SFAS and Army SF "New Blood"

[SAPPER317]

11Z and all,

Rumor has it that SOCOM will send recruits straight out of AIT into SFAS this September and October. They are using a "selected" group of E3s and E4s, so they can fill up with more "potential" candidates.

That MATURE idea is disappearing fast.

MANY changes to SFAS and SFQ are being discussed, none of it confirmed. Seems that each class will be done differently until SWC can find the right fit and program. Contrary to all of the concerns that SFAS and SFQ are being made simpler/easier, it is being made more difficult. Change is the key word.

I see an old versus new battle developing, as SOCOM is struggling to keep its numbers up. Yet, the style and leadership we have all come to respect (the old corps NCOs of SF) is finding lucrative "civilian" employment. This leaves the very top-heavy officer corps of SOCOM making decisions on what will be. I think a lot of these officers are afraid if an Army SF type officer ever gets the reigns as SOC Numero Uno. The mission of SF wouldn't suffer and change as much as has been happening.

Maybe it is only in the NG SF units, but I keep hearing "we need some new, younger blood in SF" keeps making its rounds. Perhaps a warning order for something?

Just my opinion, but does anyone see or hear this?

SAPPER317

[Dock]

Sapper,

Do you think they may extend that idea of sending recruits for AIT in SFAS?? Say into early next year? If this does work, do you think this could be something that the Army will let new enlisted men get a contract for this so called new program, or is this something that is in testing for Sept, Oct. only????

Just a 31 year old asking questions...


Doc out...

[SAPPER317]

Doc,

From what we were told, this is just "an experiment". SOCOM may want to see what it can pull out of these new recruits. It is only supposed to be these two SFAS classes.

There is a lot or rumor going through the mill, so none of us are sure of what to expect. Many of us are trying to get into SFAS, SFQ, and every other school needed before the hammer drops and the new program becomes standard policy.

The only thing we have been assured of is that each class will be different. This is all being done to find the best-qualified candidates and the resulting course graduates.

Doc, SF is looking for medics. If you are interested, you should contact an SF unit.

SAPPER317

[Mike W]

1. Gee great.

2. The Army National Guard has been doing this for years with the REP 63 program. The results are less than spectacular.

3. First off only one out of ten usually makes it. Because that "one" guy has never been in a TO&E Combat Arms unit (much less in a leadership postion) he is still trying to figure the Army out.

4. The strength of S.F. is that it accepts seasoned soldiers (preferably squad leaders) with two-three years experience in the conventional army.

5. Bringing back the "S.F. babies" is just another step in taking the Special out of Special Forces.

6. If all the Policy wonks at S.W.C. want to improve the force they should look at decreasing OPTEMPO and tightening the standards.

[jbrookins]

I don't think they're as interested in improving the force as they are in keeping the numbers up.

[abaustin]

Here's an question. I've been told (or have read, I don't recall) that in a lot of cases, if 'SF babys' turned out to be some of the best SF troops there are? Being that they don't carry any extra baggage with them when then came to Group, and could be taught the 'right' way to do things? Is this assumption wrong? (And yeah, I'm making an ass out of me, I know. :P)

I understand that experiance as a fire team leader/squad leader is great, since as on an A-Team you'll regularly be in a leadership position for a Squad or larger unit, but since the NCO Corps has lost a lot of it's authority (or so it seems to me, could be wrong) does the experiance in either of those roles really give that great of a boost? Also, since (AFAIK) the mission of an A-Team is to advise a company/battalion, does the experiance of commanding 9 guys prep you for being a platoon leader or company commander (or advisor?)

I thought rank requirements were more to get people who were more mature and ready to be teachers/advisors rather then the high-school kids who wanna be 'Green Beret Super-Soldiers.'

As always, I could be (and probably am) wrong. Just looking for information.

[E19]

In Response to Mike W,

1. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

2. The Army National Guard does not conduct SFAS or SFQC so they have nothing to do with the results good or bad. Why has it failed in your opinion.

3. Makes what...SFAS, SFQC, or as a member of an ODA? "Figuring the Army out" is not rocket science. Training and working with "Americas Best" instead of doing pushups in another unit should have a new guy up to speed faster.

4. Two or three years of cutting grass/harassing troops in a coventional unit does nothing towards developing a better SF soldier. Special Forces has become too conventional... a trend that needs to be reversed!

5. Almost from the beginning SF has had grass-green recruits. Some of the very best started that way. The "SF babies" of the mid sixties produce some good troopers (I can think of some who served in SOG and where highly decorated, even a few who were Rep-63's). The main failure of that program was that the retention rate was not what was expected (SF was in need of more troops because of Nam)...the program was a 3 year enlistment and most did not re-up and therefore didn't serve a tour in Nam. The quality of the end-product is a direct result of the selection and training methods regardless of a persons prior experience.

6. I agree. SF needs more troops and who would be best suited to train them from the gitgo? In my opinion SF is the place to train them. They need an SF enlistment program....not high school wannabe's (the Rangers are the place for them), but more mature (I would suggest 2 years of college) higer test scores and a longer enlistment so that they serve a minimum of 4 years in group. Other wise the return on investment is too small. Nothing is gained by training some guy who just wants to hang a green beanie on his mantle.



[This message has been edited by E19 (edited 08-19-2000).]

[Whammer]

E19 has got it on point 6. There needs to be at least some experience and/or maturity in your bag before going SF imho.

di

[Mike W]

Response to jbrookins:

Roger That. It's all about quantity, not necessarily quality.

Response to E19:

1. The strength of S.F. is in the majurity and diversity of it's NCOs.

2. I don't believe that REP 63 (non prior service) guys are bad soldiers-just inexperienced. After serving in "regular" units I can state that no one wants to purge the "conventional" metality out of S.F. than those who soldiered under it.

3. To clarify my earlier my earlier email one out of ten makes it through the entire process (which includes Basic, AIT, PLDC, Airborne, SFAS and SFQC and Language Training). The vast majority do not complete SFAS. This statistic is based on my experience as a Company Training NCO and managing (through ATRRS) the people and the schools. Figuring the army out CAN be rocket science if your only frame of reference is high school.

4. Many of us spent years in conventional units and managed to do slightly more than cut grass and harass privates. Mindless harrassment does not build better S.F. Soldiers-experience does. In addition to pushups and lawn maintenance many of us spent weeks, months and years in the field-behind a rifle and under a rucksack. I completely agree that S.F. has become to conventional-the roots of that began in 1985 when officers were branched S.F. and with the rise of theater (regional) Special Operations Commands-not with the qualification process.

5. I agree with many of your points. BOTTOM LINE-would non prior service personnel that make the standards make good S.F. Soldiers? Yes-without a doubt. Is a non-prior service recruiting/selection program the best method to fill the force? No, maturity and (prior) military experience are the qualities that make S.F. what it is.
That's my opinion but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

D O L

[Tracy]

I've had several SF Babies assigned to me when I was a Team Sergeant and Team Leader. Taken as a whole, they're not worth the effort. I had a couple that were very gung-ho and strove to be the best professional soldiers possible. The rest required more hand-holding and supervision (until they semi-matured) than I wanted to give.

They slowed the Teams down when I needed people who knew the system (Army) and could get maximum results and give maximum effort. I liked what SFAS produced with career NCOs.

[Ler]

Tracy,
What do you think of the new requirement that all QCourse graduates attend SERE school? Isn't SERE still part of the SF Warrant program? ,,Ler..