CSNbbs

Quote:Despite the insanity of the current state of the world, featuring American hostages in Gaza, not to mention the deployment of one of the largest groups of U.S. military power in recent memory, as we reported here, U.S. Military Power In Middle East Grows, it turns out that the Biden Administration is about to drastically cut one of the U.S. military’s premier fighting units – Army Special Forces.

From a Wall Street Journal article published two days before the Hamas terrorist butchery in Israel: Army Plans Major Cuts to Special-Operations Forces, Including Green Berets:

The Pentagon is poised to make controversial cuts to the Army’s storied special-operations forces, amid recruiting struggles and a shift in focus from Middle East counterterrorism operations to a threat from China.

The Army is cutting about 3,000 troops, or about 10% from its special-operations ranks, which could include so-called trigger-pullers from the Green Beret commando units who have conducted some of the nation’s most dangerous and sensitive missions around the world, from the jungles of Vietnam to the back alleys of Baghdad.

The article goes into further detail about the shift in strategy from the Middle East to defending against aggression from China:

The reductions would enable the Army to rebalance toward the large conventional ground forces needed in a potential fight in Asia….

But more broadly, the reduction would mark the beginning of a new era for the Pentagon. The U.S., long engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict zones, has relied heavily on special-operations troops as the go-to force to fight counterterrorism and conduct the counterinsurgency operations in the war on terror….

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, SOCOM, which also includes the Navy SEALs, the Marine Corps’ special-reconnaissance force, Air Force special operators and others, has grown to about 75,000 from 45,000, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office. The Army contributes about half of those forces, or about 36,000. Troops and civilian support staff now operate in about 80 countries.

Special Operations Command oversaw the hunt and ultimate killing of Osama bin Laden, the ground raid in Syria that killed the head of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and the 2003 rescue of soldier Jessica Lynch in Iraq, and hundreds of other sensitive, perilous operations over the years.

But as the U.S. focuses more on the so-called great power competition with China, some policy makers see less of a need for the highly trained and specialized troops, officials said. Instead, they favor pouring more resources into the kind of conventional forces expected to be more relevant in a peer-on-peer conflict. The Pentagon has shrunk its presence in the Middle East, leaving half-empty the sprawling American bases that were a hallmark of the war on terrorism and the springboard for some special-operations missions.

The article also reveals, however, that the cuts may be due more to recruiting problems than any real shift in geopolitical strategy:

The trims in the ranks of special forces would also help the Army cope with a recruiting shortfall in a strong labor market….

Mostly, the Army plans to cut special-operations troops in supporting roles such as psychological warfare, civil affairs, intelligence operators, communications troops, logistics and other so-called enablers, U.S. military officials said. The cuts would follow the reallocation last year of more than 700 special-operations troops from the Army and other services. In sum, the cuts to the Pentagon’s umbrella Special Operations Command would amount to about 3,700 troops since last year.

In addition, the Army is struggling with a debilitating, multiyear recruiting crisis amid a strong economy. This year, the service missed a 65,000-soldier recruiting goal by 15,000 people, and its overall strength is projected to drop it as low as 440,000 in 2025 from about 453,000 now. Special-operations forces have contributed to an imbalance, Army officials said, in which some jobs have gone unfilled and units aren’t fully manned.

And others believe the cuts may be due to other issues:

We have reported on the new Chairman, Air Force General C.Q. Brown, Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley’s Replacement Even More Woke, If That is Possible, and his plan while Air Force Chief of Staff to cut the numbers of white male pilots to 43%, so this X commenter may be on to something.

In any case, military observers are not impressed:

This is especially galling given the fact that numerous American citizens are currently being held hostage in Gaza, and the only way the U.S. military could extract them is with special forces. I like this idea:

Link

Those globo homo cookies arent gonna bake themselves

Killing is sooooo icky


Hang tough Tubbs

Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

(11-06-2023 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

That isn't it. I just got back from my son's BT graduation and there are plenty of worthy recruits. The base has a graduation every Friday.

(11-06-2023 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

Where are we going to have a ground war in Asia?

The Philippines?

Will the Chinese really try to invade Japan or Australia?

I can't imagine anywhere else we would defend with soldiers.

And the Chinese don't have the capacity to land any significant number of troops the distance it would take to get to Japan or the Philippines or Australia. Maybe Taiwan, but most likely if we get involved, it would be to send their army to the bottom of the Taiwan Strait before they landed.

In any event there won't be mass armies.

It would be crazy to physically invade China with their vast land and 1.4 billion people who have no rights and could be sent in mass wave attacks. And that's not even considering the nuke angle.

I think Ukraine is showing that drones are making mass movements very deadly to the attackers.

(11-06-2023 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

Where are we going to have a ground war in Asia?

The Philippines?

Will the Chinese really try to invade Japan or Australia?

I can't imagine anywhere else we would defend with soldiers.

And the Chinese don't have the capacity to land any significant number of troops the distance it would take to get to Japan or the Philippines or Australia. Maybe Taiwan, but most likely if we get involved, it would be to send their army to the bottom of the Taiwan Strait before they landed.

In any event there won't be mass armies.

It would be crazy to physically invade China with their vast land and 1.4 billion people who have no rights and could be sent in mass wave attacks. And that's not even considering the nuke angle.

I think Ukraine is showing that drones are making mass movements very deadly to the attackers.

Special forces only engage in a ground war?

(11-06-2023 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

Where are we going to have a ground war in Asia?

The Philippines?

Will the Chinese really try to invade Japan or Australia?

I can't imagine anywhere else we would defend with soldiers.

And the Chinese don't have the capacity to land any significant number of troops the distance it would take to get to Japan or the Philippines or Australia. Maybe Taiwan, but most likely if we get involved, it would be to send their army to the bottom of the Taiwan Strait before they landed.

In any event there won't be mass armies.

It would be crazy to physically invade China with their vast land and 1.4 billion people who have no rights and could be sent in mass wave attacks. And that's not even considering the nuke angle.

I think Ukraine is showing that drones are making mass movements very deadly to the attackers.

Special forces only engage in a ground war?

I'm responding to this point in the article:

"...The article goes into further detail about the shift in strategy from the Middle East to defending against aggression from China:

The reductions would enable the Army to rebalance toward the large conventional ground forces needed in a potential fight in Asia…."

Perhaps the hurry to shift to a China-focused stance is necessary immediately while China still has access to what is planned?

I'm not surprised in the least. With gays being a preferred enlistee in the services it has gotten expensive because those Louis Vuitton purses don't come cheap, especially if they're camoflaged.

(11-06-2023 10:54 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Despite the insanity of the current state of the world, featuring American hostages in Gaza, not to mention the deployment of one of the largest groups of U.S. military power in recent memory, as we reported here, U.S. Military Power In Middle East Grows, it turns out that the Biden Administration is about to drastically cut one of the U.S. military’s premier fighting units – Army Special Forces.

From a Wall Street Journal article published two days before the Hamas terrorist butchery in Israel: Army Plans Major Cuts to Special-Operations Forces, Including Green Berets:

The Pentagon is poised to make controversial cuts to the Army’s storied special-operations forces, amid recruiting struggles and a shift in focus from Middle East counterterrorism operations to a threat from China.

The Army is cutting about 3,000 troops, or about 10% from its special-operations ranks, which could include so-called trigger-pullers from the Green Beret commando units who have conducted some of the nation’s most dangerous and sensitive missions around the world, from the jungles of Vietnam to the back alleys of Baghdad.

The article goes into further detail about the shift in strategy from the Middle East to defending against aggression from China:

The reductions would enable the Army to rebalance toward the large conventional ground forces needed in a potential fight in Asia….

But more broadly, the reduction would mark the beginning of a new era for the Pentagon. The U.S., long engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict zones, has relied heavily on special-operations troops as the go-to force to fight counterterrorism and conduct the counterinsurgency operations in the war on terror….

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, SOCOM, which also includes the Navy SEALs, the Marine Corps’ special-reconnaissance force, Air Force special operators and others, has grown to about 75,000 from 45,000, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office. The Army contributes about half of those forces, or about 36,000. Troops and civilian support staff now operate in about 80 countries.

Special Operations Command oversaw the hunt and ultimate killing of Osama bin Laden, the ground raid in Syria that killed the head of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and the 2003 rescue of soldier Jessica Lynch in Iraq, and hundreds of other sensitive, perilous operations over the years.

But as the U.S. focuses more on the so-called great power competition with China, some policy makers see less of a need for the highly trained and specialized troops, officials said. Instead, they favor pouring more resources into the kind of conventional forces expected to be more relevant in a peer-on-peer conflict. The Pentagon has shrunk its presence in the Middle East, leaving half-empty the sprawling American bases that were a hallmark of the war on terrorism and the springboard for some special-operations missions.

The article also reveals, however, that the cuts may be due more to recruiting problems than any real shift in geopolitical strategy:

The trims in the ranks of special forces would also help the Army cope with a recruiting shortfall in a strong labor market….

Mostly, the Army plans to cut special-operations troops in supporting roles such as psychological warfare, civil affairs, intelligence operators, communications troops, logistics and other so-called enablers, U.S. military officials said. The cuts would follow the reallocation last year of more than 700 special-operations troops from the Army and other services. In sum, the cuts to the Pentagon’s umbrella Special Operations Command would amount to about 3,700 troops since last year.

In addition, the Army is struggling with a debilitating, multiyear recruiting crisis amid a strong economy. This year, the service missed a 65,000-soldier recruiting goal by 15,000 people, and its overall strength is projected to drop it as low as 440,000 in 2025 from about 453,000 now. Special-operations forces have contributed to an imbalance, Army officials said, in which some jobs have gone unfilled and units aren’t fully manned.

And others believe the cuts may be due to other issues:

We have reported on the new Chairman, Air Force General C.Q. Brown, Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley’s Replacement Even More Woke, If That is Possible, and his plan while Air Force Chief of Staff to cut the numbers of white male pilots to 43%, so this X commenter may be on to something.

In any case, military observers are not impressed:

This is especially galling given the fact that numerous American citizens are currently being held hostage in Gaza, and the only way the U.S. military could extract them is with special forces. I like this idea:

Link

What’s going on here?

My proposal. Get rid of some redundancy and related excess expenditure by defining each branch's mission more specifically and enforcing discipline to keep each branch in its own lane. Make Army responsible for large unit overland campaigns (such as Russian invasion of Western Europe) and Marines responsible for small unit operations and littoral areas. The basic Army unit would be a division and the basic Marine unit would be a battalion or regiment.

Marines would become a combination amphibious and commando organization, like Royal Marines but much larger. Marines would take over USSOCOM, again like Royal Marines did in UK. Special forces would consist of about 30,000 Marine commandos in SOCOM, augmented as needed by about 10,000 each Green Berets, SEALS, and AFSOC. Every Marine E5 and above would be commando qualified. USMC would consist of about 90,000 Fleet Marines (amphibious forces, 6 divisions plus 2 reserve divisions, active divisions rotate on 3:1 basis) plus 30,000 Marine commandos plus 20,000 Marine air plus 10,000 admin/training, total force 150,000 active (20% reduction from current) plus 80,000 reserves (2x current), total force 230,000. Marine air would focus on movement of forces ashore, close air support, and ground attack, and turn its air superiority mission over to Navy (which would turn ground attack over to Marines so both could focus on what they do best.

(11-06-2023 04:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not surprised in the least. With gays being a preferred enlistee in the services it has gotten expensive because those Louis Vuitton purses don't come cheap, especially if they're camoflaged.

(11-06-2023 11:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 04:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not surprised in the least. With gays being a preferred enlistee in the services it has gotten expensive because those Louis Vuitton purses don't come cheap, especially if they're camoflaged.

The military has totally lost the bubble about what its mission should be. Although the military is usually ahead of the rest of the country on social issues, that is a by product and not its objective. The only reason to have armed forces is to defend the country against its enemies, and the only way to do that is to win wars.

As a corollary, never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

(11-07-2023 01:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 11:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 04:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not surprised in the least. With gays being a preferred enlistee in the services it has gotten expensive because those Louis Vuitton purses don't come cheap, especially if they're camoflaged.

The military has totally lost the bubble about what its mission should be. Although the military is usually ahead of the rest of the country on social issues, that is a by product and not its objective. The only reason to have armed forces is to defend the country against its enemies, and the only way to do that is to win wars.

As a corollary, never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

The military hasn't been in the business of winning wars since 1945.

(11-07-2023 01:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 11:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 04:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not surprised in the least. With gays being a preferred enlistee in the services it has gotten expensive because those Louis Vuitton purses don't come cheap, especially if they're camoflaged.

The military has totally lost the bubble about what its mission should be. Although the military is usually ahead of the rest of the country on social issues, that is a by product and not its objective. The only reason to have armed forces is to defend the country against its enemies, and the only way to do that is to win wars.

As a corollary, never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

would you enlist in today's military out of 'pride for country'?

/rhetorical

what so many don't realize is how quickly thingys can change (well, maybe some of the sum are now realizing such, Ja?!)

I remember registering for the draft AND interviewing with an USAF recruiter ... I simply wanted to compete with those that wanted to fly fast and furious (had the grades, test scores, and dexterity ... IIRC, 75" was 1" too many + myopia (with correctional) was the insurmountable hurdle in '82)...

what a different life that would've been ... no way would I want such today ... #sigh

(11-06-2023 01:40 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

Where are we going to have a ground war in Asia?

The Philippines?

Will the Chinese really try to invade Japan or Australia?

I can't imagine anywhere else we would defend with soldiers.

And the Chinese don't have the capacity to land any significant number of troops the distance it would take to get to Japan or the Philippines or Australia. Maybe Taiwan, but most likely if we get involved, it would be to send their army to the bottom of the Taiwan Strait before they landed.

In any event there won't be mass armies.

It would be crazy to physically invade China with their vast land and 1.4 billion people who have no rights and could be sent in mass wave attacks. And that's not even considering the nuke angle.

I think Ukraine is showing that drones are making mass movements very deadly to the attackers.

Special forces only engage in a ground war?

I'm responding to this point in the article:

"...The article goes into further detail about the shift in strategy from the Middle East to defending against aggression from China:

The reductions would enable the Army to rebalance toward the large conventional ground forces needed in a potential fight in Asia…."

Gotcha! Still doesn't make much sense to me. Before any large scale operation, I'd think special forces would be put forth first. I dunno though, I'm no military expert.

Well, maybe if we quit paying for sex changes while in the military, we could afford special forces...

The priority for this administration is sex changes, not mission readiness.

(11-06-2023 12:04 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2023 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Why would a shift in focus from the ME to China be a reason to reduce special forces? My guess is it's getting harder and harder to recruit these soldiers given all the woke crap they have to put up with these days. I mean, the type of person willing to do the most dangerous missions, aren't exactly the type to give a rat's a$$ about what pronouns someone else wants them to use.

That isn't it. I just got back from my son's BT graduation and there are plenty of worthy recruits. The base has a graduation every Friday.

Getting into selection is tough to begin with and then it's a tough process to get done with all the training to become an operator. I know in the Army you need to be Airborne at least. Ranger School helps but not necessary. I'm sure I'm making it sound easy. Once you get past Selection and the training they assign you to groups and each group has 2 specialties.. You get done there and work SF you can then try for Delta.

I remember when my buddy wanted to go SF. His superiors didn't want to put in the paperwork because he was vital to their unit, but when it was time to re-up he basically told them either he went to selection or he was done, if he failed he'd stay in unit.

He made selection. Went through all the training got into Group. When it was time for him to leave Bragg, it was either Japan or Tacoma, WA. He luckily got sent to Tacoma.. and now is an instructor at Eglin for the Army for IED. He's almost got his 20 in.