Thinking Red : Improving Intel Suppor to SF Groups
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
He better have cited my article ;)
Do you have a link? The latest edition I found online ended in like July and I didn't see anything about A&S.
Do you have a link? The latest edition I found online ended in like July and I didn't see anything about A&S.
Stephen Ambrose approves.
Break---
I'll never understand sending some of the world's best doorkickers down range and supporting them with enablers determined by chance, with little specialized training, and deploying them with a devil-may-care attitude.
From a marksmanship/weapons training view and only a training view, I have found that most of the SF support that came through our training a few years back were not adequately trained. However this was the case for conventional support as well. I found that there was a lot of talk from all sides “well I was showed this by this ODA” seemed to be the most used line.
On the other side I was very involved in training some MI personnel from the 201’st MI Btn (conventional interrogators), where a group was being prepped for some special teams (I can’t remember what they called them). But these soldiers were a mixed group, some took training very serious and some got sent packing. The soldiers who took it serious left the training locked the fuck on, and I would have took any one of them into combat.
With these past experiences, I would say that there should be a training regime. Whatever you want to call it (Indoc, selection, assessment ect). Ranger Regiment seems to have it right, at least on paper from what I can tell. Have a standardized training course that provides enhanced skills, that also acts as screening process for the individual soldier. If they are not performing to standard or giving 100%, then send them down the road. I don’t believe this needs to be a special course or standardized through all of SF, but it could be done as a Grp or Btn level commander course.
I am surprised that this is not already being done (or maybe it is I would not know) but it is nothing new. As a NG soldier I had to go through a 15 day AT Indoc to just go to the Btn scout plt, it was no special big deal and was not even required for the other btn’s. Just our Btn who did it, and we ended up conducting it for other Btn’s who did not have an Indoc.
On the other side I was very involved in training some MI personnel from the 201’st MI Btn (conventional interrogators), where a group was being prepped for some special teams (I can’t remember what they called them). But these soldiers were a mixed group, some took training very serious and some got sent packing. The soldiers who took it serious left the training locked the fuck on, and I would have took any one of them into combat.
With these past experiences, I would say that there should be a training regime. Whatever you want to call it (Indoc, selection, assessment ect). Ranger Regiment seems to have it right, at least on paper from what I can tell. Have a standardized training course that provides enhanced skills, that also acts as screening process for the individual soldier. If they are not performing to standard or giving 100%, then send them down the road. I don’t believe this needs to be a special course or standardized through all of SF, but it could be done as a Grp or Btn level commander course.
I am surprised that this is not already being done (or maybe it is I would not know) but it is nothing new. As a NG soldier I had to go through a 15 day AT Indoc to just go to the Btn scout plt, it was no special big deal and was not even required for the other btn’s. Just our Btn who did it, and we ended up conducting it for other Btn’s who did not have an Indoc.
RetPara
SOF Support
DISCLAIMER. The following is based on information on the situation upon my retirement in 1995.... a little dated.
Damn... you kids are rehashing this shit.... AGAIN?
The title of this thread is mis-leading. This is not about improving the quality of intell support to SF units. It's really about how to have quality people assigned and build credibility in garrison with the ODA's. IF you were really talking about better Intell support, I doubt that such a conversation could take place below compartment-ed level.
The assignment of personnel to SF MI units has been a topic since at least the late 70's.
I will not speak to the specific topic of SOT-A's, but generically to the topic of MI personnel in general.
So I will start at the root issue.
"How do you get quality people assigned to USASFC MI units?"
a. PERSCOM (or whatever they're calling it this week) try's to work on the round peg in the round hold system. This is especially true in Enlisted assignments. Till you hit the MSG/1SG (P) you are at the mercy of the assignment CLERK (GS-5) who works for a civil service assignments manager. The NCO who is the latest Branch Manager.... is there to key those pesky soldiers out of the civilians hair. To create any type of quality control will take an initiative from USASFC G-1 supported by USASOC and USSOCOM's "1" shop. Pulling the control of assignments like that is a major challenge as their sticky little paws will just hang on with a death grip like its the last beer at a Friday Rehab party.
b. CONUS to CONUS PCS has to be approved.
c. Generally PERSCOM will attempt to assign airborne troops to SF support... but if they run out... It's meat market time.
d. The Ranger Regiment has an established program for support troops coming to the Regiment. SF could do the same; IF they pushed for it.
e. There is/was a ASI for Intell Weenies for SOF Support. Don't know if it's still used or not.
f. SF is unique in that the 18 series has their Operations\Intelligence Course (ASI?). These are Senior NCO's, not lower enlisted or junior NCO's.
"Challenges Unique To SF Intell Support"
a. Predominately in the Army the most active Intelligence Analysts are the Specialist Mafia and Junior NCO's. By the time an Intell Weenie becomes a Senior NCO, they're doing mostly NCO shit and damn little Intell shit.
b. The analysts from the Group or Bn are those who have to interact directly with the ODA's. Generally with the ODA Intell Sgt (ODA IS), who is a senior SFC or even a MSG. Not a good fit. While the MI troop may have a good background, sometimes the ODA IS has been studying the culture, language, and area for several years and may have on the ground time. This is not a good fit. While the anlayst brings access to HSLD info, the ODA IS may have issues dealing with a support person who is much younger, different gender, and of some what lower rank. I have often seen instances of the ODA IS not wanting any kind of a finished product; but wants the analyst just to feed them raw intell and stay out of the way. (Seen it happen more than once.)
"The Cure"
USASFC has to establish a multi-week, central "Orientation Program" at Fort Bragg for ALL non-18 Series Officers, NCO's, and Soldiers. If the program is NOT successfully complete they are reassigned on the specific home post. The Ranger's have established their support soldiers program since 9/11.
No first tour Intell people assigned. That includes reclassified NCO's. Second tour in MI at a minimum.
The above is the easy part. Gaining acceptance and credibility in the eyes of the ODA IS's and their teams. That can only be accomplished by getting the MI folks down with the teams. This will have to come down from USASFC G-3 in their annual training guidance. ODA's will often deploy with a support slice. This slice needs to be incorporated into ODA training and funding for training.
Damn... you kids are rehashing this shit.... AGAIN?
The title of this thread is mis-leading. This is not about improving the quality of intell support to SF units. It's really about how to have quality people assigned and build credibility in garrison with the ODA's. IF you were really talking about better Intell support, I doubt that such a conversation could take place below compartment-ed level.
The assignment of personnel to SF MI units has been a topic since at least the late 70's.
I will not speak to the specific topic of SOT-A's, but generically to the topic of MI personnel in general.
So I will start at the root issue.
"How do you get quality people assigned to USASFC MI units?"
a. PERSCOM (or whatever they're calling it this week) try's to work on the round peg in the round hold system. This is especially true in Enlisted assignments. Till you hit the MSG/1SG (P) you are at the mercy of the assignment CLERK (GS-5) who works for a civil service assignments manager. The NCO who is the latest Branch Manager.... is there to key those pesky soldiers out of the civilians hair. To create any type of quality control will take an initiative from USASFC G-1 supported by USASOC and USSOCOM's "1" shop. Pulling the control of assignments like that is a major challenge as their sticky little paws will just hang on with a death grip like its the last beer at a Friday Rehab party.
b. CONUS to CONUS PCS has to be approved.
c. Generally PERSCOM will attempt to assign airborne troops to SF support... but if they run out... It's meat market time.
d. The Ranger Regiment has an established program for support troops coming to the Regiment. SF could do the same; IF they pushed for it.
e. There is/was a ASI for Intell Weenies for SOF Support. Don't know if it's still used or not.
f. SF is unique in that the 18 series has their Operations\Intelligence Course (ASI?). These are Senior NCO's, not lower enlisted or junior NCO's.
"Challenges Unique To SF Intell Support"
a. Predominately in the Army the most active Intelligence Analysts are the Specialist Mafia and Junior NCO's. By the time an Intell Weenie becomes a Senior NCO, they're doing mostly NCO shit and damn little Intell shit.
b. The analysts from the Group or Bn are those who have to interact directly with the ODA's. Generally with the ODA Intell Sgt (ODA IS), who is a senior SFC or even a MSG. Not a good fit. While the MI troop may have a good background, sometimes the ODA IS has been studying the culture, language, and area for several years and may have on the ground time. This is not a good fit. While the anlayst brings access to HSLD info, the ODA IS may have issues dealing with a support person who is much younger, different gender, and of some what lower rank. I have often seen instances of the ODA IS not wanting any kind of a finished product; but wants the analyst just to feed them raw intell and stay out of the way. (Seen it happen more than once.)
"The Cure"
USASFC has to establish a multi-week, central "Orientation Program" at Fort Bragg for ALL non-18 Series Officers, NCO's, and Soldiers. If the program is NOT successfully complete they are reassigned on the specific home post. The Ranger's have established their support soldiers program since 9/11.
No first tour Intell people assigned. That includes reclassified NCO's. Second tour in MI at a minimum.
The above is the easy part. Gaining acceptance and credibility in the eyes of the ODA IS's and their teams. That can only be accomplished by getting the MI folks down with the teams. This will have to come down from USASFC G-3 in their annual training guidance. ODA's will often deploy with a support slice. This slice needs to be incorporated into ODA training and funding for training.
It is a SF MOS not an ASI, 18F. He is also either an E6 or E7 not generally an E8 though I have seen exceptions to this on certain teams...
RetPara
SOF Support
I've seen variations on the theme with the Tm Cdr, Tm Sgt, Tm Intell Sgt were the ones running the effort also.
There is a 'Robin Sage' type exercise in the works for SOT-A's / CA / and the CRD's....soon to be announced.
This is a type of selection process for all involved. I'll post more when I know more.
Brill
SOF Support
Jesus, that means SOT-As are going to have to be trained in a real school vice OJT. Who's going to instruct? We (35P_S) are already at 75%...there's nobody left to pull from. A good Det SGT would never "let" one of his top performers leave the line to go teach. I see contractors filling the role.
I'm looking forward to the details RB.
Isn't Robin Sage a culmination exercise? What training are they going to get in advance of the exercise, and what screening criteria are in place to make sure they're cut out for the job before the exercise even takes place?
Bingo. SF contractors and retired CA O's from the Intel side.
We've also had CA in the classroom for the last few years teaching ASK and the next level of 'upperclassmen' CA is on the hook to attend the 'advanced course'.
The Intel 'selection' that you'll see will include the MID's side by side with SF in the field so that the newer soldiers will understand their role upon arriving to the Det's.
Dated, but this is unclass and is a review of the type training to be included.
Slides 15-17 are mentionable, but the new contract should be awarded soon and will be an eye-opener to the Intel support field.
http://www.stormingmedia.us/43/4385/A438574.html
I heard a rumor 6 months ago of a SOT-A school starting up at Bragg...
I'm assuming this is only for newly enlisted soldiers?
I'm assuming this is only for newly enlisted soldiers?
Florida173
SOF Support
Has anyone read the manual on the subject matter on the SOCOM highside page?
Manual on what subject matter? Someone devised an enabler training program so complicated it has to be classified?
Florida173
SOF Support
I'll check it out when I'm at work next week.
Brill
SOF Support
Short and to the point. I like it!
No.
No.
Florida173
SOF Support
A little late to the party.
They had to make concessions with having support personnel go through RIP/ROP during that time and started advertising openings heavily for qualified applicants. This was when Regiment incorporated the wear of the maroon beret to distinguish those from RIP/ROP graduates. Once the formation of RSTB and E co slots had stabilized they sent all those that did not attend RIP/ROP to a mini assessment were they received their tan beret. Failure meant possible reassignment but I saw that more for those support NCO's and Officer's who failed to attend and graduate Ranger School.
There were some growing pains and enough dissatisfaction to go around with the process that once everything was operational they went back to the "one standard for all". RIP/ROP/RASP
Brill
SOF Support
Any updates re: Selection for Direct Support personnel?
On a side note...I recently saw a memo regarding a request for SDAP and a selection was mentioned (as well as special skills required, screening process, limited eligibility, yadda, yadda yadda).
On a side note...I recently saw a memo regarding a request for SDAP and a selection was mentioned (as well as special skills required, screening process, limited eligibility, yadda, yadda yadda).
