Smitty, another controversial post. But I promise I'm not calling names

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Smitty, another controversial post. But I promise I'm not calling names
SCCOMarine 3/7/2007 7:24:52 PM

Read to the END

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3

SCCOMarine POLICY. PLS Read! 3/9/2007 2:07:14 PM

Which meant that if the Corps wanted its hands in any future SO missions they had to play ball w/ SOCOM, and place Marines under their direct Control.

Hence DET-1. But DET-1 was meant to be an intro of Corps capabilities, not a permenant hand over of assets.

Enter Rumsfeld who has stated that he had to Force the Corps to Cooperate. And joked that "Maybe I'll see this thing finished by the time I'm 80". He is now 73.

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine POLICY. PLS Read! 3/9/2007 2:11:19 PM

So NO! The Corps is not NEW COMERS, and NO! We don't want a F(king HAND OUT!

The Corps paid for DET-1 out of its own funds, and also for the set-up for MARSOC.

The Money for MARSOC is only now being appropriated!

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier 3/9/2007 4:53:10 PM

No, No, No, I could give a F(k where the Corps headed in SO, I'm out going to school. I may rejoin latter but that’s irrelevant.

I’m more concerned about the past and the attitude shown on this site that, b/c the Corps didn’t join SOCOM in ’86 that we were somehow irrelevant in the SO game, both pre ’86 and post, and that’s false.

Here’s the truth. For 40+ yrs B4 ’86 all 4 services were deeply involved in SO development and missions. But truthfully, it was the Army and the Marine Corps that lead way in SO development in the US.

Kind of like the buddy of mine who's working on his 5th marriage and, by this time of day, probably a 5th of scotch as well . . . SCCOMarine did you ever stop to think the problem may not be with the USMC, or the people who reply with a negative sort of tone to your posts . . . but maybe the problem is with you?

I mean don't take this personally, but your zeal is annoying. I honestly tend to shade my comments specifically to elicit another of your diatribes simply because I find your tone and arrogance offensive and entirely misplaced. Calm down and consider discussing a topic rationally, without absurd claims like "every marine is practically a special operations soldier" (or something to that effect, it's been a while since that . . . intriguing . . . assertion was thrown out on one of these threads) and perhaps you can both educate and learn. Sling catchphrases and buzzwords like "army F)ckups" around and . . . well, you sacred cow will tend to get verbally skewered. A lot.

Strangely, this is pretty much how interpersonal communication works. Your attitude interacts with the other folks' attitude and creates a synthesis of the two. Productive communication does not tend to begin from the arrogant and overbearing tone you seem to reflexively bring to the table.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier 3/9/2007 5:10:22 PM

Pre ’86 each service were equally committed to SO missions and development.

No, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. It is, perhaps, a convenient sweeping claim, but it is false.

When did Force Recon get its own career field? When was Force Recon disbanded by the USMC and pushed into div recon battalions? Why did the USMC develop the conventional infantry battalion MEU(SOC) idea instead of contributing SOF units to SOCOM?

Not that the USMC was alone in this. What would become AFSOC was a career and funding backwater in the USAF pre-86, with the idea of pushing all SOF aviation capabilities into the AFRes and AIRNG having a lot of momentum in the late 70s, until Op Eagle Claw demonstrated that there was a need for dedicated SOF air crews and airframes. (Which the USMC . . . not involved in, yes? So, the USMC, despite having one of the largest air forces in the world, has less interest in special operations aviation than the USAF or US Army, right?).

Etc.

The army was faster out of the gate rebuilding capabilities that had attrited to a degree post-Vietnam and recognizing the value of CT units. The navy did likewise, getting money rolling back to the SEALs after some rough years in the early 70s as well. The USMC and the USAF . . . not so much. Other priorities and other interests, in a world of finite budgets, made this understandable, but in any case, your historic claim is just wrong.

But the attitude on this site is that b/c the Corps that we had no hand in SO, that we’re new comer’s to the field. That’s wrong.

The USMC was not especially a mover or shaker in the special operations world from the end of Vietnam until post-9/11, yes. Sorry, but that's true. Which changes in doctrine, TTPs, how SOF organize and interact with the world, etc., came from the USMC? A lot came from Delta/CAG and ST6/DEVGRU, a lot came from the US Army aviation community with the formation of TF 160 and then 160th SOAR, a lot was pioneered by the Rangers, by AFSOC, by Army SF, etc., but what was the USMC's contribution?

When I go to work each day in my modest and entertaining USASOC job, what accomplishments of the USMC's special operations community (if it can honestly even be called that until the last decade or so, given the corps' resistance to letting operators stay in SOF-ish units) do I see trained on the flat range or shoot house? I'm very curious.

If that were the case then why did SOCOM fight so hard to try and get control of the Corps’ Specialized Units?

Sheer common sense and most efficient organization? Massing special capabilities under the major command that was designed to employ them, oversee their training and equipment, etc? Protect the folks in them from those conventionalists in the USMC senior ranks who undermine their effectiveness by fighting against any "elite" in a supposedly "elite" force (of almost 200,000 personnel)? More bodies to cover down on the mass of missions that come SOCOM's way post-9/11? Various and assorted reasons, though the answer is not that the USMC is the best of the best, which is, I know, your heartfelt belief.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3