Old 12-22-2014, 10:32   #16
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 3,911
The problem is with shrinking budgets, even LET is tied to an arbitrary rating...
...wait until folks start getting told you need to have a 1/1 to even go on a LET trip.

Its coming.
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, or The 1st Special Forces Regiment. These opinions are provided purely as social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

...Hillary Klint0n is NOT my president


"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2014, 12:53   #17
Jgood
Quiet Professional
 
Jgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Currently FT. Bragg
Posts: 622
Already the case you must have a 1+/1+ to go on a LET, kind of agree with that, our current language programs can get you to a 1+/1+ level without the additional cost of the LET. I would rather see the limited funds used that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy L-bach View Post
The problem is with shrinking budgets, even LET is tied to an arbitrary rating...
...wait until folks start getting told you need to have a 1/1 to even go on a LET trip.

Its coming.
I agree with guys not improving in Pashtu and Dari, I picked up what I could while there as a non speaker. My team mates who had those languages came back with a much improved skills then hit a wall above the 1+ pushing 2 level. our current language training does not focus enough on the mechanics of the languages.
__________________
There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
Jgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2014, 14:11   #18
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgood View Post
Already the case you must have a 1+/1+ to go on a LET, kind of agree with that, our current language programs can get you to a 1+/1+ level without the additional cost of the LET. I would rather see the limited funds used that way.




I agree with guys not improving in Pashtu and Dari, I picked up what I could while there as a non speaker. My team mates who had those languages came back with a much improved skills then hit a wall above the 1+ pushing 2 level. our current language training does not focus enough on the mechanics of the languages.
We as a regiment do not do a good job of predicting language requirements and sustainment for future areas we will be sending soldiers to. I am on my 3rd language from 10th Group first was Turkish then it changed to German and now French and now we are getting involved with the Turks again 5th or 10th?? not sure since Turkey never made it into the EU. I am of the opinion that the language rating is nothing more than a selling point to congress as a capability than an actual competency they let it go for so long as a nuisance to our DA training during GWOT.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2014, 12:45   #19
Jgood
Quiet Professional
 
Jgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Currently FT. Bragg
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat View Post
We as a regiment do not do a good job of predicting language requirements and sustainment for future areas we will be sending soldiers to. I am on my 3rd language from 10th Group first was Turkish then it changed to German and now French and now we are getting involved with the Turks again 5th or 10th?? not sure since Turkey never made it into the EU. I am of the opinion that the language rating is nothing more than a selling point to congress as a capability than an actual competency they let it go for so long as a nuisance to our DA training during GWOT.
Completely agree, and currently feeling this first hand.
__________________
There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
Jgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2014, 13:00   #20
MtnGoat
Quiet Professional
 
MtnGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Asscrackistan
Posts: 4,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat View Post
We as a regiment do not do a good job of predicting language requirements and sustainment for future areas we will be sending soldiers to. I am of the opinion that the language rating is nothing more than a selling point to congress as a capability than an actual competency they let it go for so long as a nuisance to our DA training during GWOT.
I think your point over our, DA, USASOC, USASFC and others justification to Congress and Senate oversight committees. This point will be the issue with trying to pull the Regiment back towards a UW mindset and off the DA. Without Group leadership pushing it down, no hell USASFC with over sight on the number on Concepts, CNTs and JCETs coming for that 180 day approvals to track, show, etc who is UW focus and meeting the 1st SFC Guidance. Without leadership pushing it, language and UW will never change for us.

We have every Company (ODA Level and Up) to soon to be 1st SFC General only knowing, think, planning DA style missions for the 10 years. This has been our problem for many years.
__________________
"Berg Heil"

History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over."

COLONEL BULL SIMONS

Intelligence failures are failures of command [just] as operations failures are command failures.”

Last edited by MtnGoat; 12-25-2014 at 13:36.
MtnGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 07:12   #21
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat View Post
I think your point over our, DA, USASOC, USASFC and others justification to Congress and Senate oversight committees. This point will be the issue with trying to pull the Regiment back towards a UW mindset and off the DA. Without Group leadership pushing it down, no hell USASFC with over sight on the number on Concepts, CNTs and JCETs coming for that 180 day approvals to track, show, etc who is UW focus and meeting the 1st SFC Guidance. Without leadership pushing it, language and UW will never change for us.

We have every Company (ODA Level and Up) to soon to be 1st SFC General only knowing, think, planning DA style missions for the 10 years. This has been our problem for many years.
Absolutely, though SWCS has integrated UW concepts into every phase we still have DA minded cadre tainting the process.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 07:39   #22
Blueboy
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: D.C./ Northern Virginia
Posts: 82
Lest we forget gents, Special Forces does have five doctrinal missions: UW, FID, SR, CT, AND DA. UW will always be first among equals, but the others still matter----particularly to a Combatant Commander who does not want to hear that his regionally-aligned Special Forces Group "doesn't do windows (e.g. anything other than UW)."
__________________
"I do not know what is true. I do not know the meaning of the universe. But in the midst of doubt, in the collapse of creeds, there is one thing I do not doubt...and that is that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty, in a cause he little understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has little notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Blueboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 10:14   #23
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueboy View Post
Lest we forget gents, Special Forces does have five doctrinal missions: UW, FID, SR, CT, AND DA. UW will always be first among equals, but the others still matter----particularly to a Combatant Commander who does not want to hear that his regionally-aligned Special Forces Group "doesn't do windows (e.g. anything other than UW)."

DA does not topple governments or regional influential organizations or defeat non state actors such as in operations such as FID,COIN and UW. We need to drop DA as a doctrinal mission especially since we have Infantry, Ranger Bn, SEAL's, Force Recon, MARSOC, MEF's and Tier 1 units all doing the same thing and they are specialist. DA is however integrated within our expertise when training host nation or guerrillas to defeat the enemy especially when we teach them commando operations consisting of Raids, Recons and Ambushes in order to attain a strategic goal. CT should be dropped as a doctrinal mission since COIN/FID and UW are all essentially operations that either sponsor or counter terrorism/guerrilla type aggressors. Again we have a national force and several "specialist" dedicated to this specific mission. SF is not task organized for DA we are task org'd as a battalion staff as force multipliers in line with COL Volckmann's missions in the P.I. organizing, training and advising all aspects of the conflict.

Certainly we have learned by now that DA/kinetic does not work against VTB Violent True Believer organizations where the population is caught in the middle.

Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 12-26-2014 at 10:26.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 11:29   #24
Blueboy
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: D.C./ Northern Virginia
Posts: 82
I respectfully disagree. From a Combatant Commanders perspective (the 'end user' of Special Forces), it makes little sense to maintain a force structure as large as ours that does not possess a full-spectrum capability. And while I agree that the Regiment should continue to emphasize UW as its core mission, we risk irrelevancy if it becomes our sole focus. When the balloon goes up and a TSOC Cdr needs SF to do 'x' that does not involve indigenous forces, we cannot opt out because it's not in our self-prescribed wheelhouse.
__________________
"I do not know what is true. I do not know the meaning of the universe. But in the midst of doubt, in the collapse of creeds, there is one thing I do not doubt...and that is that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty, in a cause he little understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has little notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Blueboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 12:13   #25
Peregrino
Quiet Professional
 
Peregrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 4,626
WD & Bb - You guys bring to mind the balance pole a high wire "artist" uses to walk a tightrope - and a tightrope is exactly where we find ourselves today. You both make legitimate points that support the Regiment's relevance. Stay flexible, the chasm is getting deeper, the other side isn't in sight, and the competing/conflicting/often mutually exclusive demands (with scraps for resources) on the Regiment are directly analogous to the winds and sway imperiling the "artist". Quick thinking and the ability to shift the balance pole is all that is going to keep us on the wire - falling off isn't an option, there is no safety net.
__________________
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
Peregrino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2014, 08:16   #26
MR2
Quiet Professional
 
MR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 3,798
__________________
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time - Leo Tolstoy

It's Never Crowded Along the Extra Mile - Wayne Dyer


I've always thought America was Great. Wouldn't it just be Great if we made it America Again?
MR2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 09:23   #27
TFA303
Auxiliary
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northern Alabama
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrino View Post
Me too!

... who benefits from a CAT I language spoken in friendly tropical paradises and who gets stuck with a language only spoken in a country they'll never get to visit short of wartime deployment so they can never benefit from immersion opportunities, etc. etc. ...(
As someone who just took DLPT and OPI in Farsi for the first time, I gotta give an Amen there!
TFA303 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 13:08   #28
UWOA
Quiet Professional
 
UWOA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: You can't get here from there; you have to go someplace else first.
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bechorg View Post
I did the same thing after not using Arabic for 3 years.

Our language school has DLPT related classes that are geared for that test. Most of the guys do the OPI, but I am just not as good at speaking as I am reading and listening. As you know you have to train for the DLPT from the start because it is a completely different method. IMO the pay is backwards, I would much rather employ someone who can speak in the language than someone who can only listen and read it. In my group at least I can say it is once again a priority with at least 4 weeks a year dedicated to being in class.

I still see nonsensical mixed language teams that seem brought together for no reason at all (French/Russian/Arabic) on the same team. They need to do a one time mix up of each group and realign the teams with languages, and then align deployments with those teams. Sure it would hurt for a year or so, but in the long run it would be best for the force. Maybe a SGM can fill me in on why assignments are done the way they are.

If I were an Ambassador in the Congo I would have much more confidence in a team with a good level of French across the board. We continue to set guys up for huge obstacles when they don't speak a lick of the native language. Until those things are set up, I don't really see guys getting too motivated.
Because, while a team may be oriented for a particular area, you never know where you may end up actually going. While there was one Group actually assigned the Middle East AOs, every Group ended up with boots on the ground there. With several languages available on a multi-language team you have a better chance at having at least one teammate who can communicate with the target audience (witness the statement of Russian being used to communicate with the Northern Alliance). At least that's my drift and why there were several languages on my team in the 70's and 80's ... Spanish, Norwegian, German and ... drum roll ... English .

.
__________________
No one knows whether you're a genius or an idiot until you open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Don't know where I'm goin', but there's no use in bein' late.
I've never been lost. I've been a mite confused at times, but never lost.
I'm not lost! I know where I am; I just don't know where everybody else is.
UWOA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 13:32   #29
MtnGoat
Quiet Professional
 
MtnGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Asscrackistan
Posts: 4,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueboy View Post
I respectfully disagree. From a Combatant Commanders perspective (the 'end user' of Special Forces), it makes little sense to maintain a force structure as large as ours that does not possess a full-spectrum capability. And while I agree that the Regiment should continue to emphasize UW as its core mission, we risk irrelevancy if it becomes our sole focus. When the balloon goes up and a TSOC Cdr needs SF to do 'x' that does not involve indigenous forces, we cannot opt out because it's not in our self-prescribed wheelhouse.
I understand what you are saying about working for a Combatant Commander, TSOC or even a USEMB. But being SF, as Peregrino pointed out, you have to be that chameleon or that military term Gumby. Being able to change between our military facets (CT, FID, COIN, SR, DA, & UW) to meet those Commanders or Leaders "NEEDS." Yet the way we talk to them is very different based of those "NEEDS," YOu talk to a Batt Cmdr different from a General or from a Conventional Line Commander to a DoS or USEMB "worker." Knowing your Operational Environment is what makes us different, and knowing how to play with people or talk to them is what makes us different. Just being that DA knuckle Dragger doesn't always go over well. I've seen it and being SF and know how to use elicitation style techniques works wonders. Most Conventional Company and Above Commanders know what our capabilities are, and how or what full-spectrum capabilities we can bring to warfare. But being that SF Tm Sgt or ODA Commander, and being able to talk around the needs and bring your ODA's full-spectrum capability and not just focusing on your ODA's Great DA/FID Skills is what matters.

IMO most Conventional Army Military Leaders, MOST LEADERS, they can full Mentor and develop their Troops to be great leaders. No knowing how to lead, knowing how to employ the full-spectrum capability of an ODA and how to plan and train for it. How can you really talk about it to a Combatant Commander? Guys fall back onto what they know. For me that is our problem both in SF and Conventional Army Leaders at all levels today. Their inability to be real leaders.
__________________
"Berg Heil"

History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over."

COLONEL BULL SIMONS

Intelligence failures are failures of command [just] as operations failures are command failures.”
MtnGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 19:01   #30
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 1,725
Absolutely MG.... DA, CT IMO needs to go back to being a subset mission of an operation underneath our umbrella specialties of UW, COIN and FID. The way tier 1 approaches CT is different than the way we approach it we serve different purposes and that should not be forgotten. Our contribution to fighting the enemy is paid for through our activities which happen left of phase 1 and ends once a conflict is handed over. Without our expertise and development of nets there is no GCC the SECDEF will allow to put escalating levels of presence and capability in any trouble country without the years of development we do to prepare the way. From capable indigenous to an in depth knowledge of who the good guys and bad guys are and what the infrastructure can support someone has to shape the picture for the GCC's decision making. Can you imagine flying over any country knowing that there is no capability to recover the technology or people? Can we say SECDEF denial?? Our activities are the most critical of what it takes to establish the ground work for any full spectrum requirement.

Now to expand on where I believe DA fits…..it is a capability where an ODA can conduct it if no other better suited resources are available. The criteria should be if no DA assets are available, the mission is time sensitive and we are unable to conduct the mission with host nation due to the host nation lack of capability or some other constraint forcing us to conduct it unilaterally. Can we do it?...yes! Are we specialist…no! a SFAUC-C once every 18 mos for proficiency puts us as qualified and capable but not preferred. Again we are not task organized as a DA unit per sey. (Blue Light) CIF’s on the other hand are and perhaps the DA/CT doctrinal mission capability actually lies within this GCC assigned unit but not a standard ODA. SF as a unit cannot get jealous every time a SEAL or Marine unit conducts a mission in the littorals and then re-focus our energy into competing with units selected, organized and trained to conduct DA. The idea that what we do will become irrelevant to a GCC because we aren’t conducting every SOF mission that comes down the pipe and gains media attention is a sad day for a unit who is prized for its quiet professional reputation performing missions in the shadows with little to no attention. I am certain that a GCC fully understands the value of a host nation being able to conduct its own security and its contribution to the overall effort by denying a conflict access to its borders further containing the issue.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:26.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies