quote:

---

Originally posted by Matador275

[quote]Originally posted by RangerRios
[ For example, every "AD" infantry 2LT gets a shot at the school, but do all want to go or make it?

Wish those slots could go to squared away enlisted men who WANT to go.


Rios
You have put most of these tooltastic Voluntary Withdrawel OBC knuckledraggers on the spot with what you just said.
I know privates who would rather have a heartattack on the 2 mile run when they come in,to be the first to go to Pre Ranger, than spend one more month in batt as a tabless bitch. I would like to see one of these Quitters explain to a company meeting of Battboys why they quit when they had a chance to go out there and see what they are made of.
And the best part is that the guys who were the biggest SBags are the ones to tell the "Back in the day when it was hard "stories.
I left 2/75 and went to a leg unit and almost had a stroke when I found out my PL didn't have his tab. And then I found out that there were only 2 officers who had theirs. One prior service guy and the CO.
I had the hardest time ever listening to any of those privates with butterbars comments on how to do anything in the field.
I am not holding this against anyone who broke their leg in Mountains or went titts up in Benning during the summer or got jellyleg in Florida. I am just disgusted that a guy who had some BS reason to quit gets to lead men. Not saying that having your tab makes you an awesome leader, but if it's a prereq for infantry officers why is it not enforced?
Wouldn't mind having a poop meeting with you guys about this..
Out.

---

RLTW

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matador275

When did you serve in 2/75?

Ranger2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 509Trooper

quote:

---

Lastly, I've heard the 509th was a ranger reject unit, does that mean that's true or anything deeper. Probably not but the point is, like the justice system, there is push and pull between attorneys, judges, cops and the public and you're going to hear or see things and if you see or hear them often enough you know it's not just a single case of sour grapes.

---

Many of the NCOs in Vicenza I served with were original or early members of either the 1st or 2nd Ranger Battalions(pre-Regiment days). Today the 1-509th gets many slots to Ranger Schools, just like other light infantry units. And just like other light infantry units there is a fair number of NCOs and officers who have served in the 75th and/or who serve in the Rangers after leaving Polk. Last year a team from the 509th placed in the top ten in the Best Ranger Competition, which only saw around a dozen of more than 40 teams finish. This post reminds me of a guy who starts a fire, calls the fire department and only wants credit for the latter not the former.

---

quote:

---

Let's tell it like it really is - the Rangers own SOF.

---

quote:

---

Please explain this for me. From what I've seen almost all of the SOCOM commanders(three stars) have had SF backgrounds as opposed to Ranger service, Steiner, Shelton and Shoomaker come immediately to mind(when did they stop requiring the CG's name to start with an S[]). Wayne Downing is, of course, the notable exception. Now tell me how Rangers own SOF. How does a colonel, the CO of the 75th, control a three star general? These are the type of generalized BS comments that have so many people here on your six.

Maybe I am misreading it but part of your argument seems to be that Rangers are getting a disproportionate share of the budget, to the detriment of SF. The Ranger Regiment is under the command of SOCOM which receives the funds for all Special Ops units under it. If SF is getting slighted in budget and training, which I don't really believe, how is it that the Ranger Regiment is to blame given that SF officers are the primary commanders?

---

quote:

---

General Toney said as much in the Army Times last year.

---

quote:

---

You did at least post Gen. Toney's bio, so I agree that he has the credentials to know. But even though I read the Army Times I don't recall the article you mentioned and since you haven't posted the article I can't really respond to what he said.

---

quote:

---

since I'm beyond giving a fxxk

---

quote:

---

While you have said what Gen. Toney was quoted as saying in the article the above statement doesn't give me much faith in your credibility or objectivety. Not trying to slam you, but you do come across as having a chip on your shoulder.

---

quote:

---

How many SF officers don't have a short tab? Look what happened to Delta - can you say RaaaaaaaaannnnnGer!. . . These days quite a significant portion of Delta is only ranger tabbed, now that you don't have to attend the Q to make into Delta.

---

quote:

---

I've answered the first part(which you have decided to ignore). Please explain about the second statement and why it would be a bad thing? What portion of Delta is only long tabbed? There has always been that element to it as well. And as I stated before, the Q Course was never a part of Delta.

---

quote:

---

everyone knows SOF has been loosing it's mission and command personnel with an understanding of those missions since Vietnam.

---

quote:

---

You need to read The Hunt for Bin Laden: Task Force Dagger about SF in Afghanistan. SF has taken on a number of non-traditional missions over the last twenty years, but to me that shows their flexibility more than anything. They have been used extensively in traditional SF missions around the world, Central and South America and the Philippines are examples. In Gulf War 1 they were used extensively to train Kuwaitis and other Arab militaries.

---

quote:

---

Now their taking 11B/11C out of OSUT to be SF babys. Tell me how SF benefits from that?

---

quote:

---

You need to check out the previous topic(s) we have on this subject. This was a decision to try and bring SF up to full strength. Accepting recruits off the streets is something that has been done in the past, during Vietnam and I believe during the mid-eighties time frame. I am not crazy about the idea but I do say that this time around the program they have set up is much better than in the past. Time will tell.

---

quote:

---

Look who's running the show in Iraq. It's like a Just Cause reunion.

---

quote:

---

This is another point I answered that you have chosen to ignore. I am going to expand on what I have already written. It is true that Gen. Abizaid was did time in the 75th, with the 2nd Batt in the late seventies and the 1st Batt in Grenada. But he began his career in the 82nd and later commanded the 325th in Italy when they moved into northern Iraq following GW1. Yet somehow you zero in on his Ranger service and that is some sort of a bad thing. And to repeat my earlier point, while Gen. Abizaid as CENTCOM commander has the responsibility for operations in Iraq(as well as Afghanistan and the rest of the Mideast), it is V Corps that is actively running the operations.

---

quote:

---

It's been discussed by many old SF vets in their books way back when after Vietnam ended and SF was getting downsized.

---

quote:

---

This was true during the seventies. But from what I saw things began to change as SF expanded and the 3rd and 1st Groups were reactivated. Your basing part of your argument on information that is 30 years old and no longer applies.

---

quote:

---

Now that doesn't mean that there aren't problems SF is facing. But I simply don't believe those problems can be traced to the 75th Rangers. Conventional officers have never liked SF and I think they are a more likely source of the problems than the Rangers. I believe that whatever influence they have over SOCOM they are much more likely to push the Rangers, which they see as less of a special ops unit and more of a high speed light infantry unit, at the expense of SF.

I think that some of the problems you point out are probably true, but I don't have the knowledge or background to comment on, such as the lack of language skills. One thing I will say is that you almost had a very good point in one respect but were a little off target. Last month in Columbus Jmpmstr made a very good point about SF qualified personnel attending Ranger School. This point was echoed in Robin Moore's book that I referred to earlier.

Following Grenada and the expansion of the light infantry units in the Army even from the outside I could see a big push to have NCOs go to Ranger School. While I don't think this is a bad thing, it also appears that there is a push to have SF NCOs get Ranger qualified as well. If an NCO, or new officer that was SF prior service, already has a long tab why should he be pushed to attend Ranger School? Having gone through the Q Course he is already well trained in the patrolling and other small unit skills he will need.

Ranger School is supposed to be a leadership course for officers and NCOs. It also has the mission of accepting and training qualified enlisted soldiers from the Ranger Regiment. But it seems to me that sending a SF NCO who has completed the Q Course is waste of the RTB's time and the unit's money. Now if that SF NCO wants to serve in the Ranger Regiment he should have the opportunity to attend Ranger School like any other NCO in the Army.

---

quote:

---

Can the 172nd SIB accomplish it's mission in the sands of Iraq. I bet they would. But wouldn't they be more suited or even better in the enviroment for which they've trained in? SEALs and Marines do an outstanding job on behalf of our nation but I wouldn't expect them to perform an Air Force tasking as well as the USAF would. Of course they would adapt and improvise and demonstrate they're impeccable capabilities if required to do so. But is it best to do it that way?

Theatre commanders have to choose what's best for the mission; Spec Ops, Navy show of force, diplomatic channels or whatever and I'm arguing what's best for SF is the non glamourous stuff rather than direct action missions...... and to do that, language and cultural knowledge is one of the major fundamentals.

Lastly - regarding books in general, you have great histornians like Stephan Ambrose getting in hot water and SF and Ranger tabbed authors like Shelby L. Stanton getting called out for his personal claims but back in their day, those 2 were considered immaculate, impeccable and experts par none. So - were they good authors and books in 1985 but bad ones in 2000?

P.S. When was Al Gore's enivornment book published btw?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matador275

[quote]Originally posted by RangerRios
[ For example, every "AD" infantry 2LT gets a shot at the school, but do all want to go or make it?

Wish those slots could go to squared away enlisted men who WANT to go.


Rios
You have put most of these tooltastic Voluntary Withdrawel OBC knuckledraggers on the spot with what you just said.
I know privates who would rather have a heartattack on the 2 mile run when they come in,to be the first to go to Pre Ranger, than spend one more month in batt as a tabless bitch. I would like to see one of these Quitters explain to a company meeting of Battboys why they quit when they had a chance to go out there and see what they are made of.
And the best part is that the guys who were the biggest SBags are the ones to tell the "Back in the day when it was hard "stories.
I left 2/75 and went to a leg unit and almost had a stroke when I found out my PL didn't have his tab. And then I found out that there were only 2 officers who had theirs. One prior service guy and the CO.
I had the hardest time ever listening to any of those privates with butterbars comments on how to do anything in the field.
I am not holding this against anyone who broke their leg in Mountains or went titts up in Benning during the summer or got jellyleg in Florida. I am just disgusted that a guy who had some BS reason to quit gets to lead men. Not saying that having your tab makes you an awesome leader, but if it's a prereq for infantry officers why is it not enforced?
Wouldn't mind having a poop meeting with you guys about this..
Out.

---