Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: The question...

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #10
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    That's a long way of saying that Special operations are what ever the President and /or the Sec Def say they are.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Or, in many cases whatever SOCOM wants to say they are and the GPF allows them to get away with.
    I am amazed at some of the rivalry between GPF and SOF that I see at times. We on the CA-side try to downplay things with some humor since we do not have the super-DA skills but its interesting nonetheless. On the civilian-side, when I need help with a special problem I call a specialist in that problem and its not an affront to my manhood to do so...it would be a good thing if we could do this consistently in the Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I watched the migration of many GPF 'mission sets' into the SOF arena during the 80s and 90s as the US Army lost its focus and adopted a training system that robbed commanders of time and choices. I have watched -- and cheered -- as the GPF has regained those minor skills in the last few years. We're supposed to be in this together...
    I would agree here as well, like most SOF I started as GPF and I find that I rely upon my GPF skills to keep me and mine alive, as well as most day to day soldiering issues. My SOF skills are reserved for a more narrow range of problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Today, many SOF missions are a result of that deteriorating number of mission capabilities of the GPF, a quest for dollars back in the 80s and 90s and some good -- and bad -- decisions. All people products...
    Your USMC time is showing through and its a good thing. Fiscal discipline, everybody is a rifleman, la-de-da and everybody will get it done no matter what attitude...I can see through the sides of some their helicopters they use them so much...sheesh. Very different than the approach that I often see in the Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    True for CA and most SF, less true for all PsyOps and the DA types (JSOC, SEALs). All are needed but they do different things and the DA guys do not need the in-depth culture and language bit; though the other attributes apply.
    DA is both a needed and a different beast and I suspect you know one or two more things more than do I about the need for a specialization in things other than the culture and language bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Condescend often?
    Sometimes, although the vast majority of times its not intended (and it was not intended here) and a timely boot upside the head helps me to reset, thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    How about forgetting management and concentrating on mission accomplishment, not 'vetting' but just training people properly for the jobs they may have to do simply because the numbers will always -- write that down, always -- in any MAJOR operation entail the GPF doing, as they have done and are doing today, some full spectrum missions. Not SO missions, just full spectrum of warfare missions.DA is an infantry skill . Application of DA is an Infantry job, period. Application of DA for some missions can be Special Operations depending on several parameters -- but most in most wars, most such operations will not be SO due to the quantity. Nor should they be. Special can lose its meaning if one is not careful...
    Ken/Sir - Let me be CA-centric here for a moment. Unlike some, I do not have a problem with GPF doing CMO or even CA missions...not all CA soldiers are CA...yet (this may/probably applies in other areas of SOF but I will defer on SF). Brainpower and skills uber-alles baby. I try not to get hung up on rank either, as long as everybody understands that since the highest ranking guy gets fried if it all goes bad the team will factor this into the equation. We had a USMC/USAR/ENG/LT-non CA type Electrical Engineer running electricity, which as it should be. I have also seen a Electrical Engineer with E-5 stripes being used as a driver...bad #### and unfortunately I didn't win that particular fight to get that changed. My experience then is that it would be beneficial to our efforts that folks holding these, and other 'special' skills sets, be consistently identified and properly utilized.

    As a dirt and water guy I definitely believe in get-er done, and truly understand the difference between theory and real world application. I do find however that its faster and less painful when we have the right folks on the team. Either way, I still enjoy the work.

    Best,

    Steve
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 05-13-2009 at 06:03 PM.
    Sapere Aude

Similar Threads

  1. Question for CJCS
    By ODB in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-24-2009, 12:31 AM
  2. The challenge of Institutionalizing Adaption - the question SASC did not ask SECDEF
    By Rob Thornton in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 06:39 PM
  3. Council New Members Examination
    By SWJED in forum Small Wars Council / Journal
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 08:59 PM
  4. Training for Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •