IGX

Yes, it seems to have some logic to it but it's never been shown, to my knowledge, to be true. It, like much of social "science", is an assumed truth with evidence-based support, if any, provided after the fact and then only on an anecdotal basis. Personal experience suggests a white-only group selected from, say, the liberal northeast, the rural south, the Appalachians and urban NY will be more diverse in experience and view than a group of minorities selected from the same socio-economic classes as their white peers (read the US university system).

Even if this were not true, it is only likely that such 'diversity' would be helpful in improving problem solving in a limited class of problems. If everybody actually believed it was a cure all or even partially true, the professional sports organizations listed above would be tripping over themselves to diversify their teams.

Nobody may make such assertions, of course, because of fear of the group think represented in the last paragraph of your post, in essence capturing the left's thought process-"my way of thinking and opinions are the open minded ones and anybody who disagrees is close-minded." Ironic.

Most importantly, nothing said in the article supports the idea that the goal is to improve the combat capability of the SEALs. This, like the possible reasons minorities might not make it through BUD/S, is assumptive. And nothing new. During my Ranger'ing days (79-88) the subject also came up as to why there were so few minorities. The accusations of racism flew but, in the end, it just turned out that most minority troops weren't interested and had entirely different reasons for joining the service. Even attempts to get the minorities in the unit to make accusations of racism were unsuccessful. In the end, the 'talent' required to get into a spec ops unit starts first and foremost with an intense desire to succeed. It can't be coached or mentored. For even more selective units like Delta even that isn't enough.

Like all the spec ops units, the SEALs are struggling to keep their units 100+% manned so it makes sense to seek out any untapped population of any description. Contrary to popular belief, the SEALs represent a sizable force, with some 2,500 trigger pullers, as compared to, say 1,500 in the entire Ranger Regiment. Yet, the Ranger Regiment struggles to maintain its headcount of properly selected and trained soldiers as well, despite not having to train and maintain the dive mission (with the exception of a limited few Rangers) so the recruiting imperative for the SEALs must be enormous.

The latter is what makes this problem a non-issue to my mind. A full 2/3 of the initial one year train-up of a SEAL is on the combat dive mission. He gets only about as much basic land warfare training as an infantryman. In just a little more time a Ranger has had is basic infantry training, airborne, been through selection (RASP) and learned the requisite individual skill sets required in the Regiment, then completed a full unit train up (wherein another ~25-30% of the ~30% graduating from RASP are eliminated). Seems more effective and efficient when one considers what brought about the build-up of spec ops is two land-locked wars. Go back to the days of the overlap between naval and army special warfare being 10 clicks out from the beach to 10 clicks in from it. Let the SEALs go back to the operations in which they truly have no equal.

Regardless, what has to be guarded against in these units is even a perception that there are 'special cases' immune to the same rules, requirements or passing of muster with peers. This more than any other thing, that standards are never lowered, is the glue that binds. The Ranger Bn is one of the very few, maybe only,organizations with which I've been associated where 'standard' truly meant every swinging richard.

tough old man wrote:

Yes, it seems to have some logic to it but it's never been shown, to my knowledge, to be true. It, like much of social "science", is an assumed truth with evidence-based support, if any, provided after the fact and then only on an anecdotal basis. Personal experience suggests a white-only group selected from, say, the liberal northeast, the rural south, the Appalachians and urban NY will be more diverse in experience and view than a group of minorities selected from the same socio-economic classes as their white peers (read the US university system).

Even if this were not true, it is only likely that such 'diversity' would be helpful in improving problem solving in a limited class of problems. If everybody actually believed it was a cure all or even partially true, the professional sports organizations listed above would be tripping over themselves to diversify their teams.

Nobody may make such assertions, of course, because of fear of the group think represented in the last paragraph of your post, in essence capturing the left's thought process-"my way of thinking and opinions are the open minded ones and anybody who disagrees is close-minded." Ironic.

Most importantly, nothing said in the article supports the idea that the goal is to improve the combat capability of the SEALs. This, like the possible reasons minorities might not make it through BUD/S, is assumptive. And nothing new. During my Ranger'ing days (79-88) the subject also came up as to why there were so few minorities. The accusations of racism flew but, in the end, it just turned out that most minority troops weren't interested and had entirely different reasons for joining the service. Even attempts to get the minorities in the unit to make accusations of racism were unsuccessful. In the end, the 'talent' required to get into a spec ops unit starts first and foremost with an intense desire to succeed. It can't be coached or mentored. For even more selective units like Delta even that isn't enough.

Like all the spec ops units, the SEALs are struggling to keep their units 100+% manned so it makes sense to seek out any untapped population of any description. Contrary to popular belief, the SEALs represent a sizable force, with some 2,500 trigger pullers, as compared to, say 1,500 in the entire Ranger Regiment. Yet, the Ranger Regiment struggles to maintain its headcount of properly selected and trained soldiers as well, despite not having to train and maintain the dive mission (with the exception of a limited few Rangers) so the recruiting imperative for the SEALs must be enormous.

The latter is what makes this problem a non-issue to my mind. A full 2/3 of the initial one year train-up of a SEAL is on the combat dive mission. He gets only about as much basic land warfare training as an infantryman. In just a little more time a Ranger has had is basic infantry training, airborne, been through selection (RASP) and learned the requisite individual skill sets required in the Regiment, then completed a full unit train up (wherein another ~25-30% of the ~30% graduating from RASP are eliminated). Seems more effective and efficient when one considers what brought about the build-up of spec ops is two land-locked wars. Go back to the days of the overlap between naval and army special warfare being 10 clicks out from the beach to 10 clicks in from it. Let the SEALs go back to the operations in which they truly have no equal.

Regardless, what has to be guarded against in these units is even a perception that there are 'special cases' immune to the same rules, requirements or passing of muster with peers. This more than any other thing, that standards are never lowered, is the glue that binds. The Ranger Bn is one of the very few, maybe only,organizations with which I've been associated where 'standard' truly meant every swinging richard.

Excellent post Johno!

Sua Sponte wrote: Yes, it seems to have some logic to it but it's never been shown, to my knowledge, to be true. It, like much of social "science", is an assumed truth with evidence-based support, if any, provided after the fact and then only on an anecdotal basis. Personal experience suggests a white-only group selected from, say, the liberal northeast, the rural south, the Appalachians and urban NY will be more diverse in experience and view than a group of minorities selected from the same socio-economic classes as their white peers (read the US university system).

Even if this were not true, it is only likely that such 'diversity' would be helpful in improving problem solving in a limited class of problems. If everybody actually believed it was a cure all or even partially true, the professional sports organizations listed above would be tripping over themselves to diversify their teams.

kreator wrote:Actually I'm not bigoted at all. What did I say that that you could even remotely construe it that way?

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Nah...The One True Wolf would emerge killing all who entered the room.

As an aside, I think you're idealizing. Diversity of background is actually a confounder to team dynamics, what might influence the outcome is if you gave the group a carburetor problem and not one BD knew how to do that, whereas one member of the Diverse group did. In this case, BD knows carbs and fuel injection, can plumb and frame, knows how to gut a deer, set a bone, compose a haiku, site a rifle and can do elaborate works of Shibari...so your point is null.

In all seriousity....racial or cultural diversity is interesting but rarely contributes to a "better" outcome in any sense historical or otherwise. Diversity of experience and depth of experience is what solves problems, commonality of experience and commitment to the same goals is what makes good teams.

powerlifter54 wrote:Proof? That sort of statement is the PC line from most HR types/B schools. Big difference between diversity of experience and skills versus diversity of race, religion, and sex.

tough old man wrote:

Yes, it seems to have some logic...
...
The Ranger Bn is one of the very few, maybe only,organizations with which I've been associated where 'standard' truly meant every swinging richard.

Excellent post Johno!

Sua Sponte wrote: two land-locked wars. Go back to the days of the overlap between naval and army special warfare being 10 clicks out from the beach to 10 clicks in from it. Let the SEALs go back to the operations in which they truly have no equal.

I'm flattered to be mistaken for Mr. Bigbrain, Sua Sponte.

The Crawdaddy wrote: Nothing. Didn't you read the last parenthetical? I wrote it for just that reason.

Turdacious wrote: +1 Lowering standards causes higher casualty rates.

kreator wrote: what standards are being lowered in this case?

johno wrote:

I'm flattered to be mistaken for Mr. Bigbrain, Sua Sponte.

johno wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote: two land-locked wars. Go back to the days of the overlap between naval and army special warfare being 10 clicks out from the beach to 10 clicks in from it. Let the SEALs go back to the operations in which they truly have no equal.

You haven't seen Act of Valor. SEALs can do anything, even straight out of BUDs.

johno wrote:

kreator wrote: what standards are being lowered in this case?

...but that the key factor seemed to be the raw desire to be a Navy SEAL...the above program amounts to coaxing someone who wasn't interested in being a SEAL into a life of misery....[/b]

No kid lives in today's media culture without knowing about Navy SEALs, 'cause Quiet Professionals they're not. The above program amounts to coaxing someone who wasn't interested in being a SEAL into a life of misery.

For starters, you have to take a kid who's been indoctrinated for 12+ years of public school that he's a victim of the Man. Then you tell him to suffer & sacrifice for Uncle? That won't work for 99.999% of fatherless ghetto rats.

The Crawdaddy wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:Proof? That sort of statement is the PC line from most HR types/B schools. Big difference between diversity of experience and skills versus diversity of race, religion, and sex.

Who said anything about "proof"? C'mon, Jack.

Pinky wrote:While you're right that picking 5 individuals from very diverse backgrounds might lead to one of them coming up with a solution faster, how often is that relevant in the military? (Seriously, that's for others to answer. I don't know.) Is it really important for one guy on the team to know the right answer if no one else is willing to go along with him?

johno wrote:SS, yes, I had a SEAL in my Ranger School squad; on the positive side, he was a Pushup Machine....

johno wrote:......On the negative side, he sucked pretty bad at Land Nav (so did I) and was unmemorable as a squad/platoon leader.

Ed Zachary wrote:The squids can recruit from the hood all they want they will only get the select few that are willing to better themselves. Nanny state minorities will not succeed with out the want to succeed no matter how much the bureaucrats want it. Color isn't the issue it's just fucking sloth.

My Larry Bailey info is so ancient, it's straight out of Gung Ho magazine.

I thought black people couldn't swim?