Demise of Special Forces-capstone project

dyks · Post by **dyks** » April 23rd, 2008, 10:53 am

According to the author, via the capstone project-SF groups as we know them will not exist in the future.

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240, ... rmy.nl[url][/url]

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » April 23rd, 2008, 11:49 am

Times change...Slowly but surely the line between conventional and unconventional is getting blurry(er). For that matter the line between branches is becoming blurry(er), with MPs, FA and IN all being tasked similarly in Iraq.

Viking · Post by **Viking** » April 23rd, 2008, 12:15 pm

Hell, how many of us would recognize a Ranger Bn now?

madslashers1-2 · Post by **madslashers1-2** » April 23rd, 2008, 12:16 pm

Anybody from group got an opinion on this? Does this really mean anything? Is it just back room banter? How is MARSOC doing anyways?

To echo Viking, I wouldn't recognize a bn from 10 years ago

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » April 23rd, 2008, 2:43 pm

That would suck. Don't fix it if it ain't broke!

rgrpuck · Post by **rgrpuck** » April 23rd, 2008, 3:51 pm

How many SF ODA's are actully doing a FID mission? Not being a long tabber I have always thought that FID was the bread and butter of the SF community. However haveing just come back from an ETT mission the only 2 teams I saw doing anything FID was the Teams Standing up the Commando Bn's in A-stan.

The Holmchicken · Post by **The Holmchicken** » April 23rd, 2008, 5:32 pm

Yes, there is talk about breaking the Groups up and putting them under the command of a conventional unit. Like an SF Bn under a BCT. Something like that, but permanent. Why is this happening? I can only offer my opinion, but it also seems to be the consensus.

Two things. The X-ray program and the CG of SWC. In a brief snapshot, the Army thought the 2001 invasion of A-stan was going to be the wave of the future. So guess what? We need more SF guys. Hence the X-ray program. To say this degraded SF is a mild statement. Again, in my opinion. Now I won't say the CG's name, but he is universally reviled throughout the community. He is the one who has shifted SF from being the primary FID element of the Army to a DA heavy element. We have more than enough units to do DA. One possible explanation is a generation of SF commanders who didn't get a chance to "get theirs", saw their conventional counterparts getting in on the action and felt that "hey, I need mine so let's do DA. Fuck working with the indigs". Add to this a force that is rapidly losing it's best asset in it's maturity and you've got the current situation. Yes it sucks and no one I know is happy with the fact that SF has worked itself out of a job by some very poor decisions from the top. To go through the gayness that is the Q course only to find out that you're actually pretty irrelevant is disheartening.

The Holmchicken · Post by **The Holmchicken** » April 23rd, 2008, 8:43 pm

Tenn-RGR wrote:Would you guys please look at the source of this document first. Any of you fellas know where this article was first ran? Soldier of Fortune. Top flight news right there...

EDIT: Look at the very bottom of the article. Check out the copyright owner.

Hate to say it, the source sucks ass, the info is a bit inflated but the bottom line is pretty much met. SF now is a shadow of the force it was in 2001.

KW Driver · Post by **KW Driver** » April 24th, 2008, 1:32 am

Tenn-RGR wrote: Also what units are currently performing in their pre-GWOT legacy missions? Anyone, no I didnt think so.

me. Air Cav will always be Air Cav...

whether focusing more on recon or hasty attack, that's about Commander's intent/philosophy and the ground situation. but I'm still doing my METL tasks from 2000.

not many are though, I'll agree with that.

AntonA2W · Post by **AntonA2W** » April 24th, 2008, 6:12 am

Interesting article, however, unless Im mistaken, the cornerstone of Special Forces is the mindset. Possessing the mental and physical capability to accomplish the missions that reg mil personnel wont and cant do. It doesnt matter how many unmanned drones, planes, missles, arty we have, you still have to have men on the ground. Men that have the balls to go into enemy territory, conduct raids, ambushes, hostage rescues. Reg mil may get the training, but that doesnt mean that they retain it or can utilize it, nor apply that training to tangental situations. just a thought.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » April 24th, 2008, 6:56 am

Tenn-RGR wrote:
AntonA2W wrote:Interesting article, however, unless Im mistaken, the cornerstone of Special Forces is the mindset. Possessing the mental and physical capability to accomplish the missions that reg mil personnel wont and cant do. It doesnt matter how many unmanned drones, planes, missles, arty we have, you still have to have men on the ground. Men that have the balls to go into enemy territory, conduct raids, ambushes, hostage rescues. Reg mil may get the training, but that doesnt mean that they retain it or can utilize it, nor apply that training to tangental situations. just a thought.
And a damn good thought brother. This is exactly why SF wont go away. While we may carry a high price tag, you cant deny the effectiveness.

"We"? Are you even in the pipeline yet? Man you changed shirts quick!

Ranger Bill · Post by **Ranger Bill** » April 24th, 2008, 7:28 am

Ever since Kennedy's assination, there has been talk of Special Forces going away. When I was in, it wasn't even a branch, just a MOS skill identifier. When it became a branch, the talk was still there. With the recent expansion, the talk persists. 50 years of talk, but the quiet professionals are still there... This is a great topic for Military.com.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » April 24th, 2008, 7:50 am

Ranger Bill wrote: This is a great topic for Military.com.

One problem..all the speaking by actual people who have actually served would do nothing but confuse the crowd at mil.com.

Ranger Bill · Post by **Ranger Bill** » April 24th, 2008, 8:27 am

Silverback wrote:
Ranger Bill wrote: This is a great topic for Military.com.
One problem..all the speaking by actual people who have actually served would do nothing but confuse the crowd at mil.com.

It's not a probelm, it's a joke. They are up to Page 6 on this topic and most of the posts are by those with no experience and a lot of jealousy.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » April 24th, 2008, 8:29 am

Ranger Bill wrote:
Silverback wrote:
Ranger Bill wrote: This is a great topic for Military.com.
One problem..all the speaking by actual people who have actually served would do nothing but confuse the crowd at mil.com.
It's not a probelm, it's a joke. They are up to Page 6 on this topic and most of the posts are by those with no experience and a lot of jealousy.

The only good thing about mil.com is it led me here.