Posted on Jan 18, 2016
Navy SEAL officer and enlisted candidates train side by side. Do you think it would be a good idea for all services to do this?
14.9K
73
35
18
18
0
SEAL candidates, both officer and enlisted, eat the same mud at the same time throughout BUD/s, side by side, (and SQT). I personally think this is a great thing, because, once out in the field, following a leader, you KNOW he's the Real Deal, that he's been through the very same things you have been, embraced the same suck, as it were. That surety might not be as readily available coming into a new command with people from different backgrounds (although, of course, that's subjective. Your mileage may vary.)
The Marine Corps has the next closest thing, with their 'every Marine a rifleman' ethos, which means just that. The cooks have the same basic rifle and field training as everyone else.
I've often wondered why the Services split out officer and enlisted initial training. I'm not referring to eventual advanced training, of course (MOS/RATING/Officer designation, etc...), but rather that initial 'Welcome to the first day of your new life', wake up call heralded by thrown steel trash cans across the barracks...and everything that follows.
I think this would foster empathy from both sides of that isle. Isn't that a good thing? SEALs seem to think so.
To accept this premise, you'll have to agree that the -basics- for O's and E's are mostly the same: traditions, comportment, UCMJ, CoC, etc etc. All the things that apply to everyone from the lowliest Seaman Recruit, on up to the CNO.
What do you think? Would you approve or disapprove of this idea? What are some of the benefits/drawbacks you foresee?
The Marine Corps has the next closest thing, with their 'every Marine a rifleman' ethos, which means just that. The cooks have the same basic rifle and field training as everyone else.
I've often wondered why the Services split out officer and enlisted initial training. I'm not referring to eventual advanced training, of course (MOS/RATING/Officer designation, etc...), but rather that initial 'Welcome to the first day of your new life', wake up call heralded by thrown steel trash cans across the barracks...and everything that follows.
I think this would foster empathy from both sides of that isle. Isn't that a good thing? SEALs seem to think so.
To accept this premise, you'll have to agree that the -basics- for O's and E's are mostly the same: traditions, comportment, UCMJ, CoC, etc etc. All the things that apply to everyone from the lowliest Seaman Recruit, on up to the CNO.
What do you think? Would you approve or disapprove of this idea? What are some of the benefits/drawbacks you foresee?
Sailors
Marines
Soldiers
Airmen
Training
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
9
9
0
SN Greg Wright - Here's my broad-brush synopsis:
1.) "Operator" type training is very rigorous, specialized, and usually have (relatively) small class. Since officers & enlisted are functionally doing the same thing as operators, the classes need to be unified.
2.) Regarding general MOS training, The enlisted need to know how to execute their specific jobs. The officers, generally, have to concern themselves with the administration involved in those jobs.
Summary: The enlisted work with trees. Officers worry about the forest.
1.) "Operator" type training is very rigorous, specialized, and usually have (relatively) small class. Since officers & enlisted are functionally doing the same thing as operators, the classes need to be unified.
2.) Regarding general MOS training, The enlisted need to know how to execute their specific jobs. The officers, generally, have to concern themselves with the administration involved in those jobs.
Summary: The enlisted work with trees. Officers worry about the forest.
(9)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Sir, I think you hit on the head small unit's special mission training. How ever it is not just SOF community that does that. I am Seabee we similar thing's for training small unit's and some of our specialty class's have officer and enlisted in the class's. This is a good thing because it builds that team spirit thing and the young troop knowing that the young officer is doing the same thing. All our CBR Training and Team Training has the officers doing the same course. Convoy Security Team Training same thing but they train as a Team so that is why they do it that way. DRT Disaster Recovery training We also have a thing called Chief's and Officer Training with all E-7 and above go to a tactics course for field training and then go out to the field and do the particle part of the class for a week. The purpose is to get everyone working as a team. You do patrols, Convoys, TOC operations and defensive fighting position's training learning how to set up FPF and FLP's all of that entails of setting up a good defensive line. For those two weeks you build a good senior enlisted and officer team. The main purpose of the training is you are doing the same job you will ask your troops to do in field training and down range. This will help when making decisions on what to do because you will understand what it will take for those troops to do the job.
Should you do this for MOS's I don't think you should but if you go down range as a team and will be doing the same job yes.
Should you do this for MOS's I don't think you should but if you go down range as a team and will be doing the same job yes.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
The SEAL candidates are already an "officer" or an "enlisted" before they show up to try and claim the coveted title of SEAL. SEAL training is not "Basic" training. It is additional, advanced, mission specific training. SEAL candidates typically have a couple of years of actual military experience under their belt, and are mature enough to respect the officer/enlisted boundary even though they are side by side in the thick of it.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
SN Greg Wright
SSG Gerhard S. Ah, I didn't know. What are your thoughts to applying it more broadly, as posted?
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SN Greg Wright - I believe that for certain schools/training, co-mingling Officers and Enlisted personnel makes sense, as ALL service members involved in these missions will endure the same hardships. This holds true particularly in certification type courses such as Seals, Rangers, SF and Para-rescue. As far as basic training, and MOS schools are concerned, I think the enlisted are there to learn the technical and tactical aspects of a particular job, while Officers need to learn to look at a broader picture that is necessary to achieve the over-all mission, without needing to know every aspect of the, often technical nature, of each individual in their command. I hope this reads clear.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google