SWJ's 10th weekly contribution to Foreign Policy - This Week at War by Robert Haddick - is now posted. Topics include - The generals declare war on "war adjectives" - Special operations forces - the talent-poaching elite?
Printable View
SWJ's 10th weekly contribution to Foreign Policy - This Week at War by Robert Haddick - is now posted. Topics include - The generals declare war on "war adjectives" - Special operations forces - the talent-poaching elite?
I think speaking in terms of SOF is too broad because expansion of the Rangers and expansion of SF would present entirely different challenges and opportunities.Quote:
The Army's special operations forces fill their ranks by poaching the best talent from the ranks of its conventional forces.
Certainly standing up another Ranger Regiment would strip Infantry units pretty badly of their talent. But an expansion of SF could simply be a better allocation of talent. Consider a Signal Officer or Transportation Officer who wanted to be Infantry Officers, but simply got branched into an MOS that they didn't want. Or maybe they originally wanted their MOS, but later realized that they would prefer to try their hand at combat arms work. Rather than those officers getting sick of their jobs and ETS-ing, now they have a chance to pursue SF. Given the selection process involved, it is likely that if they join SF that they were among the top performers in their branch. However, if the alternative is that they would have ETS'd or that their talents were being directed towards something that they lost interest in, or never had any interest in, then I don't see a problem.
As for snatching up Infantry Officers and NCOs to form a new Ranger Regiment... geez. Every unit that I know of is already understrength. And that truly would be a stripping of talent. I don't know any Infantry Officers who regarded the job of a conventional Infantry Officer to be significantly different from that of a Ranger (obviously there are lifestyle differences and perks). Being given the option of assuming a slot in a new Ranger Regiment would not have changed my decision to ETS because I would still have been faced with the same future prospects - the only significant difference being a scroll on one shoulder instead of a patch with a less distinctive shape.
Completly fact-lite, but I have always felt that the existance of "elite" units helps to increase the motivation, skill level and training of all associated units due to the healthy nature of compitition, and becouse whenever "elite" units exist, soldiers from non-elite units will strive harder to have an oppertunity to join them. So perhaps they due take the best, but they improve the utility and ability of the best and motivate the rest. I could go further and suggest that there training eventualy filters down to regular units, but that is even fuzzier logic
Reed
CSI did this little study in the 1980s as the Army was looking to stand up light infantry divisions.
Notes on Elite Forces
Dr Roger Beaumont had another much more in depth study that said the same thing.
Tom
To a certain extent I find most discussions about "elite" forces flawed in that they are preconditioned by the writer's disdain for, or worship of, said forces. They may drain leadership, but who can say that said leadership would stay in the military if their advancement and job options were restricted? And if we go back far enough, we find that in the days before specific elite forces regiments were considering themselves "better" than the other regiments in their particular branch (some of the spats between the 1st and 2nd Dragoons were quite interesting, let alone their grumbling about the Regiment of Mounted Rifles or "Davis' Pets" in the 2nd Cavalry).
Like most such questions, this isn't really an "either/or." What it comes down to is being willing to restrict the formation of said "elite" units and allow troops to remain with their basic branch units longer if they wish. Fix the constant rotation personnel system and, IMO, you'll see improved quality at the regular line level. That may, in turn, diminish the appeal of the Rangers and similar units where it's possible to remain for several years if you're so inclined and can perform at that level.
Tom's link to the study on 'elite' forces ends with this:True. Always will. I think Steve has it right, the attitude of the beholder is significant. The good Dr. Beaumont's book -- as I recall, I gave it to Goodwill years ago after one reading as it added little to the debate -- was exemplary in that I'm firmly convinced he, as an MP Lieutenant (not parachute qualified) tried to order about some young Airborne types and they laughed at him and referred to him as an Earthling or a leg or such like. He definitely had a chip on his shoulder. :DQuote:
"These questions still need answers."
Still, his summation was pretty much the same as the linked study. They are a good idea, you probably need a few, too many is not a good idea, they are prone to wartime misuse (see the 1st Ranger Regiment today. Among others...) and they are useful in peacetime to keep the kill 'em all Type A PLUS overachievers occupied and out of trouble. :eek:
After watching and participating in the milieu that is the military for my entire life and 45 years respectively and having been in several 'elite' and about a like number of not considered elite organizations, I'm firmly convinced that Field Marshal Sir William Slim with several wars behind him had it right at the end of WW II in which he was essentially a Theater Army commander: A standard Infantry Battalion can be trained to do most jobs, the only special units needed are a small element of very deep reconnaissance specialists. I believe that to be true but would add a need for a UW / Counter UW / Foreign Military Training US SF-like organization as well. :cool:
Thus, again, Steve has it right -- fixing the Personnel system will help eliminate the perceived need for 'special' units; I'd add that fixing training is equally important.
KenQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
As a senior I signed up for Dr. Roger Beaumont's military history class--his first at Texas A & M, the first thing I did after the first class was drop his course. He was a stuffed shirt....
But his warning that so called elites have hidden costs still resonates. I agree units can be trained to do most missions and I also believe that elite really means "we do basics really well".
The worst use of the word elite was when it was applied to the Special Presidential Divison (DSP) in Zaire--it meant "we steal all and you get none."
Tom
I did OIF III in an Infantry company in a tiny patrol base. I did OIF V in a JSOTF. The most austere team house looked like a luxury resort, in comparison to my Inf Co's PB. I'm not knocking it - just concurring on the "hidden costs" thing. I cannot imagine how much we spend on non-essentials, per Soldier. But I suspect it's higher per elite Soldier and arguably less necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom
but back not so many years ago what made elite units "elite" was their grasp of the basics. There ability to do more with less. Unfortunately we have created a pre-madonna group of elitist today and I fear it will get worse until the money spicket is turned off. Many will depart cursing how it's changed and it isn't what it use to be. Others will realize things are back to the way it use to be. Yes, there are things SOF units get that others could only dream of, but has not always been so. Understand only since 01' has SOF become the "Golden Boys", an unfortunate side effect is that along the way we have lost our identity and what made us good. Much of this comes with age and experience of the force. Think sports if you will. It's kinda like that guy who goes from High School straight to the pros, skipping college. They think their sh*t doesn't stink, same problem today in the SOF community.
My first trip with a team was an eye opener. Went to Florida to do a dive requal, 12 guys took more stuff for 10 days than an Infantry Company takes for a JRTC rotation. We were regulated to no more than 2 tuff boxes and 1 kit bag per man, for 10 days. Unbelieveable! Some of the in country things I attribute to proactive individuals but a lot is money.Quote:
I did OIF III in an Infantry company in a tiny patrol base. I did OIF V in a JSOTF. The most austere team house looked like a luxury resort, in comparison to my Inf Co's PB. I'm not knocking it - just concurring on the "hidden costs" thing. I cannot imagine how much we spend on non-essentials, per Soldier. But I suspect it's higher per elite Soldier and arguably less necessary.
I've heard similar sentiments from 18-series folks - all of them E-7 or above. Some who read my earlier comment might have thought I was talking neato gadgets and cool-guy weapons. Nope. I mean that resupplying an ODA that was black on Red Bull took on an urgency that most units would associate with a medevac.Quote:
Originally Posted by ODB
One E-7 told me prior to my deployment, basically, "after your last two deployments, you're gonna feel like you're on vacation. These guys deploy in style and comfort." Yup.
He also echoed your sentiment about, to some effect, being spoiled. He pointed out that you would be hard pressed to ever rotate 18's into an Infantry unit because, in his words, "they wouldn't put up with the living conditions. They'd ETS." He might be right about the ETS thing, but to their credit, I suspect they would be driven to ETS more by the micromanagement and stupidity that they would encounter back in "conventional" land, rather than the living conditions.