COLDHEARTED AVIATOR
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
- Messages
- 4,257
- Likes
- 18,272
In the first paragraph you say there should be a jointness and then in the second paragraph you go on to say that why should Navy fight Army's war?4 seem to have built up quite a reputation also in a short span of time
don’t know what is achieved by creating a ‘vs’ discussion. Any soldier respects another soldier and this goes for SF operators just as much if not more. MARCOs and PARA (SF) are on the same side but they have different roles and specialisations. If an oil rig is taken over who are you going to call? If you need a cross border op via land insertion, who will be used?
the lack of MARCOs’ employment and experience isn’t the fault of the unit or their operators but becuase until now they have firmly been in the grip of their service HQ (same story with Garuds) and why would the navy HQ see any interest in sending their assets to fight the ‘army’s war’ in the north/NE?
this mentality is why a SOCOM is needed- take SF assets out of the hands of the conventional C&C and use these specialists assets as just that. Before US SOCOM SEALS were largely relegated to maritime ops too, after it came into existence they started to focus more on land warfare and the GOT has seen them employed in this role almost as much as their army counterparts
Anyway, the AFSOD experiment is on and if/when this gets expanded into a SOCOM it will still take a long many years to see the fruits.
SIU
What should i reply to you for this comment?Bro you are not being what your were these days..dont mind.
Secondly,SOCOM will not change anything.
Its like saying NSG will change how para sf trains its operators.
Nothing changed in Para after NSG was born in the mid 80s.
To change things you need jointness in the training,grooming and then deployment.
picking 100 sunny deols from each sf will not change the ethos of the unit.