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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks