Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
In reverse order, true and I'd suggest that reference to SF as a military ghetto is indicative of an attitude of parochiality that does no one any good.
If you had phrased that in the past tense, I'd have said you hit the nail on the head. To reinforce with an anecdote, a friend of mine spent a tour in Viet Nam with 5 SFG, a tour commanding a rifle Co. in Korea, then volunteered for a second tour with 5 SFG in Viet Nam (commanding a Mike Force). He was then passed over for promotion to Major. One tour was considered punching the ticket. Two showed an attitude (or aptitude) the Army didn't need or want.

To the extent Ucko points to this as a dangerous institutional attitude, he's dead on. It's easy to list a half dozen locales where we would be highly likely to need this capability in the next 10 or 20 years. It's pretty tough to come up with an equivalent list for conventional forces.

At the same time, Gian points out that we have to be capable of fighting the high intensity conflicts when they do arise, and we won't have the luxury of calling time out while we retool and retrain.

The take away, I believe, is to remember that we have exactly one Army. It will have to execute to further national strategic goals in different scenarios and circumstances.

It often seems as though we are trying to address an either - or question. "Conventional or COIN?" "Gentile or Ucko?"

The answer, whether we like it or not, is "Both," and then some.