Talk:United States special operations forces

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States special operations forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

Guardian Angle (ACC PJ/CRO) as special operations

Currently there is a debate going on, to determine if PJs under Air Combat Command are considered special operations. In AFDD 2-7 (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2-7.pdf) all AFSOF assets are under AFSOC, however this is from 2005, and at one point in time all PJs were under AFSOC. I haven't been able to find any information that ACC PJs are considered SOF (exactly in the same manner that ACC TACPs aren't considered SOF), but I wanted to create this thread to create a discussion on the manner. I think the thread above has some good information. Garuda28 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I know what you are referring to, a while ago the commander in charge of pararescue training sent out an email saying "There is no such thing as ST PJs or Rescue PJs all Pjs are pararescuemen" All PJs attended the 12 month special tactics training squadron where they attened combat diver, free fall school, and advanced skills where they learn how to fight. PJs assigned to a rescue squadron are no diffrent than those attached to a special tactics squadron, if you took a PJ from a rescue squadron and placed him in a special tactics squadron he would be qualified for it. What im saying is that ALL PJs ARE SPECIAL OPERATIONS (mickteen11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickteen11 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Mickteen11 So if were going to amend the article to reflect that what we are going to need is a source that will explicitly state from a doctrinal point of view that ACC PJs and AFSOC PJs are both SOF in the eyes of the Air Force. I'm going to hunt around for that, and if you could find some also and link them here that would be great. Garuda28 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd first like to clarify something Mickteen11 mentioned earlier: No PJs attend the 12 month special tactics training squadron (STTS) in its entirety, but I can understand the confusion. STTS is largely the Combat Controller and SOWT 5-level course. After initial training, they receive their berets, and then move on to STTS. PJs/CROs go through their own pipeline and receive the same advanced quals (Dive, Airborne and MFF). The only PJs that attend portions of STTS are those whose first duty assignment is at a Special Tactics Squadron. Basically the reason for this is that an STS PJ normally deploys as a single enabler to another SOF team so they aren't operational until they've completed their 5-level training. Rescue PJs on the other hand can still deploy as 3-levels, as long as they've completed certain core 5-level upgrade items. There is some leeway with them as they will have less responsibility as a team member within a full PJ team. But the training at STTS is no different than the training at a rescue squadron, only more formalized.

Other than the documents I provided in the above discussion (none of which definitively state that "all PJ=SOF") I don't think you'll find any doctrine about PJs being "inherently" SOF. But again this is has more to do with a poor and inconsistent definition of SOF than it is has to with with PJs/CROs. If we lean towards the administrative definition (belonging to SOCOM->AFSOC) then Guardian Angel is by definition not SOF. But the tradeoff is that under this definition, the finance guy at a Special Operation Group is justified in claiming to be SOF. I'm not sure this meets the intent of the term. If we lean towards the Joint pub definition of rigorous election, special operations skills, austere environment, clandestine, etc, then there is no question that GA teams fall under that umbrella. This has never been too much of an issue doctrinally, as those familiar with both missions hold Rescue on just as high a pedestal as Special Operations.

For now, I think the most appropriate compromise would be to take away the term "inherently SOF" in the caveat and change it to some thing like "Not all PJs/CROs are assigned to AFSOC, many are assigned to Rescue Squadrons within ACC, PACAF, and USAFE. No additional selection or training is needed when PJs/CROs transfer between Rescue and Special Tactics assignments" and add a separate caveat for TACP/ALO. The term "inherent SOF" has some odd connotations that imply more than is justified. DocGecko (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is the current title of this article using proper capitalization? Looking through the page history, I can see that the original title for the article capitalized everything, but that the article was moved around 2009 to make "special operations forces" lowercase. I did a quick Google search and came across news articles that use lower case for the term "special operations forces", like this CNN article , but also came across articles that capitalize the term, like this Daily Beast article . Most articles seem to capitalize "Special Operations", while using lower case for word "forces", like these articles from Time Magazine , The New York Times , and The Washington Post .

Can anyone whose knowledgeable about this topic confirm what the proper capitalization is and move the article if need be? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Some numbers ending in 2nd and 3rd are shown as "2d" and "3d".I've noticed editors try to correct this, only to be reverted. It would be nice of we could address this issue with some consistency. - ^theWOLFchild 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. As mentioned on the MILHIST page, this is a big issue for USAF units. The “d” is standard for Air Force units (i.e. 93d Air Ground Operations Wing My personal view is keep it as is right now to avoid breaking links, but have an individual discussion on each of the article pages based on the sources. I’m not sure, because of the inconsisties, that it would be wise to make one overarching decision on all at once. Either way, I think we should address this at MILHIST. Maybe a new consensus for all would be formed? Garuda28 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The links are easy fix, just create redirects. But a simple RfC at WT:MILHIST would be a good idea. - ^theWOLFchild 05:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Article content

This article is currently a list. Its content ought to be in List of United States special operations forces, and this article given over to a summary of these forces, their history, and activity. Konli17 (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)