The debate about the nature of the rise of China, what is represents, and whether or not China poses a threat to the United States is a sharply contested issue.

Aaron Friedberg writes that, “It is past time for Americans to take seriously the challenge posed by the continuing growth of China’s military power”.

Friedberg continues, by explaining that Chinese strategists have been shifting their focus away from fighting potential wars against nuclear powers to forms of limited war in Chinese littoral areas such as Taiwan, but also to potential conflicts with Japan and the United States.

While much has been written about why China has engaged in a policy of military build ups and modernization of their forces, less has been written about how they accomplished this. As Clausewitz famously wrote: “We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means”.

Espionage is also an extension of political intercourse, in this case a policy that aims to support China’s rise to global power, a rise that may one day challenge the United States. Chinese industrial espionage is one method used to reach this goal. By its very nature, espionage is covert or clandestine. It is hidden from public view in most cases. However, it is quite impressive how open China is about espionage, a subject which will be explored in this paper.

Spying holds a unique place in the minds of Chinese political and military planners, the ideas and concepts long ago embedded in Chinese culture by great minds such as Confucius and Sun Tzu. In the West, intelligence agencies serve to inform elected leaders of what is going on in the world so that they can make the best possible policy decisions.

In China, “the PRC’s intelligence apparatus is more than just a support department for policymakers. It is inextricably linked to the foreign policy decision making process and internal methods of economic development and political control”. The vertical integration of intelligence gathering with economics and political control cannot be over emphasized here. Chinese intelligence operations are not a mirror image of American’s approach to intelligence operations.

Chinese espionage is used as an arm of policymakers to target scientific, technological, and military infrastructures in the Western world, and China is “the most active foreign power engaged in the illegal acquisition of American technology”. The Chinese government does this using a uniquely Chinese “comprehensive system for spotting foreign technologies, acquiring them by every means imaginable, and converting them into weapons and competitive goods” (Hannas, 2). Some key differences between Chinese and Western espionage must be understood at this point.

First, Chinese espionage relies largely on open source intelligence (OSINT), which it has professionalized and developed to a high degree using library science. On the other hand, Western intelligence agencies, like the CIA, emphasize human intelligence (HUMINT) as a part of their National Clandestine Service.

Both China and America conduct OSINT and HUMINT, but China focuses on OSINT, while America focuses on HUMINT. China does not just pursue different programs, projects, initiatives, or policies than American intelligence agencies, but in fact the Chinese operate using a completely different intelligence and information paradigm.

China has always relied heavily on foreign technology. During the era of Mao’s “lean to one side” policy, the Chinese relied heavily on Soviet advisers for technical assistance. This lasted until sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s, when the Sino-Russo split occurred, with both sides accusing one another of being revisionist in regards to communist ideology.

The Soviet Union helped develop Chinese heavy industry, but their most significant contribution was to Chinese nuclear science. After the ideological and practical split with the Soviet Union, China had to find other ways of developing new technologies.

The methodology that China uses to accomplish this is called qingbao, which means intelligence/information. The pairing and interchangeability of these words in the Chinese approach to both linguistics and intelligence gathering must be emphasized. Miao Qihao, the former director of the Shanghai branch of the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, described the qingbaosystem as “combined an intelligence function with conventional information activity”.

Two other Chinese writers on the topic describe qingbao, stating that: “there are similarities between what we refer to as ‘information’ and what the foreign intelligence community refers to as intelligence work”. 

This open source approach to intelligence gathering is conducted by the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, the Beijing Document Service, the China Defense S&T Information center, along with a countless number of other agencies and institutions.

These organizations pour through scientific journals, import foreign technology (sometimes through front companies), comb through foreign patents, read research papers, analyze conference transcripts, academic thesis papers, and conduct foreign document or personnel exchanges.

Unlike American intelligence operations, which emphasize high tech signals intelligence, interceptions, and electronic surveillance devices, the Chinese qingbao approach is benign and boring by comparison.

It places a focus, not on novel methods of intelligence gathering, but rather on obtaining what is already in the public domain, then networking this information within the Chinese bureaucracy, using a sophisticated understanding of library science which connects the information with those in the government who need it.

It should also be noted that Chinese who work as open-source intelligence gatherers were asked to become a sort of think-tank, “for the party and government by providing top leaders with information and playing a direct role in the policy-making process”.

Open source intelligence gatherers in China are reported to be particularly fond of America’s often poor declassification process, which accidentally lets state secrets out, as well as reports from US Congressional defense and appropriation committees, which informs China on US military thinking, research and development for future weapons systems, and our current scientific research status (Hannas, 29).

But is China’s qingbao approach actually effective? Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China director, He Defang, wrote that by processing documents in English, French, German, Japanese, and Russian, they were able to resolve “many key problems in their R&D” and reduce the amount of time they would have needed to build magnetic levitation trains on their own.

Defang confirmed that because of his agency, “China’s researchers reduced their costs by 40-50% and their time by 60-70%”. Speculation holds that, like the mag-lev train, China’s J-20 stealth fighter jet was developed using the same methodology, that is to say that it was built by exploiting US military secrets.

Due to space constraints, this is a very basic overview of Chinese intelligence operations that focuses on one aspect of China’s intelligence capabilities, open source. Clandestine or traditional intelligence activities, technology transfer organizations, and the use of Chinese students studying abroad to keep track of Chinese dissident groups and gather information about the West are all set aside here to focus on the main thrust of Chinese intelligence, which is the qingbao system.

China’s open source method of intelligence gathering is a way for China to reduce both costs and risk to China as it modernizes and escalates its military build up. Production times are shortened, less experimentation is needed by scientists when others have already done the R&D for them, and so they are able to jump generations ahead of where China would be without foreign technical support of the type they once enjoyed with the Soviets. With this source gone, they are now exploiting the relative openness of the West in order to gain a technological edge.

While the CIA and other American intelligence organizations conduct open source analysis, there simply is nothing analogous to the holistic approach to intelligence and information known as qingbao in the West. There are several differences between Western open source and Chinese open source intelligence gathering.

First, the scale of China’s open source intelligence gathering is massive, including thousands of personnel and hundreds of agencies scattered across the PRC’s bureaucracy. Second, the diversity of information processed through these agencies is impressive. They scan, track, and analyze everything from, “technical literature to analyzing patents, reverse engineering product samples, and capturing conversations at scientific meetings. Nothing is overlooked”.

Furthermore, China assigns their most talented and professional individuals to conduct open source. “Whereas western services typically regard open source as the poor cousin to ‘real’ (clandestine or technical) intelligence, China staffs its OSINT organizations with top-line career personnel, backed by an industrial organization with its own trade journals” (Hannas, 44). This is a uniquely Chinese construct which leverages Chinese cultural particularities and views towards espionage, combined with China’s massive capacity to process this information due the government having a population of over a billion people to draw from.

China has, and is, embarking on a policy of rapid development, modernization, and an expansion of its sphere of influence within the Pacific theater, particularly in regards to the South China Sea, Taiwan, and is pushing up against neighboring states in South East Asia, such as the Philippines (Himmelmen). In order to facilitate China’s transition to a regional, if not global, hegemon, China engages in a variety of intelligence activities in order to match the level of Western development and perhaps overtaking it sometime in this century.

Any attempt to make an estimation of Chinese intelligence activities is bound to be incomplete. Although China is much more open about its intelligence operations than other countries, there are certain to be plenty of other operations which remain covert or clandestine. China may have launched other espionage operations which have gone unnoticed, were attributed to other actors, or were detected but remain within classified investigations carried out by the FBI and CIA, which are not for public dissemination. For these reasons, this exploration of China’s industrial espionage activities is incomplete at best.

When it comes to studying any nation’s espionage activities, there are many unanswered questions. In regards to China, there is a lot that we don’t know about Chinese long-term planning. Do they really want to challenge the current global order, and do they see themselves as becoming a global super power like the United States?

If so, then we can expect their espionage activities to support this view and to help propel China to this position. If not, then our estimation of the goals of qingbao operations and other espionage activities not taken by China may be radically incorrect.

Perceptions of Chinese intent aside, it appears perfectly clear that the PRC has made a major investment in espionage, and in the qingbao system in particular. For this reason alone, it is worthwhile to study and attempt to understand how intelligence operations are used as an arm and as an instrument of Chinese foreign policy.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This animated map shows how religion spread across the world

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 put Special Operations on the map and at the forefront of the 21st Century DOD but this has also created a massive problem few in leadership positions are ready to admit.

The main issue is that many will only admit in hushed voices behind closed doors, is that US SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has become a massive bureaucracy.

Unit level autonomy in Naval Special Warfare (NSW) has been eroded to the point where purchasing damaged uniforms open source is nearly impossible because it would mean circumventing a major program of record, and more importantly, SOCOM’s main HQ in Tampa has become a place where civilian contractors, who serve as program managers, are more concerned with careerism then taking care of the Special Operations Warfighter on the front lines.

“Many of these guys have never served in the military and the GS contractors are always looking for an reason to say no, when active duty guys are looking for reasons to say yes, and get the job done,” one senior non-commissioned officer attached to SOCOM told SOFREP.

Last year an NSW Warrant Officer told SOFREP that it’s routine to see senior level Special Operations line officers doing “busy work” at SOCOM that is unrelated to core expertise, and he personally witnessed a Navy Commander escorting a janitor (without security clearance) from space to space for an entire work day.

Time is valuable, and seeing time and talent wasted like this goes against Special Operations core values. This is a huge problem and the elephant in the room few want to admit exists.  Our hope is that influencers inside SOCOM will push for change and continue to fight against bureaucratic paralysis that can only be leveraged against us by our enemies.

If USSOCOM wants to thrive in the new century, leadership must look to leaders of organizations that have been able to successfully lead highly intelligent (and driven “A” types), around clear and inspiring organizational goals on a large-scale. And continue to maintain the ability to communicate quickly and effectively top down and bottom up, with the ability to make decisions quickly, and add autonomy where needed.

Elon Musk should be at the top of the list of people to emulate when it comes to leading large organizations that are highly maneuverable and use it as a competitive advantage. The PayPal co-founder, and CEO of Tesla and Space X has revolutionized the American space industry since 2002. In just over a decade Elon has accomplished what many thought was impossible; to make America relevant and at the forefront of interplanetary space travel.

Evaluating and learning from exemplary industry leaders and innovators like Elon Musk who are able to successful lead large and nimble organizations is something worth reflecting on (SOFREP also highly recommends reading Ashlee Vance’s new book, “Elon Musk”).

SOCOM must gain its unit level autonomy and maneuverability back. This will be critical to the effectiveness and relevancy of a modern and maturing SOCOM and is essential to the Command’s survival as it continues to deal with State sponsors of terrorism (like Iran), and open source radical Islam that leverages distributed adversaries across the globe.

SEE ALSO: This freeway in Los Angeles is the biggest test of Tesla's autopilot feature

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Elon Musk's life story is more incredible than fiction

Public perception of special operations is always interesting, if nothing else.

One common misconception is that SEALs are the smallest, most elite special-operations unit. SEALs are the scalpel and Rangers are the hammer, or so we are led to believe.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean in the first place. But a recent OPSEC-busting (Operational Security) congressional report released to the public blows this misconception out of the water.

There is a reason the Chinese love congressional research reports: They frequently inadvertently leak classified information.

The total number of personnel in the SEAL teams comes in at 8,195. Subtracting those assigned to SEAL Team Six, we get a figure of 6,895. Looking at the total number of soldiers assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, we get 3,473. Can we lay this rumor to rest now?

There are way more SEALs than there are Rangers. Now this does nothing to take anything away from the SEAL teams; it just means that the interweb warriors on Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram need to get off their mom's couch in the basement and get out into the real world.

Besides, if we were to use these personnel numbers as a metric to determine who is the most "elite," then MARSOC has everyone beat out with a mere 1,475 Raiders assigned to its unit. The largest? Special forces, by far, at 22,845 soldiers. This is why numbers are a dumb metric to use in childish arguments, which typically disregard selection, training, and mission sets.

Some more pertinent information is how large special operations has now become across all of SOCOM and JSOC—probably larger than the entire British military at this point. What does that say about how "special" any of these units really are if they are slowly becoming the primary arm in our conflicts and an overused capability in the hands of policymakers?

Originally appeared on published on SOFREP.com. SOFREP is an apolitical news site run by former military special ops and intelligence professionals, to access original stories click here.

SEE ALSO: Former US Navy SEALs explain how the US war machine wore them out

Join the conversation about this story »

I got to mingle with a lot of interesting people while majoring in political science at Columbia University.

As someone who served in American special-operations units and who studies these types of units all over the globe, I tend to think I’m pretty savvy on the topic.

Of course, you don’t know what you don’t know. As it turns out, there is a whole lot I don’t know, especially when it comes to espionage.

For one of my political-science classes, a few other students and I formed a study group to prepare for final exams. There were four of us. One student was Chinese-American and the other two were from the Chinese mainland.

During our study session, the conversation turned to China and Chinese politics. In my naive innocence, I asked about Falun Gong, which is a form of meditation and exercises not unlike Tai Chi. The People’s Republic of China has outlawed Falun Gong and persecuted people who practice it. Right here in New York City, you can see Falun Gong members protesting outside of the UN building on any given day.

Why did the PRC ban Falun Gong? It’s hard to say for certain, but many theories have been advanced that suggest the practice runs contrary to atheist Marxist doctrine. Personally, I think the PRC is simply threatened by any form of civil society, such as institutions and organizations like Falun Gong, that exist outside of the state’s power structure.

Whatever the case, I asked my study group partners, “So what do you think of Falun Gong? Are they a persecuted minority group or are they really up to no good?”

As I finished the question, all eyes turned to me. You could hear the second hand ticking on the wall-mounted clock.

It felt like I had just asked the Pope for advice on soliciting a prostitute or something. It was awkward to say the least. Finally, one of the Chinese students said, “I don’t know, maybe a little of both.” He broke the silence, but the female Chinese student continued to look at me in horror.

The study group moved on and we slogged through our exams. It wasn’t until months later that a friend recommended that I do some reading on Chinese espionage. I read “Chinese Intelligence Operations” and “Chinese Industrial Espionage.” These two books greatly informed a SOFREP article I wrote, titled Chinese Intelligence Methodology. In the course of this research, I got my answer as to why my study-group question about Falun Gong went over like a fart in church.

China has intelligence services, such as the Ministry of State Security (MSS), but Chinese intelligence operations are not a mirror image of those conducted by organizations like the CIA, FSB, or MI-6.

China is very good at leveraging their strengths against us, namely by utilizing and mobilizing a nation of over 1 billion people. Unlike in America, there isn’t much to speak of in terms of civil society. Everything belongs to the government, the party, and the military at the end of the day.

The Chinese are masters at collecting open-source intelligence. They slurp it up, and when they can’t, they steal it — filing it through a unique form of library science that funnels the information to relevant state employees who can make use of it.

For China, open-source intelligence (OSINT) is strategic intelligence. Forget about nonofficial cover, flipping intelligence assets, and dead drops for now. By using their entire population to gather intelligence, China is able to get the drop on us through asymmetrical means.

Even the so-called “panda huggers” in the West who embraced China and felt that the PRC would move toward democratization are now accepting that China is, in fact, little more than a revisionist power that seeks to unseat America’s global hegemony so it can take what it sees as its rightful place on the world stage. Such is the thesis of Michael Pillsbury’s new book, “The Hundred-Year Marathon.”

Chinese students sent abroad can be used to gather industrial-intelligence information, but one of their primary tasks is to monitor groups of Chinese who the PRC view as subversive. In the West, Chinese people have freedom of speech and assembly, and this is something that the PRC finds unsettling. They have to keep a close watch on them.

This is why my Falun Gong question was met with silence and fear. The two Chinese students knew that whatever they said in that room would be reported back to the PRC eventually. Neither of them had any idea what the other may or may not say to the MSS or other state security services back home. I, of course, was completely unaware of this.

Nothing else ever came of the incident, and I’m don’t think my fellow students were really offended by my question, per se. But that one female Chinese student was interesting. Once in a while, as I walked the corridors of Columbia, I would catch her looking at me. I don’t think it was in a sexual way. I think she was watching me.

Apparently, she had identified me as someone one might want to keep an eye on!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The secret Chinatown most New Yorkers don't know about

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US military, the regime of Bashir Assad gave de facto permission to foreign-fighter networks operating in Syria to cross into Iraq via a clandestine ratline.

There, they would kill and maim American soldiers. Such a move was hardly unprecedented; during the same timeframe, he allowed the Kurdish PKK safe transit through northern Syria as they moved in and out of Turkey, just as long as they did not conduct operations in Syria itself.

Considering the abrupt invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, Assad had his reasons for supporting enemies of the US. “Damascus wanted the Bush doctrine to fail, and it hoped that Iraq would be the first and last time the doctrine was applied. Anything it could do to ensure this outcome, short of incurring the direct military wrath of the United States, was considered fair game,” Syria scholar David Lesch writes.

“These are the actions of a rational actor, and most regimes would have done the same.” Lesch added.

With America’s special-operations task force conducting direct-action raids throughout Iraq, Rangers, SEALs, and Delta operators were frequently capturing and killing foreign fighters from Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. Many of them came to Iraq via Syria.

Worse, if the task force didn’t capture or kill them, these foreign fighters would conduct suicide attacks targeting coalition convoys or even killing their fellow Muslims in some misguided attempt to instill terror in the populace. “Administration officials were quite simply inordinately upset that Syria was not, in their opinion, doing all it could to prevent foreign fighters from entering and traversing Syria, crossing the border into Iraq, and fueling an insurgency,” writes Lesch.

Although rumors have always persisted about US special-operations efforts within Syria to stymie the flow of foreign fighters, that story is only now coming to light in the new book “Relentless Strike” by Sean Naylor. In Syria, Task Force Orange personnel were sent in “unarmed, and were largely commercial cover operatives,” according to Naylor.

Task Force Orange, also known as Intelligence Support Activity, is the JSOC element charged with intelligence collection and operational preparation of the environment for future operations.

While Rangers, SEAL Team Six, Delta Force, and Special Forces were kicking in doors and kicking ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, Task Force Orange operatives were trying to cover the entire globe from the Philippines to Morocco to South America, Naylor writes.

TFO personnel are said to have hit the ground in Syria early on, in the summer of 2003, to identify foreign-fighter networks that were already being established, as well as to monitor for signs that Saddam had moved WMDs into Syria prior to the invasion.

“These missions combined high technology with classic espionage tradecraft: cover identities and counter-surveillance practices that included ducking into public bathrooms to change disguises,” Naylor notes. TFO operatives were guided into their target areas by internet IP addresses that the intelligence community had already established as belonging to networks for foreign fighters. Once there, they photographed safe houses, hotels, and mosques frequented by the terrorists.

“On occasion,” Naylor writes in the section of his book about Syria operations, “operatives would pick the locks of al-Qaeda safe houses, filming and photographing what was inside.” New technical surveillance devices were also employed in the form of cameras that gathered tangible proof that terrorists were operating foreign-fighter networks in Syria — proof that stripped away any plausible deniability Assad had tried to maintain when confronted by the US government.

Naylor reports that on at least one occasion, the State Department put the pictures right in front of Assad and made it known that they were not too happy about him turning a blind eye to the foreign-fighter networks in Syria that facilitated moving terrorists into Iraq, where they killed American troops.

“The missions enabled JSOC to build a detailed picture of the network of jihadis from Aleppo and Damascus airports through the Syrian section of the Euphrates River Valley until they crossed into Iraq near Al Qaim. After several years, one name stood out as Zarqawi’s master facilitator in Syria: Abu Ghadiya,” according to Naylor.

It turned out that Syrian intelligence (the Mukhabarat) was already keeping tabs on Ghadiya. With the US lobbying various Arab governments to put pressure on Syria over the foreign-fighter issue, Assad eventually signaled that he would not protest if Ghadiya were taken out, essentially acquiescing to the terrorist’s liquidation.

A Task Force Orange member then made a number of trips to Ghadiya’s compound, acting as a singleton, to place devices that would allow the NSA to vector in on their target’s cellular phone.

Once the NSA had a lock on Ghadiya’s phone, JSOC waited for confirmation from a HUMINT source — Assad’s intelligence asset recruited from within Ghadiya’s network. The cross-border operation was launched on October 26, 2008. MH-60 helicopters from the 160th Special Operations Aviation flew Delta Force operators into Syria where they secured the objective, killing a handful of terrorists in the process. Ghadiya himself was KIA on the objective.

Another interesting factoid was that Rangers from 1st Ranger Battalion were standing by on the Iraqi side of the border as a quick reaction force in case Delta got into trouble. Their method of infiltration? Riding mountain bikes across the border, dumping them into a wadi (a ravine) once they got close to Ghadiya’s compound, and then joining the fight. Thankfully, that contingency never became necessary.

The Delta Force operation was a success, but it never could have happened without the legwork done months and years prior by Task Force Orange, which remains JSOC’s most enigmatic unit.

SEE ALSO: The US strategy in Iraq is about to face its biggest test yet

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Turkey's Latest Plan To Drain $3 Million A Day From ISIS Is Working

Back in November 2014, SOFREP writer Frumentarius wrote an excellent piece titled Top 5 Qualifications for CIA’s Clandestine Service, which outlined the checklist of resume items for aspiring spies.

The list included background prerequisites such as military experience, language, experience abroad, higher education, and life experience.

In this article, I will discuss some of the internal qualities that the Agency looks for in a candidate, and that a successful intelligence officer must possess and maintain throughout their career and even into retirement.

Some of the attributes can and must be learned and taught while on the job, but most are intrinsic to the officer’s character.

Integrity

Probably the most important of all of the attributes, this is also the most difficult to maintain, as attested to by the fact that, despite the Agency’s strenuous vetting and hiring process, it has endured such traitors as Philip Agee—who published a book in 1975 titled “Inside the Company: CIA Diary,” which exposed the identities of roughly 250 alleged officers and agents—and Aldrich Ames, whose 11-year span of treason compromised over 100 intelligence operations and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 CIA assets in the Soviet Union.

In essence, integrity comes down to the unofficial definition of “doing the right thing even when no one is looking.” We all know that the right choice is not often made by those who choose the easy road. Be it in training, in the office while writing up the report, or sitting face-to-face with an asset at a meeting, memorizing the details of the crucial information being passed, the common denominator in the equation is…you.

The Agency and your colleagues trust that you will do the right thing every time, and not just because you’ve been pegged as “one of the good ones.” Lives can and will be at stake, and those trusted with our nation’s secrets must be above reproach—even our leadership (yes, yes, I know the history and I read the news…that is a debate for another time).

Honor/courage

If you read my book review on the CIA’s memorial to its fallen, “The Book of Honor,” then you will know why this is important. Honor and courage don’t always happen on a battlefield. Sometimes they are shown when an operation goes wrong, or when an asset has to be extracted through an extremely non-permissive environment.

Sometimes it shines brightest from the cell of a dark and wet prison in a far-off place where no one even knows you are being held, and the bad guys are using every means at their disposal to make you talk, but you stick to your cover story, despite your body and mind begging you to make the pain stop.

Hopefully you will never have to rise to that level of honor and courage, but remembering those who have every time you strap it on and hit the field may keep you from having to.

Flexibility

No need to expand on this one. If you have been in the military, run a business, or been a parent, then you know all about flexibility. In the Marine Corps, we called it Semper Gumby—pseudo-Latin for “always flexible.” Things can change in a heartbeat, and most certainly in the intelligence community.

It can be as simple (yeah right) as your boss saying, “Hey, I need you to handle this last-minute brief to the front office,” or as nerve wracking as your asset showing up to a high-threat meeting with his wife…and her parents. Whatever the case, you need to be prepared, at least mentally, to handle the sudden changes and go with the flow.

Confidence

In one exercise I had to go through during my training, I was entering a simulated airport in a simulated country while in alias. As soon as you stepped into the “terminal,” you were fair game.

I stepped in front of the customs officer who asked me the prerequisite, “What brings you to our country?” and “What is the nature of your trip?” sorts of questions, then started to send me on my way. I was home free, and feeling great.

Then I heard words that even a legit traveler never wants to hear: “Uh, excuse me sir…could you come with me a minute?” It caught me off guard, and for a second, I almost panicked, but I remembered what had been taught.

Off to secondary I go. I end up sitting in front a polite and disarmingly friendly customs agent who repeated the questions that the first guy did, with a few curveballs thrown in (such as, “Oh, you live in X town? I have a cousin there…is the library still on 4th and Main?).

Having done my homework, I knew that the town shared a library with another city, so there wasn’t one at that location. I walked out of the exercise with a pass and a new lesson for working in this business: Walk in with confidence, and you’ll walk out with your freedom.

Humility

Seems weird to list this given the above-listed trait, but humility does not mean timidity or lack of self-confidence. It simply means that you realize that you are human, that you are not (despite what your parents, your high school yearbook, or what you wore on your uniform tells you) invincible, and that you will make mistakes. In the intelligence business (and the military, hell, in life) it is called self-assessment.

Know yourself, your shortcomings, and your strengths. During IO training, after each exercise  (like most places) the student is given feedback. But in this case, the seemingly innocuous question, “So, how do you think you did?” is anything but. The instructors want to know that you are able to assess your performance honestly—the good and the bad.

Unlike a real-world op where it is just you and the asset (see integrity, above), they will know exactly how the exercise went, but they want to see how accurately you assess your performance. And unlike the Bond movies, ego will only get you sent home.

Amiable (friendly)

As those of us who have spent any time in the military or the intelligence community know, being friendly, especially to those who deserve anything but, is never easy. And I have seen my fair share of bosses who, for whatever reason, have thrown that trait straight out the window.

For whatever reason, they are bitter and angry, and take that out on their subordinates, who, if they produce, do so out of fear. But I believe that the old adage “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” holds true, from the boardroom to intelligence operations.

This is not to suggest you should be a pushover or that you have to be cheesing from ear to ear every day, but come on, lighten up a little. While they make for good movies, the stoic, constant hard ass is likely to fall flat on his face, especially when trying to build genuine rapport with an asset could mean the difference between a solid recruitment and a “Screw you, that Russian guy was nicer.”

And I do mean genuine. People, your coworkers and teammates included, are not dumb—they know when you are being fake. So leave the sour face for when you need it. For me, that’s whenever my daughters bring a boy home.

Subjective

In this case, the definition of the word is: “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.” We all have our opinions, formed by a variety of sources including our upbringing, talking to friends, books, TV and the Internet.

But here’s the thing: In the intelligence world, we deal in facts. Period. (Again, I get it, the IC has more than once screwed that up. And again, that debate is for another time).

So if you aspire to be an intelligence officer, this is a realization that you need to come to. This is going to bother some folks out there, but oh well: There is no place for generalizations, stereotypes, racism, or prejudice when it comes to intelligence gathering. Full stop.

Having said that, do we contend with all of the above at times? Of course. We are humans. But what I mean is you need to be able to put all of those things aside, knowing that the person that you call a “towel head” or other ignorant slur may be the guy or gal who is able to provide you the intel that may stop the next attack. The ‘Merica bullshit won’t work here.

Obviously, love your country and complete the mission and your duty, but be smart about it. And as I said above, people are not stupid. They will see past “the fake.” The only place that opinion should come into play is A) when giving an assessment of a situation, asset, or topic within an intel report and B) when asked.

Learn to keep it under your hat until the appropriate time, and all will be well.

Objective

Quite simply, the opposite of the above. As I said, there is nothing wrong with having and voicing your opinion (in most cases). Just know when and where to use that tool.

There will be many times where, out of the blue, you will be asked what you think of something, even when the person in front of you has already made up their mind. They want to know where your head is at, and that is your time to shine.

Also, as mentioned above, when providing an assessment of an asset or case, your opinion is paramount to its advancement of termination (no, not as in killing the person…it means to end a case or a relationship with an asset).

Headquarters wants to know what an asset or potential does and just as importantly, why you think they do it. So flex that opinion muscle, but at the right time.

Sense of humor

Last, but certainly not least, is maintaining a sense of humor. If you can’t laugh at a situation or even at yourself, you may not be cut out for this gig. I thrive on self-deprecation in a humorous way, because it keeps things light, reminds me that I am human, and keeps me focused.

We all make fun of one another at work, and it helps the day go by. Overseas, it’s even more crucial. Seemingly never-ending days, numerous hazards, deadlines, missing your family, and other stresses may not vanish, but they can be eased by being able to find the humor in a situation. At the very least, it will keep you from going crazy.

So, there you have it. Certainly not an all-inclusive list, and the reasons I gave above are not cookie cutter. As with everything, it is unique to the situation and the individual, and should be applied as such. But for anyone hoping to dive into the world of intelligence, this list might help you get a good start.

Self-assessment is the key. If you don’t think that you have one or two of the attributes, work on it. But be honest with yourself. You will save yourself a lot of time and grief later on, and in the end, it might make you a better person. (Okay, feel-good moment over. If you don’t have it, you just don’t. Suck it up, learn from it, and move on to the next objective.)

James Powell was, until recently, an intelligence officer with the US government. During his time, Powell focused on full spectrum intelligence operations related to the Middle East, South America and Africa, as well as liaison duties with foreign and US intelligence partners. In a past life, Powell was a 10 year United States Marine, and also worked in the nuclear security industry. He currently holds a dual BA in History and Political Science, and despite being a world class IO, he failed miserably in his last mission to steal the secret recipe for KFC's 11 Herbs and Spices chicken. His posts are his own opinions and do NOT reflect those of, nor are they in any way endorsed by, the U.S. government.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How the US military spends its billions

Since the dawn of warfare, so since the very beginning, man has sought the ability to subdue or kill his opponents with his bare hands. Weapons have changed, but not alleviated, that search. Bones and shafts break. Arrows and bullets run out. Swords and rifles get dropped and lost. Then, the warrior has only his wits and whatever barehand skills he possesses to prevail over his enemy, especially in close quarters, where he can smell him.

Hunting and fighting were intrinsically tied back in pre-history, before civilization, agriculture, religion, and armies. Indeed, fighting and hunting were probably the same skill sets. Killing to eat, be it mastodon or deer, and killing to protect, be it from neanderthal or cave bear, drew on the same or similar skills and tactics: Put down the other before he or it puts you down.

Sports were originally intended to teach the young how to hunt and fight—again, essentially the same skill sets. Special skills evolved with such game changers as the knife, the spear, and the arrow. Special operators were those who could employ such weapons effectively. There were probably early innovators of specialized hand-to-hand systems to deal with these game changers, but we have, so far, no record of that.

Civilization was born around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, along with agriculture and religion. With the advent of these came also the advent of organized militaries. Armies quickly learned that things such as command and control, strategy and tactics, and martial skills for soldiers needed to be developed and taught. These skills were mostly focused on the sword and shield, the bow and lance, and likely little thought was given to hand-to-hand training. But, also likely, most soldiers possessed hand-to-hand skills gained at home, through sports and the rough play that is common, then and now, amongst boys and young men.

Early Greek cultures placed high value on games and sports, the purpose of which was to train and entertain youth in martial skills, and to develop athletic skills that would benefit the warrior. Sparta and Athens, the main city-states of the classic Greek era, both possessed dominant militaries, Sparta with her land forces and Athens with her naval forces. 

Martial skills taught were focused on the sword and shield, and other weapons such as the lance and the shield. But, it is safe to assume that all Spartan and Athenian soldiers and sailors possessed respectable hand-to-hand skills given the expectation that all Greek boys and young men learn and participate in Greek games, some of the most popular of which involved grappling and wrestling.

Hand-to-hand fighting always has to contend with three key factors:

1. Culture, of units and societies
2. Trends in martial and combative arts
3. The human need for control and predictable results, which is a factor and hurdle in all teaching and instructing, from mathematics to martial arts.

For centuries, throughout the European Medieval Period and forward, wrestling continued to be taught, but also evolved into disarming techniques, reducing an opponent’s advantage of having a larger of longer weapon, and of getting inside an opponent’s reach with a longer sword and killing him with a short sword or dagger.

The Germans devised a system called Kampfringen, which translates as “battle grappling,” for such situations. Surviving practitioners of these techniques, getting in close enough to a man armed with a long sword in order to kill him with a dagger, were probably the special operators of that time.

They were probably also the guys doing the recon and raids. It is unlikely that heavy armor and mounts lent themselves well to reconnaissance. During the Japanese Medieval Period, Ninja clans appeared and flourished right alongside, but not really part of, Samurai culture. Both cultures had their special operators, specially selected for special tactics and missions, and hand-to-hand skills were, of course, very much a part of those cultures and training.

China and the rest of Asia had similar martial evolutions. 

It is key to note that special operations tactics, such as raids, ambushes, and surgical strikes by small bands of specially selected warriors, have probably been around since the dawn of man and warfare.

But this article focuses on hand-to-hand fighting. So, when I use the term “special operator,” it refers to special CQB skills. 

Cavalry were, for centuries, the special troops of the battlefield throughout Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. They were the fastest and hardest to defend against, were able to appear out of nowhere on the battlefield or the battlespace, attack and overwhelm, and then disappear like an ex-wife.

For several centuries, Mongol cavalry were a force to be reckoned with. But their CQB skills were all from the saddle and involved sword and lance, bow and bolt. Roger’s Rangers, the progenitors of U.S. special operations, had special hand-to-hand training that was borrowed from various Native American tribes and innovated and improved upon by those Rangers, much of it involving hatchets and knives, but also rocks, clubs, fire, and anything else at hand to use against the enemy.

There was no formalized training in hand-to-hand combat, but it was nonetheless accomplished, probably by those older and more experienced Rangers teaching younger and less experienced Rangers the requisite tomahawk, knife, and hand-to-hand skills for which the Rangers had a formidable reputation.

In the Civil War, the cavalry were, again, along with scouts, the special troops. They were the ones who would move behind enemy lines, scouting, harassing, and interdicting enemy supply and communication lines. But military hand-to-hand training did not exist, other than bayonet training. Those in blue or gray who, back home as boys, fought and wrestled most with their brothers and neighbors had the advantage in terms of hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 6 coolest phrases only people in the military use

What to make of this latest June 6th, 2015, article in the New York Times, detailing the “secret history” of SEAL Team 6?

I am torn between writing about the subject and ignoring it.

Instead, I will refrain from addressing the details of the Times’ article, but instead comment on the meta aspect of the story.

In other words, how did this article come to be written? And why?

The answer to the ‘why’ is fairly obvious.

Many people these days have an insatiable appetite for all things special operations, especially, it seems, those stories that involve the Navy SEALs. I get that. Hell, I am a former SEAL, writing this article on a website started by a former SEAL, that caters to just such a predilection. I obviously get it.

Into the mirror gaze I, describing for all what there I see.

So the Times story has all the makings of a spec-ops spy thriller. There are commandos (though, we are told, they do not like to use that term) ‘soaked in blood that was not their own,’ black ops, ‘advanced force operations’ teams, the CIA-SEAL “Omega Program,” and custom-made tomahawks, for goodness sake.

‘Quiet Killings and Blurred Lines,’ indeed.

What more does the average special operations aficionado need?  This story has it all and is what most of us Americans probably hope is actually happening in the war on terror. We hope that our Special Operations Forces are taking the fight to the enemy, and doing it convincingly and overwhelmingly.

The story is as sexy as they come, a virtual Scarlett Johannson of words, paragraphs, graphics, and anonymous sources. The article is peppered throughout with pictures of weapons (German-made rifles equipped with suppressors, oh my!), maps detailing specific missions, and stock spec-ops cool-guy shots, like SEALs rappelling from helicopters and shivering BUD/S students.

Even Richard Marcinko makes an appearance, and there are harrowing details of raids and rescue missions, of Somali pirates, of al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban.

Hell, there is even a satellite photograph of the purported SEAL Team 6 headquarters building in Virginia Beach, annotated and labeled.

I would argue that including that particular piece of information—whether it be verified or not—went a bit too far, to say the least.

Honestly, who does not want to read this stuff? I mean, this very website caters to just such a desire to be regaled with the exploits of our most elite forces. Who are we to cast stones, after all?

In other words, we understand why the article was written. But how?

The authors claim that the piece is drawn from “dozens” of interviews with both former and current team members and “other military officials,” as well as reviews of unspecified government documents.

This is far more troubling than the ‘why.’ A group of people—mostly anonymous sources—chose to describe these operations, groups, and teams, and to reveal the locations of the bases and such. Again, who am I to question why they would do that, one might ask. Do I not, also, reveal classified stories, operations, and details on the locations of bases on this very website?

Well, the answer is no, I do not. I do not because to do so might compromise ongoing operations. Furthermore, I am forbidden from doing so, in many cases, by non-disclosure agreements and by the classified nature of the information. In other words, sometimes you have to choose not to reveal information, even though the appetite for it is huge, and you might want to share certain details with the world.

We get it here at SOFREP. People want to know these details, and hear the exploits of our Special Operations Forces, and what they do on our behalf against our nation’s enemies. We do our best to provide as much insight as we can without violating our agreements and the classified nature of certain information.

Sometimes, though, it is simply not beneficial to those operations to reveal certain details.

Their revelation might very well compromise the continuation of such operations.

That is where the line should be drawn.

It should also be drawn at revealing the locations of bases and facilities that are purposefully kept secret, both to protect the identities and security of those personnel who continue to work there, as well as the operations carried out from there.

So, now we know the ‘how’ and ‘why’ the Times ran the article on SEAL Team 6.

The publishers and editorial staff would probably use such terms as “for the public good,” and the American people’s “right to know what is happening on their behalf” in the War On Terror, and other such noble-sounding phrases. Don’t buy it.

Like everyone else in this business, they are selling a sexy story, and what is sexier than that particular subject? Not much.

Frumentarius is a former Navy SEAL and a former Clandestine Service officer with the Central Intelligence Agency's Counter-Terrorism Center. He has a Bachelor's degree in International Politics and a Masters in History. He is currently a professional firefighter. Follow him on Twitter @SOFFru1

Join the conversation about this story »

The 75th Ranger Regiment is the US Army’s premier airborne light infantry unit. 

Specializing in raids and airfield seizures, the Regiment is one of very few units that has been constantly deployed since 9/11, with each Ranger battalion having rotated into a combat zone in the neighborhood of fifteen times each.

After completing Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training, and Airborne School, potential Rangers are carefully evaluated in the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program, or RASP. 

RASP identifies which soldiers have the mental fortitude and physical toughness required to serve as a member of this elite unit. 

Additionally, RASP provides training to these new recruits in critical Ranger tasks. 

Upon graduation of RASP, new Rangers will most likely be assigned to 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Ranger Battalion.  Regimental Headquarters and the Regimental Support Battalion are also co-located at Ft. Benning with 3rd Battalion.

Today’s Ranger Battalions were stood up on the orders of General Creighton Abrams in 1974.  As many of you may know, our Army had suffered a great deal and wasn’t looking so great in the Post-Vietnam War years. 

1st and 2nd Ranger Battalions were created to be a role model for the rest of the Army, a unit where soldiers would be held to extremely high standards, their commanding guidance derived from the Ranger Creed, penned by Command Sergeant Major Neil Gentry. 

While the Ranger Creed is a way of life in the Regiment, it also provides important guidance to a Ranger whenever there is a question or doubt about what the correct course of action may be.  In these difficult times, Rangers will default to the Ranger Creed.

The Ranger Creed

Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.

Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier, who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger, my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier.

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong, and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task, whatever it may be, one hundred percent and then some.

Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle, for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.

The Rangers are arguably (I’ve debated this with soldiers who served in the Honor Guard in Washington DC) the oldest existing unit in our military.  Rangers fought in a number of American conflicts before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, such as the French and Indian War and King Philip’s War.  In the Revolutionary War, Francis Marion organized and fought in a Ranger unit against the British.  Marion was known as the swamp fox because his men would attack and quickly disappear into the swamps to evade the British military.

Six Ranger Battalions fought in the Second World War.  It was during D-Day at Omaha beach that the Rangers came upon their unit motto.  During the assault, Colonel Norman Cota asked Major Max Schneider which unit he belonged to.  When someone replied that they were 5th Ranger Battalion, Cota replied, “Well, then goddammit, Rangers, lead the way!”  Today all Rangers sound off with the unit motto, “Rangers Lead The Way” when saluting an Officer, to which, any Officer worth his salt responds with, “All The Way!”

Rangers also served in the Korean War with distinction, including 2nd Ranger Company, an all African-American company of Rangers.  For the first time, Rangers were now Airborne qualified.

In the Vietnam War, there were Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (LRRP) teams that executed some of the hairiest missions of the war.  Penetrating deep into the jungle in their distinctive tiger strip uniforms to conduct reconnaissance, ambushes, and more, these men were later reorganized into Ranger Companies.   Despite what the press might have said, our Vietnam era Rangers served with distinction and have plenty to be proud of.

With Rangers reformed after Vietnam in 1974, their next deployment was the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, known as Desert One.  1st and 2nd Battalion conducted a combat jump into the island nation of Grenada in 1983, where they successfully captured the Point Salines airfield and rescued the American medical students being held on the True Blue facility.  3rd Ranger Battalion was formed shortly after in 1984.  In 1989, the entire Regiment jumped into Panama as a part of Operation Just Cause.

Alpha and Bravo Company of 1/75 played a role in Operation Desert Storm while Bravo Company of 3/75 participated in Operation Gothic Serpent, the infamous Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia in 1993.

Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, 3/75 jumped into Objective Rhino in Afghanistan on October 19th.

3/75 Rangers also jumped into Iraq during the opening salvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, participating in the battle of Haditha dam.  Today, Rangers deploy regularly in support of Operation Enduring Freedom while Operation Iraqi Freedom has only recently been scaled back, with Rangers having conducted untold thousands of combat operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Meanwhile, one Ranger Battalion always remains on standby while home in the United States, prepared to be recalled for rapid deployment at a moments notice.

SEE ALSO: A look inside Ranger School, where the Army's toughest soldiers are made

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: See 240 years of US Army uniforms in 2 minutes

The pre-war German Army rejected Captain Theodore von Hippel’s idea of using small units of highly trained men to penetrate enemy defenses before main actions began.

They felt it was beneath the dignity of true soldiers to engage in such renegade conduct and so sent the young Captain packing.

Down but not out, he ended up joining the German intelligence agency known as the Abwehr, in whom he found its commander, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, a willing listener. 

His ideas, much of which were learned from studying World War 1 guerilla leaders, were approved and forwarded to the German High Command (OKW), who agreed to the formation of a battalion of men trained in the arts of combat and espionage.

These troops were tasked with capturing bridges and roadways ahead of advances and holding them until relieved.

This first unit became known as the Ebbinghaus battalion. And when it went to war on September 1st, 1939 in the Polish campaign, it performed as expected, slipping across enemy lines, holding vital roads and crossings, as the columns of panzers rumbled triumphantly past, unaware many of those who waved them on had been wearing Polish army uniforms a short while before.

Strange but true, just as they destroyed any lingering doubts to their effectiveness, the order came to disband. Ebbinghaus had been assigned to OKW and no more need was seen for it.

Canaris wanted more units though, but just for the Abwehr. He ordered another unit raised. Called the Lehr und Bau Company z.b.v. 800 (Special Duty Training and Construction Company 800), it was formed in the town of Brandenburg where it soon adopted the name Brandenburg Company.

Hippel brought back many Ebbinghaus veterans in addition to recruiting new members. One thing unique to the Brandenburgers is that Hippel wanted men who looked like the enemy; racial purity was to play no part in selection methods. Even those the Nazi’s considered racially inferior, Slavs and other ethnic groups, soon found themselves training alongside ordinary Germans ranging in specialties from weapons to dog sleds.

Whether operating as a 2-man team or unit of 300, every Brandenburger was required to be fluent in the language of their destinations. They had to know the customs and history of regions so they could blend in and move without being noticed. Even the mannerism of how to properly spit like the locals, for example, was ingrained during training.

After an influx of recruits, the company swelled to a battalion three months after being raised. They went into combat during the campaign against the West in 1940. On May 8, two days before the offensive began, small groups of Brandenburgers slipped across the borders of Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. They hit objectives minutes after the campaign began, wearing enemy uniforms as they exchanged fire with similarly attired troops, and sewing confusion throughout the countryside.

Making sure not to be shot as spies if captured, they wore German uniforms underneath.

After the fall of France and the cancellation of planned invasion of Britain, the Brandenbergers, now a regiment, trained to take Gibraltar. Units led by von Hippel shipped out to Libya with the Afrika Korps in early 1941, as others headed to Yugoslavia when Hitler was forced to support Mussolini’s invasion of Greece.

In Libya they were met with resentment by Afrika Korps commander, Erwin Rommel. But after seeing the effectiveness caused by the British SAS LRDG (Long Range Desert Group) to his supply lines, he accepted their methods, hoping to repeat the favor. In action, they proved difficult to provide transportation and resupply for over the vast desert, suffering many casualties and P.O.W.s.

To their dismay, one of those captured was Von Hippel. As the campaign droned on, the first major failure inflicted on the regiment was realized.

Canaris with von Hippel inspecting Brandenburgers

Meanwhile, in Europe, the Brandenburgers achieved another explosive success entering Yugoslavia and taking hold of the important dockyards of Orsova on the Danube one day before the invasion began. But these accomplishments were soon overshadowed, as a flurry of final preparations began for a much larger action that would see them used in greater numbers than ever before against the hated communists in the East…

When Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, commenced on June 22, 1941, the first across the border were again the Brandenburgers. They took roads and railway junctions and caused chaos with feeble resupply lines. As the campaign moved further towards its objectives, a unit went on to capture a vital bridge in Latvia, allowing Army Group North, consisting of a over a million men and thousands of vehicles, to move without interruption to surround Leningrad.

As the weeks wore on Brandenburgers could be found in action all through the country, blending in with locals, gathering intelligence, laying ambushes and conducting many amphibious raids along the coasts of the Baltic, the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

After the Germans were stopped from taking Moscow and the war in the east passed its first year, Hitler launched Case Blue in August, 1942. This was the southern offensive to take Stalingrad and the Caucus oil fields and end Russia’s ability to sustain itself.

When it launched, the Brandenburgers helped clear the way in many sectors, one of which involved 62 Baltic and Sudeten Germans penetrating further into the Soviet Union than any unit before it, entering the oil town of Maikop on August 6.

They were dressed as the dreaded Soviet secret police, the NKVD, guarding a gaggle of Russian deserters. So convincing were the units masquerade and mannerisms that the Soviet commander gave the Brandenburgers commander, Adrian von Folkersam, a personal tour of the cities defenses. The next day they struck, knocking out the military communications center. Folkersam then made rounds to the bewildered defenders telling them a withdrawal was taking place. On August 9th, main German forces entered without a shot being fired.

By February 1943, most Brandenburgers were returned to Germany to help form the division Brandenburg. Once again, though in larger groups, they were sent to the ever increasing hot spots in the conquered territories to perform less clandestine roles and act more as a fire brigade of elite combat troops.

Back to the Balkans, performing anti-Partisan actions, including a small detachment aiding SS commando leader Otto Skorzeny’s attempt to capture Marshal Tito. And also, back to the Eastern Front, for anti-partisan work and finally, to the Aegean Sea where they performed their last notable action.

On September 14th, 1943, British troops invaded Kos, part of the Dodecanese island chain just off the Turkish coast. Churchill hoped to use this island to launch air attacks against German forces in the Balkans and pressure neutral Turkey into joining the war against Germany. Since Italy had turned to the Allied side in summer 1943, the Italian garrison on the island welcomed the British with open arms.

The Germans began constant aerial attacks on Kos, which lasted until October 3rd when 2 Operation Polar Bear comprising two battalions of Brandenburgers accompanied by an Army battlegroup invaded the island by air and sea, meeting little resistance. Throughout the day they cleared areas, and repulsed a British/Italian counterattack that evening. Initiating their own counterattack they defeated their foes and took control of the island the next day.

Under Hitler’s orders, all Italian officers were executed.

Next was the island of Leros, which underwent similar bombardment until November 12th. “We were watching in agony,” a Brit said. “The glowing bows and the grey tulips up in the sky were becoming dimmer, a sign that the batteries were running out of ammunition. Because of that, the German planes were cawing like birds of prey over the defenders’ heads, asking for their flesh and for the soul of dying Merovigli, where the English headquarters were.”

Operation Leopard brought the Brandenburgers and Army/Luftwaffe units by air and sea to battle the British garrison in close quarters until it surrendered 4 days later. They also captured some of the largest naval guns during the war and used them until their surrender. (As an interesting fact, the battle of Leros became the inspiration for the novel and later movie The Guns of Navarone).

The Dodacanese campaign ended as one of the final German victories of the war.

1944 proved to be the decisive year for the division, as its sponsor Admiral Canaris was implicated and later executed in the July 20th assassination attempt on Hitler.

The Abwehr suffered as well, losing most of its power, with the division being turned over to the rival SS intelligence service, the SD.

1,800 men transferred out to Skorzeny’s 502nd SS Jaeger battalion, while the rest found themselves being thrown into battle as Panzer Grenadiers, their morale destroyed and specialist skills disregarded as they conducted a fighting retreat against the Red army for months until being annihilated near the East Prussian city of Pillau as the final weeks of the war arrived.

Now, nearly 70 years later, few Brandenburgers remain alive, and most of their accomplishments still remain but a footnote in history.

Many stories of them still await discovery, telling of how one of the most elite forces in the world rose and fell within the madness created by Hitler, and through it all managed to be the first boots on the ground in most of the Third Reich’s invasions and major offensives.

SEE ALSO: It's been 75 years since the iconic B-25 Mitchell Warbird made its debut

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A mysterious lost Nazi train — supposedly filled with gold — may have been found

His eyes seemed to light up as he watched the group of young soldiers march in unison on that Yale field in New Haven, Connecticut.

It was another one of those long days where he’d abandoned his search for food to arrive at the sidelines and witness the orderly procession.

He sat there alone, lost in fascination at the sight.

After letting him sleep in the barracks a few times, Stubby became a hit in Conroy’s 102nd Infantry Regiment, 26th (Yankee) Division. The dog’s playful yet obedient manner found him easing the nerves of men preparing to depart for the trenches of France to take part in a distant conflict that everyone in those days called the “Great War.”

Yet, Conroy knew the rules forbade him from taking Stubby along, however, he was so fond of his little friend he couldn’t bear to give him up. After all, as an infantryman, what were his chances of returning alive? Even if he did, would he ever be able to find his dog again? No. In spite of warnings not to do so, he decided Stubby was coming with him, no matter what.

With the tears of family and girlfriends waving goodbye, the 26th departed Newport News, Virginia on the SS Minnesota in October 1917. Safely aboard and out of sight was Stubby, Conroy and his mates seeing to it he remained hidden from officers wandering the ship day and night. They took care of his needs and appeared to be pulling off the charade until a fateful moment occurred. Conroy’s commanding officer discovered the secret.

Displeased and ready to right up infractions, he heard Conroy say “Present Arms!” He watched as Stubby brought a paw to his brow and saluted him. His heart melted. Conroy pleaded his case a little more and the officer finally agreed. They could keep Stubby. In fact, he could be their mascot. He would serve as a brief distraction to temper worries about their destination.

Once in France and marched to the frontline, Stubby settled in nicely, following Conroy about the trenches, and showing little fear for the constant shelling that made the quiet ever more alien.

His presence was warming, bringing smiles across otherwise weary faces greeting the dog whenever he patrolled the trenches alone. Here they saw a symbol of kindness in a lethal world that reassured those who stroked his soft head that there still existed a calm peace beyond this Hell.

They had no way of knowing that Stubby wanted to be more than just a friend to them. He wanted to be a soldier, like his master. (And boy, as the months unfolded, did he ever become one.)

The misery and stalemate of the trenches shattered when Stubby first followed Conroy across bloody fields on February 5, 1918, to fight in the oft-battled corridor of Chemin des Dames. Under constant fire, he braved the bullets and shells along with the rest of the 26th.

He stopped only when they did, and remained eager to go one more time through the fire, which he did with renewed charges for over a month. He jumped over bodies and stayed with the attack, ready to come to the service of a fallen friend. During this time, he learned a vital trade that began saving lives. That whistle. He heard the incoming artillery long before any human ear, and his warning bark sent men scrambling for cover, safe before the rounds impacted.

His bravery became challenged though when shrapnel from a hand grenade wounded him in the leg. He was sent back to an aid station to convalesce, and continued his duty hobbling about, befriending and bringing smiles to critically wounded soldiers.

To them, he became another doughboy with whom to share the experience. After his stay, he headed back back up to the front with the division, where he fell victim to a gas attack. It didn’t stop him. He simply adapted. He developed the ability to smell bursting gas before his human comrades, and his barking and nipping at heels alerted them to the dangers.

Once he’d seen they were prepared, he’d run and hide to protect himself from the cloud. Then he’d come back out to rejoin the cause, with another awesome ability. A sense of when the Germans were about to go “over the top” and rush the trenches. More nipping and barking prepared his men like no other, and the enemy never succeeded in surprising them.

For all his fearlessness, it was what Stubby did after a battle that displayed his greatest feat of bravery and compassion.

During this time, after an unsuccessful charge, many soldiers still remained in No Man’s Land, the deadliest area between opposing trenches, and a free fire zone for both sides. Men cried out for help, often to no avail.

Except this time, a little dog raced amid the shell craters to rest at their side. He led those able to walk back to friendly lines and stayed beside those who couldn’t, barking away, until a medic arrived.

Stubby could become aggressive if he needed to though. One day in September, patrolling an empty trench area, he happened upon a soldier he sensed was out of place.

He launched into a run as the man started to flee and clamped down on his leg, toppling him into the mud. Stubby then let go and shut his jaws on a butt cheek, staying locked until a patrol showed up and realized his victim was a German scout wearing an American uniform.

His feat was touted far and wide in the Allied armies. Thereafter, he received a promotion to Sergeant, the only animal to ever do so in the U.S. Armed Forces. Now he outranked his owner. News of this special mutt reached the States, and he was celebrated across the land.

Back in France, Stubby carried on and received his trademark. After entering the town of Chateau-Thierry with his boys, the thankful women made him a chamois coat. Soon it was replaced by one made to look like an army uniform. On it was the Iron Cross taken from the spy, as well as medals awarded from both America and France. By now, the canine was a walking advertisement for valor and achievement.

By the time the war ended in November, and the 26th mustered to go home, Stubby had survived 4 offensives and 17 major battles, including getting lost and shacking up with the French army, making new friends who later returned him to Conroy. He took the dog back home where he was an instant celebrity. He enjoyed a new life leading marches and parades all across the country, making appearances to benefit veterans, and always making himself available to be petted by fascinated children and adults.

Stubby was eventually inducted into the American Legion and, in 1921, General John Pershing, commander of American forces in World War I, personally pinned a specially made hero’s medal on his jacket in the presence of First Lady Florence Harding, the wife of one of three Presidents he met.

After Conroy decided to attend college at Georgetown, he took Stubby along, where he became the college’s mascot. During halftime, he would be brought out to the field to chase the footballs, much to the delight of audiences. It is said he may have been the originator of the halftime show. At any rate, perhaps in tribute, the school’s mascot remains a dog to this day.

In his final years, Sergeant Stubby, despite all the horror he had experienced, never lost that lovable, caring nature that first endeared him to Conroy and the 26th. On a day at home in 1926, the little dog that once upon a time nobody wanted died peacefully in his master’s arms. He left having lived a life few men dared, witnessed history in the making, and rose above it all to become a genuine hero.

All this he packed into in just 10 years on this earth.

SEE ALSO: Haunting photos from an abandoned Air Force Base

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A mysterious lost Nazi train — supposedly filled with gold — may have been found

The following was written by Rudy Mac, a Ranger-qualified, company-grade infantry officer serving on active duty in a light unit in the U.S. Army.

By the time most of you read this story, 96 newly tabbed Rangers and their friends and families will be celebrating the completion of one of the most arduous and demanding courses that the Army has to offer.

For them, this coming weekend will undoubtedly involve hours of some of the most satisfying sleep of their lives, interspersed with exorbitant feasts of all of the foods that they have been dreaming about, talking about, and listing in their Rite In The Rain notebooks for weeks and weeks.

They will return to their units with a few new skills and a better understanding of small-unit tactics, but more importantly with a new confidence in themselves and their fellow tabbed Rangers. They will be marked for the rest of their careers with a $1.80 strip of cloth that tells whomever they meet that when tested with adversity, pain, and discomfort, they can be trusted to find a way to get the job done and complete the mission. For the first time in history, two women will pin on this badge of survival and perseverance, and you know what? They f*****g earned it. Every last thread of it.

I started and finished Ranger School this year with Class 06-15, although since I neither recycled nor had to endure a winter phase of the course, my tab should probably be just a little bit smaller than the tabs that many of my peers wear. We were the first gender-integrated Ranger School class, starting on April 19^th, with 19 female and 381 male students.

Since my graduation, I have followed the progress of these remaining female Rangers with interest. Although virtually all of the discussion I have heard surrounding their advancement through the course has been pretty positive up to this week, since the Washington Post broke the story of Ranger Griest and Ranger Haver getting their go’s in Florida, I have read and heard an increasing amount of bad-mouthing from a plethora of haters, dismissing their accomplishment as the product of slipping standards or some ultra-liberal, feminist plot by the government and Army leadership. I am speaking out to tell you that these insinuations could not be further from the truth. Ranger School is still hard, and these women earned their tabs.

Before I discuss my own subjective opinions, let’s talk about the numbers, starting with my class (Class 06-15). In 06-15, we started 400 Ranger students in April and graduated fewer than 100 in June. Twenty-eight of us (that’s seven percent), went straight through the course without recycling.

In Darby Phase, our recycle rate was almost 75 percent—the highest for the phase in over five years. In my squad of 17 Ranger students, only four of us went forward to Mountain Phase. Another squad in my company (Alpha Company) sent only two of 17 forward. In Mountain and again in Florida, we only had enough students for one platoon in my company. I believe the same was true of Bravo and Charlie.

For those who have claimed that the packing list was reduced for this year to make patrols easier: We weighed our rucks before the Mountains FTX and the Florida FTX. My ruck was 85 pounds at the start of Mountains as a team leader and over 100 pounds at the start of Florida as a SAW gunner. For the past three classes of the course (06-15, 07-15, and 08-15), the course graduation rate has been about 30 percent, much lower than the average for FY10-FY14 of 42 percent, and significantly lower than the historical average of nearly 50 percent.

If you believe that the standards at Ranger School have been lowered for recent classes in order to pass the women who attended, you are simply wrong. The numbers reflect what the Ranger Training Brigade officers and NCOs have been saying for months now: The standards at Ranger School are as high or higher right now than they have been in many, many years.

Now, let’s discuss the process that the Infantry School went through to select and prepare female soldiers to attend the course. After the Army sent out the ALARACT message looking for female Ranger School volunteers, they had nearly 400 female soldiers express a desire to attend the course.

One hundred and nine of those female soldiers eventually attended the RTAC, the ARNG Warrior Training Center’s two week Pre-Ranger Course, which is second only to the 75th Ranger Regiment’s SURT (Small Unit Ranger Tactics) Pre-Ranger Course in terms of success rate at Ranger School. Several of the women who failed RTAC went back and tried again, for a total of 138 attempts by female students.

Twenty female Ranger Students eventually passed RTAC, and 19 of those 20 started Ranger School with Class 06-15 on April 19^th. From this point on, anyone who has followed the story probably knows what transpired. Eight of those 19 female students passed RAP (Ranger Assessment Phase) Week at Camp Rogers, where about 60 percent of Ranger School failures historically occur. All eight went to Camp Darby with Class 06-15 and were either recycled into Class 07-15 or dropped from training.

After another Darby Phase with Class 07-15, again, none of the female students received their go’s, and three remained in the course to start over as day one recycles with class 08-15. As an aside, during RAP week with class 08-15, Ranger Kristen Griest finished second out of the entire class on the 12 mile ruck—an astounding achievement, especially considering that she had just gone through RAP week, two Darby phases, and another RAP week, all back-to-back. CPT Griest and 1LT Haver went straight through the rest of the course with class 08-15, finally earning their Ranger Tabs today after 124 days in Ranger School.

Lastly, for what it’s worth, I would like to offer my own impressions of what our class was like with female students in RAP week and at Darby. Unlike many, I didn’t doubt that some female soldiers in our Army would at least have a decent shot at getting their tabs. There are a whole lot of female collegiate, professional, and Olympic athletes who can PT a whole lot better than me, so why shouldn’t they be able to at least come close to passing a course like Ranger School?

Like many, however, I was somewhat skeptical that the cadre at RTB could successfully administer a course with extremely close living quarters and significant field time like Ranger School without compromising the integrity of the training.

I quickly found, however, that the gender issue was a non-issue. The barracks at Camp Rogers are shaped like a ‘U’, with a latrine and shower facilities forming the center of the U, connecting two long bays of bunk beds and wall lockers, with doors at the end of the bays. The female students in our company slept towards one end of the bay, where an enclave of wall lockers formed an area for them to hurriedly change in when the need arose.

In the latrines, during the absurdly short time hacks we were given to use the bathroom, the women simply walked past the men and used the stalls. After the first real smoke session of the week on day one, nobody cared much about using the same latrine. We were all just Ranger students.

During the few times we were able to take showers, the cadre dedicated the showers on one side of the bay to female students for one quarter of the shower period, and a Ranger instructor and female NCO stood in the center of the ‘U’ to avoid confusion. RAP week passed and we were on to Darby. In Darby, the female students in our company dispelled any doubts of their ability to hump weight on patrols during the first few days in the field.

If I remember correctly, Ranger Griest carried the M240 for her squad on day one of patrols and another female in her squad carried the radio as the RTO. The next day of patrols, they switched, with Ranger Griest humping the radio and the other female student carrying the M240. Physically, they were studs. They carried their own weight and then some.

In the two months since I have graduated, I have spoken with countless fellow tabbed Rangers on the topic, both from my class and from previous classes. Every morning, my Facebook news feed is filled with statuses from my peers, with links to articles on the topic and discussions on the progress of the females left in the course. We are universally in awe of what these two female Rangers have accomplished. Everyone I have talked to is of one mind.

They earned it.

Without the same wide shoulders, large frames, and high testosterone levels of their brother Rangers, they earned it. Unfortunately, the naysayers will continue to talk trash and belittle CPT Griest and 1LT Haver’s historic accomplishment. In response, I would like to close with a recent quote from MAJ Jim Hathaway, the current RTB executive officer:

No matter what we at Ranger School say, the non-believers will still be non-believers. We could have invited each of you to guest walk the entire course, and you would still not believe, we could have video recorded every patrol and you would still say that we “gave” it away. Nothing we say will change your opinion. I and the rest of our cadre are proud of the conduct of our soldiers, NCOs, and officers; they took the mission assigned and performed to the Ranger standard. Rangers Lead the Way!

Read the original article on SOFREP. SOFREP is an apolitical news site run by former military special ops and intelligence professionals. Become a member of SOFREP Underground. Copyright 2015.

SEE ALSO: These are the first women to earn the prestigious Army Ranger tab

Join the conversation about this story »

The truly egregious aspect of this whole story is that Clinton's private email server was never meant to, cleared to, or thought to be handling classified information.

I heard it said on cable news the other day, during a discussion of the latest developments in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, that trying to figure out how to explain the US government's classification system is like trying to explain how the earth was created.

In other words, it was too complicated for this particular journalist to adequately explain during his two-minute segment on the scanal relating to Clinton's private email server.

Well, he is partially right. It is somewhat complicated, in that classifying information from a particular agency differs from how it might be classified at a separate agency. The classifying authority (he or she who sets the level of classification) might be a senior government employee at one organization (a GS-15, say), or the person might be a more junior-level employee at another.

For example, when this author started at the CIA, he was classifying intelligence reports as a lowly GS-11, albeit, under the supervision of a more seasoned GS-13 or GS-14, most of the time.

Really, though, it is not that complicated.

Start with the big picture. You have the US government (USG). Within the constitutionally created three branches of government, there is the executive branch. It is run by the president of the United States and his cabinet. The executive branch includes numerous agencies, each of which carries out various policies and legally mandated tasks.

The Department of Energy, for example, has a certain role. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a separate role. The Department of Agriculture has yet another role. All three differ in their missions and tasks.

Of those three, probably only the Department of Energy has a need to classify any of its information above the "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) level, the lowest level of classification above UNCLASSIFIED. The Department of Energy, for example, was deeply involved in the recent Iran nuclear negotiations, and would thus have dealt with large volumes of sensitive information.

So far, so good. Next, there is of course the USG's national-security establishment, also under the executive branch, which includes the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, etc. In contrast with those agencies not focused on national security, these agencies classify almost all of their information, at some level, mostly above the FOUO threshold.

So, let us examine the term "information." What are we talking about here? What does it mean to be "CIA information," or "NSA-derived intelligence," or "military reporting," or "CIA-derived intelligence?" This gets to the root of classification. The aforementioned terms refer to the "owners" of the information that is being presented.

In other words, "CIA reporting" refers to information collected by the CIA, either through its human sources or through other techniques. "NSA-derived information" refers to information collected by the NSA through its own particular methods.

This is important to note, this ownership, obvious as it may seem. The agencies that collect the information, or intelligence, also classify it. That is to say, if I were a Department of Defense human intelligence collection officer, gathering information from my human sources, then my own agency is going to classify any acquired intelligence appropriately, to be handled within channels designated for human collection.

It follows then that if I am from the NSA, acquiring information as it does, then that intelligence information is going to be classified by the NSA, and along those lines appropriate for the handling of the information in separate channels, required for NSA-specific information.

Still with me? It is pretty simple: Different agencies classify their information according to how it is collected, and the sensitivity of it, and that information must be handled in the channels designated as appropriate for that information.

So, what do we mean by "channels?" Imagine that you have three separate pieces of intelligence information, or three separate intelligence reports. One is classified "SECRET/A," meaning it was acquired by a certain agency, through a specific means of collection, designated by "A," and it is classified at the SECRET level.

A second report is classified "TOP SECRET/B," meaning it was acquired by a different means of collection ("B"), and is TOP SECRET. The third is classified "TOP SECRET/C/PAPER ONLY," which will be explained below. These are all notional classification markings — not real ones.

What the classification markings tell you is that these three reports must all be handled in a certain way, and in certain channels. The first, classified as "SECRET/A," must be handled within channels (i.e., computer terminals) designated as SECRET/A-level terminals. Only those with the appropriate clearance can get access to those channels (terminals), and only reports up to the "SECRET/A" level can be transmitted on them.

The second report, "TOP SECRET/B," is more highly classified, and can only be transmitted in channels (terminals)— much more restricted in number — that can handle reports up to that level.

To gain access to those terminals (and thus, those particular intelligence reports) requires more stringent vetting and background checks, and far fewer personnel in the USG carry a TOP SECRET clearance than do those with a SECRET clearance. Think 5,000 versus 200,000, for example. The actual numbers might differ, but you get the idea.

The third report, in this scenario, is even more highly classified, as it is designated for "PAPER ONLY" (again, a notional classification), meaning it will not be transmitted over computer terminals at all, and will only be hand-delivered to certain designated principals for their read and return with a signature showing that they have seen the report. The report will then reside with the originating agency (i.e., that which collected it).

Obviously, the third report is highly classified, and has been deemed sensitive enough to merit an extremely limited readership, possibly as low as five to 10 people in the USG. That is a highly restricted channel, one controlled outside computer terminals, via hand-delivery only.

So, we now arrive at issue of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Can you now see why it is a problem? At what level do you think the Clinton server was deemed secure to handle classified information, as she reportedly did on the server? You guessed it: UNCLASSIFIED.

Let that soak in for a second. Clinton's server should never have handled one piece of classified information, as it was never established to be a secure server for handling classified information.

Therein lies the truly egregious aspect of this whole story. Clinton's private email server was never meant to, cleared to, or thought to be handling classified information. No safeguards were in place to protect classified information. No routine security protocols were installed. No measures were taken to protect sensitive reporting.

The use of the server flew in the face of basic, rudimentary, day-one security procedures that every single USG employee with a security clearance understands to be necessary.

Well, almost every single US government employee, it seems.

Join the conversation about this story »

Let’s get one thing straight: I hate jumping. Don’t get me wrong, the whole concept and execution is sexy enough, but I was simply cursed with a wicked bout of acrophobia. Two or three days prior to an airborne operation I would start feeling anxious and preoccupied.

That anxiety, however, kept me focused and safe; it kept my circle of awareness clear and well-defined. I should also add that I never missed an airborne operation during my entire 18 years on airborne status in the Army.

I attended the Accelerated Freefall (AFF) high altitude parachute course with the Delta Force in 1990. Typically, we jumped three to four times a day accomplishing relatively simple tasks like falling flat and performing a proper ripcord pull sequence.

As the course progressed, the tasks became more and more complicated. Our typical altitude for a free fall jump was 12,500 feet. One of our requirements for the AFF course was to complete a jump from 24,000 feet. At that altitude, the atmosphere is too rarefied of oxygen to sustain life, so we each had to wear a self-contained oxygen (O2) system.

Here’s how a high altitude jump on oxygen (O2 jump) goes: Each jumper has an O2 mask fixed to his Gentex helmet, and a pouch on his right side fastened to his waist with a green O2 bottle inside. And folks, it is an axiomatic truth that the moment you put your O2 mask on your nose will immediately start to itch, and it will continue to itch until you are able to remove your mask.

Once inside the aircraft and seated, our parachute riggers connect us to an O2 console that stays installed in the aircraft. Prior to an O2 jump of that altitude, it is required to “pre-breath” pure O2 for at least 30 minutes. By breathing from the aircraft’s supply, we can save our personal O2 for the actual jump; our personal bottles only provided approximately ten minutes of breathing.

In the last few minutes prior to exiting the aircraft, the riggers disconnected us from the aircraft console and turned on our personal O2 systems. I could understand the logic of having the riggers handle the external equipment, the aircraft’s equipment, but I got an uneasy feeling about not being in full control over my personal equipment. I didn’t like the fact that I couldn’t see or manually identify my O2 supply lever.

The personal O2 bottles were actuated by way of a flat brass lever that flipped on and off. I reached my right hand down toward my O2 bottle to see if I could detect the configuration of the brass lever. I could not.

The command was given by the Jump Master, “Stand up!” We were signaled to move toward the rear of the aircraft and onto the ramp. The leader of my group of five began to grab arms and form us into a tight circle where we were holding onto each other’s arms. The intent was for us to all exit as a connected group called “taking a piece off of the ramp.” This had not been part of the briefed plan.

Let’s get one more thing straight: Master Sergeant (MSG) Hand only exits an aircraft with a head-first dive. He doesn’t poise off the ramp (where one steps off facing backwards, his head turned up to watch the aircraft race away), he doesn’t exit hanging onto people, and he doesn’t exit with people hanging onto him.

But there was no time to argue as the Jump Master gave the next-to-last command: “Stand by!” As the final “Go!” command was given, our group leader shouted, “One!” Together, we rocked toward the rear of the aircraft. “Two!” We rocked toward the front of the aircraft. “Three!” We hurdled our group off the ramp in an amorphous mass of limbs.

And then it happened. My head was filled with a flash of white light as my bro, Jace B., and I collided hard immediately off the ramp. Our “piece” broke apart and gents when cartwheeling, flipping, spinning and rolling in all directions. I detected very quickly that I could barely breath, like someone was holding a cloth over my nose and mouth. I wasn’t getting any O2 through my mask.

In my collision with Jace B., my brass O2 lever and been flipped to the off position. I flailed my right hand down to where my 02 bottle should have been. That movement caused me to go unstable and flip. I looked out at the jumpers around me. All color was gone and the scene became something like a black and white cartoon. I knew I was blacking out.

Subject to our AAF training was a trip to conduct training in and altitude chamber. The chamber could be depressurized to simulate different altitudes to introduce students to the effects of a rarefied oxygen atmosphere. One of the drills consisted of a volunteer removing his oxygen mask and performing a simple puzzle, such as pushing different shaped blocks through their corresponding holes in a wooden panel.

My good friend Mac volunteered, dropped his mask, and commenced to plug away at the holes with ease, all the while reciting Steve McQueen lines from the movie Papillion, “I feel alright, but… how do I look?” Slowly, Mac began making mistakes. Eventually, he could no longer get a single block through a single hole. He suddenly stopped and lifted his head to a 1000 yard stare. The instructor quickly reconnected Mac’s O2 mask.

Then, we were all instructed to disconnect and drop our 02 masks. Within seconds the instructor passed out black and white maps to each student and told us to study them. We did and after a brief spell, we were told to reconnect our masks and continue to study the maps. Within seconds, my black and white map slowly started to reveal colors: violet, blue, green yellow, and red. I was fascinated. The exercise demonstrated how the oxygen-starved brain fails to process colors. If the starvation continues, the subject will lose consciousness.

My view darkened and went black. The next thing I remember was seeing the landscape below me slowly fade in, and it was in color! I shook my head and checked my altimeter. I was at about 5,000 feet, meaning it was almost time for my pull sequence, and I was sucking in hard to squeeze more and more air between my mask and face into my lungs.

As I quickly looked up to regain my circle of awareness, I was startled to see Sergeant Major C. M. flying three feet from my nose rendering a fierce, piercing stare. He had seen me falling and knew there was something wrong. He flew in close to watch me and, if necessary, pull my ripcord to save my life.

I gave Sergeant Major C. M. a quick and snappy thumbs up to assure him that my wits were recovered and I waved off. The wave off is an arm signal to other jumpers that you are starting your pull sequence. Once under canopy, I finally unhooked my O2 mask and sucked in six liters of oxygen-rich atmosphere. I studied the ground below to assess how far off I was from my landing target.

I was amazed to realize I was not at all off and would be able to land on target. It occurred to me that I fell more stable when I was unconscious than conscious; no back sliding or sideways crabbing. I performed downwind and crosswind runs and then turned into the wind for a soft stand-up landing.

I stood for a while and did nothing but contemplate how much I hated jumping, and the old cliche “when it rains, it pours” kept running through my mind. It dawned on me that both of my hands were stinging quite a bit. I pulled off my flight gloves to see that both of them were quite red, and in the coming days, the thin layer of epidermis covering my hands would flake and peel away. My hands had been frost nipped by the extreme cold and lack of movement.

Jace B. came jogging up as I gathered my hateful parachute. “George! Are you ok? Was that you I collided with?” he asked.

“I just want a beer, Jace,” I whined. “But you know Jace,” I continued, “I am going to count that as credit for a midair linkup for you and me!”

Sergeant Major C. M. was next in line to check on me. “Ok, so??” he shrugged. I told him my sob story and he had me go repeat it to the head rigger. In the end, my position was that, although it was easier for everyone to be coddled on the aircraft by the riggers, when it came time to turn on our personal O2 system, I didn’t like that we weren’t familiarized enough with our equipment to turn our own supply on and off.

Also, let’s keep one thing straight: I hate jumping! Geo sends.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How the US military spends its billions

Information is a weapon.

From the first time I fired a .22 rifle at camp the summer after second grade, to my first read-in and access to classified information, and then to advanced weapons training and combat deployments with various NAVSOF elements, there was never a doubt that I was being entrusted with weapons that, when used improperly or negligently, could severely wound or kill the innocent.

Like handling a M4 SOPMOD, access to classified information represents an understanding of the responsibilities that come with being entrusted with a weapon and the concept of personal accountability.

I held a Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearance for more than 26 years. My time at NSA, NAVSPECWAR units, and other programs also required Special Access Program (SAP) briefs and acknowledgments.

Some programs required counterintelligence or full-scope polygraphs. Along with this restricted access came yearly refresher training and the acknowledgment of what classified information consisted of, how to identify it, and the proper storage and handling of this information, regardless of rank. Why is the former secretary of state and a candidate for president held to a lower standard than an E-3 in military service?

While there may be a legal technicality regarding the private Clinton email server, there is no excuse, legal or moral, for not possessing and demonstrating the most important quality that comes with these privileges and responsibilities: sound judgment.

Judgment is the major quality that separates the special warfare/SPECOPs operators from conventional forces. Simply knowing when not to shoot is as important as knowing when to fire. In this capacity, not recognizing sensitive information, regardless of header markings or a staff member’s role, provides no cover for Mrs. Clinton’s disregard for and complete lack of judgment. All personnel that have access to highly classified material are taught to recognize and identify improperly marked items.

An emphasis is placed on the concept, “If in doubt, don’t send it out.” Special security officers and field security officers perform their functions with diligence and are readily available to offer their expert services. When service members demonstrate a lack of judgment (even to a much lesser extent than Hillary), they lose their clearance status and face significant punitive measures that include prison time.

The national news agencies have focused the email/classified-information scandal on the legal issues. We, as veterans, active-duty members, and most of all, US citizens, must focus on the issue of judgment.

Judgment is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.” Poor judgment by those who handle and release classified (especially TS/SCI) documents jeopardizes lives, risks the loss of human- and technology-driven intelligence sources, and makes vulnerable special operations and operators who protect our freedoms.

Those individuals, like Mrs. Clinton, must lose their access, and, as a result, forfeit their privilege to serve in positions requiring security clearances. Hillary Clinton should not be restricted from pursuing the highest office in the land due to the legal process, but should be disqualified for failing to exercise sound judgment.

SEE ALSO: Voters described presidential candidates with one word — and the results were brutal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's who has the best chance of making it to the White House

The roles of underground operations, guerrilla, sabotage and classic special operations units are groups who act in frustration to opposing forces.

In this case the bullet meets the bone in Syria as Kurdish Forces are successfully deploying unconventional warfare tactics against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Kurdish forces have developed and deployed covert guerrilla warfighters against ISIS. Such as the recently reported 45 ISIS fighters ‘die after eating poisoned Ramadan meal in Iraq’. 

Through the employment of members from the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, (Male Guerrilla Wing) or YPG and the Women’s Protection Units, (Female Guerrilla Wing) the YPJ; structurally known as the armed wings of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and Kurdish National Council (KNC).

The PYD is also affiliated with the Kurdistan’s Workers Party or PKK, a group classified as terrorists by the US, the EU and Turkey, among others.

These Kurdish forces have homegrown operational intelligence capacities and internal organization to align with the fast and loose mountain warfare stylings of the YPG/YPJ’s predecessors and primary trainers, the PKK. Using the PKK’s methodologies as a foundation along with some difficult lessons learned in the field, the YPG/YPJ has met with many unique mission challenges and have since adapted an asymmetrical warfare construct which is agreeable to their organizational model.

Leading to the creation of the Secret Resistance Units (Yekîneyên Berxwedanê Yên Veşartî) or better known to Kurdish Forces as Tabor (pronounced, Ta-boor).

Tabor was developed after the Kurds cut their teeth in battle while taking portions of the region known as Rojava in Northern Syria and Iraq. There, Kurdish forces seized the ISIS-controlled town Tell Hamis in 2014; only to lose it a few weeks later. Kurdish forces at the time of the attack were using one and two man, lightly trained scout patrols for the bulk of their intelligence gathering needs.

Yet, that all swiftly changed when Kurdish forces discovered that reliance on simple observations of the enemy positions was not enough.

A Regional Commander for the YPJ later explained that the villagers turned on them once they had deployed their rear-guard after the main element advanced. It was then that the Kurds discovered too late that the town was occupied by ISIS supporters and that ISIS fighters had embedded themselves and taken up positions from within the village.

This incident caused a full rout of the YPG/YPJ advance and inflicted heavy Kurdish casualties. This loss enacted the need for the development of Tabor.

An Arab YPG Combat Outpost Commander was a scout in the days of this mistake and was one of the first Tabors.  He also provided an early example for a Tabor success; a sabotage party of two Tabor deployed from Kurdish controlled Rojava, and crossed over to the ISIS held Syria.

They were provided with ISIS uniforms and forged documents and were able to infiltrate an ISIS stronghold. Once inside they spent several days undercover; playing along and collecting intelligence. When they had gathered what was needed, the pair poisoned the food and water supplies, leaving for dead anyone who could identify them or commit anymore acts of evil.

Throughout the following month espionage and sabotage continued, now in conjunction with strikes. These strikes were executed by follow on Kurdish forces after a Tabor had passed along key strategic findings or rendered the camp neutralized. Currently these guerrilla methods work well-enough for their on-going evolution allowing the YPG/YPJ to expand and multiply the Tabor, effectively estimating the long term fight that they face against a deceptive and relentless enemy.

Tabor is one of many units operating in the political sphere and growing military infrastructure of the YPG/YPJ which is all originally linked to the PYD, the most powerful Kurdish political party in Syria. Developments and task organization has allowed the YPG/YPJ to now be seen as the armed force of all of Syrian Kurdistan. The YPG/YPJ was initially developed by the PYD and the KNC. The merger of these organizations created what is known as the Kurdish Supreme Committee (DBK); and the YPG and subsequent YPJ as its armed wing.

This 2012 formation came from the precursor Syrian Kurdish campaign, starting in-effect of the aftermath of the al-Qamishli clashes of 2004, an insurrection by Syrian Kurds in the city of al-Qamishli in northeast Syria. A riot instigated when a visiting Arab team raised pictures of Saddam Hussein and the home team (Kurd) waved Kurdish flag. This passive flag waving soon deteriorated into stone-throwing and full-scale city riots. This violent event paved the way for the DBK and subsequent creation of the YPG/YPJ, which was not officially active until the Syrian Civil War.

The YPG/YPJ describes itself as “a national legitimate, multi-ethnic and multi-nationality military institution of sons and daughters of the components of the region, the Kurds, Arabs, Syrians, Assyrians, Turkoman and Armenians, who adopt the right of legitimate self-defense in accordance with international laws.”

An effective mission statement that incorporated active early planning propaganda and a call-to-action that attracted many to the fight in the Kurdish region. Many who were subsequently proven as increasingly successful against ISIS on the battlefield by late 2013. Taking action with only the militia force composition available at that time, they were effective in a direct fight using World War I style tactics, but at a complete loss on how to conduct modern warfare let alone successful covert unconventional guerrilla warfare against ISIS.

From the turmoil of the early days, Tabor operations are now being effectively conducted under the YPG flag, but not by its ethnic Kurdish members.

It is also important to note that despite some of the more fantastic tales being spun by Westerns who have spent some time with the YPG,they most certainly are not involved in any asymmetrical reconnaissance and sabotage operations.

In fact the operational norm for Tabor to be effective in its mission is for it to be comprised entirely of Arab nationals. That’s right, despite many preconceived notions, there are many brave and committed Arabs fighting against ISIS with the YPG and other Kurdish movements.

Arab members are able to conduct these operations as they are conducted behind ISIS lines. These men and women are able to operate within the native socio-cultural norms, speak native dialects and maintain the appearance and dialogue needed to successfully accomplish their mission in a grotesquely violent and hostile area of operations. Using this common-sense approach the YPG/YPJ has developed symptomatic steps based on a discernible response model, using the social and political discontents within its ranks.

Secret Resistance Units (Yekîneyên Berxwedanê Yên Veşartî)

1. The Resistance Units arise from the Provincial and Regional Command (Ayalat). Fully alert about the situation, each cadre creates one or two unit(s) along with him/herself in order to stand against the enemy attacks.
2. Members of the Resistance Units are carefully chosen, they are the most trusted Combatants.
3. Each cadre passes its unit(s) through special training courses.
4. These units are to be secret and unknown, even the members do not know about each other.
5. Members of these units are highly disciplined and active.
6. Under any circumstances they protect their ability to fight. 

The active members of Tabor are those whom presumably are locally connected against ISIS and feel a deep sense of frustration; which is at the root of the movement. Tabor members use their cultural know how in conjunction with a disenfranchised local population who are often not involved in the guerrilla and sabotage activities.

Then by leveraging the underground widespread popular sympathy for the Kurds, dissent against ISIS, and their own Arab backgrounds the Tabor units are able to conduct the movements which are necessary for sustained operations.

All the while ISIS is in a sense is conducting its own secret policing measures that appear to be further motivating dissent within ISIS occupied regions and is an important factor which is contributing in the drive of individuals to participate actively and discreetly, as they aspire for security or revenge against ISIS.

Kurdish forces understand this and have been able to adapt to the segmentation variables of an extremely diverse cultural and geographical region to limit and influence these factors as concepts core to Kurdish methods of operation.

By mixing the political and military background of their forces to influence the ideal choice of organizational and operational alternatives the YPG/YPJ has employed a planned and capable guerrilla force. Thus the deployment of Arabs sympathetic to Kurdish the Kurdish cause who become specialists in unconventional warfighter roles behind ISIS lines.

As the fight against ISIS drags on and groups like the YPG/YPJ expand and develops their internal units such as Tabor it becomes fallible to the organizational concerns and internal politics such as funding issues, target selection, matching political goals, assessing and overseeing the operational planning, logistics, reconnaissance and post operational assessment.

There is also a sharp line at every action tempering the leadership to adhere to Party aligned group decision making dynamics, and every action potentially vulnerable to opposing force intelligence. The YPG/YPJ hard left leaning political-sphere often countermands most large-scale success. It is only through ISIS’s alarming gains in Iraq, especially the capture of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which has had a unifying effect on the YPG/YPJ thus strengthening Kurdish cross-border and cross-cultural ties [the enemy of my enemy, is my friend].

A distinction between the politics and campaign actions of Tabor can also be made as to their method used to commit espionage and sabotage against ISIS. Tabor employs any and all of the two basic types of weapons: conventional, and biological. Asides from a standard small arms package, Tabor employs conventional munitions which include but are not limited to incendiary methods, contaminating fuel supplies, poisoning ISIS food and water supplies, targeting monetary infrastructure and the deployment of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and landmines.

Tabor using these methods actively while passively collecting intelligence as a clandestine activity with the capability to destroy or render inoperative ISIS combat equipment, logistics, facilities, utilities and resources, used to support the ISIS regime. Activities which align with intent of Tabor to conceal their methods while rendering ISIS capabilities and personnel inoperable; and avoiding detection by the ISIS forces and sympathizers. Tabor has always supported the main effort by conducting overt advanced ambushes, coordinating attacking units and using ordnance to destroy bridges and other infrastructure.

Regardless, the application of Tabor unconventional warfare must be morally rationalized; control must be balanced against long-term security.

Kurdish, YPG/YPJ and Tabor plans and operations staff must make considerations on the weapons deployed and the judgement of tactics to formulate viable strategies which are not going to cultivate more bad blood in a region already overflowing with it. Tabor must plan for mission success, meaning this fight carries with it not only the winds of change but a change not in need of further destabilization and violence.  

The development and deployment of Tabor as a specialized fighting force of Arabs with the Kurds is a demonstrative action and unlikely key to success in the pursuit or combating ISIS and long-term, cross-cultural regional cooperation.

SEE ALSO: Iran is going on a massive military shopping spree in Russia

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China has been upgrading its military and is now stronger than ever

Ever thought about how you would obtain water in an emergency situation if your reserves ran dry? What if the city water your house is connected to gets contaminated?

Maybe you’re just looking for something fun outdoors that the whole family can enjoy. Searching for a natural water spring may be that ticket for you. There are natural water springs in more places than you think.

Typically with the natural springs there is no need to filter the water, but to be safe it’s recommended – I personally have never had any issues with drinking it straight from the spring. One of the activities my family like to do is go on a hike to the local natural spring and collect spring water.

Not only is it refreshing to get outside and live a little, but it makes it that much more fun when you’re searching for something. Think of it as a fun low key adventure that is family friendly.

Typically when we go to our local water spring we will bring several 1 gallon water jugs and a larger 5 gallon jug. It does take several trips back and forth to the car, but its worth it. Once we get home we transfer the water we collected from the spring into a water container with a faucet built into it. Now we’re ready to dispense the water and enjoy the health benefits.

Collecting water directly from the spring

So how did I find out about my local natural water spring? There is a website – www.findaspring.com– that allows you to search your local area for them. When you find a natural spring close by you can either bust out the trusty compass and map or plug in the latitude and longitude into your GPS and off you go.

Not only can you locate a natural spring by using this website, but you can also report any new springs that you find so that others can enjoy what nature has to offer. This is very similar to geocaching except your searching for a natural water source. My girls love it when we do this. They each get their water bottle and a water jug and off we go on the trail in search of the natural water spring.

• Spring water is a cleaner and healthier source of water; better than what you would buy at the store or drink from the tap. It also contains a level of minerals that is beneficial to health for the human body. Mineral-rich water will usually have a neutral or slightly alkaline pH. Drinking alkaline water will help to neutralize acidity in the body and can reduce the amount of free radical damage. It will also help to keep bones and teeth strong and dense.
• Finding a natural spring allows you to have a sustainable source of water in times of need.
• It gets yourself and your family out of the house and away from the TV in order to enjoy what nature has to offer.

Combine this with searching for that perfect camping spot on Hipcamp.com and you’ll have one heck of a fun family adventure.

From the website: “FindaSpring.com is a community and user created database of natural springs around the world. If you know of a spring that is not on the map or in our database, please click on Submit a Spring and send us as much information as you can.  Now is the time to reclaim our water!”

Scott Witner is a former Marine Infantryman. Served with 2ndBn/8th Marines and was later attached to the 24th MEU(SOC) during a deployment to the Mediterranean. He has received training in Desert Warfare at 29 Palms, Mountain Warfare/Survival School at the MWTC in Bridgeport California, Korean Mountain Warfare school in Pohang Korea, and Jungle Warfare in Okinawa Japan. Scott has also cross trained with the Korean ROK Marines, French Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment, and the British Royal Marines. Follow Scott on Tumblr @ http://sheepdogconcepts.tumblr.com/

SEE ALSO: The world is running out of water

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What the West Coast will look like under 25 feet of water

SEE ALSO: Hand-to-hand combat is as old as time — here's how it evolved

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This $200 million plane is called the 'most lethal fighter aircraft in the world'

Author’s note: This is our third and final interview with CSM Mike Hall, and I hope our readers really appreciate the look into an often misunderstood tiny percentage of the US military.

If you have ever served in a special operations unit, you know how difficult and often frustrating it can be to try to explain to people what you did in the military; hopefully this sheds some light on that experience.

One of the strengths of special operations units is the ability to see what is needed and make a change, or react to a need quickly.

One such change seemed to be the move to RASP from RIP; RASP seems to be not just a selection program, but a training program.

What are your thoughts on the change, and how did it happen?

I think that was all internal to the Regiment and it was what they felt they needed to do. The selection processes for all the SOF units are getting small changes all the time, and those changes are based on what the units feel they need. USASOC is the approving authority within the SOF world, and the Department of the Army let us handle much of that.

The specifics of it, though, are left up to the various internal commands. USASOC has to approve things like how the various SOF units get rid of soldiers, what the qualifications are to get into a SOF unit, and things like that.

Do you agree that as far as getting prepared for Regiment, RASP at least prepares a young Ranger to be more useful, sooner?

The one thing that I really remember after graduating RIP was that, although I felt like I was capable of handling the physical side of the Regiment, being useful on missions other than just carrying stuff was something that took time. There were so many different missions that, until you cycled through all them, you often felt like you were drinking through a fire hose.

Absolutely. I think that all the special operations units realized this. As the War on Terror continued without end and units progressed into the wartime model of deploy and recover, the pre-deployment training cycle commanders realized the peacetime model was not sufficient for what was being asked of their units. There was no longer a grace period where you had a chance to get soldiers in special operations units up to speed.

I think everyone realized they had to change their model in order to get a more finished product sooner. This allowed commanders to have more trained assets at their disposal. Soldiers had to show up to their units knowing the basics and fundamentals. I am sure that a fair amount of training and leadership also fell on the first-line leaders as well, because at the end of the day, that squad leader and team leader had to be able to count on the new soldier to accomplish the mission.

What are some of the challenges senior leaders face when trying to implement change, especially in an organization like the Army that has so many layers of bureaucracy?

One thing I learned—actually learned it from now-retired General Yellen—if you want to change things, it is not so much the bureaucracy as it is about resources. If you can convince people or show them where the resources will come from, then you don’t get as much pushback.

Resources are really one of the main things you get pushback on. Answering the question of where the resources will come from is really the key to success; even if everyone agrees the change or idea is positive, the resources still need to come from somewhere. So you can get everyone in a room to say, “Let’s do this,” but then you have to go and get other people to give up something. That is always much harder. Resources are what I think a bureaucracy is in a lot of ways.

I know you didn’t have a bunch of time on the conventional side, but did you find that getting things done was easier on the special operations side of the house rather than the conventional side?

It was easier on the USASOC side of the house, maybe because we had more available resources and definitely less layers. Then again, in USASOC the organizations are very different and to justify taking resources from one organization to give to another is tough because there is not a lot of overlap. Once the wars started, things changed a little. If you looked at the Army on Sept. 12, 2001 versus Sept. 11, 2001 the Army did not look any different and at first. The mindset was, “Well, the wars will be over soon, so let’s not change too much.”

Not to be sarcastic, but you also had the “smart people” way up the chain saying we want to do this, but is it really sustainable? Sustaining things may be the most important factor because if you start a program or concept and then you just stop it, you really burn a lot of resources and don’t get the end state you wanted, or in many cases, the one the military needed. It is a balancing act managing resources, money, and all the things that go into making solid and positive change.

How did you end up being chosen for the JSOC CSM position?

I am not really sure. I got a phone call and I think it was Thanksgiving weekend.

General Brown called me and said, “I want you to come up and be the JSOC CSM.”

My answer was something along the lines of, “Oh, okay.”

I remember back then there was still not a formal way of putting senior NCOs into a position; a lot of times it was what the commander wanted.

I think there was an command/officer formal board, but nothing really for the NCOs.

You had been the regimental CSM for a while at that point? Was that a typical amount of time?

Yeah, for four years. It was really up to the regimental commander. USASOC had some say in it as well; they could say, “We want a guy with these qualifications,” but it really boiled down to the commander.

You went from JSOC CSM to USASOC CSM?

Yeah, I think I was only the JSOC CSM for about two years or so. I would have to sit down and look at a calendar. I think originally, a guy named Mike Bishop was scheduled to be the CSM and I think he told General Brown that he had some physical things going on. He told General Brown that he was really honored, but if he couldn’t do the things that were physically required, he wouldn’t take the job, which is really the mark of a good NCO.

So General Brown called me while I was deployed and said, “I want you to be the USASOC CSM.” My initial answer was, “Well, that sounds good. When I get back from this deployment we can talk about that.” Of course, when the general calls you, it’s not really a request. He told me there was a plane waiting for me, so I said, “Yes, sir,” and got on the plane. I am pretty sure that General Brown and General Daley had already talked since they had worked together at TF 160, and I think there were a lot of things going on with the wars and personnel issues.

So no matter how high up you get, you still have a boss, and if he asks for something the answer is usually a yes?

Yep, I mean I could have played hardball or tried to fight it, but if they really felt I was needed at USASOC then that was where I knew I should be. General Brown had been in JSOC and knew what was going on there, and he was in USASOC so he obviously knew what was needed there. At the end of the day you go where you are needed.

Were there any big differences in being the senior leader in a unit like JSOC versus USASOC?

There is. It’s really a matter of focus. USASOC is a resource provider to the Army or the combatant commanders, and JSOC deploys people and does not have a lot of the administrative hurdles that USASOC does. When I was at USASOC, I really tried to look at our mission from the perspective of the units we supported, and I think that helped a lot. There are so many things going on and they move quickly—especially in a war—so you need to have the ability to think about what those other commands need. Helping them was really the best way to look at our mission in USASOC.

Did your interest in history have an impact on your leadership style or how you managed training?

I think it did. Coming up from the Rangers, I had a very good perspective on what other organizations’ strengths and weaknesses were because we had worked with most of the other organizations in SOF. Being in the Rangers for so many years and seeing how they and the other organizations had changed over the years was a big help. As an example, if someone came to you with an idea for changing something, you could recall how it worked out if it had been tried out in the past and maybe offer guidance on how it could be done in order for it to work out better this time.

You were in JSOC at the start of the war, and then went onto USASOC. Any significant changes that you were a part of or proud of during your time as the senior NCO leader of these organizations?

A couple things. All the organizations are really good at what they do; they have their own cultures and tribalism. What I tried to do was reinforce the notion that there were ways we could benefit each other. I really wanted transparency and openness; we might never understand the challenges of each unit or organization, but it is easier on all of us if we shared things that were working or not working.

I think we did a pretty good job of that. We would share TTPs, we would exchange manuals, we started actual personnel exchanges, looked at each other’s policies and procedures, and we opened up our selection and assessment processes to see how we were getting the kind of final product we each wanted.

Each SOF unit had a goal to get the right kind of person that fit what they were doing; it was not always about getting the most qualified person, but the right person for their organization. I really wanted to open up communications and kind of take away that fear of, “Well, if we show you what we are doing, then we might lose resources.” We improved a lot on that, which I was proud of.

Another thing we started or continued (I really think it was started by Mel Wick) was a NCO command billet or slotting process.

You know, the officers had a selection process for command and probably a more defined career progression path, and we tried to bring some of that to the NCO side of the house. What would happen previously was if the commander wanted someone, then they pretty much asked for and got them. One of the problems with that is if you have a commander and SGM that have grown up together and think alike as the command team, then it can be really hard for the organization to get better—which is especially true in special operations since the NCO is such a key figure in SOF.

So if you think about it, when you have the two top dogs who think alike, making change can be really hard, and change is almost always a good thing. One of the keys that has not just made special operations but the Army as a whole so good is our ability to change.

So we tried to take the “good ole boy network” out of things and really get the right NCO in the right situation. The funny thing was, we truly did not have the authority to do that since you as the NCO get your authority from the commander. We went to the commanders and laid out where we thought senior NCOs would best fit and kind of gave guidance. 

Sometimes they would disagree and we would have to explain why we thought what we thought was best for the organization. Now merit and performance also played a part in this as well, but a lot of times you assigned people into these senior positions based on potential. You were sometimes looking ahead to what other positions someone would be good for and making decisions based on that, and at the end of the day your goal was to improve organizations.

I think the other big thing we really made a strong push on was retention, because at the end of the day, especially in JSOC, it is all about retention. If you think about what value a 10-year SOF soldier brings to an organization, it is really immeasurable. In JSOC, we started a lot of initiatives to try to keep the people we wanted in our organization. It was about money and bonuses, but there are a ton of other things that go into that. We did a ton of work with the Department of the Army on special pays and promotion systems.

One of the things I am most proud of is helping the Army understand that, in a lot of cases our guys were different, and some of the standard Army models didn’t work for us based on what our guys did and our structure. The more SGMs you have, the more MSGs you have and so on down the line. We knew that guys didn’t join the Army thinking that they wanted to be SGMs one day, but when you get further into your career, guys start looking at that. So we were able to upgrade a lot of the ranks and positions. While I am sure no one will get excited about UMRs, at the end of the day you have to have slots in order to get promoted and move up the chain.

I think those are a few of the things I am pretty proud of and had positive long-term effects. You know I was lucky, too, because Parry Baer and George Bequer who followed me did a great job of continuing those programs, improving upon them and making them sustainable.

How did the contracting work opportunities, especially at the height of the war, affect special operations retention?

A lot of that was talked about and you heard different things, but most guys didn’t leave just for the money—there were a lot of other factors. Most guys in special operations are pretty smart and they could look at the whole plan or package and realize that, yeah, the money was good, but there was a lot more to it. Quite frankly, sometimes it boiled down to a guy realizing that he was not going to the next level and maybe it was time for him to go for a number of other reasons, which had nothing to do with the job.

There were some really good people that we wished we retained, but overall I think we did a pretty good job of keeping the folks we wanted to. You can look at me: Why did I retire? Well I had done everything I wanted to do and I wanted to try something different. I think most special ops guys are like that. For most guys in SOF, it is about job satisfaction, and we came up with some pretty good incentives. Was it a million dollars? No, but sometimes it is just the act and a matter of, “Hey I got you what we could because we really want to keep you.”

Going back to the NCOES part of our discussion: So now there is a SOCOM portion of the SGM Academy?

Yeah. I think it was CSM Tom Smith, a Special Forces NCO, who really made the push for that and it is up and running now. I hear really great things about it. They have some common-core stuff and then a bunch of special operations-specific stuff.

The Asymmetrical Warfare Group. Did you have any input in spinning that up or was that just an outgrowth of the wars?

No not really. Not formally. I knew the guys that were setting it up. I knew they wanted SF and Ranger guys to go to that. I knew what the slots they were looking at setting up. There were some cuts and aces because AWG was not going to be under USASOC, and for a variety of reasons.

I did get involved initially because I understood USASOC and the Army, and I knew the guys that were setting it up. If you think that you need this MOS or this skill set, then write your plan this way. Again, it goes back to resources. You can have the greatest plan, but you still need to come up with the resources to implement the plan.

So I was involved informally with some of the stuff they were doing, kind of along the lines of, “If you ask for something this way, you are not going to get it, so ask for it this way.” So I guess I helped out mainly with my experience in how you staffed something and made a plan that would work in the confines of the Army system. I think that was one of General Cody’s initiatives, and I had mixed opinions on it.

I do think it has worked out pretty well, though. I guess the major piece of advice I may have given was, again going back to USASOC and the various selection programs, “You can get the right rank and MOS, but will you get the right kind of guys? You are going to get your slots and fill your ranks, but are you going to get the guys you want?” I guess that is probably what I tried to help the most with.

Tell us a little about Gallant Few—how the organization started and what the main focus is.

Karl Monger, who spent some time in 1st Ranger Battalion, really led that. It started out as helping Rangers, finding jobs, mental health, and those kinds of things. Now they are into so many things, all the services and Gallant Few really do some amazing things and continue to expand. Karl really has done an amazing job with that whole thing, and if you need help, Karl just finds a way to really step in and help out.

That is one thing I have really noticed over the last 5-7 years or so is that the Rangers have really gotten out there with various organizations to help out other Rangers.

The Rangers were originally formed for combat. After that they were disbanded, and then they were formed again for more combat. Historically, you served in the Rangers and then you were gone and no one knew where you were. The Marines kind of cornered the market on identity: A Marine is a Marine is a Marine. You could walk into an interview in Butte, Montana, and if the CEO was a Marine for two years and you were a Marine for two years, then you had a job. Special Forces kind of did that as well because they were very distinctive and they kept up with each other, but the Rangers never really got into that—until recently.

General Grange had something to do with that. To your point, let’s pull all these organizations together. If we pull all these organizations together instead of working against each other, then we can be much more powerful.

What advice would you give a young SSG/SFC that came into the Army during a time of fairly heavy combat rotations, but now will be in an Army much like the 1990s Army where budget cuts, draw-downs, and similar issues will be a real hurdle to readiness?

You know job satisfaction really comes from leadership and making life better for the soldiers or Rangers under your care. The guys that come in with that attitude and want to make a difference? They will do fine. You have to love what you do and decide where you want to have an impact as a leader. One thing about coming into the Rangers is you have a chance to really have an impact. You have to love being a Ranger and doing the things the Rangers do.

Do you ever think back to the impact you might have had on the NCOs within the various units you lead? I stay in touch with a number of guys from 1/75, and there are a lot of guys that went on to really successful military careers or did their time, left the Regiment, and went onto really successful civilian positions.

Yeah I do look at it like I was just doing my job, but I do take great pride in the people I touched and how successful they were in the military. Just as importantly, and absolutely as significant to me, are the guys that did their time as a CPL, buck SGT, or rifleman, and are now very successful in a number of career fields. There is one guy, Rick Welch, who was an RTO in A company—really smart guy—and now he is a partner in one of the largest law firms in Los Angeles.

I think that a lot of guys are like that: They go on to become successful in whatever it is they decide to do. It is just part of that Ranger culture. You know if you work hard, don’t care about yourself, and try and make an organization better, then you will be successful in whatever you do. I think that is part of the Ranger magic; it is not about you at all, but about making the organization better. It is not about being right, but making it right. That kind of attitude in the civilian world can really really make you successful.

Well that really exhausts my 30 or so questions. Is there anything you would like to add or mention that we didn’t cover?

I am sure there are a million things, but you really had some good questions and brought up some good things. I appreciate it.

You helped a ton, too. Especially when you asked me if I wanted to change any of my answers. It really helped me dig a little deeper and do some better research. I am really appreciative of all our time and I hope that our readers—both civilian and military—gain some insight into a very small part of armed forces.

SEE ALSO: Dick Cheney is trying to fool the public again

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China is ramping up its military with a show of force in and outside the country

A shrill telephone ring announced to me that the world had changed.

I answered the telephone and my dad told me to turn on the TV. I did, and I watched the second plane hit shortly thereafter. I then saw the first tower fall. Then the second.

Deep, seething rage welled up inside me. We knew exactly what it was, from the start. There was not a doubt that it was a terrorist attack. I walked outside my room and yelled like an animal. I was gut-punched and shell-shocked.

Like everyone else, I kept watching. All morning. Training was suspended. I forced myself to the gym, and watched on the televisions in front of the treadmills. We drove back to Virginia Beach later that day.

Both towers had fallen, and we all knew that so many first responders had been inside, trying to help. At the time, I could not really comprehend the death toll of the firemen and police that day, although I felt the sadness for them, like everyone else. I could not fully grasp it, though. I understand that loss better now, having joined the brotherhood of firefighters. FDNY had its heart ripped out that day.

I would find out later, from employees who were working at the CIA on 9/11, that the Agency thought that one of the planes was coming for it that morning. The building was evacuated, except for some key personnel. They braced for the worst. It never came to them, directly, although that would not stop the Agency from leading the hunt for years afterward to bring vengeance to those responsible for the attacks. It would become an obsession for many at the CIA, driving them every day.

My friend’s wife saw the plane hit the Pentagon from the adjacent highway. Everyone has a story about that day. We all know where we were. We all remember how we felt. We were all born into fire, dust, and ash on that Tuesday. We live in it, still, and every year, we remember. We replay it. That pit in our stomach forms again, and the horror creeps back in, a little bit.

For many of us, born from the early 1970s to the late 1980s, 9/11 was the start of our adult lives. It would frame the next 15 years, shaping it more than any other single external factor. There is a whole generation of us for which this day will always mean something momentous, terrible, and unifying.

We were all of us—Americans—effected by it, profoundly. We will never forget.

SEE ALSO: 7 incredible stories of heroism on 9/11

Join the conversation about this story »