"..in 2009, perhaps it is time for Congress to review their handiwork. Of course many outside the military establishment are enamored with the myth and romanticism of Special Operations. There are so many “groupies” among staffers and in academia that it is hard to see Special Operations for what it really is and what it has become. And within the military, Special Operations has been “hijacked” by a group of hyper-conventional Ranger types and other supporting elements that Special Operations and most important, its heart and soul – Special Forces – has lost its way. There are so many in and out of the military who claim ties to Special Operations that it is unlikely that there will ever be a critical look at USSOCOM and what it has become." SWJ
One of our brethren here sent me this article.
We have delved into this subject before. I think my views are well known I have had the flu for the last few days and am more grouchy than usual. My wife says that is arguable.
The amount of hostility between the two main groups shows through in the comments to the SWJ article. At the dawn of history when I was in Army SF that was also there, but, in those days the UW people were so firmly in control that there was no contest for emphasis in what we were doing. I think these two groups need to be "shorthanded" for title and I propose "Jedburghs" on the one hand and "Rangers" on the other. pl