PSYOP in Rangers, and Enabler Support to SF

[Mad boomer]

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.

Yes and No, you would be extremely hard pressed to find enough numbers of Ranger tabbed CA or Phyop guys to go around. Very, very few out there. On my last deployment we relieved in place members of our active component from the 96th CA. These guys were running around doing all kinds of whacked out projects with little to no real objectives or direction. The bulk of this CAT-A was former Infantry that were dead set on being action guys. Wells everywhere and tampering with the Aquafur as well as other problems. None of these folks are experts and have little to no professional experiences than being in the Army. Beards, ball caps and chopped up vehicles. They were operating like some rouge SF unit and playing the part. I won't bother going into long detail but many of these guys start losing sight of their specific missions and want to be a shooter. They left us a shit sandwich. If you want to do that go to selection or the Infantry and move on. That is not our lane nor do I want a bunch of guys thinking they are trigger pullers. If it goes south you have to drop the hammer but "Ranger tabbing" blanketly is not the solution nor would TRADOC buy into that. Besides that is supposed to be a leadership course... I really don't want a CA asset new in the Army going although that class / course and trying to apply that skill-set for "heart and minds". I think the course as described in this thread is a great solution. I would further recommend that New CA and PHYOP personnel complete basic infantry school. Hey but then again what do I know. A gut check class for 6 weeks including long duration field operations, smoke them. They could make that part of the basic course and do the job that needs to be done. Increase PT standards CA & Phyop wide not just at the FID/UW level.

 

[Marauder06]

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.

All ideas are welcome.

Part of the problem is an issue of scale. At its height I had a hundred + people (male and female) in my MID, there was a large section in the Group S2 shop, and each of the battalion had a small detachment. So we're probably talking... 150, 200 people. And that's just intel. The throughput of Ranger School, to accommodate all of the enablers in all seven Groups simply isn't there, even if everyone could pass the course, which of course they couldn't.

 

[moobob]

Probably most significant is when a Group support guy goes to Ranger School and fails. Then noone else gets to go for a year or two because of "that guy" who "wasted" the slot. Usually the Ranger slots go to SF soldiers, because they are inexperienced (off the street 18X when they were still coming in) and/or because they have officer/senior NCO leadership who have tabs and want their guys to have them too. Some people say that Ranger School influences senior enlisted promotion within SF, which isn't far fetched, not that it really makes any sense. There are also decent amount of SF guys that don't pass Ranger School for a lot of reasons, but support guys have to be twice as good to be considered to be worth half an SF soldier. Not complaining, just the nature of the beast.

 

[Mad boomer]

Most of the group dudes I know that have been through Ranger school went through prior to going through selection. The bulk of guys come from the Infantry and like units then everyone else as far as I knew 5 years ago and back. Of course all my buddies are now long retired so the stories all get bigger, the missions more dangerous & exciting and the women more beautiful. Funny the stories get better every year or every-time we get drunk in some distant place in a dark bar / lounge and start trading lies. They usually start with "there I was, no shit!". But then again what the hell do I know...

 

[moobob]

You're right. Most go prior. There is a pretty steady stream of SF qual'd guys that end up going though, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Squidward]

A tab and a title does not a man make.

Both in my mind signify a list of greater expectations. It's up to the individual to uphold the standard, and not every individual does. Name a tab, and there's plenty of examples of people that don't. SF guys are no exception. People slip through the cracks. However, once deficiencies in standards are identified, tabs and titles are often revoked as it should be, but it should never come to the point that an individual refuses to continue the mission because of lack of heart.

To mitigate that, I agree some sort of assessment should be in place for enablers, and I agree they shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. Ours never were/are. Especially young guys who can seriously benefit from good leadership. However, if there's one thing in which I agree the most it's permanent, negative marks on the record of sub-standard individuals wherever they go. Word of mouth simply isn't good enough.

 

[Mad boomer]

A tab and a title does not a man make.
Both in my mind signify a list of greater expectations. It's up to the individual to uphold the standard, and not every individual does. Name a tab, and there's plenty of examples of people that don't. SF guys are no exception. People slip through the cracks. However, once deficiencies in standards are identified, tabs and titles are often revoked as it should be, but it should never come to the point that an individual refuses to continue the mission because of lack of heart. To mitigate that, I agree some sort of assessment should be in place for enablers, and I agree they shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. Ours never were/are. Especially young guys who can seriously benefit from good leadership. However, if there's one thing in which I agree the most it's permanent, negative marks on the record of sub-standard individuals wherever they go. Word of mouth simply isn't good enough.

100% Perfect, on the mark...

 

[reed11b]

However, if there's one thing in which I agree the most it's permanent, negative marks on the record of sub-standard individuals wherever they go. Word of mouth simply isn't good enough.

If someone quit on a mission, I would say far more then a black mark. Chapter his ass out and fast. In the current RIF, decent soldiers are getting chaptered out for garrison BS, why keep someone who can't perform were it really counts?
Reed

 

[Brill]

Until the A&S becomes a reality and fully funded, those not meeting the standard should be relived and sent elsewhere. The quitter ref'd above has valuable skills and would make a significant contribution to the cause but outside of SOF.

A soldier with a weak mind or body makes life that much harder for the rest of us. BUT once we prove ourselves, we're in.

 

[moobob]

I wasn't referencing anyone specific.

Now personally, but I would never quit because I'm so gay for everyone. So glad I can say that now. Jack Johnson!

 

[surgicalcric]

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.

We dont need a (insert support MOS here) who is great at FM7-8 skills (with the exception of SOT-As); we need one who can perform his MOS without the assistance of (insert supervisor.)

SF needs a few things from its support slice(s):
1.) Know your job inside and out and be able to perform it with minimal supervision
2.) Be a team player
3.) Be trustworthy
4.) Be fit (level determined by whether they will be assigned to working along side an ODA or working for an ODA on the FOB/VSP or at the AOB/SOTF)

SF doesnt need support guys who:
1.) Dont know or cant perform their MOS duties
2.) Are only looking out for "me"
3.) Are slugs, have substance abuse or debt problems
4.) Think they are/should be Sniper, 18D, HALO, Scuba, Tactics, or ASO deities

MO6's proposal goes a long way to ensure an initial look at guys wanting to be assessed to Group is performed. Yearly performance eval's will weed through those who get lazy after they get to Group.

As for who should be in charge of the A&S, I agree with both MO6 and FF and disagree with both at the same time. It should not be a reduced version of SFAS but it should include team events, PT test (SOT-A candidates would also have a graded ruck), and MOS specific exams/proficiency tests. Interviews would be included as part of NCO/Officer evaluations.

Evaluators should represent a cross section of senior NCOs from across the GSB/BSC. This would include cooks, intel, mechanics, riggers, etc... There should be an 18-series presence whose number is based on amount of soldiers being assessed (no specific ratio comes to mind.) They would be primarily responsible for the range and medical training as well as medical coverage for physical events.

 

[DA SWO]

Would a "Recondo School" type of A & S work?

 

[RangerRowe]

I'm part of the contingent that's developing the SOT-A Pipeline. The course has actually already been validated and the career pipeline is fully developed. Five iterations of the pilot course have already been run and cadre to be assigned would be a mixture of experienced SOT-A's and 18 series with an E8 Ranger Tabbed SOT-A as the NCOIC. JFK SWC wants to own it and run it and 2 locations have been settled upon as being the final choice with one already having held the five earlier events during the pilot iteration. The problems with it though do not lie with the course but with the highest levels of the Army.

When I started working on this thing 3 years ago, with the 6 or 7 other guys that have helped to get it to this point, I was clueless as to how difficult it would be. I assumed the difficulty would be writing and developing the concept, or the course requirements, or finding available locations to hold the course. None of that was true. All of that was the easy part in comparison. I had no idea that the major problem we would face was MACOM politics. Essentially it comes down to this, USASFC wants it and they will spend the money for it and because of that they want to recruit and keep their 35Ps that become SOT-As. HRC says no, we will continue to assign all low density MOS', to include 35Ps and if you choose to send them SFSOC I & II (SOT-A A&S), BAC, SERE-C, and Ranger School well then good on you but we want them back when they're E7's. Should the 35P's we send you fail or quit the SFSOC I & II pipeline well you can't send them back to HRC for reassignment until their 3 year assignment at Group is done. That's the fight in a nutshell. USASFC, and rightly so, wants more power over the assignment process and HRC doesn't want to give any of it up.

In all honesty, I firmly believe that this A&S will never get off the ground until 18 series Commanders at the O5 and O6 level start clamoring for this to get done and for it to get done right. Because if they want to guarantee quality SOT-A's working alongside with their ODA's it's going to have to take USASOC, or higher level, command influence to get HRC to come to grips with this being the right thing to do. Honestly the whole thing has really soured me with how badly inner Army politics can effect the guys on the ground and their combat readiness.

 

[DA SWO]

I'm part of the contingent that's developing the SOT-A Pipeline. The course has actually already been validated and the career pipeline is fully developed. Five iterations of the pilot course have already been run and cadre to be assigned would be a mixture of experienced SOT-A's and 18 series with an E8 Ranger Tabbed SOT-A as the NCOIC. JFK SWC wants to own it and run it and 2 locations have been settled upon as being the final choice with one already having held the five earlier events during the pilot iteration. The problems with it though do not lie with the course but with the highest levels of the Army.

When I started working on this thing 3 years ago, with the 6 or 7 other guys that have helped to get it to this point, I was clueless as to how difficult it would be. I assumed the difficulty would be writing and developing the concept, or the course requirements, or finding available locations to hold the course. None of that was true. All of that was the easy part in comparison. I had no idea that the major problem we would face was MACOM politics. Essentially it comes down to this, USASFC wants it and they will spend the money for it and because of that they want to recruit and keep their 35Ps that become SOT-As. HRC says no, we will continue to assign all low density MOS', to include 35Ps and if you choose to send them SFSOC I & II (SOT-A A&S), BAC, SERE-C, and Ranger School well then good on you but we want them back when they're E7's. Should the 35P's we send you fail or quit the SFSOC I & II pipeline well you can't send them back to HRC for reassignment until their 3 year assignment at Group is done. That's the fight in a nutshell. USASFC, and rightly so, wants more power over the assignment process and HRC doesn't want to give any of it up.

In all honesty, I firmly believe that this A&S will never get off the ground until 18 series Commanders at the O5 and O6 level start clamoring for this to get done and for it to get done right. Because if they want to guarantee quality SOT-A's working alongside with their ODA's it's going to have to take USASOC, or higher level, command influence to get HRC to come to grips with this being the right thing to do. Honestly the whole thing has really soured me with how badly inner Army politics can effect the guys on the ground and their combat readiness.

I hated it because once again HRC proves how totally fucked up and clueless they are.
I saw the same shit when we were trying to activate 10CWS and create a shredout for the careerfield.
I think most personnel folks suck, and should be fed to sharks.

 

[AWP]

Whole post

Maybe USASOC needs a SOT-A MOS. HRC can't take what they don't own. Open a limited number of slots to guys who will "cross train" into the new MOS and then fill it from IET soldiers. It may take a decade or so to build the force you need, but it would free that career field from dealing with Big Army.

 

[DA SWO]

Maybe USASOC needs a SOT-A MOS. HRC can't take what they don't own. Open a limited number of slots to guys who will "cross train" into the new MOS and then fill it from IET soldiers. It may take a decade or so to build the force you need, but it would free that career field from dealing with Big Army.

Might be easier to make the SOT-A MOS an 18 series MOS.

 

[RangerRowe]

Maybe USASOC needs a SOT-A MOS. HRC can't take what they don't own. Open a limited number of slots to guys who will "cross train" into the new MOS and then fill it from IET soldiers. It may take a decade or so to build the force you need, but it would free that career field from dealing with Big Army.

Creating a new MOS or adding a new ASI to the current 35P MOS that is SOT-A specific is actually in discussion now as a possible solution to this problem.

Might be easier to make the SOT-A MOS an 18 series MOS.

Many of the guys in SS that were in SF or a SOT-A in the late 90's, early 2000, will remember that at one time 98G's (the old 35P MOS) were the only MOS authorized to go to SFAS and SFQC and still keep 98G as their primary MOS. A SOT-A could go to SFAS, skip BAC and Language, go through SUT, 18E MOS Phase, Robin Sage and come out with a Long Tab but stay a 98G with an 18E Secondary MOS. That stopped before 9/11 when USASFC really started having trouble keeping retention and recruitment goals and JFK SWC could not justify sending guys all the way through the Q Course that never ended up on an ODA.

More recently some of you may have heard about the 18G MOS that was proposed a couple of years back, which was exactly that, a SOT-A type 18 Series MOS. The problem was that, for reasons I cannot discuss on this forum, the 35P, 35N and 35S MOS' have certain authorizations and clearance authorities that only they are allowed to have. NSA refuses to give those same authorities to a non-35P/N/S Series MOS so the 18G idea became DOA.

 

[pardus]

This is just disgusting.
People who bring internal politics into the Military to the point of it being detrimental to the fight should be courts martialed and dishonorably discharged IMO.

 

[AWP]

Creating a new MOS or adding a new ASI to the current 35P MOS that is SOT-A specific is actually in discussion now as a possible solution to this problem.

Creating an ASI won't suffice, they will leave Group at some point because HRC still owns them. Throwing an ASI at the problem is like giving water to a dying man: it provides comfort and nothing more.

Along that line and as to the NSA issue, even creating a new MOS will be moot if that MOS exists elsewhere in the Army. Additionally, without certain exclusions, the MOS could still provide soldiers for recruiting or drill sergeant duty (maybe the others already have this exclusion and/ or I'm pointing out the obvious to you).

One final issue I see as an outsider, and maybe the MTOE has changed, but you used to only have authorization for three SOT-A's per BN. While I don't think we should discuss current slots here, I'll say that 3 SOT-A's per BN is not enough and adding more creates additional slots to help justify a new MOS.

As a former SIGDET guy who has been out of the game far too long, I thoroughly support what you're doing. I've seen SOT-A's struggle with every issue under the sun. Training, funding, equiping, clearances, manning, etc. are nothing new. As long as that MOS falls under Big Army, it won't matter what designation it carries; everything old will be new again.

I feel for you guys.

 

[goon175]

I don't know about an ASI, but an SQI could do the trick. At least, it works pretty well for the guys who hold SQI "T" and "U", keeping them in the units and away from HRC....