Talk:United States Air Force Security Forces/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Security force is not infantry

It does not say it in the job description, any manuals any guide, mtor, or anywhere on official u.s. airforce training. Even the official page doesnt say it https://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/security-forces Mrkoww (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Please address the sources in the article which state that it is. Clearly not one, but two reliable academic sources from Air War College say it is. We do not focus on what is not said, but rather what is said in sourced material. Garuda28 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Per the official manual for security force Specialty Description. Leads, manages, supervises, and performs Security Force (SF) activities in direct support of two- thirds of the United States Nuclear Enterprise; weapon system and physical security; law and order; military working dog; combat arms and integrated defense operations. Related DoD Occupational Subgroup: 107000. 1. Duties and Responsibilities 1.1. Leads, manages, supervises, and performs force protection duties employing up to the use of deadly force to protect personnel and resources. Protects nuclear and conventional weapons systems and other critical resources. Performs air base defense functions contributing to the force protection mission. Defends personnel, equipment, and resources from hostile forces throughout the base security zone of military installations. Operates in various field environments, performs mounted and dismounted individual and team patrol movements, tactical drills, battle procedures, convoys, military operations other than war, antiterrorism duties, and other special duties. Operates communications equipment, vehicles, intrusion detection equipment, individual and crew-served weapons, and other special purpose equipment. Applies emergency medical care and life saving procedures as first responders to accident and disaster scenes. 1.2. Provides armed response and controls entry to installations and protection level resources. Detects and reports presence of unauthorized personnel and activities and implements security reporting and alerting system. Enforces standards of conduct, discipline, and adherence to laws and directives. Directs vehicle and pedestrian traffic; investigates motor vehicle accidents, minor crimes, and incidents; and operates speed measuring, drug and alcohol, and breath test devices. Secures crime and incident scenes; apprehends and detains suspects; searches persons and property; and collects, seizes, and preserves evidence. Conducts interviews of witnesses and suspects, obtains statements and testifies in official judicial proceedings. Responds to disaster and relief operations and participates in contingencies. 1.3. Develops plans, policies, procedures, and detailed instructions to implement SF programs. Plans, organizes, and schedules SF activities and provides oversight, guidance, and assistance to commanders with the application of physical security and force protection in support of priority resources. Operates pass and registration activities and supervises and trains SF Augmentees. Employs and utilizes the Incident Command System construct during emergency planning, response recovery operations. Inspects and evaluates effectiveness of SF personnel and activities. 1.4. Provides guidance on employment and utilization of military working dog teams. Ensures proficiency training and certification standards are maintained. Employs military working dogs to support worldwide Security Forces operations and executive agency requirements to include nuclear, Presidential support, federal law enforcement and national strategic programs. Ensures health and welfare of military working dogs. Trains handlers and military working dogs on all aspects of military working dog training. Maintains dog training and usage records and is responsible for storage, handling, and security of drug and explosive training aids. 1.5. Leads, manages, supervises, and implements ground weapons training programs. Controls and safeguards arms, ammunition, and equipment and instructs ground weapons qualification training. Provides guidance on weapons placement to security forces and ground defense force commanders. Inspects ground weapons and replaces unserviceable parts and analyzes malfunctions by inspection and serviceability testing. Uses precision gauges, testing instruments, and special tools to adjust parts and operating mechanisms. Function-fires weapons for accuracy and serviceability. Controls and operates firing ranges and associated facilities to include supervising construction and rehabilitation. 2. Skill and Career Progression. It is essential that everyone involved in training contribute to an effective training program. The guidance provided in this part of the CFETP will ensure individuals receive training at the appropriate points in their

WORK PROCESS Air Force Enlisted Job Descriptions & Qualifications 3P0X1 - SECURITY FORCES (Police Officer) O*NET/SOC CODE: 3-3051.01 RAIS CODE: 0437 Specialty Summary Leads, manages, supervises, and performs security force (SF) activities, including installation, weapon system, and resource security; antiterrorism; law enforcement and investigations; military working dog function; air base defense; armament and equipment; training; pass and registration; information security; and combat arms. Related DoD Occupational Subgroup: 070. Duties and Responsibilities: -Leads, manages, supervises, and performs force protection duties, including use of deadly force to protect personnel and resources. Protects nuclear and conventional weapons systems and other resources. Performs air base defense functions contributing to the force protection mission. Controls and secures terrain inside and outside military installations. Defends personnel, equipment, and resources from hostile forces. Operates in various field environments, performs individual, and team patrol movements, both mounted and dismounted, tactical drills, battle procedures, convoys, military operations other than war, antiterrorism duties, and other special duties. Operates communications equipment, vehicles, intrusion detection equipment, crew-served weapons, and other special purpose equipment. Applies self-aid buddy care, life saving procedures, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, as first responder to accident and disaster scenes. -Provides armed response and controls entry. Detects and reports presence of unauthorized personnel and activities. Implements security reporting and alerting system. Enforces standards of conduct, discipline, and adherence to laws and directives. Directs vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Investigates motor vehicle accidents, minor crimes, and incidents. Operates speed measuring, drug and alcohol, and breath test devices. Apprehends and detains suspects. Searches persons and property. Secures crime and incident scenes. Collects, seizes, and preserves evidence. Conducts interviews of witnesses and suspects. Obtains statements and testifies in official judicial proceedings. Responds to disaster and relief operations. Participates in contingencies. -Develops plans, policies, procedures, and detailed instructions to implement SF programs. Plans, organizes, and schedules SF activities. Provides oversight, guidance, and assistance to commanders with the application of information, personnel, and industrial security programs. Operates pass and registration activities. Supervises and trains SF augmentees. Provides on-scene supervision for security forces. Inspects and evaluates effectiveness of SF personnel and activities. Analyzes reports and statistics. -Provides guidance on employment and utilization of military working dog teams. Ensures proficiency training and certification standards are maintained. Employs military working dogs to support worldwide security force operations and executive agency requirements. Ensures health and welfare of military working dogs. Trains handlers and military working dogs on all aspects of military working dog training. Acts as an intruder in dog bite and hold training. Reports and reacts to dog alerts. - Maintains dog training and usage records. Responsible for storage, handling No discussion of air force infantry

Major general Van Harl states they aren't infantry Mrkoww (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

furthermore justin secrests book does not provide that they are in fact a infantry force it is a mere quote from another book. That is not a fact and does not provide any details of how there is current infantry in the airforce Mrkoww (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost none of this addresses the sources from Air War Collage that says that they are with one exception, in which Major Van Harl self published an opinion piece which is WP:RSSELF and not reliable. Let’s address the sources that say that they are, before bringing up sources that do not take a position at all. Garuda28 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Next Jack stines article literally says " 31 This comparison reflects an actual event as explained by Lt Col Glen Christensen. In January 2005, a team of Air

Force Security Forces replaced a unit from the 1st Infantry Division executing defense of an airbase in Iraq"

That does not prove that they are infantry as base defense on a airbase is a security force function not army infantry. Just because you do one basic function does not make you infantry else transportation, engineers and other jobs would be considered infantry. Please read your sources before using them.Mrkoww (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Outside input

Wow, those are some walls of text. Anyway, you two might consider getting further input. Perhaps some of the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force would be able to assist? El_C 05:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful, especially since an analysis of sources will be key. I intend to wait till tomorrow at least, but the more editors the merrier. Garuda28 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit out my depths when it comes to military nomenclature (unless it's about the Israeli military), but I'm sure we have more than a few editors well versed in this. I would suggest everyone arm themselves with patience. Things don't happen instantly on Wikipedia — rather, they emerge gradually, through discussion attributed to reliable sources. El_C 06:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Section break1

garuda28 did you read your sources? They do not even give more than 1 statement about infantry in the airforce out of the several hundred pages. I'm also curious how your citation which comes from a citation of a quote is worthy but the generals statement who is a sme is not.

Mrkoww (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

---

I concur with Mrkoww. This is terribly sourced. Officially the Air Force has no infantry. Although they may adopt some infantry like tactics and training, doctrinally, they are a very different organization. They have far lower physical standards, and an entirely different mission. Ongoing in the military there have been numerous occasions where members of other types of units have verbally compared themselves to the infantry. This is because there is some prestige associate with having been in the infantry and especially having engaged an enemy in ground combat while in the infantry. Those comparison practically amount to acts of stolen valor, which is why it’s extremely important that specific military occupations are described accurately.

---

I also agree with the above remarks. To claim "Security Force" is infanty based on those sources is absurd. These are cherry picked sources that merely MENTION "airforce infantry" but provides not doctrine or substantial proof. For instance in the source by Jack L. Sine II, Lt Col, USAF - Discovering Air Force Identity Airpowers and Innovators, it is merely an opinion piece written for the Air War College and Air University and not actual doctrine. There are 4 total times "Infantry" is found, 1 a quote, 2 "For example, an Army infantry unit defends an airbase with a different paradigm than that of an Air Force Security Forces unit. ", 3 as stated above "Security Forces Airmen, the Air Force's infantry, operate with an air-mindedness that incorporates the implications of airpower". That provides no substantial basis that the Air Force has infantry nor relate to the infantry. This article then cites "This comparison reflects an actual event as explained by Lt Col Glen Christensen. In January 2005, a team of Air Force Security Forces replaced a unit from the 1st Infantry Division executing defense of an airbase in Iraq. Not longer after, a duty officer from the Tanker and Airlift Control Center (TACC) at Scott Air Force Base..." Using this theory anyone who guarded a base in Iraq and Afghanistan are Infantry. Furthermore using this logic Transportation, Logistics, Admin, Cooks, and so forth would be considered infantry as well. Cavalry is the closest to Infantry and they are not even infantry .

Next using Gardu28's next source is a paper submitted for a Master Degree Study and is not doctrine or a source that would be used to determine if SecFor was Infantry. In this next one Infantry is mentioned 3 times, the first 2 being a quote from another book. The 3rd mention is also a quote from a book by James Lee Conrad and Jerry Bullock. These again are just quotes and not facts, doctrine or any proof. These poorly cited references do not in anyway shape that Airforce Security Force are Infantry. As mentioned above in any of the OFFICIAL US AIR FORCE Doctrine and Training manuals there is ZERO REFERENCES to infantry. Therefor SECFOR is NOT INFANTRY. This is like saying because Infantry does x,y and z they are "Special Forces".2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reputable sources saying they are. To further the discussion will require reliable sources saying they are not. Paragraphs, without this, will not gain anything other than confuse the points being made. Garuda28 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Where are your reputable sources? All of your sources were just proven wrong. There is more information proving your point of view wrong than there is supporting your point. Please show us where in any Official Doctrine that the USAF SecFor is Infantry besides 1 mention in 2 Articles with no Substantial information? I am not understanding how your sources are valid information when they literally say nothing but 1 mention each of "Air Force Infantry". I can go write a paper for my University now saying how Air Force SecFor is not Infantry and according to your logic that would be a "reputable source". This is silly, and I really hope an admin can step in to stop your misinformation and misleading edits. 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Even the airforce recruiters advise there is no Air Force Infantry. Which can be seen here https://i.imgur.com/jVRBmy1.png. This is the silliest argument ever and there is literally no proof it exists 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Lastly the only Official US Air Force Page to mention "Air Force Infantry" cites it is the "UNOFFICIAL NICKNAME" to TACP's not SecFor 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing that has been said so far discounts the reputableness of the sources, as they meet WO:RS. That screen grab does not, and there are other articles by public affairs that do in fact refer to security forces as infantry.http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Features/Article/666183/what-we-bring-to-the-fight/ Garuda28 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

your source again provides NO REPUTABLE INFORMATION. It's another quote by a Staff Sergeant. ""We're the infantry of the Air Force," said Staff Sgt. Karla Devia, 366th SFS unit training manager. "At any given time we provide base defense, convey operations and installation security. Capstone is a great example of what we bring to the fight." " That is not a source to prove that the SecFOR is Infantry. This is a joke, you have to be trolling. If this is the type of evidence you use to make edits, all of your editing needs to be audited. All of your sources have been nullified. We have provided more than enough evidence that the Air Force does not have a Infantry and that SecFor is not Infantry. 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your counterargument is ridiculous " To further the discussion will require reliable sources saying they are not." As stated above They have never been Infantry so how would there be Citations saying that? Like stated above that is like saying Donald Trump is a Astronaut, give us citations that he is not to be proven wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is Infantry in the Air Force not some quotes from Airmen. If quotes work I am a Veteran with 10 years service and "The Airforce does not have an Infantry and SecFor is not Infantry". There that is the same proof that you are saying we need and works. 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Section break 2

I’m afraid I am not joking, nor am I trolling. I have not seen a single argument made that “invalidates” one of the supporting sources, nor have I seen a reliable source provided that opposes the statements made in the supporting sources. Please, if you provide a reliable source that supports the point you are trying to make, then we can continue our discussion in a respectful and cordial manner - but name calling and blasting someone as a troll will not get you closer to your objective.

Your sources have already been proven wrong. I am not sure why we are even arguing. 3 of 3 of your sources are mere quotes and not actual doctrine or official information. As stated TACP's are called unofficially "Air Force Infantry", if SECFOR was "Air Force Infantry" than why does TACP's have that as their Unofficial nick name? There is no Official Air Force pages that advise that the SecFor is Infantry. As provided above none of the doctrine or manuals provided by the Airforce advise they have Infantry Duties, Responsibilities, or Jobs. THis is laughable because when you pull up "Cavalry", "Infantry", "Special Forces", "Artillery" and Engineers Field Manuals it discusses how they can be used in Infantry Roles and do Infantry type jobs. You have the burden of proof to provide us substantial and refutable data, and not cherry picked quotes out of 2 Papers written for the Air Force academy and 1 book that mentions 1 time Air Force Infantry being trained in Vietnam. This whole argument is a joke and I am astonished it is going on this far. CFETP3P0X1AB is the Offical Training Manual for SecFor and does not mention Infantry not once in the whole publication. That is enough to void and nullify this whole argument. This Manual is the OFFICIAL AIR FORCE MANUAL FOR CAREER FIELD EDUCATION on SECURITY FORCE.

No, they have not. And they are from Air War College, not the Air Force Academy - huge difference. They are reputable sources saying yes, that they are. Now to counter that reputable sources saying, no they are not must be provided. Garuda28 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This last comment doesn't even make sense? What are you even saying. They are quotations! They are not facts and they have no data to back them up. PLEASE READ YOUR SOURCES. The one literally says that they are infantry because they took command of a base from an infantry division. That is the most absurd argument I have ever seen. 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have read them. And perhaps, but the analysis is done within the context of the source and provided. Just because you may disagree, does not invalidate it. And even if it did, there are many others. Garuda28 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"There are many others", where? I can't find anything on the internet besides your 3 quotes that says SecFor is Infantry. Anyone who has been in the military knows Field Manuals and Doctrine hold the most weight. A quotation from a Colonel and a SSG do not provide any relevant or factual evidence that SecFor is Infantry but Opinions. To back up my point; when you look in FM 3-34 Engineer Operations and search Infantry there are 23 mentions about how Engineers work with and as infantry. In fact FM 3-34 states on section 1-7 as of April 2014 "1-20. Engineer company 1 (the number is notional to show the difference between the companies) is identical in the armor, infantry, and infantry (airborne) BCTs." And in section 1-32 it states "Engineers have the capability to fight as engineers or, if required, as infantry." That is REPUTABLE evidence. You have provided nothing even close to this. Mrkoww (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If Garuda28's Sources hold weight and this stands as correct and factual information, Wikipedia is useless. Using an opinion from a quotation out of a college opinion paper is not facts. This argument is a joke and I can't believe it has lasted this long. Please reference "Military Doctrine" section here on Wikipedia to learn more. . I am just mind blown that people think quotes trump an official DoD Doctrine and Field Manual as provided above. 2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not automatically differential to doctrine (and the Air Force doesn’t use field manuals). Rather it is an accumulation of sources from different avenues. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. And War College is a professional military training program, serving the masters to doctorate level. Hardly an undergraduate research paperGaruda28 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Way to nitpick my words, The air force may not use "Field Manuals" but they use an equivalent such as the one provided . They have manuals and doctrine that guide the way the forces are set up and fight. Every branch of service and every job does. We have provided that information and the office "book" or "guide" for SecFor does not talk about infantry or infantry tactics anywhere. And I understand what the War college is, but a "research" paper that quotes 2 quotations of opinions is not Facts and Doctrine. Your counter argument is silly and absurd. The 2 sources you provided do not discuss how they are infantry, the infantry tactics they use, nor does it talk about how they are similar to infantry. It provides quotations of an opinion. I'm done arguing because this is a joke. Nobody in the military believes Air Force Security Force is Infantry. There is a handful of Security Force guys who think they are infantry. As stated, every other Job in the Military that is similar to infantry and does infantry tasks advises it in their manuals and doctrine. SecFor does not. The end...2605:6001:E70D:D300:6D90:1896:6BD6:9F85 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If the Air Force has infantry how come "The Modern Warfare Institute" (mwi.usma.edu) and GlobalSecurity (http://globalsecurity.org) the 2 leading sites in reference to Military Doctrine have nothing on Air Force Infantry? Mrkoww (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There are more sources out there than just doctrine. Wikipedia is not a government publication. If sources cannot be provided, then the view (whatever it is) has no standing. Garuda28 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how the Military Works at all. You continue to say there is more sources out there yet I cannot find any and you are not providing any valuable and reliable sources. Nobody is saying Wikipedia is a Government publication. We have already proved to you how the Military works and doctrine does. You're sources of opinions hold no weight. Please find reputable sources that are not quotations and opinions that provide that the U.S. Air Force has Infantry and that the Security Force is indeed Infantry. Please do research before coming back here and commenting Mrkoww (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but sources have been provided. Sources that say that Security Forces are an integral infantry component of the Air Force. I have a very strong understanding of U.S. military doctrine, organization, and operations - but the more important part is that I have been able to provide sources to back up the statement made. I suggest you do the same. Garuda28 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

None of your sources say that. Please provide me the exact reference where any of your sources state "Security Forces are an integral infantry component of the Air Force". And being an "integral infantry component" does not mean they are "infantry" as stated above Engineers, Cavalry, and other similar jobs have "integral infantry roles" but are not infantry.

Furthermore another Official USAF Article stating "Air Force Infantry" are often what TACP's are referred to by nickname. Nothing about SECFOR. If you understood the military you would understand Infantry versus doing jobs similar to Infantry or playing a Infantry Role.

We have provided 10 references in here and you have provided nothing. The 2 sources of yours don't prove your point or back up your point. They provide no merit to this discussion. This is ridiculous. I am hoping more people with real knowledge can chime in.

Next we have "Defending Air Base in an Age of Inusrgency" by Col. Shannon Caudill states "The AF does not need its own infantry, but it could use existing manpower more effectively by creating a more capable cross-functional GCF able to fight across the spectrum of combat operations" It also states that Security Force has a Infantry ROLE but they are not Infantry. The job of the Infantry is to "CLOSE WITH and Destroy the enemy". The book says "although the Army gave SF permission to patrol outside the base perimeter at several bases, we found that these patrols were designed to show a presence versus being intelligence driven and deliberately focused on finding and eliminating the enemy." It further states "In addition to the competing priorities of dedicated ground combat forces, the central argument for Airmen to conduct light... infantry-style operations to secure airfields hinges on the theme of air-mindedness. Dr. Dale Hayden provides a broad, operationally centered definition in which air-mindedness is “the lens through which Airmen perceive warfare and view the battlespace.”" which provides they are not infantry but do infantry style operations. Lastly it states "Air Force security forces at JBB “provided the equivalent of more than one infantry company’s worth of combat power that [the commander]could use to attain specific desired effects outside the wire.”48"It says that they are equivalent but never says they are an infantry force. Cavalry and Engineers are equivalent, but are not Infantry. Mrkoww (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Apr/05/2001727307/-1/-1/0/B_0133_CAUDILL_DEFENDING_AIR_BASES.PDF

" Some organizations, including the RAF Regiment, RAAF airfield defense guards, and USAF security forces have lightly armored vehicles for QRF, patrolling, and convoy escort duties. Essentially, all of these organizations represent an infantry capability integral to the air force." (Excerpt from an Air University Research Report on Air Base Ground Defense from a Canadian perspective)

None of the sources that you are providing seem to support the claim you are trying to make. Garuda28 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 UTC)

Being INFANTRY CAPABLE is not BEING INFANTRY. THE END OF DISCUSSION. Engineers = Infantry Capable, Calvary = Infantry Capable, Armor = Infantry Capable, they are not INFANTRY. Being INFANTRY is one thing, being capable and being able to do a equivalent job does not make you infantry. Read your quotes slowly before posting them. As stated above ""The AF does not need its own infantry". From your source by James Conrad and Jerry Bullock: "The goal of Security Forces reorganization, Holmes stressed was not to build Air Force infantry battalions, but rather a force organized primarily for expeditionary combat not just base security. Holmes stressed. While he dismissed any notion of creating “an Air Force infantry,” he acknowledged that “we are trying to create a security capability that can be an integral part of air base security and fit in with an Army or coalition maneuver partner and be an effective member of that team.” 1 “"Mrkoww (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Then help me understand why there is such a large variety of sources that say they are then? Published as reputable academic sources. Garuda28 (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't help you understand because no matter how many facts are thrown in your face you don't want to understand. The Security Force was never created to be infantry, they were created to operate without infantry support." “We aren’t trying to make people into Army infantry…We are trying to give them the basic combat skills they need to survive.”" I've literally provided far more sources (including your own) that Security Forces are not Infantry and not a supplement to Infantry. They are Security Forces, cut and dry. They may have Infantry training but so does every single job in the Army and Marines. That doesn't make them Infantrymen.

So to clarify, none of these military offices who wrote these sources, and which I have pulled direct quotes from, understand either? Garuda28 (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to be as nice as I can but you lack critical thinking. Every source you have provided compares SecFor to Infantry but never states SecFor is Infantry. You can be similar to Infantry (Cavalry, Engineers, Armor, MP's, SFAB) but that does not make you "infantry". The sources you provide compare how SecFor operates similar, not as. Like I said the one source you used says they are infantry because they took over base control from a infantry division. That is asinine and makes no sense. The majority of people who do base defense for Infantry Divisions are support people. Just because you do a infantry role doesn't make yoU Infantry. In OIF Artillerymen performed Infantry roles but they were not infantry. It's not a hard concept to understand. We've provided more proof than not that SecFor was never meant to be infantry. This is a case closed discussion Mrkoww (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

”Security Forces Airmen, the Air Force’s infantry, operate with an air-mindedness that incorporates the implications of airpower” - Discovering Air Force Identity: Airpower and Innovators

”Their performance during the 1968 Tet Offensive was praised universally and transformed its image from a police and security organization to one of the Air Force’s infantry.“ - Air Force Security Forces Professionalism. Garuda28 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The same book says multiple times that they are not Infantry. Please read the whole paragraph and context with the quotes you are using. My quotes come from the same exact book. And as stated before being in an infantry role does not make you an infantryman (cite: OIF when Artillerymen, Cavalry, Armor and MP's were in Infantry Roles but were not Infantry). I am ceasing argument with you because this is going nowhere. Your sources literally say they were not created to be infantrymen. That is enough to disprove this whole discussion. Mrkoww (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Although it could be appropriate to add "sometimes known as the Air Force's infantry" or "considered by some to be the Air Force's infantry" based on Garuda28's sources, the lead sentence should say what Security Forces is based on its officially assigned mission. I believe this is an instance that fits Wikipedia's acceptable use of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The primary source for Air Force Security Forces is Air Force Instruction (AFI) 31-118. There is no mention of "infantry" in the AFI. I believe it would be improper synthesis to state as a fact that the official mission of USAFSF is infantry based on several individuals' statements when that view isn't supported by any official documents. Schazjmd (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I would be open to supporting this as a solution to the dispute at hand. Garuda28 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Garuda28, do you want to make the revision? My personal preference would be "sometimes known as...", but I'll leave it up to you. Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Schazjmd. For bringing some order to the chaos. El_C 18:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, as well for bringing some semblance of order. I've been so overwhelmed with all of this that I began to loose sight of the big picture. Let me see what magic I can work and if it works for what we need to do. Garuda28 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Made a few changes. a. In the infobox replaced in type "air force infantry" with "ground defense force", which redirects to air force infantry. Keeps all of the information while conforming to U.S. terminology. Second, replaced infantry in the first sentence with ground defense. Third, added "Due to its significant ground combat mission, Security Forces are sometimes regarded as an integral infantry component within the Air Force.", with citations after. Do you think this works?Garuda28 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Garuda28, I think that's better, thanks for doing the work! Schazjmd (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd Of course. I guess I got too much tunnel vision to see the forest from the trees. Garuda28 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Section break 3

Gadula28, those are individuals likening themselves to the infantry, bu they are not actually infantry. Not officially, nor in reality. Dirty11Bravo (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that they are, though. The source does not contradict itself. Garuda28 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

We are infantrymen. I earned my CIB in Afghanistan in 2004. A lot of service members tried to make claims likening themselves to the infantry, but even their SOP’s differed extremely. We used to have to go bail them out of fire fights because they didn’t know how to engage an enemy. The training is different, the mission is different, and the esprit de corps is different. If they’re not officially infantry, theyre not infantry.Dirty11Bravo (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

it seems you enjoy making stuff up.

“We aren’t trying to make people into Army infantry…We are trying to give them the basic combat skills they need to survive.”"

""The AF does not need its own infantry".

"The goal of Security Forces reorganization, Holmes stressed was not to build Air Force infantry battalions, but rather a force organized primarily for expeditionary combat not just base security. [12] Holmes stressed. While he dismissed any notion of creating “an Air Force infantry,” he acknowledged that “we are trying to create a security capability that can be an integral part of air base security and fit in with an Army or coalition maneuver partner and be an effective member of that team.”

All Above from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.692.5000&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"The AF does not need its own infantry, but it could use existing manpower more effectively by creating a more capable cross-functional GCF able to fight across the spectrum of combat operations"

"although the Army gave SF permission to patrol outside the base perimeter at several bases, we found that these patrols were designed to show a presence versus being intelligence driven and deliberately focused on finding and eliminating the enemy."

"Air Force security forces at JBB “provided the equivalent of more than one infantry company’s worth of combat power that [the commander]could use to attain specific desired effects outside the wire.”

It says that they are equivalent but never says they are an infantry force. Cavalry and Engineers are equivalent, but are not Infantry

I agree with the above, I am a Combat Infantrymen as well. Szpiegowac (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well ~ I guess I'll put my input in. I just got finished reading the sources for the last three hours ~ ~ (I briefly read most of this discussion on this page also) ~ 1)The only thing I have to go on (which most readers will go on also, is what the two sources in the lead state). ~ 2) The first source from ~ Lt Col, USAF, Jack L. Sine II ~, Disclaimer on page two "do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense" ~ makes this source unreliable for or against, one way or another ~ so arguing about that source is useless it should not be used in the lead ~ 3) The other one from ~ Major, USAF, Secrest Justin D ~ begins on a Department of Defense 'standard form 298' Directorate for Information Operations and reports ~ going straight to Arlington VA. (when personal get off their butt and do something once in a while). Major Secrest mentions in his report (on a US Marine Corp Command and Staff college on a USMC university campus) ~ pay attention to these two words command (like the high command) and staff (like the Chief of Staff) teaching other marines how to order other marines around ~I think the US Marines have a few infantry personal {go figure} ~ the lead needs to be re-written on a neutral point of view ~ lets go back to Major Secrest ~ another two important words USAF like the United States Air Force ~(pretty big corporation). Whenever Major Secrest signs form 298 ~ he is putting his and all the other Majors in the USAF's word on this document ~ ~ get my drift it's pretty important ~ So it is a pretty reliable source ~ I'm going to explain why Major Secrest used this word right here (page 14) {we'll get to that in a minute} with a ref number of 62 (which is where I spent most of my time reading) on a 544 page document trying to find out where the word infantry came from, I even read a couple of pages twice ~ no where in this referenced document do they call the United States Air Force Security Forces infantry (and believe me, there are a lot of military jargon's on that document) They are refereed to as Force or Police only. 4) Major's Secrest (use of the word infantry) ~ Knowing his Superior officers will be reading this standard form 298 and knowing they do not call their forces infantry and Hoping that that his superiors understands that he is surrounded by (very big ~ and tall ~ marine) officers (maybe one of them might even proof read standard form 298 before handing it off to the daily courier going to Washington D.C.) ~ the Major is going to drop the word infantry on his report. 5) It is a reliable source and he does call them infantry ~ we need to work the lead up to include, his use of the word infantry and at the same time not mislead the readers ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: I think I am following what you are saying. What recommendation would you make to address this? Garuda28 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm happy about the changes and find them to be more appropriate and professional Mrkoww (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Mrkoww, thanks for being open to the compromise language. I understand your objections to what we had previously and I'm glad we could find a way to address your concerns. Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't like the word component ~mitch~ (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Would deleting that word make it work for you? Or do you have another wording that would make it acceptable to you? Garuda28 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • just deleting that word, I think will work fine ~ and we are still using the source properly ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Garuda28 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why on the infantry page is security forces listed as infantry and now the page is locked. There is still cleaning. that needs to be done on wikipedia in regards to this topic

Fixed. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet again someone has put that Security Forces is Light Infantry when in fact they are not Infantry. They are Security Forces. Cowsthatfloat (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice regarding canvassing

To new participants: please review Wikipedia:Canvassing. Also Wikipedia is not a democracy. Arguments will not be decided here on the basis of numbers, but on the strength of reliable sources that are attributed. In case of deadlock, please feel free to take advantage of your dispute resolution resources. Thank you. El_C 17:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

---

I have lifted the semiprotection, since it seems as if we're heading toward resolution. Thanks again, everyone. El_C 19:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Infantry

Certain people do not seem to appreciate the fact that USAF Security Forces has, since the beginning of the War on Terror, taken on many new facets, and have undergone a significant shift from just Air Base Law Enforcement. There is sourced information that keeps being removed from this page as "unsourced" because it bruises egos apparently. Security Forces is a multi-faceted organization, and one is sizing up to "the Army's lightest of the light infantry", as stated by Brigadier General Andrea Tullos, in the Air Force Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User60314 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

The topic of security forces as infantry is a topic of great contention on this article (just look back through the history to see that). The consensus we came to is that they are sometimes regarded as integral infantry within the Air Force, but without an official designation are not infantry themselves. Moreover, most of the information added is unsourced or so full of buzzwords to not add anything to the article (predominantly the section added about the mission). Garuda28 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The mission section is taken straight out of Air Force manuals(AFMANs). If that is too full of "buzzwords" then what then can be used? Also, the operations that they were involved in keeps getting deleted, and those are also spelled out in AFIs and AFMANs. Are those sources no longer allowed because you perceive them to contain too many buzzwords? Who decides what these words are and when we can/can't use them? It seems that these things are being deleted because of perception rather than legitimacy since many other military organization pages contain them. Explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60314 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You may paraphrase to remove buzzwords and put it in common speak, but saying "Security Forces are highly-trained, highly-maneuverable, and lethal multi-faceted Airmen" boarders on promotional material. Also on Wikipedia it’s little a for airmen. Garuda28 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok...You’re not just deleting “buzzwords”, you’re persistently deleting entire sections because the page contains a few “buzzwords”. Like the battles/campaigns which contain no buzzwords and the beret flash description which is straightforward. Or the pictures you keep deleting which are clearly security forces and are sourced. Why not just erase/adjust the wording of the particular sections, or communicating the specifics. They’re sourced but you keep stating that it’s “unsourced”. It seems more like the page cannot include anything about their history that insists they’ve served in combat, rather than just because it includes buzzwords. User60314 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Section on beret flash, top cop, traditions, nicknames etc. are unsourced. I've already had to clean up the edits once, and your revert has broken citations (such as to the SF official history in the intro). If you're serious about improving this article I suggest you ensure everything has a source attached to it and add to the current version rather than reverting to a previous one. Garuda28 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@User60314: Please have a look at WP:INDENT... then indent your posts. Thank you - wolf 02:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is continually brought up. Just because a officer writes an article doesn’t make it doctrine. There is no doctrine in any manual that describes secfor as infantry, and nowhere in the us military is law enforcement/military police the same as infantry. Infantry take secure and hold ground secfor does not. This shouldn’t even be a continued conversation and the previous one in the talk page appears to be deleted. Some users continue to go about changing wiki pages putting misinformation. There is two infantry’s and they are called infantry nothing else . If secfor was infantry they’d be called infantry Cowsthatfloat (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a heated topic but, Security Forces has taken on the ground combat role for the Air Force since its beginning. The NSA of 1947 did not allow the Air Force an Infantry because ground combat is not the mission of the Air Force, however, the need arose for a ground combat force to hold ground, and take it if necessary. The wording isn't spelled out like it is for the Army and Marine Corps infantry because it has a necessity to apply to both missions combat, and law enforcement, where you cannot "close with, engage, and destroy" at all times due to use of force. Security Forces, specifically nuclear security troops' manuals recite that same mission as "detect, react to, and defeat" because of the duality of their mission and an emphasis on ground defense. Security in the Air Force was always considered a combat career field, while law enforcement, obviously, was not. The two merged into SF, but security is their main mission. Not law enforcement. They are AN infantry force, but they are not THE Infantry. Ghostwriter1947 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostwriter1947:, while I appreciate your comments (and I'm sure some others do as well), I hope you appreciate that this has been debated ad nauseam. When you say "They are AN infantry force" , it feels incomplete, like you should've started (or ended) with "in my opinion" (or even gone with "in the opinions of many, many people"). While that that wouldn't make your statement any more or less truthful, it also still doesn't mean that AF Security Forces ARE infantry. Sure, they might be trained, equipped and perhaps even utilized like infantry, at times. But can you find, in any, AF nomenclature, guidance or documentation, anything that officially states that the AFSF, or any AF units ftm, are currently designated as "infantry"? It's not there. Just as there isn't a "999th Air Infantry Brigade" or any "Security Forces Combat Infantry Companies". That's why there isn't an MOS/Specialty code for infantry in the Air Force. They may at times do the same job as the infantry in the Army and the Marines, but they don't have the same job description. AFSF members, and their loyal fans and followers, will just have to be happy with the job decription(s) that they do have. - wolf 23:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@cowsthatfloat I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there's an official doctrinal statement officially titling the infantry as "Queen of Battle," and yet it's on the Infantry's page. Also, the argument here appears to be the fact that Security Forces operates the same as a light infantry force does, but because Army veterans seem to think the Army owns the word infantry that no other service can use their tactics and strategies? I'm more inclined to agree with just some "officer," whose job it is to know, implement, and employ the doctrines of their branches of service than I am take the word of three individuals in a Wikipedia forum who seem to have an issue with the fact that the Air Force actually has ground combatants. Jimmy0511 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy you can agree with an officers opinion that’s you’re right but it doesn’t make it factual. The us military runs off doctrine and manuals, nowhere in the secfor manuals does it state they are infantry. You can see that combat engineers may take over the role and be mtoed when needed but not secfor. And where has secfor taken over light infantry roles? I’ve never seen them parachute onto an airfield and seize it... I’ve never seen them Ruck into a objective or conduct long range surveillance and recon ops. It seems that you have no clue what you’re talking about in regards to infantry. Again, law enforcement and MPs are far different than infantry and secfor are law enforcement. We are also talking about primary roles. Just because a quartermaster in oif3 did infantry type duties doesn’t make them infantry. Your whole comment and argument is based on fallacies, the queen of battle is also under official us army history and in their heritage site so it is factual. Also we are speaking about marine corp infantry (03 series) and army infantry (11 series), nowhere in the air force manuals doctrine or books does it say they are infantry. Cowsthatfloat (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ghostwriter again you guys are speaking of opinions and nobody has provided facts of them being infantry. Even the official usaf doesn’t consider them infantry forces , nowhere in their pages or books state this Cowsthatfloat (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore official Air Force doctrine outlines security force as law enforcement , which means in no way they are infantry. This should end the discussion for good. You can’t be both infantry and law enforcement

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi31-118/afi31-118.pdf

Cowsthatfloat (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And again even their official career map labels them as law enforcement not infantry. Two different jobs and missions

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/cfetp3p0x1ab/cfetp3p0x1ab.pdf

Cowsthatfloat (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(discussion break #1)

fyi guys;

Have a look at previous comments, you'll see them starting with increasing numbers of colons. That's indenting, from the talk page guidelines and it makes it easier to follow discussions, especially as they get longer and/or more people join in.

Also;

If you want to notify someone that you've replied to them, just type {{Yo|add username here}} and that will "ping" them (you'll see their linked username preceded by the @ symbol).

Lastly;

Don't forget to sign your posts, by either adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post, or clicking the signature icon in your toolbar to add your signature, before you save your comment. Hope this helps - wolf 03:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cowsthatfloat:, it appears as though you also have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to Security Forces either. Rucking, alone, does not make you infantry, and yes Security Forces perform long range foot patrols. Doctrinally, as far as what they refer to as mission essential tasks, Security Forces’ law enforcement comes after installation and asset protection, and nuclear security, and just before small arms repair and maintenance, and MWD support. They would not be referred to as Infantry because they have more than one mission that encompasses a broader range than does the doctrine of Army Military Police and Infantry. That’s why they are referred to as Security Forces. I could dive into more doctrine here but as far as the point that they are the ground combatants of the Air Force, and the very literal definition of infantry is foot soldier (ground combatant), highlights that they are AN infantry force for the Air Force. Not THE Infantry. @Cowsthatfloat: and @Thewolfchild:, you’re both arguing semantics and opinion while I’m simply stating that doctrinally they are ground combatants whose mission is to fight on the ground to take, hold, and defend territory for Air Force and joint operations. They may utilize different terms and verbiage, but they still operate in combat, on the ground as a primary responsibility. Ghostwriter1947 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostwriter1947: -Er, I don't have a dog in this fight. You seem to think I'm of the opinion that AFSF aren't infantry, and that's why they shouldn't be able to call themselves as such. But that's where you've got me wrong. My position is they can't be referred to as infantry in Wikipedia because officially they aren't, and that's why there is no solid sourcing available to currently support the appellation. If tomorrow there is something added to official Air Force documentation that designates somebody, or something, somewhere, in the USAF as "infantry", then I'll happily add that item, along with the ref, to the the appropriate AF page (though I'm sure Garuda would beat me to it). I'm just pointing out why that title can't be added to this article right now. Otherwise, I don't really care what you call you yourselves. - wolf 04:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostwriter1947: As you can probably see in the talk page history there’s been a ton of back and forth with it, and I’m not going to get particularly involved this go around. My threshold hold for inclusion of the description of infantry is a little lower than Thewolfchild's. If you can provide Air Force personnel (preferably senior ones) describing their function as infantry, or a portion of their function as infantry, I would support inclusion, with the specific verbiage to be agreed to beforehand. I think there are probably dozens of sources to look at on the talk page archive, if you want to start there. Not all of them would meet the threshold, however. The more recent sources the better. If you have a statement from the Director of Security Forces, I would consider that to be at the same level as official doctrine. Garuda28 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Yourselves? I'm not sure I follow. Also, what I'm referring to is the fact that there are no units in the Air Force officially designated "infantry", and all I am stating is that infantry is just a noun descriptive of ground combatants so the documentation is there proving that SF has fought on the ground in overseas combat theaters. The word infantry will not be found in Air Force doctrine, just as "Special Forces" will not. It doesn't exist in Air Force lingo. If one searched for Special Forces in AF documents they would need to search for "Special Tactics", or "Battlefield Airmen". In the same regard, if one were to search for ground combatants in Air Force documents they would not search for "infantry", they would search for "Security Forces", "Air Base Ground Defense", "Expeditionary Combat Airmen", or "Warrior Airmen" of which there are plenty of Air Force sources. Air Force Doctrine is far different that Army or Marine Corps doctrine but one of the oddities I've found through researching this area is that inside the Air Force community, these guys are considered the Air Force's version of "infantry"; that is, the ground combat force. Their top officer, a Brigadier General, calls them the Air Force infantry, as well as other leaders, but these are considered "opinion" and therefore cannot be valid? Another point that I'm getting at is that the Air Force cannot call a unit infantry simply because of policy agreements and doctrinal jurisdictions with the Army that began with the NSA of 1947, so it would never happen unless the two assimilated back into one force. Just my two cents. Ghostwriter1947 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostwriter1947: Let's see a source with a specific quotation. I really do want to see your arguments on this and see what new information you bring to the table. Garuda28 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghostwriter1947: (glad to see you here Garuda28) Ghost, you need to know at least some of the history here. The debate, (at least one of them) started some time back with the addition of "infantry" as one of the roles on this page's infobox. That lead to a great deal of disruption as multiple users were continuously edit-warring that in and out over some time. That's what caught my attention. Garuda and I did have a discussion about it. After reviewing the sources, it seemed to me that it should not be in the infobox under roles, nor should AFSF be described as an infantry unit in the lead, as that would be giving readers the impression that "infantry" was an official AF designation, in Wikipedia's voice. But I did however say that the fact that their duties are compared to infantry, and described as "like", or "similar to" infantry by some decent sources could be included in the body of the article. I was also in favor of adding to the history section the Vietnam-era programs where Air Force units were given infantry training, to be utilized in combat roles off-base. So like I said, don't get me wrong, I'm not personally invested in this one way or another. And I really don't care what youthey call yourthemselves, I just care that what is added here is done properly and with care, because this page can descend into a shitshow of disruption othwrwise. Cheers - wolf 06:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There was an article, I believe the one cited above, with a quote from Brigadier General Tullos, who was acting Director at the time that said SF “...sizes up similarly to the Army’s lightest of light infantry” and that they’re “...a blend of a light infantry unit and a military police company...”. As far unit type, they are a ground combat, or a light infantry force, and military law enforcement. As far as their “unit role” - Ground defense and Military police is already generally accurate unless one felt that “expeditionary warfare” was more accurate since they are also officially called expeditionary combat airmen in their doctrine and it seems to be more neutral for those solely against infantry in the info box. Ghostwriter1947 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

At any rate, this is very similar to US Navy Damage Controlmen and would be akin to saying they’re not firefighters because they’re not called “firefighters” specifically and, they mainly perform facilities and ship maintenance. Therefore they should just be called “Maintenance Mechanics”. However, they are the US Navy’s personnel responsible for responding to and neutralizing fires, but because they have a list of other essential duties, they’re not officially titled firefighters but rather, “Damage Controlmen” to accurately reflect the multiple “hats” they wear. This doesn’t change the fact that they’re a type of firefighter, just with a different title and doctrine.

In the Air Force, you don’t have an infantry division/brigade or a military police brigade, you have Security Forces Squadrons who, because of their essential tasks, are the US Air Force personnel responsible for “detecting, reacting to, and neutralizing hostile action” on the ground, in combat and non-combat scenarios, both offensively and defensively, mounted and dismounted. I just don’t see the argument here. I would have to note that it seems if one really dives into the doctrine of AF Security Forces, they would see that it’s a catch-all force for any and all tasks relating to ground combat for the Air Force, albeit usually within the roughly 7.5 mile radius of a forward perimeter, unless of course they’ve been assigned to infantry battalions to perform infantry duties on in-lieu-of taskings like many have been, but as far as being a type of infantry, I don’t think it’s arguable that they’re not. I could jump on board with excluding infantry as their official title, but in my opinion it’s fairly clear that they are a type of infantry, and therefore it wouldn’t be false to include that in “unit type”. Ghostwriter1947 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(discussion break #2)

So from what everyone is saying because they perform infantry tasks they are infantry? So artillery military police cav scouts quartermasters and every other person is infantry. Because many of those units have performed infantry units . This is stupid and all this is, is Air Force secfor dudes upset because they’re not infantry. If secfor was infantry they would have infantry designated units, infantry in their name and infantry doctrine. Doesn’t matter what the chief a single person says, no Air Force doctrine lists them or their mission as anything infantry Cowsthatfloat (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

First, you're comparing the Army to the Air Force. Second, the term infantry is a noun that means "one who fights on foot" in simple terms, that the Army chose to identify the branch that fights mainly on foot. The Cav Scouts, Military Police, Artillery, etc. are not "infantry" because the Army has a clear distinction between those career fields. The Air Force's need for its own conventional ground combat force to defend its expeditionary bases, in combat theaters, from ground attack led to the reformation of Air Police into Security Forces to "get away from [the] police business", to quote Air Force General Ron Fogleman. Ground defense through ground combat to prevent the enemy from coming within range to attack air craft on the ground. The Air Force does not have a Cavalry branch, or an Armor Branch, Infantry Branch, or even a Quartermaster Corps. They do, however, have a group whose mission involves ground combat against an armed enemy, and that is Security Forces. That's why they're no longer referred to as "Military Police", "Air Police", or even "Security Police" anymore. They aren't the same as the Army's Military Police. In simple terms, Security Forces are a TYPE of infantry. User60314 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Logistics

The current CO, Brig Gen Collins is also "Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection". But so is this guy apparently. Is something out of date, in error, or is this copacetic? - wolf 20:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s that the director of SF is attached to the deputy chief of staff for logistics, engineering, and force protection, but is not the deputy chief themselves. Garuda28 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I considered that, but I thought they usually said "office of..." in that case. Meh, or maybe not. Either way, I'm not losing sleep over it. Cheers - wolf 22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

@User60314: - at some point we have to ask just what the encyclopaedic value is of all these nicknames throughout the prose. I will leave this to others to weigh in. Also, please stop adding all that needless spacing to the infobox templates. Thank you - wolf 22:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say Nuke Troops really shouldn’t be in the infobox since it seems to only apply to defenders at nuke bases. Garuda28 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: - Yes, Nuke troop is a term for nuclear defenders, which is important because although the two jobs fall under Security Forces, the two are extremely different. There is a large cultural difference and the two perform separate functions. I don’t understand why this is an issue because it’s not the only military related page that lists more than one nickname.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User60314 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@User60314: nicknames should only be in the infobox if they apply to the entire unit. For instance, I wouldn’t put down Phoenix Ravens as a nickname in the infobox if it just applies to a single sub-set (as Nuke Troops does). It’s not comparable to defenders. Also I did a search for nuke troops on AF.mil and I only found two results (one of which is the ACC source from 2001), so I’d question if that’s enough evidence of a nickname to add. We need more independent sources that it’s a widespread nickname. Garuda28 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: - I see what you’re saying. I will remove it from the nicknames list. Thanks User60314 (talk)User60314 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60314 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)