Why doesn't the US military reduce the number of our traditional infantry personnel and expand the number of our...

Why doesn't the US military reduce the number of our traditional infantry personnel and expand the number of our Special Operations personnel? We could even create a tier 4 selection pipeline for individuals that failed out of other special operation programs but still want to commit to special operations.

Attached: 1378501046665.jpg (424x530, 47K)

>when the entire military is sf, no one will be

Because it's already turning into a mutts with benefits program

that is funny but from a budget/utilization perspective, doesn't it make sense to have more special operations personnel even if the new additions are not as well trained as their predecessors? the tier 4 units could be assigned to areas that require a US presence. sure, they won't be as specialized or tested as a JSOC guy but they will still be very effective in promoting our interests abroad.

I don't think that is true but I am non military so maybe I am completely wrong. If there is one infantry related area that seems to be effective in promoting our national interests it would be special operations.

No need for it

Too many fatties, they can barely get enough basic pleb recruits

they do its called 82nd and 101

isn't that a traditional military group that doesn't conduct special operations? the one that I am envisioning would be more like a expeditionary force that is part of SOCOM and capable of acting in small units to support our interests.

The army is already kinda trying this with the SFAB units. Time will tell.

The United States' military combat ready infantry numbers are lower now than they were for 3/4 of the 20th century. We have a proportionally higher amount of SF to regular infantry now than we used to during the cold war. The year in which we had the lowest number of deployed troops overseas was 1999, and we had 200,000 troops (of all MOS) overseas that year alone. You don't really need a large standing Army as much these days. Although what we ought to reduce is all the unnecessary extra non-combatant and non-logistics jobs, the jobs that people who only join for the benefits like to take.

is that an iPad from the 80's shes holding?

Attached: imagesfd.jpg (324x156, 9K)

Why are finnish women so-ugly?

It's because they don't have a female penis.

woah that sounds pretty cool. from the wikipedia is reads like they are going to be similar to special forces?

>the one that I am envisioning would be more like a expeditionary force that is part of SOCOM and capable of acting in small units to support our interests
75th Ranger Regiment

One of the core philosophies of socom is that you can't mass produce SOF personnel. They need to come naturally.

No. I think Rangers are extremely well trained and capable.

This expeditionary group could serve as a Ranger's Ranger group similar to how Rangers will also act with Delta Force when they need more support. But I think their primary purpose would be in doing combat missions that require a larger amount of personnel than our special operations community can provide.

They could also function as additional muscle for which is I think a really good idea.

Maybe but their responsibilities would be less extreme than the standard special operation forces that we have today. It's not like we are going to require the same obligations of them as we would require of an army ranger or delta force.

Refer to SOF Truths - so named because they are the tenets that guide the creation, maintenance, and employment of SOF and enablers. Should answer your question.

1. Humans are more important than hardware.
2. Quality is better than quantity.
3. SOF cannot be ma mass produced.
4. Competent SOF cannot be created after emergencies occur.
5. SOF operations will often require non-SOF support.

Not everyone gets to be special, OP.

>not making super sf

Why would we want more retards bragging they shot looters

spec ops costs more to train, they don't to much better if any better at all in open conventional combat, and require a permissive environment in which to execute their skillsets.

Against a peer enemy, with modernized sensors, the ability to sneak in and execute CQC is diminished.

They are very good at shooting, and very good at the environment they were trained to be in, outside of that, they just cost a lot. For the shooting part, any grunt can get better at shooting, and many are.

Are there any stats for how much more they cost in training and equipment in comparison to infantry