| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Green Berets' numbers fall short |
| 2005-02-08 |
| The Army's Green Berets, a key weapon in the war on terror, are operating at under their authorized strength because of the high-attrition qualification course and because of the lure of higher-paying security work at private companies, military officials say. A number of military analysts and politicians have noted the Green Berets' importance in hunting al Qaeda terrorists and called on the Pentagon to increase significantly the Green Berets' ranks. For example, Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said during the presidential campaign that the number of Green Berets — officially called Special Forces — should double. But an examination by The Washington Times shows that there has been no budget authorization for significantly more Green Berets because Army Special Operations Command cannot fill all the billets it had before the September 11 attacks. "Special Forces cannot be mass-produced overnight," said Maj. Robert Gowan, a command spokesman. "We work very hard to maintain our standards." A Green Beret, who asked not to be named, said, "We are always understrength because we cannot find enough qualified candidates. ... The notion of expanding Special Forces was always a pipe dream. Special Forces could never get bigger without the Army getting bigger. The more milk, the more cream." Elite Green Berets are a perfect fit for the war on terror because they train for the kind of unconventional warfare now going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, a Green Beret force of five active-duty groups stands at 98 percent of billets. It had been at 94 percent before the September 11 attacks. The soldiers deploy from the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 10th Special Forces groups headquartered at bases in North Carolina, Kentucky, Colorado and Washington state. The Army is producing slightly more Green Berets as the chiefs of U.S. regional commands, called combatant commanders, place increased mission demands on the commandos. The five groups boast 3,950 Special Forces-qualified soldiers today, compared with 3,850 three years ago. The Army managed the slight increase of 100, not by increased budgets for more billets, but by graduating more soldiers to both meet the mission demand and to cover losses as some soldiers left for higher-paying private-sector jobs. Still, only about one-third of recruits successfully complete the grueling 63-week qualification school and earn the unit's signature green beret. The Army was graduating about 350 soldiers per year in 2002, but last year nearly doubled the number to 620. "We are slightly understrength, but we are working to fill those shortages," Maj. Gowan said. "The training to become a Special Forces soldier is tough, rigorous and long. To produce the type of warrior we want, it has to be." The standards helped produced victory for the United States in Afghanistan. Green Beret A Teams infiltrated the country, teamed with local Northern Alliance and other guerrillas and defeated the Taliban with the help of pinpoint air strikes. Green Berets, long kept out of counterterrorism on a large scale, suddenly saw their reputation and popularity skyrocket. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, very much a fan of what special operations forces can do, further enlisted Special Forces to fight in Iraq, Yemen, the Horn of Africa and the Philippines. Green Berets have even been tapped for clandestine spy missions in some al Qaeda-heavy countries. In Iraq, Green Berets teamed up with Kurdish fighters to destroy the al Qaeda-linked terror camp of Ansar al Islam. It was one of dozens of Special Forces missions, some conducted behind enemy lines. Mr. Rumsfeld was not the only person who noticed their attributes. Private companies in need of bodyguards and security experts started dangling higher-paying jobs. A senior enlisted Special Forces soldier, who earns $40,000 to $50,000 a year, can double his income performing private security. The Bush administration is asking Congress for bonus money in next year's budget to entice special operations troops to stay. Army Special Operations Command acknowledged some Green Berets are quitting, but could provide no retention statistics. Figures on Green Beret casualties during the war on terrorism were not immediately available yesterday. A Special Forces source said the Army designs the long qualification course to weed out the weak — quickly. "What really gets most of the people are the higher reasoning functions that are made even more difficult because they are conducted under stress from a lack of food and sleep," said the source, a graduate of the Berets' Qualification Course at Fort Bragg, N.C. "Many have never been really alone their entire lives. Now they are expected to work alone, in the middle of nowhere for days at a time." The source added, "The most physically rigorous portion of the training is the initial 'selection and assessment.' This is done to weed out the weak by running them hard." The source, who has been deployed on secret missions overseas, said Mr. Rumsfeld remains popular within the special operations community despite his political problems over Iraq. "He is fully for the transformation of the military to fight the wars to come. That puts Special Forces front and center," the source said. "He is implementing things we've recommended for years. Special Forces has been allowed to do what we've said we could do for 30 years and have now proved it." |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #13 There is one glaring problem with this entire story, that being that Special Forces are, well, "specialized". They generally do *one* kind of mission, as the Army Rangers do a different kind of mission, as Army helicopter mechanics do their kind of a mission. So, in effect, John Kerry has called for something akin to doubling the number of helicopter mechanics in the Army. But does the Army need twice as many? Have they doubled the number of helicopters? Many people mistakenly assume that the Special Forces are the military equivalent of the CIA. This is not to say that they aren't very, very good at what they do, but if you have personnel who work parallel to the Special Forces, but have a different mission, one that they are specialized for, you have a far better combined operation. And there are lots of other jobs that *do* run parallel to the Special Forces, some military and some not. For further information: http://www.socom.mil/ |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-08 10:13:07 PM |
| #12 Ship, my understanding is that the third bn = three new LAR companies they want to add to the the 3 existing LAR battalions we have. There's some other little suprises I can't mention yet over a blog until it comes out in the Marine Times. |
| Posted by: Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-02-08 9:56:16 PM |
| #11 If we would quit paying the contractors three times what we pay the Green Berets then maybe they wouldn't steal our troops by offering them twice their normal pay. Guess who makes out on this deal - the contractor keeping their cut. I know we needed the contractors in the short run, but this is ridiculous. Long term we continue to spend like drunken sailors and pay contactors to steal troops we pay to train and then pay the contractor three times as much for the same soldier - This lies firmly at Rumsfeld's doorstep. He can fix it. |
| Posted by: JP 2005-02-08 8:59:17 PM |
| #10 Mr. Aubrey and too true, I certainly do not want qualifications dumbed down. But, it seems that if we really want more SpecOps types it would be worth it to have a prep school for them. It's a little much to assume that youngsters (when your over 50 they are depressiningly young) come into the service with enough raw skills to survive the test with no significant support for their training. Languages and cultural skills can be taught as can superior physical skills it a person is willing to learn and the training is available. If we really need more of these folks than are available at this level we can probably develop them with a little more lower level training. Some kids can go right from high-school to the pros, most need the seasoning and training that they get in college. Do we have that level of training? Doesn't sound like it, and it sounds like it would help. Shieldwolf, are the Rangers really a "farm team" for the Berets? Sounds like it from your post, but, I could be wrong. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-02-08 8:44:56 PM |
| #9 Special Forces is a brain outfit. The physical quals are necessary, but this is not a bunch of guys who win by humping 150 pounds faster than the enemy. They are master linguists and superb cultural anthropologists. That's on top of being first-rate soldiers. The commander of the A team that fought with and brought Karzai to Kabul majored in Arab studies in college. For hard-hitting firepower, we have....the Army and Marines. Smaller groups within the Army, such as Rangers, are trained to fight as conventional soldiers in more difficult situations. SEALs are commandos. Force Recon in the Marines is a recon unit. Like the SEALs, many of their missions succeed without the enemy knowing they're there, although they can also hit with tremendous force. But, being small units, their ability to sustain a fight is limited. Different strokes, as they say. But Special Forces is far more than well-conditioned super soldiers. Their original mission was to go behind enemy lines and organize resistance, sort of a follow-on from the Jedburg teams of WW II. For that reason, many of the first teams were actually foreign nationals, escapees from the Sovbloc. Clearly, this is more than a matter of weapons mastery and physical conditioning. |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2005-02-08 8:26:05 PM |
| #8 JarHead OT... budget calling for 2 more active duty battalions, 1 less than the trinity. Is it hidden? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-02-08 6:48:42 PM |
| #7 SwissTex: Congress sets maximum limits on the size of various forces, as well as component forces. The set the Marines at X, Army at Y, Navy at Z ships, and so on. Whether the services actually can recruit up to those numbers is another matter. In the 1970s [shudder], the military was often well below its maximum strength. Sometimes, the maximum is really meant as a limit, and the military decides that it doesn't really need that many, so doesn't even try to hit the limit. And of course, Congress needs to appropriate the money to fund the force levels it authorizes. So, in this case, Congress has said that Special Forces shall be no more than XX. Obviously, for this kind of war, you probably really want as many as you can get, so if the military can't have XX, it's probably not because they don't want to, but they can't. Four years ago, we only had 0.94 * XX, while now we have 0.98 * XX. So, we're doing better, but we still are allowed to have more, provided we can find people of the right ability. There are many possible reasons for the shortfall. One is that perhaps we simply don't have that many people capable of meeting the requirements. Another is that they don't re-enlist, so we have to keep training new ones just to break even, and can't put enough in the pipeline to grow. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-02-08 6:31:56 PM |
| #6 I'm not sure that would really do what we want to do. Special Forces is a unique and demanding role. When on a mission, these guys are generally out of uniform - and hence not protected by the Geneva Conventions (assuming the GCs would otherwise be honored by the country in question). They learn languages and culture skills and a lot more besides physical fitness things. Bottom line: you have to really want this and you have to be willing to work without a lot of support structure around you. Those who train up themselves probably have those attributes. Those that need the support of higher command to do it probably don't. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-02-08 6:13:24 PM |
| #5 In the vain of the comments, a lot of the train up for the program is done on the individual soldier's time. While there may be some support at the platoon or company level, you will usually not find the brigade or division spending time and resources on 'prep' courses. I suspect if this was really a high priority issue, the message would go out to the divisions and installations to establish such a prep course for potential candidates which gives them the time and prelimiaries in getting ready for right-of-passage portions of the courses. |
| Posted by: Phique Spoluper4664 2005-02-08 5:15:36 PM |
| #4 There's a "recon indoc" that Force Recon does. Series of physical events that you have to pass done in a one day period. If you pass you move on to do the recon program itself. If you fail, you can try again pretty much whenever they do the indoc. I think you have to have a high standard in order to be accepted into the Green Berets, if you want to lower standards you have to accept a lower degree of physical proficiency. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2005-02-08 4:55:42 PM |
| #3 I don't understand the title. Short of what? 100%? |
| Posted by: SwissTex 2005-02-08 4:40:01 PM |
| #2 Actually, you can reapply for most SpecOps training courses; there are more than a few operators who failed the first time out. But, it would not be a good idea to have a "farm team" for Green Berets. Ideally, the Airborne and Ranger units serve as the break-in units that Green Berets tap in the Army. Also, some guys that make excellent Airborne/Ranger/QRF are just not suited for the demands of A-Teams. That is why there are a variety of elite forces in the military structure, with differing specific requirements. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-02-08 2:36:28 PM |
| #1 I've a question for all you military experts out there. First, I understand and applaud the high qualifications for SpecOps troops. The question is inherent in this statement "A Special Forces source said the Army designs the long qualification course to weed out the weak — quickly." Do we need to weed out so many, quickly? Or, is it possible to train some of those who get weeded out quickly into those who would meet the qualifications? I'm thinking of an NFL draftee who doesn't make the team, but, after more training turns into a star. (Think Kurt Warner's trip from being cut through NFL Europe and Arena league) Granted fast is good and slow probably more expensive, though since the failures are still in the Army, not very. If we need more do we really need a lot more raw material? Or could a different type of training course (think Junior College) serve to bulk up the pool? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-02-08 2:19:30 PM |