we really deserve to strike back, and shouldn't we instead take it because "we had it coming."

 

[DA SWO]

This isn't meant to sound sarcastic at all but- do you truly believe the US would enter a "major" conflict in the next 5 years, what with the national attitude being what it is after OIF and with the continuation of OEF? Save for a major Pearl Harbor/ 9-11 type attack that rallies people across social, economic and party lines, it seems the chances for the U.S. entering into anything on par with what has been going on in Iraq or Afghanistan seems slim.

So you forsee peace and tranquility in Korea and Iran over the next four to eight years?

 

[goon175]

This isn't meant to sound sarcastic at all but- do you truly believe the US would enter a "major" conflict in the next 5 years, what with the national attitude being what it is after OIF and with the continuation of OEF? Save for a major Pearl Harbor/ 9-11 type attack that rallies people across social, economic and party lines, it seems the chances for the U.S. entering into anything on par with what has been going on in Iraq or Afghanistan seems slim.

Maybe not five years, but I would say another conflict within 10-15 years. I very well could be wrong, but I guess you could call it a gut feeling. As far as a short term Grenada/Panama-like engagement, I feel comfortable saying something like that will crop up in the next 4-7 years.

 

[racing_kitty]

So you forsee peace and tranquility in Korea and Iran over the next four to eight years?

I would be more worried about Iran than I would the Norks. Not that I foresee any member of the Kim line ever exhibiting anything close to a modicum of sanity or decency, mind you. It's just that Baby Kim has more important shit to worry about than whether or not a Taepodong II could ever hope to hit anything besides the Pacific Ocean (god knows what that might be). If anyone in the US, UN, or any other organization were worried about the plight of the North Koreans, we'd have done something long before now.

The Iranians, OTOH, have religious fervor, patience, and fatalism going for them. They have nary a fuck to give, and they will exploit that. Not to mention I'm sure someone somewhere will provide them with whatever technological knowledge they need that they haven't reverse engineered already.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

So you forsee peace and tranquility in Korea and Iran over the next four to eight years?

I don't see us getting involved in Iran, no. Korea- who knows what will happen there. I'm inclined to think it will be the same old saber rattling for years to come.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

Maybe not five years, but I would say another conflict within 10-15 years. I very well could be wrong, but I guess you could call it a gut feeling. As far as a short term Grenada/Panama-like engagement, I feel comfortable saying something like that will crop up in the next 4-7 years.

I agree on the small scale engagements. And you're right- who really knows what could happen? 9/11 was out of the blue. Pearl Harbor certainly had some warning signs (not saying FDR let it happen or anything, just that war was already on the horizon with Japan). I doubt any of the WWII vets thought they would be back in East Asia only 5 years later.

 

[DA SWO]

I can see China engineered (helping) a Korean conflict to open Taiwon up for them.

Eventually Iran will get it together, and do something stupid requiring a military response.