Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
IMHO, the chain of command has myopia when it comes to language qualifications. They talk a good game, but the dedication to gaining and maintaining the skill are not there.
First, our languages regularly change in most Groups. How many times do you want to spend the resources to train a guy to a 2/2 or a 3/3, and have to retrain him in another language, which he may not get at all?
Second, we are unwilling to take the time and resources to properly train the SF soldier in the pipeline. If you want a 3/3, accept that a large majority of your students, who happen to be otherwise great at their SF jobs, are never going to get there. You could get 100 3/3s in an SFG, if they spent most of their time doing language training, or you took a chance and brought in native speakers who might otherwise be terrible SF soldiers. If you want a 3/3 on the team, and you cannot find a native, be prepared to send the guy to DLI for as long as three years.
Time in the language class is time that your other skills are atrophying. You might need to be able to run that gun or start that IV more than you need language skills, at some point.
Next, we do not want to accept the regular absence from the unit to conduct the refresher training required to maintain the language skill.
Finally, the other SOF services have nowhere near the language requirements SF has, the number of advanced linguists, or the total number of troops who speak the language well enough to get by on the street and teach a class. No wonder SF deploys twice as much to other countries as most other SOF, who will wind up with a translator requirement to do anything, and no one on the team able to get a hotel room or order dinner in a restaurant.
If SOCOM wants to make this a priority, it is going to cost a damn sight more than this estimate, in both cash and time, and there are going to have to be a lot of sacrifices and people standing up to say "No" because the guys need their language training BEFORE deploying.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
|
Would a Lodge Act 2.0 go some way in rectifying a language problem(as well as helping with additional capability)?
I assume the original Lodge Act was successful based only on anecdotes I've read about highly successful foreign born US Army SF often with multiple languages under their belt from Eastern European UW target countries.
I assume the utility/capability of Lodge Act 2.0 pers has potential to be a fair bit broader than native born US Army SF soldiers depending on the operational environment and at limited cost.
It's easy to see weaknesses in such an idea, particularly in terms of candidates from certain current/future UW target countries and how they can be properly vetted, but it's been done before(again I assume successfully with good bang for the buck).
As I understand it, the Lodge Act was put in place just before the Korean War, which I understand, bar the odd super-mega program such as B36/B52 and SuperCarriers was a financially constrained time for the guys carrying rifles at the coalface......a bit like today(lull in the conflict storm) maybe?