Russia is dominating the battle for the Arctic — via @VocativRussia is dominating the battle for the Arctic — via @VocativRussia is dominating the battle for the Arctic — via @VocativRussia is dominating the battle for the Arctic — via @Vocativ
↧
Russia is dominating the battle for the Arctic
↧
Here's how military combat training is evolving
Note: This is part of a series. You can read parts one, two, three, four, and five here.
In 2001, the Army opened the Combatives School at Ft. Benning, Georgia, and began formulating training and protocols for this new mixed martial arts-based combatives system, further analyzing and preparing the soldier for close-quarters battle.
In 2002, the U.S. Army officially adopted MACP and issued the first Army MACP FM manual, FM 3-25.150. This was a major step up for the Army and allowed major improvements.
MACP is modular and adaptable to unit needs and training time constraints. MACP instructor selection is unique to each unit and is based on who is on hand and what they know.
Although still lacking in the way of standardization, this was still much better than what existed previously. But, as good as MACP is, in time it became clear to Special Forces that MACP was a good fit for the Army, but not for SF. Not completely.
Combatives FMs
The story of Army combatives manuals offers some insights. FM 21-150 COMBATIVES was first published in 1954 and last published in 1992. It had evolved over the years, but still retained its traditional influences of bayonet (Repeat after me: “Parry! Thrust!”) and e-tool, pit construction, obstacle courses, pugil stick training, and some new and old judo and karate influences and techniques such as punches, throws, pressure points, and even a six-foot pole many martial artists refer to as a “Bo.”
“Stick with what we know,” must have been the dominant logic. A major problem with 21-150 was that it was too vague in the training of qualified instructors or to serve as a system for fluid implementation across all units, and relied too much on the “commander’s discretion.” It did not put everyone on one sheet of music.
FM 3-25.150 replaced 21-150, was first published in Jan 2002, and was last published in April 2009. The current manual is TC 3-25.150 and is, essentially, the FM without the competition rules. It is not available for public access. Army military police have their own combatives manual, which derives much from the influence of MACP. It is known as ATP 3-39.35.
SOCP hand-to-hand combatives
In 2007, SWC officially adopted MACP. A year later, in 2008, the Special Warfare Center (SWC) officially dropped LINE, adopted MACP, and Matt Larson was put in charge of that effort. Around that same time, Greg Thompson was training various units on Bragg in combatives.
Matt and Greg met and discussed adapting MACP to fit SF. Greg had already developed many of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) that would become SOCP. Matt took many of those back to MACP. Karl Haskins also entered the picture around this time. Karl had been teaching combatives to various SOF units on Bragg using the SPEAR system, a system devised by Tony Blauer in Canada in the 1980s, based on natural human reflex actions.
It was this collaboration between Greg, Karl, and Matt that led ultimately to SOCP, which was fine-tuned MACP for SF. The SOCP evolution and development out of MACP persists to this day, as the two systems, and their instructors, share a mutually beneficial relationship which allows them to cross-pollinate and improve one another.
In 2008, AFSOC picked up LINE. They never officially adopted it, but some AFSOC units did use it for several years. They dropped LINE when that system’s gaps and shortcomings came to light in public and military reports. In light of that, the Air Force chief of staff shut down all Air Force combatives training and formed a review committee to determine how training should move forward.
Eventually the Air Force came out with AFCP, which derived from MACP. It was adapted for their culture and units, particularly for their spec-ops units. Two Air Force personnel recently told me that they have seen it and trained with it, but only rarely.
Their SOCOM units train with it regularly. Ground game was lacking in previous combatives programs of the SOF and across the entirety of the military. They had not taught operators to go to and grapple on the ground. Throws allow for the soldier to take his enemy to the ground, but no one ever allowed for inevitability of the soldier and his enemy both going to the ground in a jumble of arms and legs, weapons and equipment, and the tactical chaos this presents.
Matt Larson and Greg Thompson did one key thing in their program that no previous combatives program did, as far as I can tell: They did a lot of talking and listening.
From thousands of post-deployment interviews with soldiers, SOF, and other units, they gathered information and insights that helped them to constantly improve their programs, just as they expect their soldiers and students to do—to adapt and innovate. Previous systems and programs—possibly with the exception of Sykes and Fairbairn—relied on instructors and masters in traditional, non-military systems to build their systems.
MACP and SOCP, LINE and MCMAP, they all continue to have critics. The most common criticisms are that they do not teach enough striking, especially hands and feet, and that they teach soldiers too much ground fighting—that in combat one does not want to go to the ground too easily—and that none of them include dirty tricks in their training, such as eye-gouging, biting, hair pulling, groin attacks, throat/trachea strikes and snatches, etc.
When I went through Special Forces training in 1982, we were taught three primary hand-to-hand strike zones: the eyes, throat, and groin, and we were to use them in combat only—not in bars. Traditional martial arts systems are indeed focused on fighting and self-defense.
But most assume and train for one-to-one scenarios. Combat hand-to-hand is another animal entirely, not like being in a ring or on a mat, and is often not one-to-one. You don’t have time to slug it out or have a wrestling match with an opponent. You have to quickly and efficiently prevail over your opponent, meaning restrain or kill him, until your guys show up, or before his do.
In combat, he who gains or maintains control of the weapon, or weapons, even if the struggle goes to the ground, usually survives. In how many karate dojos have you seen that particular insight taught? Senseis in traditional systems such as karate and TKD rarely seek their student’s input and insights in improving, changing, their system. Karate does not traditionally provide for gaining control of a pistol or rifle because when karate originated, there were no pistols or rifles.
(Note: I realize that many karate instructors do include weapons drills, to include knives and pistols. But that is outside traditional protocols, and when done, it is only because someone within that lower chain of command recognized the need. And most karate dojos still teach their students in the use of antiquated weapons, such as sais, kamas, andnunchaku, for the sake of tradition. But, never take a nunchuck to a gun fight, and especially not on a combat deployment.)
There are still many non-sanctioned systems being taught throughout SOF units, to units that have connections to instructors—guys who are often former SF, SEALs, or whatever. That will not change, and some do not like that.
But, if the goal is to get all soldiers, Marines, and special operators acquainted with and trained up in some sort of hand-to-hand or combative system that will help them to survive and prevail in the battlespace, then one has to wonder if it matters all that much just what system each operator is trained in, as long as he is trained and has the requisite skills.
There is also the logic that combatives are like languages: The more languages you speak, the deeper your understanding of languages in general, and the use of words in particular. Traditional systems have not typically seen it in their interest to open up their houses to innovation and change, to provide for modern combatives. (This is ironic since all were devised out of necessity, intended to be combatives in their inception.) Therefore, they are deficient in providing the necessary skills for modern combatives.
Traditional martial arts systems, just like traditional cultures, are not concerned with adapting. They are concerned with preservation. They do not want change. They want control. This is, to a great extent, responsible for the proliferation of hybrid systems throughout U.S. martial arts and throughout the U.S. military and SOCOM. All of the SOF martial arts and combatives instructors who I know and have talked to for this article have developed their own system.
There two reasons for this. One: Traditional, older systems did not fill the needs of the modern warrior, not entirely, and thus needed to be adapted to do that. And, two: When one masters an art, whether it be music or martial arts, at some point that individual is driven to create or develop his or her own style or system in response to the weaknesses or shortcomings of the systems or styles from whence his or her skills were trained and formed.
The needs of the current battlespace require operators and all soldiers to be masters of CQB, which requires solid combatives skills, without the training process taking many years. In CQB situations, even with rifles and pistols hot, there will be some putting of hands on the enemy, and it doesn’t always go the way the soldier hopes or plans. So, he or she needs to be ready, mentally, to adapt and respond to whatever happens.
Thus, creativity and adaptation are keys to effective combatives training—the freedom to innovate and adapt, to go outside the training and find what works. Most traditional systems do not allow for that. They demand obedience and control.
The reason? Most of them are more interested in building business and retaining clients than they are in teaching students to survive. This has given rise to a large community of SOF instructors and systems, both officially sanctioned, like MACP and SOCP, and unsanctioned, and that list is long. There are also those who are training SOF units and operators across the SOCOM spectrum, some of whom are, of course, critics of the sanctioned systems.
No system, instructor, politician, movie, or song will ever please everyone. The key is to touch and train as many as possible, effectively. So, current SOF combatives programs, SOCP, MCMAP, AFCP, MACP, and whatever else is brewing out there, continue to adapt and evolve to fit the current battlespace, and will continue to do that until some new weapon, tactic, or factor requires a new set of tactics and techniques, such as the robot or cyborg apocalypse.
Have any ideas on how to effectively engage a robot in hand-to-claw close combat? Really? You do? Hold onto that, because Matt, or Greg, or their successors, may someday want to talk to you.
SEE ALSO: Hand-to-hand combat is as old as time — here's how it evolved
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: This $200 million plane is called the 'most lethal fighter aircraft in the world'
↧
↧
6 chaplains who became heroes — without ever carrying a weapon
What’s not to like about chaplains, right? They hold good conversations, are generally nice, and most keep some extra hygiene products and pogey bait around for troops who wander by the chapel. Oh, they also perform religious services and counsel service members in need.
Some of them have distinguished themselves by going far beyond their earthly call of duty. Despite not being allowed to carry weapons, these six chaplains risked their lives to save others.
1. Chaplain Capodanno ignored his amputation and ran into machine gun fire to recover the wounded.
Navy Reserve Lt. (Chaplain) Vincent R. Capodonna was in a company command post Sept. 4, 1967, in Vietnam when he learned a platoon was being overrun. He ran to the battle and began delivering last rites and treating the wounded, continuing even when a mortar round took off part of his right hand.
He refused medical treatment and tried to save a wounded corpsman under heavy machine gun fire, but was gunned down in the attempt. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
2. Chaplain Newman gave away his armor, assisted the wounded, and held religious services ahead of the front line.
In March of 1953, Lt. j.g. (Chaplain) Thomas A. Newman, Jr. was supporting series of assaults in Korea. He continuously exposed himself to enemy fire while assisting stretcher bearers. When he came across a Marine whose vest was damaged, Newman gave up his own and continued working on the front line. Throughout the mission, he was known for holding services ahead of the front lines. He received the Silver Star and the Bronze Star.
![chaplain Charles J Watters]()
3. Chaplain Watters repeatedly walked into the enemy’s field of fire to recover wounded soldiers.
3. Chaplain Watters repeatedly walked into the enemy’s field of fire to recover wounded soldiers.Army Reserve Maj. (Chaplain) Charles J. Watters was moving with a company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade when they came under fire from a Vietnamese battalion.
During the ensuing battle, he frequently left the outer perimeter to recover wounded soldiers, distribute food, water, and medical supplies, and administer last rites. On one trip to assist the wounded, he was injured and killed. He posthumously received the Medal of Honor.
4. Chaplain Kapaun interrupted an execution after staying with the American wounded despite facing certain capture.
When a battalion of cavalry found themselves nearly surrounded and vastly outnumbered by attacking Chinese forces on Nov. 1 1950, they still managed to rebuff the first assault. But when they realized they couldn’t possibly withstand another assault, they ordered the retreat of all able-bodied men.
Army Capt. (Chaplain) Emil J. Kapaun elected to stay with the wounded. The Chinese soon broke through the beleaguered defensive line and began fighting hand-to-hand through the camp. Kapaun found a wounded Chinese officer and convinced him to negotiate the safe surrender of American troops. After Kapaun was captured, he shoved a Chinese soldier preparing to execute an American, saving the American’s life. Kapaun died in captivity and received the Medal of Honor for his actions.
5. Chaplain Liteky evacuated wounded, directed helicopters, and shielded soldiers in Vietnam.
Capt. (Chaplain) Charles J. Liteky was accompanying a company in the 199th Infantry Brigade in Vietnam on Dec. 6, 1967 when the company found itself in a fight with an enemy battalion. Under heavy enemy fire, Liteky began crawling around the battlefield to recover the wounded. He personally carried over 20 men to the helicopters and directed medevac birds as they ferried wounded out. He received the Medal of Honor, but later renounced it.
6. Chaplain Holder searched enemy held territory for wounded and dead Americans.
Soldiers with the 19th Infantry Regiment in Nov. 1950 were desperately looking for soldiers lost during a heavy enemy assault in the Korean War. Volunteer patrols repeatedly pushed to the unit’s former positions to find the wounded and killed Americans. Capt. (Chaplain) J. M. Holder joined many of the patrols and continued searching even while under heavy enemy fire, according to his Silver Star citation.
SEE ALSO: 5 surprising facts you probably didn’t know about the French Foreign Legion
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: China has been upgrading its military and is now stronger than ever
↧
An exclusive interview with Command Sergeant Major Mike Hall of the 75th Ranger Regiment
Author’s note: This is our third and final interview with CSM Mike Hall, and I hope our readers really appreciate the look into an often misunderstood tiny percentage of the US military.
If you have ever served in a special operations unit, you know how difficult and often frustrating it can be to try to explain to people what you did in the military; hopefully this sheds some light on that experience.
One of the strengths of special operations units is the ability to see what is needed and make a change, or react to a need quickly.
One such change seemed to be the move to RASP from RIP; RASP seems to be not just a selection program, but a training program.
What are your thoughts on the change, and how did it happen?
I think that was all internal to the Regiment and it was what they felt they needed to do. The selection processes for all the SOF units are getting small changes all the time, and those changes are based on what the units feel they need. USASOC is the approving authority within the SOF world, and the Department of the Army let us handle much of that.
The specifics of it, though, are left up to the various internal commands. USASOC has to approve things like how the various SOF units get rid of soldiers, what the qualifications are to get into a SOF unit, and things like that.
Do you agree that as far as getting prepared for Regiment, RASP at least prepares a young Ranger to be more useful, sooner?
The one thing that I really remember after graduating RIP was that, although I felt like I was capable of handling the physical side of the Regiment, being useful on missions other than just carrying stuff was something that took time. There were so many different missions that, until you cycled through all them, you often felt like you were drinking through a fire hose.
Absolutely. I think that all the special operations units realized this. As the War on Terror continued without end and units progressed into the wartime model of deploy and recover, the pre-deployment training cycle commanders realized the peacetime model was not sufficient for what was being asked of their units. There was no longer a grace period where you had a chance to get soldiers in special operations units up to speed.
I think everyone realized they had to change their model in order to get a more finished product sooner. This allowed commanders to have more trained assets at their disposal. Soldiers had to show up to their units knowing the basics and fundamentals. I am sure that a fair amount of training and leadership also fell on the first-line leaders as well, because at the end of the day, that squad leader and team leader had to be able to count on the new soldier to accomplish the mission.
What are some of the challenges senior leaders face when trying to implement change, especially in an organization like the Army that has so many layers of bureaucracy?
One thing I learned—actually learned it from now-retired General Yellen—if you want to change things, it is not so much the bureaucracy as it is about resources. If you can convince people or show them where the resources will come from, then you don’t get as much pushback.
Resources are really one of the main things you get pushback on. Answering the question of where the resources will come from is really the key to success; even if everyone agrees the change or idea is positive, the resources still need to come from somewhere. So you can get everyone in a room to say, “Let’s do this,” but then you have to go and get other people to give up something. That is always much harder. Resources are what I think a bureaucracy is in a lot of ways.
I know you didn’t have a bunch of time on the conventional side, but did you find that getting things done was easier on the special operations side of the house rather than the conventional side?
It was easier on the USASOC side of the house, maybe because we had more available resources and definitely less layers. Then again, in USASOC the organizations are very different and to justify taking resources from one organization to give to another is tough because there is not a lot of overlap. Once the wars started, things changed a little. If you looked at the Army on Sept. 12, 2001 versus Sept. 11, 2001 the Army did not look any different and at first. The mindset was, “Well, the wars will be over soon, so let’s not change too much.”
Not to be sarcastic, but you also had the “smart people” way up the chain saying we want to do this, but is it really sustainable? Sustaining things may be the most important factor because if you start a program or concept and then you just stop it, you really burn a lot of resources and don’t get the end state you wanted, or in many cases, the one the military needed. It is a balancing act managing resources, money, and all the things that go into making solid and positive change.
How did you end up being chosen for the JSOC CSM position?
I am not really sure. I got a phone call and I think it was Thanksgiving weekend.
General Brown called me and said, “I want you to come up and be the JSOC CSM.”
My answer was something along the lines of, “Oh, okay.”
I remember back then there was still not a formal way of putting senior NCOs into a position; a lot of times it was what the commander wanted.
I think there was an command/officer formal board, but nothing really for the NCOs.
You had been the regimental CSM for a while at that point? Was that a typical amount of time?
Yeah, for four years. It was really up to the regimental commander. USASOC had some say in it as well; they could say, “We want a guy with these qualifications,” but it really boiled down to the commander.
You went from JSOC CSM to USASOC CSM?
Yeah, I think I was only the JSOC CSM for about two years or so. I would have to sit down and look at a calendar. I think originally, a guy named Mike Bishop was scheduled to be the CSM and I think he told General Brown that he had some physical things going on. He told General Brown that he was really honored, but if he couldn’t do the things that were physically required, he wouldn’t take the job, which is really the mark of a good NCO.
So General Brown called me while I was deployed and said, “I want you to be the USASOC CSM.” My initial answer was, “Well, that sounds good. When I get back from this deployment we can talk about that.” Of course, when the general calls you, it’s not really a request. He told me there was a plane waiting for me, so I said, “Yes, sir,” and got on the plane. I am pretty sure that General Brown and General Daley had already talked since they had worked together at TF 160, and I think there were a lot of things going on with the wars and personnel issues.
So no matter how high up you get, you still have a boss, and if he asks for something the answer is usually a yes?
Yep, I mean I could have played hardball or tried to fight it, but if they really felt I was needed at USASOC then that was where I knew I should be. General Brown had been in JSOC and knew what was going on there, and he was in USASOC so he obviously knew what was needed there. At the end of the day you go where you are needed.
Were there any big differences in being the senior leader in a unit like JSOC versus USASOC?
There is. It’s really a matter of focus. USASOC is a resource provider to the Army or the combatant commanders, and JSOC deploys people and does not have a lot of the administrative hurdles that USASOC does. When I was at USASOC, I really tried to look at our mission from the perspective of the units we supported, and I think that helped a lot. There are so many things going on and they move quickly—especially in a war—so you need to have the ability to think about what those other commands need. Helping them was really the best way to look at our mission in USASOC.
Did your interest in history have an impact on your leadership style or how you managed training?
I think it did. Coming up from the Rangers, I had a very good perspective on what other organizations’ strengths and weaknesses were because we had worked with most of the other organizations in SOF. Being in the Rangers for so many years and seeing how they and the other organizations had changed over the years was a big help. As an example, if someone came to you with an idea for changing something, you could recall how it worked out if it had been tried out in the past and maybe offer guidance on how it could be done in order for it to work out better this time.
You were in JSOC at the start of the war, and then went onto USASOC. Any significant changes that you were a part of or proud of during your time as the senior NCO leader of these organizations?
A couple things. All the organizations are really good at what they do; they have their own cultures and tribalism. What I tried to do was reinforce the notion that there were ways we could benefit each other. I really wanted transparency and openness; we might never understand the challenges of each unit or organization, but it is easier on all of us if we shared things that were working or not working.
I think we did a pretty good job of that. We would share TTPs, we would exchange manuals, we started actual personnel exchanges, looked at each other’s policies and procedures, and we opened up our selection and assessment processes to see how we were getting the kind of final product we each wanted.
Each SOF unit had a goal to get the right kind of person that fit what they were doing; it was not always about getting the most qualified person, but the right person for their organization. I really wanted to open up communications and kind of take away that fear of, “Well, if we show you what we are doing, then we might lose resources.” We improved a lot on that, which I was proud of.
Another thing we started or continued (I really think it was started by Mel Wick) was a NCO command billet or slotting process.
You know, the officers had a selection process for command and probably a more defined career progression path, and we tried to bring some of that to the NCO side of the house. What would happen previously was if the commander wanted someone, then they pretty much asked for and got them. One of the problems with that is if you have a commander and SGM that have grown up together and think alike as the command team, then it can be really hard for the organization to get better—which is especially true in special operations since the NCO is such a key figure in SOF.
So if you think about it, when you have the two top dogs who think alike, making change can be really hard, and change is almost always a good thing. One of the keys that has not just made special operations but the Army as a whole so good is our ability to change.
So we tried to take the “good ole boy network” out of things and really get the right NCO in the right situation. The funny thing was, we truly did not have the authority to do that since you as the NCO get your authority from the commander. We went to the commanders and laid out where we thought senior NCOs would best fit and kind of gave guidance.
Sometimes they would disagree and we would have to explain why we thought what we thought was best for the organization. Now merit and performance also played a part in this as well, but a lot of times you assigned people into these senior positions based on potential. You were sometimes looking ahead to what other positions someone would be good for and making decisions based on that, and at the end of the day your goal was to improve organizations.
I think the other big thing we really made a strong push on was retention, because at the end of the day, especially in JSOC, it is all about retention. If you think about what value a 10-year SOF soldier brings to an organization, it is really immeasurable. In JSOC, we started a lot of initiatives to try to keep the people we wanted in our organization. It was about money and bonuses, but there are a ton of other things that go into that. We did a ton of work with the Department of the Army on special pays and promotion systems.
One of the things I am most proud of is helping the Army understand that, in a lot of cases our guys were different, and some of the standard Army models didn’t work for us based on what our guys did and our structure. The more SGMs you have, the more MSGs you have and so on down the line. We knew that guys didn’t join the Army thinking that they wanted to be SGMs one day, but when you get further into your career, guys start looking at that. So we were able to upgrade a lot of the ranks and positions. While I am sure no one will get excited about UMRs, at the end of the day you have to have slots in order to get promoted and move up the chain.
I think those are a few of the things I am pretty proud of and had positive long-term effects. You know I was lucky, too, because Parry Baer and George Bequer who followed me did a great job of continuing those programs, improving upon them and making them sustainable.
How did the contracting work opportunities, especially at the height of the war, affect special operations retention?
A lot of that was talked about and you heard different things, but most guys didn’t leave just for the money—there were a lot of other factors. Most guys in special operations are pretty smart and they could look at the whole plan or package and realize that, yeah, the money was good, but there was a lot more to it. Quite frankly, sometimes it boiled down to a guy realizing that he was not going to the next level and maybe it was time for him to go for a number of other reasons, which had nothing to do with the job.
There were some really good people that we wished we retained, but overall I think we did a pretty good job of keeping the folks we wanted to. You can look at me: Why did I retire? Well I had done everything I wanted to do and I wanted to try something different. I think most special ops guys are like that. For most guys in SOF, it is about job satisfaction, and we came up with some pretty good incentives. Was it a million dollars? No, but sometimes it is just the act and a matter of, “Hey I got you what we could because we really want to keep you.”
Going back to the NCOES part of our discussion: So now there is a SOCOM portion of the SGM Academy?
Yeah. I think it was CSM Tom Smith, a Special Forces NCO, who really made the push for that and it is up and running now. I hear really great things about it. They have some common-core stuff and then a bunch of special operations-specific stuff.
The Asymmetrical Warfare Group. Did you have any input in spinning that up or was that just an outgrowth of the wars?
So I was involved informally with some of the stuff they were doing, kind of along the lines of, “If you ask for something this way, you are not going to get it, so ask for it this way.” So I guess I helped out mainly with my experience in how you staffed something and made a plan that would work in the confines of the Army system. I think that was one of General Cody’s initiatives, and I had mixed opinions on it.
I do think it has worked out pretty well, though. I guess the major piece of advice I may have given was, again going back to USASOC and the various selection programs, “You can get the right rank and MOS, but will you get the right kind of guys? You are going to get your slots and fill your ranks, but are you going to get the guys you want?” I guess that is probably what I tried to help the most with.
Tell us a little about Gallant Few—how the organization started and what the main focus is.
Karl Monger, who spent some time in 1st Ranger Battalion, really led that. It started out as helping Rangers, finding jobs, mental health, and those kinds of things. Now they are into so many things, all the services and Gallant Few really do some amazing things and continue to expand. Karl really has done an amazing job with that whole thing, and if you need help, Karl just finds a way to really step in and help out.
That is one thing I have really noticed over the last 5-7 years or so is that the Rangers have really gotten out there with various organizations to help out other Rangers.
The Rangers were originally formed for combat. After that they were disbanded, and then they were formed again for more combat. Historically, you served in the Rangers and then you were gone and no one knew where you were. The Marines kind of cornered the market on identity: A Marine is a Marine is a Marine. You could walk into an interview in Butte, Montana, and if the CEO was a Marine for two years and you were a Marine for two years, then you had a job. Special Forces kind of did that as well because they were very distinctive and they kept up with each other, but the Rangers never really got into that—until recently.
General Grange had something to do with that. To your point, let’s pull all these organizations together. If we pull all these organizations together instead of working against each other, then we can be much more powerful.
What advice would you give a young SSG/SFC that came into the Army during a time of fairly heavy combat rotations, but now will be in an Army much like the 1990s Army where budget cuts, draw-downs, and similar issues will be a real hurdle to readiness?
You know job satisfaction really comes from leadership and making life better for the soldiers or Rangers under your care. The guys that come in with that attitude and want to make a difference? They will do fine. You have to love what you do and decide where you want to have an impact as a leader. One thing about coming into the Rangers is you have a chance to really have an impact. You have to love being a Ranger and doing the things the Rangers do.
Do you ever think back to the impact you might have had on the NCOs within the various units you lead? I stay in touch with a number of guys from 1/75, and there are a lot of guys that went on to really successful military careers or did their time, left the Regiment, and went onto really successful civilian positions.
Yeah I do look at it like I was just doing my job, but I do take great pride in the people I touched and how successful they were in the military. Just as importantly, and absolutely as significant to me, are the guys that did their time as a CPL, buck SGT, or rifleman, and are now very successful in a number of career fields. There is one guy, Rick Welch, who was an RTO in A company—really smart guy—and now he is a partner in one of the largest law firms in Los Angeles.
I think that a lot of guys are like that: They go on to become successful in whatever it is they decide to do. It is just part of that Ranger culture. You know if you work hard, don’t care about yourself, and try and make an organization better, then you will be successful in whatever you do. I think that is part of the Ranger magic; it is not about you at all, but about making the organization better. It is not about being right, but making it right. That kind of attitude in the civilian world can really really make you successful.
.jpg)
Well that really exhausts my 30 or so questions. Is there anything you would like to add or mention that we didn’t cover?
I am sure there are a million things, but you really had some good questions and brought up some good things. I appreciate it.
You helped a ton, too. Especially when you asked me if I wanted to change any of my answers. It really helped me dig a little deeper and do some better research. I am really appreciative of all our time and I hope that our readers—both civilian and military—gain some insight into a very small part of armed forces.
SEE ALSO: Dick Cheney is trying to fool the public again
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: China is ramping up its military with a show of force in and outside the country
↧
The awesome A-10 video the Air Force doesn’t want you to see
The A-10 Warthog is the only aircraft built for a close air support (CAS) mission.
It was literally designed around its distinctive 30mm gatling gun. The gun is more than 19 feet long and weighs more than 4,000 pounds.
The distinctive sound made by the weapon (aka the BRRRRRRRRRT – created as rounds fire faster than the speed of sound), is music to the ears of the troops on the ground, so much so, the plane sometimes called “the grunt in the air.” A-10 pilots often find themselves providing support at Danger Close distances.
“They love this airplane,” says one Air Force A-10 pilot, referring to units on the ground. “They trust us. For them to trust to do that is very gratifying.”
Recently, the John Q. Public blog, run by retired Air Force officer Tony Carr, came across a video he suspects was produced by the Air Force’s Combat Camera units, lauding the A-10, its crews, its pilots, and the capabilities of its support for ground troops.
“ComCam is perhaps alone in its possession of the unique combination of access and capability to create something this close to the mission with such superior production values,” Carr writes. “A ComCam airman risked mortal danger to make this film and tell this story, getting immersed in a firefight along the way (you’ll see him drop his camera and hear him discharge his weapon in the video).”
Combining ground combat footage with access to the aircrews who run and fly the Warthogs, Carr believes the video has “unmistakable importance,” but wonders if the video is being suppressed by senior Air Force leaders for political reasons.
The controversy stems from the Air Force’s repeated attempts to retire this relatively young fleet of aircraft. The A-10 first appeared in the Air Force arsenal in 1972 and was used with great effect in Operation Desert Storm. Comparatively, the Air Force’s B-52 fleet was first introduced in 1955 and is still in service.
“It’s not a political statement,” says a pilot in the theater. “I’m not saying air interdiction isn’t important … but the benefits [of close air support] are right there.”
The Air Force aims to replace the A-10 with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a trillion-dollar weapons system that is the most expensive in history, which is extremely over-budget and experiencing an uncanny number of development setbacks. While retiring the A-10 would save many billions of dollars annually, that money would likely go to further developing the F-35. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh III says the F-35 is designed “for the whole battle space” and would replace the A-10’s CAS capabilities.
But politicos and ground troops are not buying it.
“When you’re talking to a 19-year-old man with a rifle, who’s scared on the other end of a radio,” another Air Force A-10 pilot says in the video. “You know he doesn’t care about fiscal constraints, ‘big picture’ Air Force policy, the next fancy weapons system coming down the pipeline. He cares about being saved right then and there.”
The heartfelt, informative A-10 video is below, and is worth a watch for anyone with an interest in the importance of close air support.
SEE ALSO: The US Air Force made a $25 billion accounting error
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: 11 game-changing military planes from the last 15 years
↧
↧
Gorgeous photos of stealth F-35 jets flying alongside F-16s
More progress for a program that seems like it had so little for so long. The first US Navy squadron operating the F-35C Lightning II, Strike Fighter Squadron One Zero One, the “Grim Reapers,” just returned to their home station at Eglin AFB, Florida from a two-week visit to NAS Fallon, Nevada.
With the overall objective being to participate in air-to-air training alongside Topgun instructors in F/A-18s at the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center, the visit was another step on the road to the Navy’s IOC (Initial Operational Capability) in the new 5th-Generation fighter, tentatively scheduled for 2018.
VFA-101 pilots’ first order of business was to assess established strike fighter tactics, techniques, and procedures with a new dynamic: Super Hornets and Joint Strike Fighters flying missions together as they’re scheduled to do for the foreseeable future. The next, and just as important objective, was carrying out another detachment with the F-35, which will becom part of its standard work-up cycle–like all other Naval Aviation units.
“It is really cool to be taking this aircraft to the first places it ever goes,” said Master Chief Avionics Technician (AW/SW) Mike Baker, VFA-101’s maintenance master chief. “We’ve got four planes, doing real missions with real exercises going on out there,” he said of the Fallon trip. “We’re the first ones to do this, so we own that, too.”
The final item on VFA-101’s to-do list was to give NAS Fallon and its tenant commands a sample of what it will be like to have another aircraft type in its ranks, once they start receiving the first of their eventual six Lightning IIs. The base will undertake some modifications to infrastructure, such as the addition of outdoor canopies to protect the F-35 cockpits from the Nevada heat, as mentioned by NAS Fallon spokesman Zip Upham.
Whether you love the aircraft or hate it, Grim Reapers F-35Cs at Fallon is a sign of progress–always a good thing when it was lacking for extended periods of time. Once all of the F-35 units, across all three services, are at their full operational capability (FOC) is when we can really start to get a grasp of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Until then it would be wise to exercise patience, no matter how challenging it is at times, and no matter what uninformed media sources try to feed us.
SEE ALSO: US officials: Russia is positioning tanks at a key Syrian airfield
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: This $200 million plane is called the 'most lethal fighter aircraft in the world'
↧
The A-10 'sparks panic' in ISIS fighters, so why does the Air Force want to kill it?
The A-10 Thunderbolt II (often called the "Warthog" for its aggressive look) is beloved by the troops who need its close-air support and by its pilots, who hear the calls for that support from the controllers on the ground.
"We have this close, personal connection with the guy on the ground," one pilot said in a recent video touting the A-10's capabilities. "We hear him getting scared. We hear him getting excited. We hear the bullets flying … it becomes a very personal mission. It hits very close to home."
ISIS forces met the A-10 for the first time in 2015. In an area near Mosul, the A-10 caused ISIS fighters to break and run as four USAF Warthogs wreaked havoc on ISIS forces there.
"The aircraft sparked panic in the ranks of ISIS after bombing its elements and flying in spaces close to the ground," Iraqi News quoted an Iraqi army source as saying. "Elements of the terrorist organization targeted the aircraft with 4 Strela missiles but that did not cause it any damage, prompting the remaining elements of the organization to leave the bodies of their dead and carry the wounded to escape."
The A-10 also gets love from its pilots. The plane flies close to the ground but is protected by a titanium "bathtub" shell that surrounds the cockpit and allows the pilot to get low and hit the opposing forces with the plane's seven-barrel, 3,900-rounds-per-minute, depleted-uranium ammunition. Its designers made it to be the most survivable aircraft ever built. It also features three sets of backup controls and a foam-lined fuel tank. Ground fire is not going to get this bird easily.
The A-10's GAU-8 30mm gun "really does scare people, and that's nice to know," Air National Guard Col. Michael Stohler, an A-10 pilot who is flying air missions against ISIS forces, told Military.com. "I can tell you we know there's a real threat there," he says. "A lot of people have handguns and things to shoot at aircraft."
The Warthog, however, is as popular with senior Air Force leadership as it is with ISIS. In a fight that already cost one major general his job, the Air Force brass is looking to send its battle-hardened, reliable A-10 fleet to the boneyards to save $4 billion, probably so it can put that money toward the new overly expensive and accident-prone F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
In January, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the A-10 had flown only 11% of the 16,000 manned air missions against ISIS. That would be significant if the Warthog arrived in theater at the same time as other combat platforms — F-16s, F-15Es, B-1 bombers, and the F-22 Raptor all started missions against ISIS in August 2014. The A-10 didn't arrive until November 2014.
The evidence shows the A-10 works and it's cheap. As early as 2012, the Air Force's cost to operate per hour for the A-10 was $17,716. There was no data available for the F-35, but the F-22's cost per hour is $68,362. So while the Air Force actively tries to kill the program, it is still deploying more A-10s to the theater because Congress will not let the USAF kill the ground troops' favorite plane until it comes up with a viable close-air-support replacement.
SEE ALSO: The awesome A-10 video the Air Force doesn't want you to see
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: This $200 million plane is called the 'most lethal fighter aircraft in the world'
↧
Japan approved sending its military abroad for the first time since World War II
TOKYO (Reuters) — Japan's parliament voted into law Saturday a defense policy shift that could let troops fight overseas for the first time since 1945, a milestone in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's push to loosen the limits of the pacifist constitution on the military.
Abe says the shift, the biggest change in Japan's defense policy since the creation of its post-war military in 1954, is vital to meet new challenges such as from a rising China.
But the legislation has triggered massive protests from ordinary citizens and others who say it violates the pacifist constitution and could ensnare Japan in US-led conflicts after 70 years of post-war peace. Abe's ratings have also taken a hit.
The legislation "is necessary to protect the people's lives and peaceful way of living and is for the purpose of preventing wars," Abe told reporters after the bills were approved by the upper house. "I want to keep explaining the laws tenaciously and courteously."
Japan's ally, the US, has welcomed the changes, but China, where bitter memories of Japan's wartime aggression run deep, has repeatedly expressed concern about the legislation.
"Recently we have noticed that voices in Japan opposing the bill have become louder by the day," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a regular news briefing Friday.
"We demand that Japan earnestly listen to these just voices domestically and internationally, learn the lessons of history, uphold the path of peaceful development, speak and act cautiously in security and military matters, and take actual steps to maintain regional peace and stability," Hong added.
The bills, already approved by the Japanese parliament's lower house, were voted into law by the upper chamber in the early hours of Saturday despite opposition parties' efforts to block a vote by submitting censure motions and a no-confidence motion against Abe's cabinet in the lower house. All were defeated.
A key feature of the laws is an end to a long-standing ban on exercising the right of collective self-defense, or defending the United States or another friendly country that comes under attack, in cases where Japan faces a "threat to its survival."
Thousands of demonstrators have rallied near parliament every day this week, chanting "Scrap the war bills" and "Abe resign." Large crowds were still protesting into the early hours of Saturday.
The protests have called to mind those that forced Abe's grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, to resign 55 years ago after forcing a US-Japan security treaty through parliament.
The revisions also expand the scope for logistics support for the militaries of the United States and other countries, and for participation in peace-keeping.
The changes still leave Japan constrained in overseas military operations by legal limits and a deeply rooted public, anti-war mindset.
"Even if the constitution is revised, among the Japanese people no one is thinking of going to foreign lands for the purpose of exercising force," Itsunori Onodera, a former defense minister, told Reuters in an interview earlier this week. "I think Japan will maintain that stance from now on as well."
Critics, however, say the changes make a mockery of the pacifist constitution and deplore what they see as Abe's authoritarian mode of pushing for enactment of the bills.
Opposition to the legislation brought together liberals keen to preserve Japan's pacifist principles and conservative critics of what they consider Abe's authoritarian tactics.
"The content, process, and doctrine of the security bills ... risk reversing the path we have walked for the past 70 years as a country of peace and democracy," Yukio Edano, secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Party, told parliament's lower house ahead of the no-confidence vote against Abe.
Abe won a second three-year term as ruling Liberal Democratic Party chief earlier this month and faces no immediate danger of being unseated, but voter distaste for the new laws could hurt the ruling bloc in an election next year.
"The people's revolt will continue toward the next election one way or another," said Keio University professor Yoshihide Soeya.
Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing and Kiyoshi Takenaka in Tokyo. Editing by Paul Tait and Simon Cameron-Moore.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: YouTube star reveals why people are so obsessed with cute Japanese toys
↧
Brookings expert: This is what the future of the US Army will look like
On September 17, I had the privilege of testifying before the Congressionally-mandated Commission on the Future of the Army.
Its members include retired Army generals Carter Ham, Larry Ellis, JD Thurman, and Jack Stultz, former Pentagon officials Robert Hale, Thomas Lamont, and Kathleen Hicks, and former Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond Chandler III.
It owes the Congress a report early in 2016 with its recommendations for how the American Army should be sized, structured, equipped, and otherwise prepared for its likely future challenges in service to the nation.
The basis for my presentation was my new Brookings book, The Future of Land Warfare. It also constitutes the official written version of my testimony. While endorsing much about today’s U.S. Army, an institution I consider to be in generally good shape (if quite stressed and strained by the wars of the 21st century as well as other challenges), I offered three main arguments before the Commission:
1. Today’s U.S. Army is fairly small by most relevant measures. At just under one million total soldiers, of which just over 450,000 are on active duty and the rest in the National Guard or Army Reserve, it is about 60 percent the size of the late Cold-War Army.
Adjusted for the fact that today’s American population is larger than it was in the 1980s, today’s Army is in fact only about half its latter Cold-War size relative to the demographic base from which it is derived. Globally speaking, the United States has about 5 percent of the world’s population but only 3 percent of its active-duty soldiers. These statistics are only suggestive, not conclusive.
But they imply that any ideas for further cuts to the Army should be viewed with considerable wariness. In fact, I would oppose such proposals.
2. The Obama administration’s argument, as reflected in its 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, that large-scale stabilization operations should no longer guide force sizing for the Army is mistaken. There is no way to be confident that future large-scale stabilization missions (or related operations involving counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, and/or disaster relief) can be dismissed out of hand. In fact, quite a number could have strong relevance to American national security.
In my book, I develop scenarios from South Asia to the Middle East to West Africa to Central America that could be important enough to require a U.S. military response (generally as part of a multinational coalition), should they actually occur.
3. The “two-war strategy” or “two-war framework” for sizing U.S. ground forces that has guided American defense officials since the Cold War is no longer optimal for future planning purposes. In fact, in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the second of those two hypothetical wars is no longer considered to be one for which the United States need prepare a dominant and rapid military response.
According to that document, it would suffice that the United States “inflict unacceptable damage” upon an enemy in such a second conflict (at least until the first mission was concluded). To my mind, that is a vague and potentially inappropriate goal for American military operations, especially those involving ground forces.
As such, I recommend a different paradigm—a “1+2” force sizing construct, with the 1 mission being a high-end war (like another possible conflict in Korea) and the 2 being smaller and multilateral, but potentially long and stressful, simultaneous operations of one type or another. This basis for force planning is in fact no less demanding than that contained in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.
But I believe it is more realistic, more intuitive, and therefore more viable as a basis for resourcing and training the Army. It is also more helpful in explaining what the U.S. Army must do to the American people and Congress as well as friends, allies, and other parties around the world.
SEE ALSO: ‘The best kept secret in the Navy’ — The elite boat commandos supporting Navy SEALs
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: China has been upgrading its military and is now stronger than ever
↧
↧
Meet the man who may become the first openly gay Army secretary
If confirmed by the Senate, the first openly gay US Army secretary, Eric Fanning, could help lead America’s corps of fighting men and women into uncharted territory, on many fronts.
As a civilian leader, Mr. Fanning, who has already served acting Secretary of the Air Force in the Obama administration, has the power to influence policy and promotion and, thus, set a tone for Army culture.
That culture remains resistant, to an extent, to open integration of gay soldiers into the ranks and the promotion of women into combat roles.
Until 2011, soldiers were regularly expelled from the ranks after brass found out that they were gay. The expulsions were in part justified to maintain esprit de corps.
In that light, President Barack Obama’s decision on Friday to promote Fanning may be indicative of a concerted White House effort to not just set policy, but build a new, more accepting military culture at a time when the US defense forces are are facing budget cuts and a post-Ira and post-Afghanistan drawdown that will likely reduce the Army to its smallest size since World War II.
That consolidation suggests Fanning’s tenure could be a critical one, especially coming after significant policy shifts under new Defense Secretary Ash Carter, for whom Fanning has served as chief of staff since March.
Some Fanning critics worry that any focus on changing the tenor of military life could come at the expense of military effectiveness, especially as the US faces threats from several directions in the global theater.
But critics will have to contend with the Michigan-born Fanning’s record of more than two decades of work on US military policy, including major Pentagon management roles in the US fighter jet and shipbuilding programs.
Fanning “undoubtedly has a masterful grasp on military policy … [and] further, having an openly gay individual in high level positions within the Department of Defense sets the tone at the top” to better understand the needs of gay soldiers and their families, said Matt Thorn, interim executive director of OutServe-Service members Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based organization that seeks LGBT equality in the military.
But others indicate that Fanning's sexual orientation won't be an issue within the US Army. The Washington Post quoted Iraq war veteran Phil Carter, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security: "My sense is that the Army is over this and has been over it for some time. The Army cares whether you can shoot straight, not whether you are straight."
Indeed, since the US ended its 17-year-long “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2011, predictions that straight soldiers would leave the service and morale would plummet have not been borne out by facts on the ground, according to anonymous administration officials cited by The New York Times.
Some soldiers expelled as homosexuals are now fighting for honorable discharges. But the Pentagon focus lately has been more about resistance to women in the military. While female Army soldiers are moving toward real combat roles, the US Marines have pushed back against the idea of having women on the battlefield.
The nomination comes amid tumultuous turnover at the Pentagon, including the surprise announcement by Mr. Carter last week that Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Neller bypassed a bevy of more senior officers to be named the new Marine Commandant.
At an at-times acrimonious confirmation hearing in July, Lt. Gen. Neller was pressed on the US policy of focusing on air power to strike at the emerging Islamic State, or ISIS, in Iraq.
When asked if he thought ISIS was losing or winning, “Neller replied, “I believe they’re at a stalemate.”
Given that backdrop, Obama critics framed Fanning’s nomination as evidence of a key flaw of the President’s military policy – focusing on identity sensitivities while military threats brew around the world, particularly from ISIS.
“Hopefully [Fanning’s nomination] will distract people from the fact that we’re losing the war,” wrote University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds on his conservative InstaPundit blog.
For his part, Fanning has tried to lighten the mood around his rise as a key civilian leader at the Pentagon.
After being named acting Air Force Secretary last winter, Fanning joked at a Pentagon function that he would not, despite the rumors, order all US military planes painted pink.
SEE ALSO: 'The devil made me do it': Obama's foreign policy just reached a new low
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: China is ramping up its military with a show of force in and outside the country
↧
Mike Huckabee is bashing Obama for nominating an openly gay Army secretary
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee issued a statement Saturday bashing President Obama's nomination of an openly gay man, Eric Fanning, to become the secretary of the US Army.
"It's clear President Obama is more interested in appeasing America's homosexuals than honoring America's heroes," said Huckabee.
He added that the rate of veteran suicides were "out of control" and that he thought military readiness was low, yet it is unclear how the sexual orientation of the Army's secretary has impacted these areas.
"Obama is so obsessed with pandering to liberal interest groups he's nominated an openly gay civilian to run the Army," Huckabee continued, adding that "Homosexuality is not a job qualification."
Huckabee's statement ended in a familiar refrain of his: "The US military is designed to keep Americans safe and complete combat missions, not to conduct social experiments."
But there is little indication that Fanning's nomination has anything to do with his sexuality. Fanning has more than two decades of experience working on military policy. He served as chief of staff under Defense Secretary Ash Carter at the Pentagon, as well as serving as the undersecretary for the Air Force, and currently serving in that role for the Army.
Fanning's nomination has been widely praised as a practical and inclusive. Ash Carter called Fanning an "excellent choice," and Matt Thorn, the interim executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an advocacy group for LGBT military personnel, praised the decision as well, as noted by Reuters.
As it turns out, the nomination might not be that big of a deal to those in the military.
The Washington Post quoted Phil Carter, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security: "My sense is that the Army is over this and has been over it for some time. The Army cares whether you can shoot straight, not whether you are straight."
SEE ALSO: Meet the man who may become the first openly gay Army secretary
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on how Uber operates just like a special forces unit
↧
7 things you didn't know about US Army Special Forces
Special Forces soldiers are the snake-eaters, known for slipping into enemy territory, living off the land, and then killing all the enemies of America they find. They trace their unit lineage back to the Office of Strategic Services in World War II, served with distinction as both warriors and spies in the Cold War, and snuck into Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban before anyone else.
But for all most people think they know about Special Forces, there’s a lot they don’t. Here are 7 things that might surprise you.
1. They have a reputation for “creature comforts.”
While Green Berets are known to rough it on missions, they’re also known for bringing blankets and cots to training exercises. Operators have a grueling deployment schedule and are required to prove their skills to their teammates every day. So when they show up to a training event, they’re likely to cut loose and enjoy some barbecue and football in their off-time.
2. Green Berets are as much teachers as fighters.
While SF soldiers are very capable fighters, it’s just as important to their mission that they are good instructors. Green Berets are called on to deploy all over the world, build lasting relationships with local groups friendly towards the United States, and then teach those groups how to kill effectively. The SF soldiers then begin going on missions with the locals and fight side-by-side.
3. They are required to learn new languages.
Of course, training the locals to kill their enemies is a lot easier when everyone speaks the same language. Training at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California is a part of the Special Forces training. There, students steep themselves in an assigned language in courses lasting between 24 and 64 weeks. Many graduates earn an Associate of Arts degree in their assigned language.
The language these soldiers learn usually depends on what Special Forces Group they are later assigned to, since each group has a certain region of the world it needs to be oriented toward.
4. They’re in about 90 nations everyday.
Operators need access to so may bi- and trilingual service members because they are in about 90 nations every day. In 2015, they’ve already visited at least 135 according to media reports. This represents a significant increase in operational tempo. Eight years ago SF visited only 60 countries.
5. They’re still in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two of the countries people might not be surprised to find Special Forces is in Iraq and Afghanistan. While most military units have been pulled out of these countries, the Green Berets never left Afghanistan and may have never fully leave Iraq. Currently, Special Forces soldiers are advising troops in both countries. In Afghanistan they are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder against insurgents with commandoes they have trained. In Iraq, they are advising Iraqi Army and militia units who are trying to roll back ISIS.
6. Recruits can enlist straight into Special Forces.
Believe it or not, a recent high school graduate could walk into a recruiting office and enlist for 18X, Special Forces Candidate. These recruits go through basic training and then immediately enter the Special Forces training pipeline. If they fail or are simply aren’t selected during the Special Forces assessment, they are re-assigned to infantry.
It wasn’t always this way. In the past, Special Forces typically wanted soldiers to be older and more seasoned in the regular Army before making the jump. The older SF soldier even have a name for the younger generation making it through the Q-course: “SF Babies.”
7. “Weekend warriors” can be Green Berets.
The National Guard has SF companies across the south. Green Beret and UFC fighter Tim Kennedy continued serving by switching to a National Guard unit in Texas.
These soldiers drill like other National Guard soldiers, but are still required to maintain the same certifications as Active Duty SF.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: 11 game-changing military planes from the last 15 years
↧
An Army veteran who survived combat was shot several times as he charged at the Oregon gunman
An Army veteran who made it through a combat deployment without sustaining any serious injuries was shot several times as he rushed toward the gunman who opened fire at a community college in Oregon on Thursday.
Chris Mintz, 30, was in his first week of class at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, on Thursday when a man, identified by officials as 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer, walked into Snyder Hall, where classes are held, and started shooting.
Mintz reportedly tried "to block the door to keep the gunman from coming in," Mintz's aunt, Wanda Mintz, told Q13 Fox News in Oregon.
Posted by Chris Mintz on Monday, September 28, 2015
In 911 tapes from the shooting, a dispatcher said the shooter was "outside one of the doors shooting through the door,"according to The Oregonian. The shooting was reportedly confined to one classroom.
After the gunman gained entry to the classroom, Mintz got shot three times, hit the floor, and then looked up at the gunman and said "it's my son's birthday today," according to Wanda Mintz. He then reportedly got shot two more times.
A public Facebook page identified as belonging to Mintz shows this as the most recent post, from the day of the shooting:
Mintz is recovering in the hospital from several gunshot wounds and two broken legs. He is expected to survive, but family members told news stations that he would most likely have to relearn how to walk.
"We're not sure how his legs got broken," another aunt, Sheila Brown, told NBC News. "He was on the wrestling team and he's done cage-fighting, so it does not surprise me that he would act heroically."
Mintz served in the Army for about 10 years, family members said. He is originally from North Carolina but had been living in Oregon to raise his son.
.jpg)
Mintz had also gotten involved in mixed martial arts since moving to Oregon and hoped to become a fitness trainer, his cousin Derek Bourgeois told The Daily Beast. Mintz and Bourgeois joined the Army together after they graduated from high school and had both been deployed.
Bourgeois "was somewhat amazed that a guy who survived a combat deployment without serious injury had come so close to being killed in a small Oregon town not unlike the one in North Carolina where they grew up together," according to The Daily Beast.
The shooter at UCC killed at least nine people and injured several others. He was later killed in a shootout with the police. Four guns believed to belong to Mercer were reportedly recovered at the scene.
SEE ALSO: Police: At least 10 dead after shooter opens fire at community college
↧
↧
An Army veteran was shot multiple times protecting others students from the Oregon gunman
Army veteran Chris Mintz is being hailed as a hero after protecting fellow students during the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College.
According to family members, Mintz was shot multiple times while trying to prevent the gunman from gaining access to his classroom.
"He was on the wrestling team and he's done cage-fighting, so it does not surprise me that he would act heroically," an aunt told NBC News.
Mintz, 30, is recovering from his injuries in the hospital and is expected to survive. Thursday was reportedly his fourth day of classes at the school after serving in the Army for 10 years.
A status update was posted to his Facebook account Friday morning which said, “This is Chris's friend, Chris asked me to thank everyone for their support, he is grateful and keeping our community and all victims in his thoughts.”
Story by Tony Manfred, editing by Stephen Parkhurst
Follow INSIDER: On Facebook
↧
The US military took these incredible photos this week
The military has very talented photographers in its ranks, and they constantly attempt to capture what life as a service member is like during training and at war.
This is the best of what they shot this week:
SEE ALSO: Here's how America's most secret, elite warrior units operate
AIR FORCE: A sunset is seen through the nose of a B-25 Mitchell during a military tattoo held at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, Sept. 16, 2015. The “warbird flight” consisted of two B-25 Mitchells, two P-40 Warhawks and a P-51 Mustang.
A P-51 Mustang flies over Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, Washington, during a military tattoo Sept. 16, 2015.
ARMY: Soldiers in Basic Combat Training low crawl through the final obstacle during the Fit to Win endurance course at Fort Jackson, S.C., Oct. 1, 2015.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider
↧
This video shows the adrenaline rush soldiers feel after being shot at
There is nothing better than being shot at and missed.
Soldiers in combat develop especially strong bonds of brotherhood, and even when everything is going to hell, they usually can remain positive. This 2012 video captured by soldiers right after they got into a firefight with the Taliban is a perfect case in point.
The unidentified cameraman is running around keeping his unit’s spirits up from what appears to be a close call with the enemy, judging by the sight of a soldier being treated for a wound to the arm. While the soldiers face outward for any possible threats, they still manage to joke around for a video, and even the guy who gets wounded joins in.
Here’s the video, which also shows the follow-up with the soldier who was injured (some NSFW language):
SEE ALSO: Watch Russian warships launch cruise missiles against targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: China is ramping up its military with a show of force in and outside the country
↧
16 photos that show how the US military responds to natural disasters
When natural disaster strikes at home or abroad, America usually sends its military to aid in rescue and recovery. Engineers, search and rescue, and logistics specialists pour into the area to save as many people as quickly as possible.
SEE ALSO: Niger's desert north is a glimpse into the destructive brilliance of Gaddafi's 42 years in power
1. Troops are rushed to the area, usually via cargo aircraft.
2. In the crucial first hours, disaster survivors can be rescued from collapsed or flooded structures. Engineers carefully shore up crumbling buildings and cut through obstacles.
3. During hurricanes and tsunamis, there’s a good chance some survivors will have been swept to sea. Trained swimmers work to extract them.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider
↧
↧
Army recommends low-level court martial for Bowe Bergdahl with no jail time
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- An Army officer is recommending that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl face a lower-level court martial and be spared the possibility of jail time for leaving his post in Afghanistan, his lawyer said Saturday.
Defense attorney Eugene Fidell said Lt. Col. Mark Visger has decided a civilian system should handle Bergdahl's case.
It limits the maximum punishment reduction of rank, a bad conduct discharge and a short jail term, though that isn't being sought, Fidell said.
Military prosecutors charged Bergdahl in March with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, a charge that could carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban after leaving his post on June 30, 2009, and held until last year, when he was exchanged for five Taliban commanders. His commanding officers say a 45-day search for Bergdahl put soldiers in danger.
Visger presided over last month's Article 32 hearing in Texas that reviewed evidence against Bergdahl. Visger submitted a report with his recommendation on Monday, but the Army hadn't said what Visger recommended.
Gen. Robert Abrams, the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, will ultimately decide whether the case should be referred to a court-martial. No timeline has been given for a decision from Abrams.
↧
The US military took these incredible photos this week
The military has very talented photographers in its ranks, and they constantly attempt to capture what life as a service member is like during training and at war. This is the best of what they shot this week
SEE ALSO: A mesmerizing look at a taser being fired in super slow-motion
AIR FORCE: Two HC-130J Combat King IIs sit on the flightline in preparation for cargo unload at Diyarbakir Air Base, Turkey, Sept. 28, 2015. The aircraft deployed to Diyarbakir AB in an effort to enhance coalition capabilities and support personnel recovery operations in Syria and Iraq.
Ellsworth Honor Guardsmen practice live-firing party movements at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., Feb. 9, 2015. The firing party ceremonial tradition dates back to the Civil War, and consists of firing three rounds to symbolize the removal of fallen soldiers from the battlefield.
ARMY: Soldiers, assigned to 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, conduct gunnery with an M1A2 Abrams battle tank during Exercise #CombinedResolve V at 7th Army JMTC in Grafenwoehr, Germany, Oct. 8, 2015.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider
↧
10 phrases that make no sense outside of the military
The US Army is often viewed as a no-nonsense organization, as it should be, given the awesome responsibility that lies with its members to protect and defend the people of the United States.
As such, military jargon usually reflects this, which words such as, “Roger,” “Affirmative,” and “Execute.” These all conjure up images of hard-bitten soldiers giving orders in combat or communicating vital issues over the radio. And for the most part, this image of a professional organization is exactly correct.
However, as those who have served know, there are a whole multitude of sayings that fit just as well on a kindergarden playground as they do in a military formation, if not better. These sayings are used by privates on up through senior officers and noncommissioned officers.
Most of us have gotten so used to them that we don’t blink an eye when we hear them, but to the uninitiated, they sound ludicrous. Here are 10 sayings that make Army soldiers sound like 10-year-olds.
SEE ALSO: The US military took these incredible photos this week
1. “Nut to Butt”
This is usually first heard in basic training, as recruits are ordered to stand in a single file line together, quite close. It derives from the human anatomy and I feel like you get the picture from there.
2. “Licky” and “Chewy”
This one defies logic, especially when heard from senior leaders. It refers to snacks, candy, or other small comforts that soldiers bring with them during field training.
As in, “Men, we’ve got a 10-day field training exercise coming up, so make sure you bring all your lickies and chewies.”
3. “Smoking and joking”
There has to be some correlation between Army and Cockney slang, since so many phrases in both cultures are built around rhymes. This phrase refers to a group of soldiers standing around doing nothing particularly useful. They may not even be smoking and/or joking, but the phrase is still used: “We’ve got a busy day, so make sure the troops aren’t standing around smoking and joking when the commander walks through.”
See the rest of the story at Business Insider
↧