Talk:Special 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Special forces article.
Article policies

Suggestion: should this page be merged with List of special forces units? +++++++++++++++++++++ PROBLEM SOLVED As I was writing this critique, someone else simply took action and removed the offending passages listing the "five best". Well done ! ++++++++++++++++++++++ WHO ARE THE BEST SPECIAL FORCES?

I have a concern with the listing of the "best" special forces which seems to reflect the continued jingoism that exudes from discussions of "elites".

The statement that the US are the BEST special forces, and that the other top four nations are those listed, seems somewhat arbitrary and indeed, rather far fetched. The job of training foreign troops, acquiring language skills, calling in air strikes and conducting autonomous raids such as those of the Green Berets and Ranger Battalions are impressive military skills but very widespread in the world's militaries. Indeed, as a case in point, Canada considers any of its nine regular infantry battalion to have the skills of Rangers and its light battalions, in particular, all have at least a company of parachutists, many with exotic HALO skills. They have won against US Special Forces in international military parachute competitions. Their snipers are also among the best in the world. I am sure that other Commonwealth countries such as Australia also consider their straight-leg infantry (all professional soldiers) to be at this level. Being a good infantryman is not "special" in a professional army.

The French Foreign Legion is hardly France's most exotic Special Forces group, although the 2d Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment (REP)based in Corsica trains for special tasks involving parachuting (much like the Canadian example above). The top counter-terrorist unit title has to go to The National Gendarmes Intervention Group, or Groupement d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale, which is France's principle counterterrorist tool based near Paris in Satory. It is also military (Gendarmerie), but under the control of a civilian ministry when operating in France; however it has frequently operated with great success outside France.

Special Forces should not include all military groups that are a few notches above conscripts, National Guardsmen and mass-processed 18-year infantrymen/ marines rushed into combat with little training; it should consist ONLY of those with the most exotic and demanding skills involving hi-jacked airplanes, hostages, covert operations including the snatching of terrorists etc. From this perspective one has to re-examine the listing of the "best five" and perhaps simply give examples of great accomplishements, particularly when dealing with "special" tasks. Surely the 1980 SAS rescue of the hostages in the Iranian embassy in London, or the Israeli raid on Entebbe in Uganda, are among the best public examples. However, any ordering of countries into a merit list is surely too arbitrary (particlarly with no example) and most unbecoming of Wikipedia.

Does anyone want to have a go at it? Am I alone to be ill at ease with this arbitrary ordering of the "best special forces"?

++++++++++++++++++++

Unless someone can back up the allegation that you have to be a psychopath to be a member of Special Forces, I'm removing it. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Slightly better, but I'm not sure I see the point of repeating a false allegation that most people don't believe. Do you have any specific cases of this allegation? DJ Clayworth 21:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've removed some entries of doubtful provenance. No disparagement aginst the brave people of these units, but they are not Special Forces according to the definition at the top of the article. For example:

Clearance Divers 
Marine Nationale (that's the French term for 'Navy')
all the Police units ({Police are not military, even when engaged in counter-terrorism).
VAT 69, since there is no Google for it and it sounds like the name of a whiskey.

I would be really grateful if someone could look at the other entries. For example, does Sweden really have all those different special forces? And Costa Rica has no military. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed most of the swedish non-special forces. I belive the SSG is the only "real" special forces unit in Sweden. -- Jniemenmaa 13:28, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if whoever wrote the piece on WWII and the SOE could offer some explanation? #1 The Commandos were formed BEFORE the SOE; #2 How does the SOE qualify as Special Forces? SOE was first under Hugh Dalton, Ministry of Economic Warfare. SO1 propaganda, SO2 subversion and SO3 (which didn't survive infancy) planning. The only element which would fall under 'Special Forces' was the Small Scale Raiding Force which SOE went on to form. Effectively they were the SOE's own Commandos, which became administered by Combined Operations for the SOE and ended up operating with the Commandos and eventually its men dispersed into other 'Special Forces'. We would like to rectify this entry but it will entail a complete re-entry.

Also, under United Kingdom the Royal Marines - Commandos entry should be revised to Commandos – Army, and, Commandos - Royal Marines. Accepted the Royal Marines often like to purport there are ‘only’ Commandos, but without wishing to upset anyone there are Army Commandos and RAF Special Forces. Again, correcting these facts means some rewriting. CVA 21 Oct 2003

  • Auxiliary Units, to clarify - When we made the accurate statement that the W.W.II Commandos spawned a number of other special force units, we are saying that the founders or pioneers of several special forces did so directly from, or while they were part of the Commandos. The Auxiliary Units were set-up as Britain’s covert resistance force to come into play in the event of a German invasion. Colin Gubbins devised them as a branch of the SOE but they did not originate from members of the Commandos. Gubbins, together with Joe Holland and others, was among Britain’s foremost authorities on guerrilla warfare and had made a concerted study of this practice well before the war started. When the threat of invasion was greatest, the Commandos themselves were temporarily placed under command of the Home Forces for tactical deployment and particularly (though by no means exclusively) to react rapidly to any parachute landings. Some other scenarios involved some Commandos being placed in expendable defence positions.---CVA 22 April 2004

For the history section, maybe the German stormtroopers of WWI should be mentioned.-LtNOWIS 01:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should be known that at least as far as the US military is concerned, Special Forces are a specific division, and are more commonly referred to as the Green Berets. Special Operations is the term which includes the Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon, Airforce Pararescue, among others.

We already have a section on U.S._special_forces.--G3pro 14:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but GSG9 is part of the German Border Police (Bundesgrenzschutz). They are not part of the military. By the same token we would have to include all the anti-terror and SWAT outfits of the FBI and so on. Cheers! Florian, Berlin Floflei6 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several (civil) police agencies are still in Category:Special forces by country, e.g. Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong) and GSG 9 (btw the BGS is now known as German Federal Police). See Talk:Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale#GIGN and special forces for the problem of a military unit involved in civil police tasks. Apokrif 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Confusion

Even now there seems to be a lot of confusion within the article about what units are special forces. The term "special forces" does not just mean an elite unit. It refers, as the intro correctly states, to small military units designed for unconventional warfare. I don't think the US Ranger battalion is considered special forces, for example. Isomorphic 7 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

U.S. Army Rangers are technically classified as airborne light infantry. They are considered elite and are part of the Special Operations Command, but they're not technically "special forces." The only 'technical' special forces the US Army has are the Green Berets (with the appropriate title of "US Army Special Forces"). Delta Force is not admitted to exist but probably classifies as well. Calling Rangers "special forces" is stretching it given that they're just used as an elite infantry force. I know I'll aggrivate someone with this, but anything a Ranger can do /any/ airborne-qualified infantryman can do. Rangers are just supposed to do it better. --165.134.195.86 14:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of editing the beginning of the article to clarify the terms by expressly stating that an elite force is not necessarily a special force, though a special force is usually elite to some degree. Nor should a military specialist (engineer, doctor, forward observer) be confused with a special force though a special force team may certainly include members with military specialist training.

Sensemaker

[edit] "Special Forces" vs "Special Operations Forces"

The name of this article should primarily be "Special Operations Forces", as the term "Special Forces" specifically refers to United States Army Special Forces, whereas the term "Special Operations Forces" refers to the clandestine and/or unconventional warfare forces in general that most people associate with the term. The U.S. Army Rangers, for isntance, are NOT "Special Forces" just as the United States Navy SEALs are not the Special Air Service or some other specific combat group. It is basically the same mistake as generically calling "bath tissue" Kleenex. Trypsin24 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You would be absolutely correct if this article applied only to U.S. forces. However, this is an international article, so the term "special forces" is used as a broad term to define these various groups. Only in the U.S. does "special forces" mean something completely different than what the rest of the world calls their special ops units. In this case, the U.S. just happens to call their special forces "Special Operations Forces" (only to distinguish them from what they've already dubbed "Special Forces" but don't meet the global definition of special forces) but we're still talking about the same kind of folks, and as I recall, that distinction is clearly made under the U.S. section. The article title is very appropriate and accurate. --ScreaminEagle 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, there REALLY needs to be a distinction in the article if it is going to flatly ignore the "elite" type special forces.

--"The term does not allude to elite units, an undefined term frequently used to denote particularly high quality, but otherwise regular, units such as Napoleon's Imperial Guard." -- Not only is the last comma in the wrong place, but blatantly stating that the term "does not allude to elite units" is plain false. This is definately not a "B" article.129.170.50.56 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming a Member of Special Forces

What attracts recruits to the rigors of becoming a member of Special Forces? Would such people be less attracted to other organizations? Why or why not? --argo 12:15, 27 March 2006 (ATL)

They are already members of other organisations. Certainly in the UK, selection is open only to members of the armed forces. They are attracted by all sorts of things; increased pay, increased operational activity, pride, a desire to 'be the best', access to more/different equipment. It's just like any other career - most people seek promotion or seek to move to a better company. Rob cowie 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special forces vs special operations forces

Carryit: in official U.S. military usage, the term "special forces" does indeed refer exclusively to the unit commonly known as the Green Berets. However, in much of the rest of the English-speaking world, the phrase has a wider meaning. For example, in the UK, the SAS, SBS, and SRR are all officially described as special forces, and make up the United Kingdom Special Forces group. Please stop changing the article to reflect a purely U.S. usage (and a technical one at that, which I imagine is either unknown to or ignored by most Americans.) — Franey 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Franey: simply because a unit has the word "special" in it doesnt make it so. the term special forces is the green berets, the tab says 'special forces' is there any other unit with a tab that says "special forces"? there are many elite units, such as rangers or marine force recon seals the foreign units you mention as well as many others, but they are not special forces, they are what their unit designator say they are, to try to lump all of these elite units under one name of "special forces" simply wont fit the paradigm, its not a matter of who is bravest or who is toughest, smartest or best trained, we are looking for a definition of "special forces". what you are after is a definition that is all inclusive of any unit that thinks they are, well, kinduh special. if you think i am wrong try to join the special forces association without being a green beret and see what happens. even the first paragraph is wrong not all elite units operate in small size units. you are trying way to hard to make your definition fit and it just doesnt, if you want to lump all elite units together call them "special operations forces" this then covers the unit as well as the mission and doesnt offend anyones "special feelings" as you read the article it sometimes uses special forces and sometimes special operations forces. dont mix them they arent the same thing.

The U.S. Department of Defense is not the global arbiter of the English language. No-one is denying their right to name their units as they wish, nor to adopt what terminology they see fit: but this is not binding on everyone else. The Green Berets may officially be the only group within the U.S. military to be called special forces; that does not give them a worldwide monopoly on the term. As I said above, the Special Air Service are part of the United Kingdom Special Forces group, and answer to the Director Special Forces.
Outside official U.S. military usage, the term "special forces" is used far more often than "special operations forces" to refer to these kinds of troops. Even Americans use it in this sense. Some examples (my emphasis throughout):
  • a White House press release, titled "Vice President's Remarks at Special Forces Heroism Awards Ceremony", where Dick Cheney awarded medals to navy and air force personnel, among others;
  • a House resolution, "expressing appreciation to Turkey for offering to provide special forces in support of Operation Enduring Freedom";
  • a Department of the Army (!) press release, which recounts an interview with the "commander of the Nicaraguan Special forces", and says, "The Nicaraguans protecting U.S. forces are first rate... out of the 162, 25 are special forces.... Nicaraguan special-forces are paratroopers with expertise in explosives, scuba diving, infantry, urban missions, communications and search and rescue."
Franey 11:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section making clear the differences between the definition used in the U.S. Army and that used elsewhere: will that do? — Franey 12:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Franey: very good, i wish i had thought to handle it that way, thanks carryit

Yeah I fixed it - All army Special Forces are Special Operations Forces, but not all Special Operations forces are Special Forces, no matter what they tell you. The term "Special Forces" is unique to the US Army as a unit designator.

[edit] Pissing contest and WP:NPOV

Apokrif 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The two external links (isayeret.com and specialoperations.com) are not appropriate according to Wikipedia:External links for the following reasons:

  • isayeret.com requires registration and such sites should only be linked to in exceptional cases, see Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration
  • specialoperations.com does not contain any information, it sells goods and only has links to other sites. It is not a useful resources.

--Deon Steyn 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I'm working through to try to tighten the language, it's a bit fanboy at the moment and could do with being a bit more encyclopedic. There are also structural issues which I'll try to resolve. I'll avoid removing anything substantive at the moment though.ALR 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, tidied up a little for the moment. I was conscious that the article was heavy on the US distinction between SF and everything else and would agree that what the US calls SOF most of the rest of the world calls soldiering, but I've hopefully made it less defensive of the title. The history section needs quite a lot of work, it seems to include a lot which I wouldn't define as SF particularly during WWII but the wording is pretty confused. We could probably use some material from an established history of the development of SF capabilities.ALR 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving article

We need references for this article. I have a book here called "The Operators: Inside the World's Special Forces" by Mike Ryan (ISBN 0007199376), which will probably cover some of the required citations. Where do I begin? What needs refs? Cheers! Yuser31415 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I have reverted changes by User:ALR, because the last revision by User:Nazamo was more neutral, sober and to the point. Specifically:

  • which conduct military operations throughout the range of reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, counter-terrorism and international military relationships.
  1. "throughout the range of" sounds like all forces do all of these operations, which is not the case
  2. "international military relationships" is not a military operation.
  • These operations may be carried out domestically, in the deep battlespace or in a clandestine manner.
  1. Redundant, because the sentence basically says "domestically or elsewhere" (i.e. the answer is either yes or no?)
  2. "or in a clandestine manner" doesn't even relate to the location (i.e. the answer is either yes or no... or orange???).
  3. Jargon and buzzwords like "battlespace" and "clandestine" only clutters the article and makes it sound like the a computer game ad.
  • Selection processes are frequently extremely rigorous and protracted, sometimes involving a staged series of opportunities with skills and expertise developing over time and attrition rates are frequently high.
  1. Contradictory: starts of about the "selection process" then states "skills and expertise" develop which would imply training not selection.
  2. Sloppy and overly elaborate phrases like "staged series of opportunities"; any selection is "staged" by some authority
  3. Using the term "opportunities" to describe part of a selection process is also nonsensical.

--Deon Steyn 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a couple of concerns, mainly about this becoming a very US centric description. SF Ops are not all about offensive ops, there is a reasonable level of international relations; training, permissive operations on behalf of other governmeents, information operations. The phrasing probably needs dealt with but shouldn't be removed completely.
Recce, deep recce, CT and info ops are all carried out by regular military units, generally the threat environment and level of discretion required is the key aspect of force element selection there, so again the implication that these are the sole preserve of SF is incorrect. I am conscious that you in the US tend to include a lot of things under the SF banner which most places consider to be normal soldieering though.
And as for selection or training, are you trying to suggest that over a six month selection process one does not learn new skills? I'd question any process over that period of time which doesn't involve development of new skills, not least a new tactical doctrine.
ALR 12:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am in fact not in or from the US. I was in fact the one trying to avoid very US centric terms such as "battlespace" (not in Mirriam Websters and only referenced by US DOD documents). Furthermore very few countries outside the US deploy SF forces for non-military tasks such as what you call "information operations". I therefore find your comments strange, because you are accusing others of the exact things you are doing. "Selection" versus "training" is admittedly subtle, but just because one force uses the term "selection" it does not apply to all. I would simply prefer less spy (i.e. "covert"), computer game, US centric jargon ("battlespace"). The article should simple, neutral and encyclopaedic in nature. --Deon Steyn 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apologies over the US slur, only looked at your user page after I'd posted that.
The use of battlespace is very common in NATO and Five Powers Defence Agreement work, which is where I'm involved. I'll acknowledge that FPDA SF assets are heavily SAS influenced, as indeed are your own.
I may not have been very clear about the IO issue. The US is about the only country which does define that as an SF activity, in most militaries they are pretty much normal soldiering. I'd also suggest that IO is a core military discipline, it's certainly not a civvy activity.
The snag is, the SF arena is not simple, there is no clear set of definitions about what constitutes SF activity and the majority of reliable sources are protected, with other sources being extremely unreliable.
ALR 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I would not classify being incorrectly called a US citizen as a "slur", but I suppose that depends on your point of view :-)))
I have found the Wikipedia guideline I was thinking of regarding terms such as battlespace: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "Battlespace" could be a neologisms since it's been coined only recently, doesn't appear in a dictionart such as Webster and it's meaning isn't immediately clear to a reader not familiar with it.
It looks like we are thinking along the same lines in that most SF activities are very much vague and they can include almost anything, but for the most part the classical forces we tend to think of do in fact perform mainly conventional military tasks ("soldiering"), but simply to a degree that requires more training and more capable soldiers.
I think we could next look at the "Usage of the term" paragraph which might require some tweaking. Thanks for the well mannered and informed discussion! Deon Steyn 08:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm also aware that as a moderately senior, staff trained and operationally experienced officer (although not SF) a lot of the language is second nature to me.ALR 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
An officer! You know you have opened yourself up to all sorts of ridicule now :-))) No worries, few of us are perfectly smooth writers and that's the collaborative power/beauty of wikipedia where every one pitches in to contribute or polish. --Deon Steyn 09:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Formerly. Management consultant now, I'm not sure which is worse ;)
J2, J4, J6 background.
ALR 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)