PSYOP in Rangers, and Enabler Support to SF

[surgicalcric]

<<SNIP>> Cynically one could say "Well, that's why you're SF. You're trained to deal with the situations, so deal with it." That's a cop out, but I'll bet that's the argument some will put forward...

On more than one occasion Brother.

Its always quantity over quality with command and the inverse down at the ODA level. If the guys who are supposed to be supporting me require their hands being held to do their jobs then I will save myself the time and just do it myself.

I talked with my BN CDR a few weeks ago about the need for an A&S to identify support guys who have what we are looking for and to weed out those who arent what we need. He seems dedicated to it so I am going to work on the implementation plan while I am here.

We have gone far too long accepting whatever the various branch managers decide to send - fuck that...

Crip

 

[Squidward]

A pizza cutter? That's a new one for me. I like it.

The movie Saving Private Ryan comes to mind.

It's a numbers game. Always has been. Oh this team doesn't have insert MOS here? Well PFC Shmeckass here is an insert MOS here. We'll send him out there. It's not fair play on a lot of grounds, and it's terribly reckless.

 

[goon175]

Honestly, a lot of these issues would not be issues if Basic COMBAT Training did what it was supposed to do.

Just sayin'

 

[Squidward]

Well we shouldn't really even have to do basic combat training anymore in my opinion. All we should really have to do with recruits is give them a uniform, a bunch of gear and tell them they're warriors.

I'm unsure of why we didn't think of this before.

 

[Brill]

This is the image I always think of when I see "Harden the fuck up".

By the time we got back everyone just wanted to wash their hands of him and expedite his departure. Guy ended up getting sent out to another team and getting fired again after only a week or so. He works permanently, harmlessly up at Bagram now. As far as what was going through my mind, I think I remember saying to myself, "This is it. Where's it going to come from?" Luckily "it" didn't come until daybreak, and that was the day I almost ate an RPG. However, that's another story altogether.View attachment 7770

If this was recent, you sent that fuck show out to me and he didn't last long at all. We still get shit for it too.

 

[Squidward]

If this was recent, you sent that fuck show out to me and he didn't last long at all. We still get shit for it too.

It would've been back in October. We did send a different guy out recently though. PM inbound.

 

[Marauder06]

I don't doubt that. It is something we've discussed here more times than I can remember. Marauder06 has an entire soapbox built around it (righteously so in my opinion) and as a former support guy it sickens me to hear of shit like this. ...

I think that's my cue


"Enablers? Those guys aren't important!" ...said none of the top Army-majority SOF organizations other than SF.

I blame the individual for not being able to keep up with the people he supports.

I blame the Groups for tolerating this type of performance from their enablers, to the point where low enabler performance is almost expected.

I blame USASFC for not doing anything about it. Ever.



It's not that freakin' hard to fix this situation. Here it is three easy steps:

1) Initiate an enabler assessment, selection, and training program. Make it as big or as small as you want. But do it now. And put an enabler in charge of it, NOT an SF guy. If you put an SF guy in charge of it, it's going to become SFAS- and Q-course lite. You don't need a bunch of enablers who think they can do ODA jobs, what you need is for the ODAs to think that the enablers can do enabler jobs in support of the SF mission. You do that by ensuring enablers are good excellent at enabler jobs, not by trying to make them good at ODA tasks.

2) After you have screened, assessed, and trained your enablers, start holding them accountable. Get rid of the shitbags, don't just send them up to Bagram where they can brag about their time "with the teams" to Air Force chicks at Green Beans. Put it down on paper so it follows them the rest of their career, so they can't use "well when I was at Group..." to cover up their screwups when they're back with 10th Mountain instead of 10th Group. If you don't write it down, it never happened and these clowns will be milking credibility out of that USASFC combat patch for the rest of their career. Moreover, it'll be like a bad Poltergeist re-run "They're baaaa-ack!" because once you've been assigned to a Group, no matter how well or poorly they did there, you're much more likely to be re-assigned unless there is something in the guy's file to prevent it from happening.

3) Start treating your enablers as part of the team (the overall Group "team"), not as second-class citizens. That will make average ones better, and the good ones want to stay and not pop smoke for greener pastures and greater empowerment in other SOF formations.

 

[AWP]

And put an enabler in charge of it, NOT an SF guy. If you put an SF guy in charge of it, it's going to become SFAS- and Q-course lite.

Here's where we disagree.

I think that 18 series involvement is crucial and I think a mini-SFAS is in order. 1) Your customer will know what it takes to support him. 2) Events in SFAS are looking, in part, for teamwork and leadership in stressful situations. Besides, if enablers are expected to keep up with an ODA they should perform at an ODA's level physically. To be fair, if the enabler wants to do "cool guy" stuff, then he needs to man up and go all the way. If he wants to bring his skill sets to a Team and support the mission in that regard, then an SFAS-based process should be G2G. Also, by bringing in the 18 series CMF into the process it eliminates any complaints (or should) about the quality of soldier being chopped to an ODA. Otherwise you'll still have an us vs. them mentality when it needs to be like a football team: Offense and Defense are typically your "rock stars" but Special Teams can make or break a game. How many field goals have won or lost a big game? The kickers matter.

Just spit-balling, but I have to wonder if certain MOS' should be become a permanent part of a line company/ B Team through the dreaded MTOE revision. Now your customer REALLY has a say in who they want or not. Just a thought.

I'd also be so bold as to say that SF Support, CA, and whoever else should combine like an Enabler Voltron and all attend the same selection process. Ad hoc stuff in a unit is one thing, but if CA/ PSYOP guys are being attached to an ODA then we're back to some commonality in selection (again, looking at the customer's needs*), plus it brings all of the Army SOF enabler commands and staffs and everything together for funding, manning, and political purposes.

* - I'm sticking up for team guys...the end is nigh.

 

[Mad boomer]

100% agreed! I believe the Army fails to train personnel in the harsh realities of desperate times and difficult highly stressful events under extreme physical & mental duress. I firmly believe the Marine Corps does a much better job. Sorry but I feel that big Army is more concerned about with checking boxes and making everyone feeling good. They are less and less qualified to produce the product that can participate and support special units. Currently if the individual doesn't arrive on their own with the ability it won't be there.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I mean you get a new kid in your squad, the first thing you do is kick his junk it with road marches, PT, patrolling, and IMT/SUT until he starts to gel with the squad. I don’t know how you could do that with a support guy?

Sounds like they need to have tested standards within their respective fields, maybe an ASI that allows them to work with combat end of SOF? Oh wait, that’s right they are supposed to be Ranger tabbed. Well I guess when the standards are dropped, the quality drops.

Maybe SF can have a command decision to say “unless they meet the basic requirements (i.e. “V” asi) they cannot be assigned to any of the SFGs”? I bet that would stop from having to build an A&S, and would drop some of the concerns of “is this support guy ganna quit on me”.

Then again, you could come out with a few more 18 series MOS's that cover down on those support roles and have them go through the process, then know that they are trained to SF standards.

 

[Marauder06]

AFAIK, the only "V" coded intel slots in Group are the SOT-As. They make up an important, yet small, portion of overall enablers. "Ranger-qualified or nothing" is not a useful screening criteria for enablers in a Group.

 

[DA SWO]

I'd also be so bold as to say that SF Support, CA, and whoever else should combine like an Enabler Voltron and all attend the same selection process. Ad hoc stuff in a unit is one thing, but if CA/ PSYOP guys are being attached to an ODA then we're back to some commonality in selection (again, looking at the customer's needs*), plus it brings all of the Army SOF enabler commands and staffs and everything together for funding, manning, and political purposes.

* - I'm sticking up for team guys...the end is nigh.

I'd go as far as putting adding CA/PSYOP positions into the Group Support Co (or what ever it is called).

Too many Officer's do a tour in CA/PSYOP and then claim to be SOF experts.

 

[MilkTruckCoPilot]

AFAIK, the only "V" coded intel slots in Group are the SOT-As. They make up an important, yet small, portion of overall enablers. "Ranger-qualified or nothing" is not a useful screening criteria for enablers in a Group.

Agree

I guess it's worth mentioning that the new/only pipeline for SOT-A has an A&S requirement and the TL's need to be Ranger-qualified. This is discussed in depth in the SOF Enabler thread.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

AFAIK, the only "V" coded intel slots in Group are the SOT-As. They make up an important, yet small, portion of overall enablers. "Ranger-qualified or nothing" is not a useful screening criteria for enablers in a Group.

They make them go to BAC right? Why not Ranger school? I don't know any better and I am just talking out of my ass here, but it seems like an easy fix to me.

 

[MilkTruckCoPilot]

I mean you get a new kid in your squad, the first thing you do is kick his junk it with road marches, PT, patrolling, and IMT/SUT until he starts to gel with the squad. I don’t know how you could do that with a support guy?

Pretty easy considering this was done at my last unit. Then again we had our own seperate drills from the rest of Spt. Company.

 

[Marauder06]

They make them got BAC right? Why not Ranger school? I don't know any better and I am just talking out of my ass here, but it seems like an easy fix to me.

Are you talking everyone, or just SOT-As? If the former, it's not necessary for someone to be Ranger qualified to be a highly-competent enabler in an SF Group. It would be a good goal, but not a useful pre-screening standard.

My first detachment sergeant for the MID was non-Airborne-qualified but one hell of an NCO.

 

[Mad boomer]

The typical enablers are not mentally prepared or equipped to support these forces. I was assigned to a FID/UW CA unit that possessed a much higher PT standard and selection process as well as a Airborne unit (not that means anything). Many of our guys were former group dudes at that time. That has now changed as well as many things Army wide. There is also a problem with "Ranger" tabbing enablers and making them feel somewhat equal or as a peer with the SFGs or long tabbers if you will. Allot of whannbees end up here in CA or Phyop at times creating more more problems then they solve with the wrong mind-set. Its a fine line and one that is difficult. As a CAT-A Team Sergeant I saw many of these problems first hand.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Are you talking everyone, or just SOT-As? If the former, it's not necessary for someone to be Ranger qualified to be a highly-competent enabler in an SF Group. It would be a good goal, but not a useful pre-screening standard.

My first detachment sergeant for the MID was non-Airborne-qualified but one hell of an NCO.

LOL I have no idea who goes out with ODA’s or goes out and does whatever it is they do, but I am just looking at it from a simple concept of: if an ODA or XZY needs a guy who is going to be able to pull his weight, fight if need be and keep up, then an easy identifier would be someone with a ranger tab. Maybe not “every support guy” but “in order to go on a patrol must have Ranger tab” type thing.

I mean from the Infantry side of the house, I would not just grab some random support guy I know nothing about and take him on a patrol in the badlands. However, that same random support guy with a Ranger tab would gel a lot faster and reduce a lot of concerns.

 

[AWP]

Logistically, there's no way you could send enough support guys through Ranger school to be of any benefit. SOT-A's are V coded slots and they aren't at 100%, so adding more guys to the mix would fail.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I just don’t get that, I have met tons of CA/PSYOP, Signal, Intel, etc, etc in support roles with Ranger tabs. And that is just regular old grunt units.

Oh well, just figured I would toss some thoughts out, I will leave you guys to it now.