I scanned the article quickly and I found one of the phrases that immediately came to mind when I opened the thread: "hero worship". I'll add immaturity ,elitism, ego and a desperate need to be a famous.

It's really no surprise. There are thousands of movies made about special forces. Add to that the millions of people that engage in hero worship, some of which are right here in this forum, and this is the obvious result. These people regard themselves as rock stars.

The guy who killed OBL couldn't identify himself fast enough. He's on TV, at events etc. It really makes me wonder what happened with al-Baghdadi. Did he really blow himself up or was that a story to prevent an individual from taking credit? Also, I noticed that the SEALS weren't invited to that party.

To me, the overriding cause is immaturity. Many of them are little kids in adult bodies.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
The guy who killed OBL couldn't identify himself fast enough.

The first shooter has yet to ID himself or, be outed. The #2 guy through, O'Neil, was all too eager to cash-in and make the media rounds. There was little effort to correct the narrative inertia.

quote:

Also, I noticed that the SEALS weren't invited to that party.

Dev's AO is Afghanistan, D-boys AO is Iraq. It's not a hard-fast line but, its the existing division of labor within JSOC.

quote:

To me, the overriding cause is immaturity. Many of them are little kids in adult bodies.

The fraternity stereotype is pervasive in many close knit units, the younger the average members are, the more it's a problem. Rangers are the youngest of the SOF units, however, the highly structured and regimented environment keeps a lid on most high school shenanigans. Not going to see any batt boys painting themselves up like KISS and taking pictures of themselves

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
Shortly after the Grenada invasion in 1983, several enlisted members were caught shooting an AK "bring-back" on a firebreak (dirt road). They were promptly tried and sent to Leavenworth.

If you have more information, or especially a link to that incident I would be curious to see it.

I remember the issue about weapons having been brought back without authorization because shortly after the Grenada operation I was assigned to the headquarters of the Army CID Command. When the illegal importation was discovered and the CID got involved it obviously attracted attention at the top. One of the bizarre things I clearly recall was that the Fort Lewis (? IIRC) Staff Judge Advocate opined that no laws had been broken by the soldiers who had smuggled the AKs and other items into the U.S.

It was my understanding at the time that because of that opinion no charges were filed against anyone, much less was anyone sent to Leavenworth. And that was fine with me (and not that I had anything to do with the decision). But because I believed that that astonishing opinion needed to be clarified at least within the CID Command, I personally sent a memo up the chain pointing out that smuggling automatic weapons into the U.S. violated customs and National Firearms Act laws, not to mention UCMJ Article 103, “Captured or Abandoned Property” that prohibits keeping captured enemy property for oneself.

I was a JAG officer. This is the kind of opinion that a JAG issues when he has been gifted a bring-back AK...

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I was a JAG officer. This is the kind of opinion that a JAG issues when he has been gifted a bring-back AK...

Well, then, as long as he might have had a good reason.
I thought it was perhaps just ignorance of the law.

SOF cats can not be massed produce...when you attempt to do so, you remove the maturity and experience made the SOF cats "Special".


18Z50....I placed the "suck" into SFAS

I don’t believe anything in this thread, not previously at least, has been about mass producing special operators.
It’s about law, regulations, and the rules of the organizations—and more important, holding them to those standards by the same types of oversight that should be exercised over any military organization. To say it again, it is belief that we are immune from the consequences of our actions that leads to succumbing to temptation and corruption. There are countless examples of that in all walks of life, and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen to our elite warriors if they are offered temptations.

Mass production to meet optempo has everything to do with the root causes of the current negative issues we are facing in the SOF community.

If you like to discuss this matter in depth, send a phone number to my profile email.

18Z50....Nous Defions.

Okay, I believe I understand your point now. It’s certainly true that recruitment pressures can affect an entire culture, so thanks.

Admiral Metcalf, who as 2d Fleet Commander had overall responsibility for operations in Grenada, was responsible for trying to import 24 captured AKs into the U.S. on his aircraft.

WP Article

He got off with a “caution,” while lower ranking personnel committing similar offenses drew far harsher punishments.

Recruitment pressure, and retention have certainly been at the forefront.

The larger issue is leadership dealing with the bad or, incomplete apples and how they affect the rest of the unit/team. Every org has its questionable members, can SOF afford operators that excel at only one thing but, struggle with character and other aspects, of being a professional warrior?

They get a bye in my book

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:
He got off with a “caution,” while lower ranking personnel committing similar offenses drew far harsher punishments.

Thanks for that article.

The question that differences in how such cases are handled should raise, though, and usually don’t, is how should they have been handled? Should the admiral have been hammered, or should the lower ranking personnel been given a pass?

When we read of a garage mechanic producing illicit automatic weapons here, there is usually very little sympathy among law-abiding gun owners for the perpetrator. Should it be any different for members of the armed forces? They didn’t know? Perhaps, but there were stringent rules about bringing back prohibited weapons even from Vietnam. If we didn’t know it before, it was emphasized over and over just before our baggage was about to be inspected prior to the return flight home. The inspections were much less thorough than they were following later conflicts and were mostly concerned about drugs, but no one would have had any excuse if he’d been caught with an AK in his duffle bag. I find it hard to believe that anyone was ignorant of the rules after Grenada.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
They get a bye in my book

I’m not a JAG but last time I looked at the Uniform Code of Military Justice I did not see exemptions for anyone in special programs.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
They get a bye in my book

I’m not a JAG but last time I looked at the Uniform Code of Military Justice I did not see exemptions for anyone in special programs.

But there are...it is in the very very fine print that only 04s and above can read. I saw lots of pilots screwing up and doing all kinds of shady nasty shit. The times they were taken into custody, most of the time they were let off with a wrist slap. I can't tell you the number of times as Security Police, I heard the old "they work hard, they get to play hard" crap.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
But there are...

I realize you are being sarcastic, but if there are exceptions, it’s in policy and practice, not the UCMJ.
“Some animals are more equal than others,” and, “Oh, oh! Someone got special treatment,” has been a fact of life since before we were humans.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
Shortly after the Grenada invasion in 1983, several enlisted members were caught shooting an AK "bring-back" on a firebreak (dirt road). They were promptly tried and sent to Leavenworth.

If you have more information, or especially a link to that incident I would be curious to see it.

No link or info,... sorry, I know that sounds bad.

I served with a couple of these guys after they were released and they told me the story first hand.

They did indeed go to Leavenworth and they were released for the reasons mentioned.

There are a lot of oddball "items" that are brought back from any deployment. There was, at the time, what was called a NQA bin (no questions asked) where you could drop anything you wanted to get rid of. It was always funny to get a flashlight and see what's inside - incredible what people manage to get their hands on.

On guy in our unit found a live LAW in the company dumpster.

... and yes folks, having an illegal full auto will get you in the same trouble as a civilian. It always goes back to knowing how far is too far. There is a lot of leeway but don't cross the line. You will end up in prison.

V.

quote:

Some of you may remember "Nate" who is 100% disabled, still in uniform, still making trips to the sand box.

I'm sure that this has some significance that is presently eluding me, but as a foreigner it looks very odd to me. I've been involved on a personal level with disability - what you call handicap - for almost 40 years - our daughter is what we here in UK call severely disabled. She has cerebral palsey and hydrocephalus. I have been chairman of the regional branch of the National Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, not once, but four times, and helped to found another local association here called DISH - Disabled Information Service Hotline, so you can take it to the bank that I know what the word 'disability' entails.

An acquaintance of ours is what WE call 98% disabled - he is tetraplegic and uses eye movements to control equipment, not having any other motor control. But he is NOT 100% disabled. IF he was unable to move an eye, and was totally dependent, only THEN would he be classed as 100% disabled.

And yet you have a person still in uniform, still 'getting things done' in a military environment, who is 100% disabled?

I'd be grateful if you could explain this to me.

I will second that optempo and an over abundance of operational burden on special ops soldiers ( the size of the special operations force- massive compared to pre 9/11 levels- with the associated emphasis on recruiting and retention of these troops) has greatly contributed to these issues.
Politically it is an effort to minimize the conventional force footprint.
With some troops seeing so many multiple deployments ( I know traditional national guard soldiers in conventional units that have 5 plus deployments in the last 10 years)
The stress and fatigue gets to everyone.
After my second deployment I was in pretty rough shape, and can’t imagine if I had not retired and been subjected to more.
highlighting discipline failures in special operations is a symptom of a much larger serious disease in our military

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
...
I'd be grateful if you could explain this to me.

tac, I am no expert, but this article popped up in a feed I read and it seemed timely.

The crux of your question seems to boil down to a difference in what the military and Veterans Administration considers "disabled" from a military service standpoint, and what civilians, insurance, industry, and the civilian side of the government consider it.

Serving with a VA disability rating