SOCOM Five-Year Plan: Ideas Needed

[Brill]

Uh, perhaps the difference is DLI vs SOLT but nevertheless, 35Ps are required to have 2/2. Some do, some don't. SOT-As (a duty position) have a lot of other tasks/responsibilities that are not language related.

We need more Pashto & Dari linguists to dump the terps.

 

[Etype]

Yes, SOLT sucks. The only requirement for the instructors is that the language they are teaching is their native language. I would considered most of them illiterate in English. I would never have used any of my language instructors as an interpreter- all the LN terps I've used have had better English.

 

[Crusader74]

We do, but NO ONE is able to maintain a 1/1 in their target language, unless they are French or Spanish speakers. I had a 1/1 in Arabic after school (only 3 other people in my class did, most of the other guys were 0+/0+ or 0+/1) and a year later I was down to a 0/0+. I'd say 90% of the group is a 0/0 or 0/0+ in their language.

I'm learning Arabic, need to practice, skype me

On a serious note, what about quarterly refresher days/weeks? I know op tempo dictates this but getting time in target language is required to stay proficient?

 

[Marauder06]

OK, I finished the paper, thanks for your ideas and input. I'll redact it for PERSEC and post it here on the site in a couple of days.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Would nuking that part of the world into a glass lake fall under SOCOM?

 

[Marauder06]

Would nuking that part of the world into a glass lake fall under SOCOM?

That COA was not addressed in my paper ;)

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Geez...I guess I'll read it anyway when it's posted.

 

[Marauder06]

OK, here's the paper. In order to keep it UNCLASS while still retaining the specificity necessary to satisfy the requirements for the class, I decided to write it as if I were the SOCOM J7/9 and were responding to the directives of the SOCOM commander.

Just so everyone is clear, I am *not* the SOCOM J7/9; I don't know who the J7/9 for SOCOM is, and I didn't even know what a J7/9 was before I starting writing this paper. I'm not in SOCOM, no one at SOCOM asked me for my input, and this isn't being sent to SOCOM. This is something I wrote for a class, hence the bold red print in the header and footer of the paper. Nonetheless, I think it captures some of the things that the SOF community is talking about, and I'm posting it here for your information and comment.

 

[Brill]

Someone stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

I gave it a quick scan & found it very informative, especially for an outsider. I will read it over again in more detail once I finish this book I'm reading on the history of the Bill of Rights. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Salt USMC]

Good paper, but I recognized so many ideas and arguments from the SS forums that you should've listed this site as a source!

 

[Marauder06]

Good paper, but I recognized so many ideas and arguments from the SS forums that you should've listed this site as a source!

:) I get a lot of good information from our site. I did actually cite Shadowspear and PS.com for an article I wrote on the enabler assessment, selection, and training program. It is the only thing I have written & submitted that I haven't been able to get published.

 

[Brill]

Looks like you left off the idea of moving the RC of SF from the Guard to Reserves.

 

[policemedic]

Nice work

 

[Viper1]

Well done Sir. I especially enjoyed the topic of having enablers/support go through an assessment and selection process. Reminds me of a conversation we had a couple years ago at Ruby Tuesday's. I was only able to skim the paper due to my location but did you mention that every other Army SOF unit conducts an assessment & selection for all soldiers assigned?

 

[Marauder06]

Well done Sir. I especially enjoyed the topic of having enablers/support go through an assessment and selection process. Reminds me of a conversation we had a couple years ago at Ruby Tuesday's. I was only able to skim the paper due to my location but did you mention that every other Army SOF unit conducts an assessment & selection for all soldiers assigned?

Every other ARSOF one that has a direct-action mission as part of its core responsibilities. Not sure about CA or PSYOP, hence the caveat.

 

[Marauder06]

Looks like you left off the idea of moving the RC of SF from the Guard to Reserves.

I haven't researched that enough to make a solid case for it either way. My initial thought would be to leave it in the Guard, though.

 

[goon175]

My initial thought would be to leave it in the Guard, though.

I'm with Lindy on that one, having SF in the USAR as opposed to the NG makes waaay more sense. I have supporting opinions on this, but my wife says we have to go to dinner now....to be continued...haha

 

[Brill]

I haven't researched that enough to make a solid case for it either way. My initial thought would be to leave it in the Guard, though.

In the Guard, the States have a say in pay and allowances whereas most actual course money comes from Army or other sources. Point being, we can get travel & per diem money for a class but the State has, for us red hats, been unable to find the money for MI sustainment training. The other fellas don't seem to have this issue however but they may: I'm just giving my perception.

Additionally, my skills as a 35P will never have a State mission. Ever. Unless Red Dawn occurs and then, we'll have other things to worry about rather than Title 10 vs Title 32 authorities.

I have not heard of similar type bullshit excuses related to pay issues with Reserve MI units.

 

[Salt USMC]

I get a lot of good information from our site. I did actually cite Shadowspear and PS.com for an article I wrote on the enabler assessment, selection, and training program. It is the only thing I have written & submitted that I haven't been able to get published.

Agreed 100%. This place seems to have a greater degree of thoughtful and competent posters than other sites.
I'm trying to look for the article you talked about but I cant seem to find it. Did you post it here? I'd like to look at it because it probably already already refutes my argument. See, I don't think having a SOCOM-wide assessment program is really the best idea. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but I would think that each service's SOF would have unique requirements for their enablers that may not be addressed if you try to adopt a one-size-fits-all assessment. Perhaps it would be better to direct each component's SOC to at least have an assessment program in place. That way, each SOC could tailor the assessment to the needs of their force, while eliminating the "Needs of the Army" assignments like you talked about.

As for the training piece, I can agree (to some extent) that it could conceivably be a SOCOM-wide program. Especially with a field like Intel, a centralized training program could help standardize practices across the services and ensure that SOF intel guys are all on the same page.

Funny story: During my last Iraq deployment (Late 07 to early 08), there was an NSW squadron living on the same FOB as us, and their intel guys (A senior chief and an IS1) would come over every once in a while for a data dump or product support or whatever. One day, the IS1 comes by and, with the most serious look I've ever seen him wear on his face, asks us if we have a GRG of Damascus. I'll let you ponder that one for a minute.