SF training for Scouts?

That is all true but the bulk of combat advising in OEF was done by conventional forces both as battlespace owners and embedded training teams. In the earlier stages of the war no one outside of the Special Forces was prepared to do this and this created myriad issues across the board. Maybe the Army is looking at these lessons and trying to prepare themselves for future conflicts.
 
Shit they are apparently said fuck the infantry and went straight for SF. I still remember 19Ds in Airborne School telling everybody they were the guys out front of the infantry guys.
 
Shit they are apparently said fuck the infantry and went straight for SF. I still remember 19Ds in Airborne School telling everybody they were the guys out front of the infantry guys.

wasn't much out in front of us in Iraq and Afghanistan that was conventional... as in, nothing. Whatever, Regiment stays relevant, they're trying to be relevant :P
 
That is all true but the bulk of combat advising in OEF was done by conventional forces both as battlespace owners and embedded training teams. In the earlier stages of the war no one outside of the Special Forces was prepared to do this and this created myriad issues across the board. Maybe the Army is looking at these lessons and trying to prepare themselves for future conflicts.
I think the Conventional Forces got the mission because SF was tasked out.
 
That is all true but the bulk of combat advising in OEF was done by conventional forces both as battlespace owners and embedded training teams.

I just got back from a rotation and was deeply disturbed with how SFATs were getting jerked around by BCT BSO's. It severely impacted their abilities and tied them up answering to multiple HQ's. I say leave it to the guys who can think outside the box.
 
"...if we had their resources and their support, we could.."

Whenever I hear that, it makes me want to punch the speaker in the throat. People who say those kinds of things are totally ignorant of what it takes to operate at the level of whatever element it is they think they're equal to. It completely ignores the culture of the other organization, and it reinforces the belief that you can fix just about anything if you throw enough money at it for long enough. That's simply not the case.

I heard this kind of thing a lot from my State Department acquaintances. "There are more people in the DoD's bands than their are in the foreign service corps. If we had your money and resources...". I almost always interrupt at that point. If you had our money and resources, what? What would you do if you had it? Build the biggest, most useless embassy in the entire world? Hire even more people who balk at deploying to a combat zone? Throw even more money at people who hate us and want to destroy our way of life? What, tell me, I’m DYING to know what it is that you would be able to do with this money that is so much better than what the DoD is doing.

The conversation usually goes downhill after that.

It’s cultural reasons, not economic ones, that are the major differences between organizations. I wish people would understand that.
 
Back
Top