Talk:Air Force Security Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Air Force Security Forces is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Old Cleanup Archive

Taken from the old Cleanup entry…Archived by
  • Air Force Security Forces -- formerly a "Deadend" article. I've added wikilinks, but someone with a greater knowledge of US military than I should take a look at this. Soundguy99 19:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correction in training

The USAF Security Forces Academy does NOT train Airmen in OC/MACE/Pepper Spray. That is only administered upon arrival at the Airmen's first PCS (Permanent Change of Station), if that specific base has authorized use of such materials. The Navy Master at Arms (MA's) are the only ones being trained at Lackland AFB, home of the SF Academy, in the use of non-lethal chemical sprays.

[edit] Style

This article is written in the style of a manual aggrandizing the subject. This is not really appropriate for Wikipedia and may even be a copyvio. -- Necrothesp 16:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's from a U.S. government publication there is no copyvio as it's in the public domain. If you don't like the tone, you as an editor are free to make the article NPOV. I'm only going to edit what I have time for, what about you?--TGC55 (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Style

This article is written in a style of providing information most in-depth as it can be, there is no sign to me that this article is “aggrandizing the subject” what so ever. Philip 15:24, 17 January 2006

I suppose the inclusion of prayers, creeds and bad poems (what on earth is 'The Blue Beret' all about - is it official, unofficial, a poem, a song, what?) is providing information, but it strikes me as a little jingoistic. Maybe that's just my take on it as a Briton as opposed to an American (we don't go in for sentimentality). However, the style is like a manual. The inclusion of sentences would be nice, for instance. -- Necrothesp 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it strikes me as manual-like as well. Phil's still learning, so I think we can cut him some slack, but it needs a lot of cleanup. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to previous edit

I reverted to a previous edit that was quite a few edits ago. I did this because it looks like the page was altered drastically by someone who wasn't very familiar with WP layout and standards for content. Note that the revision I reverted to is basically the same as the last one I made on 30 Oct. 2005.

There were many pictures and other additions that were not in the version that I reverted to; some of these can be added to the article, as they would be appropriate. Other material, such as the prayer and the various slogans, shouldn't be added or only added in an appropriate section with proper sourcing. Paul 19:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm again reverting to my last edit. Is there some reason why this page gravitates toward being garbled and messy? The first line is awkwardly worded, the pictures are fairly superfluous, categories are missing...if there's some good reason why it was made this way, how about discussing it on the talk page before changing it? Paul 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predicaments in Security Forces

–While I realize that most Security Forces members are disgruntled, this section of the article needs to be re-written by a neutral and non-biased party. Some of the points that were made in the section are correct however, some of them are not. For example, Security Forces does have an ASVAB requirement of 35 however; this is NOT the lowest in the Air Force. The lowest is in fact, the 3M specialty code, or Services. Also, for clarification, the Air Force stopped giving out enlistment bonuses because of the Force Shaping program in which the Air Force was trying to downgrade the size of the force. My source? My husband and I are both Active Duty Security Forces. - sashall08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashall08 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Might want to look up the lowest ASVAB score. It's SF. It takes more brains to work a stove than fire a weapon apparently. SF is a critical manned career field. Meaning just that...CRITICAL. W/O it, AF mission would grind to a halt. The Air Force killed the bonus due to the fact it was realized it was cheaper to just force people into the field when they had disciplinary problems or washed out of other Tech Schools came in Open General without having to give them a bonus. The Air Force downgraded by things such as cutting budget, cutting troop levels and deleting or combing other AFSC's. My source? I'm an former SF Officer (by that, I mean I had a Commission-out of the AF as of late 2007) and I saw first hand how things were being handled and the 'quality' of airmen that were ending up in SF field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger4108 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

--I am a formerly disgruntled Security Policeman (I was in during the change) and even I can see that this section is biased. The writer does not speak for a majority of the troops in the career field. Even during the changes, while I resented them, I could see *why* the Air Force needed the changes. Security Forces are the infantry of the Air Force. Any Law Enforcement mission you think you have takes a back seat to the Air Base Defense Mission.

Where is the history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.238.119 (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Did you really just call SF INFANTRY?  Might want to look up what that word means douche-nozzle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger4108 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

www.dictonary.com Infantry: soldiers or military units that fight on foot, in modern times typically with rifles, machine guns, grenades, mortars, etc., as weapons. The defintion pretty much remains the same, no matter the source. Ranger4108, I am not looking to insult anyone with the comment. The truth is that the Air Force expects the Security Forces to hold a base, long enough to get the planes in the Air. I served in Korea, as Security Police there. The Air Base mission includes holding off the North Korean army from conducting an amphibious invasion to take the Air Base. Was the comment suggesting that the Air Force expects the Security Forces to take an enemy base? Heck no. The Secruity Forces mission has evolved for the last 50 years. Secruity Police earned the privilige to wear the beret from combat operations in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.227.175 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Infantrymen seize and free land, they're nothing like AF security forces. Believing otherwise is just wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryislost (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complaining

This is supposed to be a place to inform people of the technical sides of the career field, not a place to air your grievances. You may be disgruntled, but that doesn't make your OPINION on the beret, or the merging of the career field any more valid, also what did you expect when you joined the military, free ice cream and someone to tuck you in at night? If the career field is so bad, go to the Army and complain to them about being deployed an average of 6 months per year, often on a base that has chow, real beds, and some safety. 72.171.0.146 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Controversy? I fail to see how a single individual out of a group of twenty-six merits the label controversy. If the mention of this incident belongs anywhere, it should be under the CIA page, this article has nothing to do with Lt Col Romano

[edit] "Description of the Security Forces career field" problems

I added Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Template:Citecheck tags. It seems that there are POV problems as the section indicates that USAF leadership doesn't have a handle on what to do with the Security Forces.

This is a common theme with Security Forces. Upper Air Force leadership makes a decision based on what little accurate information they have and the actually field SF units continue on with what best serves the Air Force. The Security Forces Mission is Constantly Evolving...often with little or no real direction from the Air Force, leaving much of the decision making to unit commanders.

The reference provided usmilitary.about.com: Security Forces Mission Constantly Evolving only discusses the evolving mission of the Security Force. There is no support for the quoted and emphasized statements. The statements and POV may well be true, but they need to be cited.--TGC55 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Guess what Ranger said was true. Todays news(June 5th, 2008) seems to be solid proof