View Full Version : US Special Forces Qualifications standards evicerated
If you have high blood pressure like I do, take your meds before reading.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/open-letter-green-berets-go-soft-lower-standards-to-be-more-inclusive/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20171201_FridayDigest_150g&utm_campaign=/blog/open-letter-green-berets-go-soft-lower-standards-to-be-more-inclusive/
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
Holy cow. I admit I know squat about SF except from chatting with the handful I know, and having worked around them deployed from time to time.
I will pass this on to a buddy who was an instructor/cadre, now a team sgt, see what he thinks.
If all of that is true it is pretty egregious. I know higher is always under the gun to produce more bodies for a unit that is always undermanned, but it seems from the article that they are almost completely obliterating any semblance of standards to push bodies.
I will say, one thing I like about their training is the whole-man concept...if a guy is a team-player, strong rucker, but fails a run by a few seconds, they can approve him moving forward (aside from the mandatory gate-passing testing). I would never advocate lowering standards for any unit in any branch carte blanche, but nor would I advocate throwing out the baby with the bathwater by fully eliminating that whole-man assessment, either.
Holy cow. I admit I know squat about SF except from chatting with the handful I know, and having worked around them deployed from time to time.
I will pass this on to a buddy who was an instructor/cadre, now a team sgt, see what he thinks.
I bet he is already aware.
There's a really good thread with close in/informed info on LF right now.
There's a really good thread with close in/informed info on LF right now.
It's on neither SOCNET nor shadowspear. Curious.
There's a really good thread with close in/informed info on LF right now.
Link?
I saw this on GA the other day too....
I gotta say, I don't fully trust everything they throw out, and I'd like to see confirmation from someone else closer the the unit before getting to pissed.
That being said, that letter seemed to address some pretty specific things, and I would not doubt that the politically motivated higher-ups would do something like this...I just need to see legit confirmation.
So, my good buddy is up and at 'em early where he is. He emailed the commanding general's response:
"To the Men and Women of the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School,
Many of you have seen the anonymous letter calling into question the integrity of our training standards and the quality of the Soldiers being produced. Let me be clear, I would be proud to serve with each and every one of our Special Forces Qualification Course graduates, and I stand behind the quality of every Soldier we are sending to the operational force.
The U.S. Army Green Berets have been at the tip of the spear in defense of our nation for more than 70 years. The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, the proponent for Special Forces, is charged with professional training and development of the force throughout a Soldier’s career.
Since 1952, Soldiers seeking to enter Special Forces have attended a qualification course to learn advanced warrior skills. In 1988, a Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) was introduced to the course, which was based on the Assessment and Selection process of the Office of Strategic Services. SFAS evolved into a proven, challenging process that allows the regiment to better predict a candidate’s ability to succeed in training as well as operate successfully in their respective operational environment. The consistent achievements of our operational force across the globe is a testament to the quality of the effectiveness of the assessment, selection, and training model.
The SFAS process ensures candidates successfully demonstrate the qualities of the Army Special Operations Force Attributes under dynamic and stressful conditions. To join the Special Forces Regiment, each candidate must demonstrate they possess the required strength, cognitive flexibility, and willpower to thrive in challenging and uncertain Special Operations environments. Students are evaluated using a holistic and multidiscipline approach, supported by a range of military and scientific experts to include psychologists, physiological experts and experienced combat veterans who select candidates who are physically strong, mentally tough and possess the character necessary to serve in the regiment.
If SFAS is correct, and we believe it is, the SFQC is not a place where high attrition rates should occur. Instead, the mission of the SFQC cadre is to train to standard. Without a doubt, if you were to take five Green Berets who attended the course at different periods of time, none of them would have had to meet the same standard as those Soldiers who are now in the course. Since 9/11, the SFQC has had at least eight significant modifications, each resulting in new or modified Tasks, Conditions, & Standards throughout the respective programs of instruction. These modifications are made to keep training relevant, efficient and effective, with the needs of the operational force driving each one. Today, the SFQC consists of six distinct phases (Orientation, Small Unit Tactics/Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), Military Occupational Specialty, Unconventional Warfare, language and graduation; followed by Military Free Fall training), which takes a minimum of 62 weeks in length if a candidate is not recycled.
Let me address some of the concerns in the anonymous letter.
- No fundamental SF standard has been removed.
- No academic or character performance standards have been adjusted.
- Previously, the Special Forces Physical Fitness Assessment (instituted as a ‘must-pass’ standard in 2012), rope climb, and ruck march were evaluated in the first phase of SFQC. Cadre will continue to administer diagnostic evaluations of these events throughout the SFQC with the final evaluation occurring in the last phase of the course. This shift gives the Cadre more time to prepare the students for these events. Students must meet these standards prior joining the operational force.
- Training in the SFQC remains among the most difficult in the Department of Defense. In 2017, more than 2,000 Soldiers attempted SFAS and 541 graduated the SFQC.
- I value our Cadre’s input and have not, and will not, issue a gag order. The CSM and I have visited each unit and conducted more than 10 town hall meetings with each subordinate unit within this command. We will continue to solicit feedback from each and every individual. My open door policy remains in effect.
- Language and cultural awareness training remain an essential part of the qualification course. All students must achieve a 1+/1+ rating in their assigned language before entering the operational force; which is above the operational force minimum standard of 1/1. Up until 2006, students earned their Green Beret after successful completion of Robin Sage.
- As an institution, SWCS has moved language instruction several times to optimize the flow of course instruction. I’ve recently adjusted the phasing of the SFQC, by moving graduation ahead of language training. By doing this, Soldiers who are already language qualified go directly to the Operational Groups after attending the Military Free Fall School; while those who are not qualified will attend language school and MFF before going to their Group assignment.
We work closely with 1SFC (A) leadership to ensure we are producing the Green Berets needed by the 1st SFC (A), and to the standards to which they need them trained. As we speak to Operational Groups, we consistently receive positive feedback.
- “They are well-trained, physically fit, and ready to join their teams from day one.”
- “Highest quality graduates we’ve seen in years.”
1st SFC (A) sets the standard and SWCS trains, coaches and mentors the students to achieve them. SWCS has always produced highly-qualified Soldiers who meet the expectations of the operational formations as they tend to the Nation's business. That will not stop. Every decision is made, not only by looking forward, but with the utmost respect for our Special Forces legacy, to ensure we maintain the integrity and standards of those who have come before us.
As the operational environment changes, we will continue to adjust instruction to fulfill our obligation to produce fully-qualified Army Special Operations Soldiers. Some of the comments in the email warrant further evaluation, and we are doing that through formal inquiries and a number of existing institutional forums.
Let me reiterate, CSM Arrowsmith and I seek healthy dialogue as a means of improvement. Every level of the command has been encouraged to challenge the current process, phasing and training methodology to ensure SWCS’ training remains relevant to meet the needs of the 1st SFC (A). Training at SWCS will continue to evolve to meet the needs of the Army. We will remain relevant while upholding the highest academic, military and physical standards. SWCS strives for a professional, rewarding experience for its students, cadre and families."
SF buddy said "yup" to all of it and said it's been that way for a while in his view. Bad mojo.
Link?
I saw this on GA the other day too....
I gotta say, I don't fully trust everything they throw out, and I'd like to see confirmation from someone else closer the the unit before getting to pissed.
That being said, that letter seemed to address some pretty specific things, and I would not doubt that the politically motivated higher-ups would do something like this...I just need to see legit confirmation.
http://www.lightfighter.net/topic/careerism-cronyism-and-malfeasance-in-the-special-warfare-center?page=1
More:
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/01/army_probes_criticism_of_green_beret_training_112711.html
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/green-beret-trainer-faults-careerism-among-senior-officers-weakening-special-ops/
ramairthree
12-01-17, 14:09
Selection is a selection.
It determines who is a candidate for a course.
Completing a course means passing it.
Completing training is very different than PASSING a course.
According to the Commander’s logic,
A guy can pass Delta Selection,
Then fail to meet the shooting curve and various other standards,
And then be an Operator after completing, not passing, OTC.
Someone can get good grades and a high MCAT score,
Be accepted into medical school,
then fail every course and still become a doctor. For completing, but not passing, medical school.
I could pass OCS, then complete flight training without passing anything, pin on some wings and get sent to a unit and fly?
There is a big difference between completing some training, and then actually passing difficult events to a standard.
This is like the NBA saying they are going to put 5’10” white guys and chicks on teams,
Without adversely affecting gameplay or lowering standards. And that they will rigorously adhere to the standard that everyone on the team can do a slam dunk. But when none of them can dunk,
They explain that the rim does not really need to be ten feet high, and move it down to eight.
It is called the Special Forces Qualification Course.
Not the Special Forces Training Course (Qualifications Met Optional).
The whistleblower gave very detailed and specific information, editorialized with savage, career ending call it like he sees it brutality, and let the chips fall where they may. Respect.
The whistleblower gave very detailed and specific information, editorialized with savage, career ending call it like he sees it brutality, and let the chips fall where they may. Respect.
When I emailed my friend about it earlier, he said everyone knows what's going down, said that the guy who wrote it, if ever identified, will have signed his death warrant in SF. Everyone knows, but no one is saying anything. He also said that letter made it public so now leadership has to address it.
My mentor growing up had retired from the Army, almost all of his 20 years was in SF, including a few tours in VN (he was my neighbor and a teacher at the HS). He was robust, physical, his stories were great, he was funnier than hell. HE is what I think about when I think of SF, and I mourn over what has happened to his, to your, community.
sundance435
12-04-17, 10:28
When I emailed my friend about it earlier, he said everyone knows what's going down, said that the guy who wrote it, if ever identified, will have signed his death warrant in SF. Everyone knows, but no one is saying anything. He also said that letter made it public so now leadership has to address it.
As in everyone agrees with the accusations or they don't? Based on experience in other areas, a rush to produce "more" always creates problems - no reason to believe this is any different. I liked the analogy I saw somewhere that it's like there being a finite number of D-1 capable athletes. If you're going for numbers, nothing can change that (in realistic terms).
As in everyone agrees with the accusations or they don't? Based on experience in other areas, a rush to produce "more" always creates problems - no reason to believe this is any different. I liked the analogy I saw somewhere that it's like there being a finite number of D-1 capable athletes. If you're going for numbers, nothing can change that (in realistic terms).
He believes everyone, well, most everyone, agrees with the allegations. His (and their) sense is, what leaderships wants (more throughput and graduates) violates one of the four "SOF Truths": SOF cannot be mass-produced.
He said that some of the "issues" are red herrings; that is, some of the mandatory gates a student has to pass are relatively new, and he doesn't see how having it or not having it will make a significant impact one way or the other. He pointed out quality studs graduated prior to implementing some of the newer mandatory gates, so in and of itself it's not that big of a deal.
Edited to add, when he is done with his team time he is scheduled to go back to the school to teach. He will be taking retirement instead.
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 11:13
So what I'm reading is that basically anyone can become a Green Beret. Super.
My question then is this- what does it take for someone undeserving of their tab to have it stripped once they reach their team?
So what I'm reading is that basically anyone can become a Green Beret. Super.
My question then is this- what does it take for someone undeserving of their tab to have it stripped once they reach their team?
Well, apparently about in in 4 graduate the Q course:
In 2017, more than 2,000 Soldiers attempted SFAS and 541 graduated the SFQC. (Source MG Sonntag's letter to the SF community)
So, it isn't as bad as the 'show up and you'll graduate' which many take it as.
This is from a sharp dude on another site:
The Special Forces accession pipeline has been a numbers game since the dramatic expansion of SF back in the mid 1980s and a subsequent growth spurt across the last decade. SF assets are more in demand today than ever before.
At about the end of the Vietnam Era and across much of the Cold War, the US Army had about 1.5 million Active Duty troops....that was the recruiting pool from which Army Special Forces selected volunteer candidates to fill just three (3) Special Forces Groups. Manning about 162 x 12-man ODAs. Plus fills at various staff and schoolhouse assignments. Only a coupla hundred new guys needed each year out of the SF Qualification Course.
But in the late 1980's, the Army shrank, while SF expanded (two new AD Groups added plus a rather ginormous increase in HQ, Schoolhouse billets, and ancillary feeding of newly formed Special Mission Units)....... Instead of a potential million and a half sized recruiting pool of Soldiers for SF... there's around a half million.
With the downrange success of SF units across the last two decades (all over the world), SF was able to leverage funding for more growth. Five Active Duty Groups each added a 4th line battalion. Plus the HQs & Schoolhouses got even bigger. And still more SF types feeding a variety of TDA assignments (LNO positions, cadre at various places, Task Forces, Embassy assignments, etc.). About 8 x 1970's sized Groups worth of Green Beret wearing manpower.
BLUF: In comparison to the late 1960s, today's in-demand Army SF Branch has to continuously man nearly three times the force structure while recruiting from a pool of eligible volunteer Army candidates only one third the size of yesteryear's.
"One hundred men will test today. But only three win the Green Beret..." - SSG Barry Sadler's The Ballad of the Green Beret.
Well sports fans... today that's bullshit. Ft Bragg's SF Schoolhouse needs to pass every available swinging dick just to maintain steady state manning. So they are. They have to fill more egg delivery orders. But they've got only so many laying hens delivering a finite amount of eggs. Can't fill all the cartons. So they're going to start adding cracked eggs and other culls to each carton. And hope that nobody notices.
Imagine if today's NFL expanded (over the next decade or so ) from 32 teams... to perhaps 90? What would happen to the quality of play? Employing what would normally be less-than-NFL-caliber talent brought up from minor leagues & colleges? And that's not even a very good analogy, because there'd still be a line of enthusiastic volunteers for fame & high pay fortune careers with the NFL. In the military world, there's just not that many people that really want to try out for SF. Fewer still that can surpass the previously exacting standards of SF (or any other American SOF element for that matter).
SF's own growth, spurred by decades of deployed success, has become its worst enemy. Everyone wants to throw more SOF at global military problems, so more SOF billets get authorized and funded. SOF forces are untouchable when it comes to budget cuts or force reductions. Too much ain't enough. Forgetting that you can only squeeze so much milk from a cow. Special Forces cannot be mass produced. But they're trying to do just that. Which means that formerly high standards get tossed out the window. In order to meet quotas that certain leaders' annual performance evaluations hinge upon.
When you charge more money than you have in the bank, the bill... and interest... eventually come due. If you open Ivy League schools to people with C+ averages, academic rigor declines. If you let marginal pilots graduate from airline flight training... more passengers die in crashes. If you blatantly water down your drinks, your bar business will tank. If you field the 2nd & 3rd String bench, instead of the Varsity, you lose games. And if you let folks into a military outfit who shouldn't be there, the organization's performance degrades over time. Especially as some of the crop of turds inevitably rise to supervisory/leadership roles somewhere down the road.
Sadly, it's just a simple problem involving recruiting demographics, ruthless adherence to standards, & application of common sense. SF has gotten too big for sustainable manning. Trying to do too many things, with too few people, and no appetite for telling the Pentagon or Capitol Hill that it's time to scale back on expectations.
It'll eventually get fixed. It always does. But the radioactive half-life of the self-inflicted problem will last for years.
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 12:00
Well it sounds like if you pass the screener you'll get your tab. That's what I meant by basically anyone can do it, because the physical standards for selection really aren't that intense and it's only 19 days.
If the same standard was applied to BUDs, ITC, CCT/PJ training, etc, SOCOM wouldn't be so special anymore.
It's a pickle. ALL SOF are deploying more than ever: more places, more deployments, more days OCONUS. Add to the deployments the standard duties: instructor, schools, collateral duties, etc. The supply of people getting out of the pipeline--ANY pipeline--cannot keep up with demand. So, what is a commander (of the 4-star variety) to do??
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 12:17
It's a pickle. ALL SOF are deploying more than ever: more places, more deployments, more days OCONUS. Add to the deployments the standard duties: instructor, schools, collateral duties, etc. The supply of people getting out of the pipeline--ANY pipeline--cannot keep up with demand. So, what is a commander (of the 4-star variety) to do??
I'd say get a grip on reality, adjust mission requirements to fit what the units are capable of sustaining, turn the slack over to conventional units and maintain existing standards.
I'd say get a grip on reality, adjust mission requirements to fit what the units are capable of sustaining, turn the slack over to conventional units and maintain existing standards.
I agree. For better or worse, I am not in charge. But the cultural issues, at least in SF, go further than "just" lowering standards to increase throughput. Deployments without a mission statement, under-funded, get-your-equipment-when-you-fill-out-the-form-in-triplicate kinds of stuff. People are quitting at a higher rate; some of it is the lowering standards, some of it is the Mickey Mouse/ticky tack BS, but ALL of it is related: it's a leadership issue.
But again, I agree: I think it should begin--and end--with maintaining standards. Quality over quantity.
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 13:27
I agree. For better or worse, I am not in charge. But the cultural issues, at least in SF, go further than "just" lowering standards to increase throughput. Deployments without a mission statement, under-funded, get-your-equipment-when-you-fill-out-the-form-in-triplicate kinds of stuff. People are quitting at a higher rate; some of it is the lowering standards, some of it is the Mickey Mouse/ticky tack BS, but ALL of it is related: it's a leadership issue.
But again, I agree: I think it should begin--and end--with maintaining standards. Quality over quantity.
I talked to MSOB guys a lot when I coached at Stone Bay, and something I found extremely surprising was that a good number of their SSNCOs and field grade officers came from outside the Recon/MSOB community. To me, that's a huge issue. You can't mix professional warfighters and complete POGs and expect things to go smoothly as their priorities usually don't align.
Not sure if Army SF works the same way.
I talked to MSOB guys a lot when I coached at Stone Bay, and something I found extremely surprising was that a good number of their SSNCOs and field grade officers came from outside the Recon/MSOB community. To me, that's a huge issue. You can't mix professional warfighters and complete POGs and expect things to go smoothly as their priorities usually don't align.
Not sure if Army SF works the same way.
I got out way before MARSOC came around; I was around the recon community where > 90% were 0300s straight from the beginning. I believe but cannot attest that MARSOC took their direction from SF, where anyone can assess and be retrained into a new MOS.
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 13:52
I got out way before MARSOC came around; I was around the recon community where > 90% were 0300s straight from the beginning. I believe but cannot attest that MARSOC took their direction from SF, where anyone can assess and be retrained into a new MOS.
You're correct in that anyone can go through the pipeline to become a Raider. However, the senior leadership (at least on the enlisted side) doesn't, to my understanding, have the same requirements. The current Sgt Major of 2nd Raider Battalion is a career 03xx, but has no Special Operations experience.
You're correct in that anyone can go through the pipeline to become a Raider. However, the senior leadership (at least on the enlisted side) doesn't, to my understanding, have the same requirements. The current Sgt Major of 2nd Raider Battalion is a career 03xx, but has no Special Operations experience.
Gotcha, I was reading you wrong. Yeah, that's no bueno...leadership should have the experience, and the T-shirt (badge, tab, diploma, whatever) to go with it. It's funny what that letter did...I am hearing from a buddy today in pararescue who is saying, "wow, I thought we were alone in having senior leadership screw with standards and requirements."
Whoever wrote that letter is the Jerry Maquire of SOF; he'll get canned, but all of these people coming out of the woodwork validating his points.
Well it sounds like if you pass the screener you'll get your tab. That's what I meant by basically anyone can do it, because the physical standards for selection really aren't that intense and it's only 19 days.
If the same standard was applied to BUDs, ITC, CCT/PJ training, etc, SOCOM wouldn't be so special anymore.
That's a bit of a reach. It sure as hell ain't easy.
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 14:28
That's a bit of a reach. It sure as hell ain't easy.
Not saying it's easy. All I'm pointing out is that the PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS aren't indicative of the level an operator has to be at.
"SF is open to male and female soldiers. However, before attending Special Forces Assessment and Selection, known as SFAS, soldiers must complete a physical assessment test that, as a minimum, includes 49 pushups, 59 situps, a 2-mile run of 15:12 minutes or less, and six pullups"
I specifically said it wasn't easy. All I'm pointing out is that the PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS aren't indicative of the level an operator has to be at.
Well, last I heard (it may be different now but don't think so) there was a 22 mile ruck speed-march at the very end of Selection. IIRC it is like a 65lb ruck or thereabouts. An event like that certainly isn't for the faint of heart after three long weeks of being f****d with and limited sleep; it isn't like you're doing it fresh out of the gate. Since the almighty ruck is the bread and butter of just about all Army SOF physical-limits-testing (Rangers, SF, Delta) I'd say that event is certainly in keeping with what they can expect in their immediate future. IOW if you can pass Selection then you are ready for the rest. Of course "the rest" apparently isn't what it used to be now.
EDIT: I stand corrected (from Wiki):
The final event, which was discontinued in early 2009 and reintroduced sometime before December 2013, is a road march of up to 32 miles (51 km) known as "the Trek" or Long Range Individual Movement (LRIM).
The 19 day thing you mentioned is the "prep" course. The actual Selection portion with the above mentioned road march is 24 days. So I'll stand by my assertion that Selection is tough.
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 14:50
Well, last I heard (it may be different now but don't think so) there was a 22 mile ruck speed-march at the very end of Selection. IIRC it is like a 65lb ruck or thereabouts. An event like that certainly isn't for the faint of heart after three long weeks of being f****d with and limited sleep; it isn't like you're doing it fresh out of the gate. Since the almighty ruck is the bread and butter of just about all Army SOF physical-limits-testing (Rangers, SF, Delta) I'd say that event is certainly in keeping with what they can expect in their immediate future. IOW if you can pass Selection then you are ready for the rest. Of course "the rest" apparently isn't what it used to be now.
EDIT: I stand corrected (from Wiki):
The final event, which was discontinued in early 2009 and reintroduced sometime before December 2013, is a road march of up to 32 miles (51 km) known as "the Trek" or Long Range Individual Movement (LRIM).
The 19 day thing you mentioned is the "prep" course. The actual Selection portion is 24 days. So I'll stand by my assertion that Selection is tough.
Perhaps I was too quick to judge then. My understanding was that SFAS was a screener similar to MSOB A&S, and that Q course was the real test.
Perhaps I was too quick to judge then. My understanding was that SFAS was a screener similar to MSOB A&S, and that Q course was the real test.
A buddy of mine is a retired SGM from 5th SFG. He went through back in the early 80's. He told me back then it was Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III (Robin Sage). Phase I contained the f**k-with-you stuff and the long ruck march. Since then the Q-Course has undergone a number of changes, to include the label each "phase" gets now. What was once part of the old Phase I is now SFAS. And the 19 day thing you mentioned was new to me; it appears to be a precursor to Selection, like a pre-boot camp boot camp!
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 15:07
A buddy of mine is a retired SGM from 5th SFG. He went through back in the early 80's. He told me back then it was Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III (Robin Sage). Phase I contained the f**k-with-you stuff and the long ruck march. Since then the Q-Course has undergone a number of changes, to include the label each "phase" gets now. What was once part of the old Phase I is now SFAS. And the 19 day thing you mentioned was new to me; it appears to be a precursor to Selection, like a pre-boot camp boot camp!
Gotcha.
I'd have to go back through the letter, but if the standards for selection haven't changed, why are there still physically inept candidates in Q course?
Gotcha.
I'd have to go back through the letter, but if the standards for selection haven't changed, why are there still physically inept candidates in Q course?
I was wondering that too. I thought it specifically said something to the effect of "....once you have passed Selection". Maybe playing semantics games to hide something?
Dist. Expert 26
12-04-17, 15:16
I was wondering that too. I thought it specifically said something to the effect of "....once you have passed Selection". Maybe playing semantics games to hide something?
My thought was that the push for numbers goes all the way to the bottom, so to speak. Unfortunately I don't think we'll get any real time insight because doing so would jeopardize careers.
Dist. Expert 26
02-13-18, 13:10
Rather than start a new thread I figured I'd dig this one up since the premise is pretty much the same.
If you're at all familiar with the USMC Infantry Officers Course, you've heard of the Combat Endurance Test. It's a brutally demanding test designed to weed out the weak who aren't cut out for the job- which coincidentally comprises most of the women who have attempted the course. Now that test is all but removed.
If you can't lower standards, just remove them entirely right?
http://tribunist.com/news/the-marine-corps-drops-major-obstacle-to-female-infantry-officers/
Rather than start a new thread I figured I'd dig this one up since the premise is pretty much the same.
If you're at all familiar with the USMC Infantry Officers Course, you've heard of the Combat Endurance Test. It's a brutally demanding test designed to weed out the weak who aren't cut out for the job- which coincidentally comprises most of the women who have attempted the course. Now that test is all but removed.
If you can't lower standards, just remove them entirely right?
http://tribunist.com/news/the-marine-corps-drops-major-obstacle-to-female-infantry-officers/
I read about this last week. A little bit of my soul died....
platoonDaddy
02-23-18, 03:39
Rather than start a new thread I figured I'd dig this one up since the premise is pretty much the same.
If you're at all familiar with the USMC Infantry Officers Course, you've heard of the Combat Endurance Test. It's a brutally demanding test designed to weed out the weak who aren't cut out for the job- which coincidentally comprises most of the women who have attempted the course. Now that test is all but removed.
If you can't lower standards, just remove them entirely right?
http://tribunist.com/news/the-marine-corps-drops-major-obstacle-to-female-infantry-officers/
I am confused how lowering anything more accurately replicate today’s real-world requirements.
Faced with towering attrition rates, the Marine Corps has steadily modified its grueling Infantry Officer Course ― changes that top Marines say are not attempts to water down standards, but to more accurately replicate today’s real-world requirements.
Recent changes include the number of evaluated hikes required to pass the course, and the removal of the physically demanding Combat Endurance Test as a strict requirement to graduate.
Under the new requirements, only three of those nine hikes will be evaluated, and Marines will have to pass all three evaluated hikes in order to graduate.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/21/infantry-officer-course-lowers-requirement-for-hikes/
polydeuces
02-23-18, 08:55
In a very ironic way you just may have answered your own question.
In the ‘real world’ it seems we lower standards if all else fails.
Dist. Expert 26
02-23-18, 09:38
In a very ironic way you just may have answered your own question.
In the ‘real world’ it seems we lower standards if all else fails.
Until we get in a real war again, and I'm not talking about goat herders with AK's. With all this "progress" if we square off against another professional military it's going to be a bloodbath with our boys on the wrong end.
Until we get in a real war again, and I'm not talking about goat herders with AK's. With all this "progress" if we square off against another professional military it's going to be a bloodbath with our boys on the wrong end.
Although this article is specific about delayed medical care in the next war, the CMC talks about in the next war we have to "fight to get to the fight." We need to be training harder and smarter.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/15/no-golden-hour-for-marines-headed-into-the-next-big-fight/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
Dist. Expert 26
02-23-18, 10:01
Although this article is specific about delayed medical care in the next war, the CMC talks about in the next war we have to "fight to get to the fight." We need to be training harder and smarter.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/15/no-golden-hour-for-marines-headed-into-the-next-big-fight/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
Good thing we've got our priorities in order, huh? I'm so glad I got out when I did.
TV becoming reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isy8PrMlatg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.