Talk:United States Navy SEALs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old comments

Good article! :) F. Lee Horn

---

I've moved this from its previous location SEAL (U.S. Navy) for the following reasons: the previous title doesn't work in a sentence; it is not at all common; it's an awkward use of disambiguation when a more natural one exists; also AFAIK there are no other "Navy SEAL"s in the world. --KQ 06:38 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

---

Can we move the info about uniforms and tigerstripe out of the intro? I'm not sure if there's a reason for it, but it's a bit much: "During the Vietnam War, SEAL members wore “tiger stripe” camouflage uniforms, often with civilian blue jeans and “coral” sneakers, for patrol missions. On base, they wore standard uniforms with a black beret during the early years (when they patrolled alongside the Swift and STAB boat units of the “Brown Water Navy”) and tiger-striped “boonie” hats in later years. Currently, they wear variations of the U.S. Marine Corps MARPAT camouflage and RAID BDUs. Only men may apply to become SEALs."--Jmalc 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Why was this moved? --Jiang 01:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

This needs much more about training. Now I'm curious. Meelar 05:17, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

---

There's lots of information available about SEAL training. I invite anyone to post what they know. Prospero --- Doing a google search, i found that seal team six is red cell according to most sites...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.97.121.99 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 January 2005 (UTC) -- This is not true; Dick Marcinko was, however, the commander of both units. --68.120.68.129

Other Specops Groups

I'd love to see someone with more knowledge than myself put together a general special operations warfare page with links to this article as well as any about German, Russian, and other groups (Flotilla 13 anyone?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MtB (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 November 2004 (UTC)

Special forces, commando, list of special forces. —Joseph | Talk 05:04, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Spun off UDT

I've spun off the information regarding the UDTs to Underwater Demolition Team. This is in hopes that since their official tasks were different from the SEALs that some background into their specialties and differences will be discussed. Alkivar 05:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The UDT page still needs alot of work. At the moment, the information is highly confusing. When did the UDT and SEALs become seperate? Can someone familiar with this topic help.Lex Kitten 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

France?

"Each team can deploy anywhere in the world or France with 4 hours notice by sea, air, or land."

anywhere in the world, OR France!?

That sentence didnt make any sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.38.88.137 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

'or France' -hahah. The information also incorrect. It's actually within 24 hours.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

hmmm.... maybe it was supposed to be something like "anywhere in 24 hours and france in 4"....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL good one--Mimbster 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was meant deploy in 4 hours, capture france in 24. That seems a bit slow..but...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since France would likely surrounder in two hours anyway. Sorry couldn't resist. Viva La France! C.Carcharias (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

protected

I have protected this page since it appears that this edit war has no sign of ending soon and has degraded into IP's throwing profanity laden edit summaries at each other. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected, hopefully people will stop edit warring now. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

seal nickname

seals are not called "sharkmen" they are called "frogmen"...why do you think their called "tadpoles" in buds???(please change)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.210.179 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Are SEALs really referred to as "Frogmen"? Certainly SEAL history can be traced to Frogmen units, but I was under the impression that Frogmen were ONLY Navy divers, whereas the SEALs branch into a seperate combat branch of diving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.68.161 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does the word SEAL come from anyway? And why is it always capitalised? If it's an acronym, then shouldn't the full name be noted on this site?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

SEAL stands for Sea Air Land. You wouldn't call them the Navy Sea Air Land. The acronym is explained in the article I believe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubbleboys (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Coral sneakers

What are "coral" sneakers? coral colored?--24.94.189.89 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

They are called "coral" sneakers because you can walk on sharp coral with them without cutting your feet Swatjester 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Females...

...need not apply, correct? Perhaps taken for granted, but maybe we should mention its men only (assuming what I remember reading on the topic is true). Marskell 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. Women are not allowed despite what GI Jane might tell you.Swatjester 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we change it to "Currently" only me are recruited into the SEAL? I for one think it might be dropped all together.

                            Traith

I didn't know females couldn't serve, and this article doesn't mention it. I think it would be helpful to mention it is males-only. Also, does anybody know WHY females can't enlist? LilliCat (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Females are not really supposed to serve in combat. That does not mean they won't end up fighting. Females can't join the Teams because the Teams are combat units. Outdawg (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the same in the British Royal marines, only males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.225.246 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

quality standards?

I've never seen why the navy seals page had hte quality tag. I would say its up in the top 5% of pages in terms of quality. There are many more pages which don't meet wikipedia quality standards.

Look at this talk page. That should tell you enough Swatjester 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So...the talk page tells me absolutely nothing I don't know. If anything, this article is like I've mentioned before one of the better pages on Wikipedia. Just go to a random page. Click random article a few times and I guarentee you, you will find at least one page which is more in need of quality standards than this article.Bubbleboys 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Top 5%? Look at the featured articles and tell me this can compare. This page CONSTANTLY has factually incorrect information, and the writing style needs work. Swatjester 08:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you Swatjester. WHAT WIKIPEDIA ARE YOU BROWSING??? Because it sure as hell isn't this wikipedia. Bubbleboys 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did you even look at the feature article's? GO ahead, submit this one for peer review. It'll get slaughtered and a half. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems fairly well written to me. Although, I am new to the wiki world.

Navy SEALs

There is no SEAL Team Six anymore, it decomissioned a while ago. There is DEVGRU, which from what the public knows, is most likely just like SEAL Team Six.

===there were at least 5 seal operators in mogadishu...i know 5 names for sure, there could have been one or two more even, but im positive there were 5 and not 4. wasdin, olsen, nearpass, kaiser, gay.

There is a could reason SEAL is always capatilized. A seal or Seal is the animal. A SEAL is a member from the Naval Special Warfare.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's restricted capitalized because it's an acronym ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's restricted? What are you talking about?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

oops. Don't know where restricted came up. I meant to say capitalized. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No SOF unit is the best, they're all elite in their own ways. A unit like the Army Rangers may (not saying they are) be better on ground, but Navy SEALs can beat any SOF unit in the water. No SOF unit is better - they all have their own specialties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion "Funny Platoon" transferred to Delta Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARK S. (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

LASIK/PRK

Both LASIK and PRK are acceptable for current and prospective members of NSW/SO, including the Navy SEALS. Reference NAVMED P-117, Manual of the Medical Department at http://navymedicine.med.navy.mil/Files/Media/directives/MANMED%20CHANGE%20126.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.200.107.146 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to SEAL Team NINE?

What happened to SEAL Team NINE? Anthony Appleyard 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1,3,5,7 on the west coast 2,4,8,10 on the east cost

4 in each. 9 isn't commissioned yet.

SEAL TEAM SIX is decommisioned, however recent news article mentions a murder/self defense trial commited by member of TEAM SIX.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taikei (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Team 6 was officially disbanded, but since DEVGRU was established immediately afterward and initially consisted of the same members as Team 6, it still gets referred to unofficially as SEAL Team 6. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

These are the scores that trainees are frequently urged toward by instructors:

Does this seem oddly phrased or out of place to anyone else? Every instructor urges their trainees to higher standards, do they not? I haven't been to BUD/s but I'd be willing to bet that the instructors urge the trainees to sit at the bottom of the pool for 4 days straight too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joliver11b1p (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Weapons List

It's a little pointless since we a) don't know what they do and don't use and b) they have a lot of individual discretion anyway. Lets just delete this list and put in a paragraph that says they are given great leeway in their selection of weapons and hence are not bound to the standard issue in the US Military. Notable uses like their adoption of the Stoner 63 series might deserve a mention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Two notes

First - where's the source for use of MARPAT? Given the Corp's (what some might call fanatical) attachment to it's beloved Eagle/Globe/Anchor, would they let the SEALs use it? I want to see a factual source on this.

Second - Despite what people will tell you, Jesse Ventura is NOT a SEAL and never was - he was in the UDT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.87.124 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect- Although Ventura served his active duty time at UDT, he served his reserve time at SEAL Team ONE. He earned the Budweiser, he's a SEAL. Roundeyesamurai 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RAID Camo

I de-linked the "RAID" camoflauge link because it forwarded to the IT term (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) and I have no idea where to link it otherwise. Perhaps we need a "For other uses of RAID..." link at the top of the IT term's page? JD79 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda names and redirects

Please note wikipedia policies: Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).. There is no need to keep them here unless propaganda is the topic. Thank you. Añoranza 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

oh lookey, it found a new page to cite, although only the parts that apply to its own agenda ← Ecophreek 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not get dragged into anything, be bold Ecophreek, if you see something you think needs to be edited, do so. I will be on the look out for the same. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this user will participate in the discussion on the page, instead of selectively quoting an ongoing talk. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course, I shouldn't let the actions of a ... whatever, get me uptight. Thank you for reminding me ← ΣcoPhreek _contribs^talk→ 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting facts in order to discredit me, User:Zer0faults. As the link clearly shows, I did not "selectively quote an ongoing talk." I quoted an established policy. Añoranza 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

YOu are quoting a policy on article titles if you did not understand what you are quoting, its established in the first 6 words. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I ask you do not accuse me of anything again, as we are to be assuming good faith. Also please I ask you again to participate in the discussion at WP:MILHIST talk page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, as the link clearly shows, I did not "selectively quote an ongoing talk." I quoted an established policy. I ask you to leave it and try to get a consensus if you want to change policies. Your continued perfidious tactics attempting to discredit other users have been noted at your RFC. Añoranza 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again the policy is not related to what you are attempting to change, why are you failing to see that the policy is in regard to article titles, its the 5th and 6th words in the quote you keep using. It does not have to do with operation names in articles, just titles ... Again I ask you to participate in the discussion on the WP:MILHIST page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you selectively quoted an established policy of a Wikipedia Project dedicated to military history, not an actual Wikipedia Policy. The sentence after that which you quoted states: "This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy." And further, your interpretation is wrong. It does not even imply there is no need to keep them unless the topic is propaganda, but instead touches on the point that operation names generally are poor descriptors of the actual event. Also note the words "should" and "generally" rather than "must" and "always." However, in the case of this, we are not even talking about what to name the articles themselves. It appears you are editing out the operation names from an article dealing with the US Navy SEALs. It is appropriate to do the links in the style of [[Iraq War|Operation Iraqi Freedom]] because we are dealing with one side and their participation in different conflicts. To call this POV is wrong, it is contextually supported and appropriate. Rangeley 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we are describing one side of the conflict does not mean we need to use the propaganda of that side. You are right, operation names generally are poor descriptors of the actual event, that is part of why we need to avoid them wherever possible. Añoranza 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is self descriptive. As per the discussion as long as the link goes to the appropriate location, it is fine to use the operation name without the need for even a footnote. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"As per discussion"? As you know very well, several users think that propaganda names need to be avoided for the sake of neutrality. Añoranza 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you do not want to participate in a discussion on the WP:MILHIST page? A centralized discussion on the issue is more appropriate then 38 on various talk pages. Please participate in it, it was created in hopes of addressing your concerns, and of the greater issue. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When I last looked at it, the issue you see had not even brought up. The policy as it is supports my position. Añoranza 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried, your unwillingness to participate does not negate the results of it. I hope you will not complain afterwards if it does not go in your favor. Furthermore, for the final time, you are quoting policy on article names ... I however believe that you know this as its been pointed out numerous times, and the 6th word in the quote is titles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning of the policy as well as NPOV support my position, please leave it. Añoranza 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my above statement. And I will not participate further as you are clearly ignoring that your quote is not about the topic. If you choose to bring up something more then, the quote which is about titles, I will be more then happy to continue, unfortunatly this is just the same back and forth with different text. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to disagree, discussion pages are so that a consensus can be reached and to quote you yourself: "I just tell you that wikipedia does not work if single editors like you decide that all others are stupid and should be ignored" ← Ecophreek 00:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the quote made by Añoranza at the top of this discussion section is from the Military history WikiProject Guidelines — it is not "Policy". Specifically, that quote is from a subsection of the main "Guidelines" section. The Guidelines section states (verbatim quote):

"The guidelines presented in this section are intended to be guidelines only; while they are well-suited for the vast majority of military history articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches have been taken. These exceptions are often the result of protracted negotiation; if something seems unusual or out-of-place, it may be worthwhile to ask before attempting to change it, as there might reasons for the oddity that are not immediately obvious!"

So, it is clear that this guideline recognizes exceptions and the need for consensus. Therefore, the need for discussion on this topic is not obviated by the guideline. Also, note that since this issue is applicable to many articles, there is a main discussion, as pointed out above. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

As the neutrality of naming conflicts by propagandistic operation names when there is no need for it is disputed, the tags need to stay. Añoranza 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing neutrality dispute tags is vandalism. Añoranza 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So is misuse of tags. --Mmx1 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute, so the tag is correct: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Añoranza 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the conclusion they came to is that operation names were fine for military operations if the operation name links directly to a location that doesnt have the operation name as a title. So these are fine cause I fixed the redirects. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to keep operation names that were decided to be only redirects for the sake of neutrality in a list where other conflicts have common names. Añoranza 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrectly summarizing the consensus that has been reached on this page. Operational names are appropriate for use in miliary articles. — ERcheck (talk) @ 04:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no consensus here and I was not summarizing any, just stating my opinion that it is not neutral to use propagandistic operation names. This is backed by the fact that those I removed were renamed to neutral descriptive titles. Añoranza 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up References and External links

An anonIP deleted, without edit comment, a number of external links. I've restored them. But, it has lead to the observation that there are a lot of links that may not be necessary. The External link section is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all online references. I'd like to request that the major contributors to this article review the External links, references, etc. and format per MOS. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 15:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• The first external link on the page was as listed below. It has been part of the article since its creation on 2002-02-25. The URL no longer exist. However, there is a copy on archive.org, which I have substituted. The most recent date in the archive is 2006-03-03.

• Navy Fact File: Navy SEALs. San Diego, California: Naval Special Warfare Command–Public Affairs Office. 1996-03-16.

—ERcheck (talk) @ 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed two external links that redirected to commercial catalog websites. There are probably more inappropriate commercial links since I didn't check them all. Smc64130 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Kar

The Cyrus Kar article indicates he was a SEAL, as do approximately half of the webpages I have seen about him. The habeas petition put together by the ACLU does not mention his status as a SEAL and indicates he only served three years.

Is he a SEAL? If so, should he be included on this page? Erechtheus 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I found one letter [1] that seems to indicate the seal thing was constructed. I don't know about the navy in general. --24.94.189.11 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard for "famous" under "Famous Navy SEALs"?

And if there's a standard definition of "famous", does Chris Osman qualify? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Chris Osman - CEO of Tactical Assault Gear, a California based military and police equipment manufaturer

Sanity-check, please

Does anyone know if this edit is reasonable? My impulse is to be suspicious of any uncommented, uncited edit by an anonymous user, which just changes random numbers in an article. As a more general thing, would it be possible for someone to add references for these training figures? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

These seem very reasonable. As a Naval officer I can tell you the the PRT maximums are 101/101 (for men) so it would seem very reasonable that a "competitive score" for SEAL candidates at BUD/S to have this. Keep. --ProdigySportsman 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the list is not complete, what is there is an up-to-date chart. Jmsseal 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I did find the tests on http://www.navyseals.com/community/navyseals/navysealworkout_main.cfm and they seem to match.

Non-POV in introduction paragraphy

"They are considered second only to USMC Force Recon." is most definately non-POV and will be removed shortly. --ProdigySportsman 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've again removed the "considered second best statement". This uses weasel words and is POV and potentially inaccurate. Who considers it second best? What is the criteria for this statment? What about those that disagree? Where are the citations and refrences? Etc. Please don't put it back in without clearing up these issues. NeoFreak 08:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Admittance

Unless I missed it, what are the qualifications? Do you need to be a natural born citizen of the United States? Jachra 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The physical qualifications are listed in the article. According to the navy.com website, the citizenship requirement is that one be a US citizen - although they don't specifically say so on the website, naturalized US citizens can be SEALs. CruiserBob 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the text about the SEALs being better than SAS needs to be 86'd. What's the basis for that claim?

Motto

We have a couple of "unofficial" mottos, but are there any official mottos--Editmonkey 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like someone's been fooling around with this article a bit. We have a "future Navy SEAL" listed under the famous persons, incorrect grammar in most of the sections describing terrain, and so on. 10:39 06 June 2007 (CT)

Area of operations

The AOR section has been butchered. The new sections, while larger, are pretty much fanboyish and POV. It's grammatically sound and seemingly factual but there are no cites and, as I've said, it reads like a Copy & Paste essay entry from a Special Operations groupie site. Unless someone expresses some interest in a total rewrite with cites I'm going to revert to the older version. NeoFreak 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethics beyond creed and motto

Although Marchenko's Rogue Warrior books are fictional, they are based upon his actual experiences to a degree, and in one of the books I recall him writing about how a mission was intentionally crafted in order to give some new recruits the opportunity to make their first kills. One of the Seal Team Seven novels -- again, fictional but supposedly based upon knowledge of the Seals -- has a sequence in which Seal members execute some wounded because, it is said, they don't take prisoners. Although WP:NPOV needs to be maintained in an article like this, and properly sourced, etc., I think it's actually POV to sugarcoat what Seals are often trained to do. Now, the two examples I cite above may not reflect reality: Marchenko was writing a novel inspired by his excperiences, while Seal Team Seven was a series of books like The Executioner. Neither are what you'd call non-fiction works. But I think more could be added to this article discussing the psychological make-up of Seals, how issues such as killing are handled, and if the situation described regarding the Seal Team Seven books is close to reality. (To be fair, similar discussion could and should be added to the law enforcement equivalent of Seals, SWAT.) 68.146.47.196 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can say, from my own training and experiences in the Military that on some missions it is not possible to take prisoners. I can also say the unspoken orders concerning these missions are 'Do not give the enemy the opportunity to surrender'. An example would be a deep penetration ambush. The enemy moves into the ‘Killzone’ and the ambushers let fly. Since the relatively small ambush team cannot afford the luxury of transporting one or several prisoners back to friendly lines or they may have further mission objectives to accomplish, that ‘Killzone’ will be raked and raked and raked until all the enemy is well on their way to the promised land, such are the realities of war. Now kill a surrendered and captured prisoner, that’s not being hardcore and going the extra mile for the team that’s coldblooded murder. Even in the world of special operations that’s a no-no or at least was and I hope still is. – Joliver375 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF?!? Are you kidding? Everyone with even the slightest experience working in a combat unit today is trained in ways to neutralize a compliant enemy combatant without killing him. From a cynical view point, on todays battlefields, 99% of the time it would be a huge waste of humint killing a compliant ec. 'Do not give the enemy the opportunity to surrender', pffft 1. There is no such thing as "unspoken orders" (well unless they are written down ;) ) 2. that sounds like some Nam novel garbage, that order probably hasn't been given in 40 years, if at all. The thing about special operations in particular, and combat in general, is that there is ALOT, ALOT, ALOT of garbage out there. The bad thing is outside of "official sources" and big press there isn't a whole of sources for good info. But there is no surer way to sound silly than parroting pulp novels and trying to pass it off as "the realities of war." - User:Jirt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.24.147 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Dude, your heart's in the right place, but your brain may be in neutral. You don't need to "neutralize" a "compliant" enemy combatant. That's why they're called "compliant". Taking prisoners (alive) is a big part of what SEALs do (if you can believe the books I've read). Sorry about that, I read the above two paragraphs as one, although I still don't see why someone who is compliant has to be "neutralized"... maybe you just mean "tied up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.170 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I 'clearly' wasn't talking about operating in an area conducive to the taking of prisoners. I answered the entry above my original one with a quick explanation of a circumstance where it would ‘not’ be conducive to take prisoners. Believe it or not wars and battles have been fought in areas that weren’t in the desert. Area’s where you can’t extract the prisoners you take easily or at all for that matter. I spelled this out very clearly in my post. I recommend you read before you write. As for you believing there are no unspoken orders, I have to ask were you even in the Military? 75.176.180.216 (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MOVE?

Why was this page moved? United States Navy Sea Air and Land Forces is not the formal name. Outdawg (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

UDT's at Normandy?

I was under the impression that the UDT's were restricted to the Pacific theater during WWII. The naval demolition units which participated in D-Day were known as the Naval Combat Demolition Unit (NCDU). Can anyone verify or refute this? My source is a book I read at least 10 years ago, the title of which escapes me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuslatrans (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that they were NCDU during WW2 and UDT later. I read the UDT entry here on Wikipedia and they use the terms interchangeably, I am not sure that is correct. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

Stop adding Beirut Lebanon to the battles section in the infobox. The link always leads to the article of the city of Beirut not any military engagement. If it is so important add it to the History section of the article. Outdawg (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly in my interest zone to make sure that Wiki connects to all the places you'd like. My interest is that the SEAl page contains facts.

Again, regarding a military engagement, Ihave to side with SEAl who says more that 100 NSW missions occurred in Lebanon. That's an engagement, by any standards.

I have an idea. Why don't you let Naval Historians, and qualified SEALs contribute to the SEAL Wiki page?

Or, simply join up, got to BUD/S, become a SEAL and make some history yourself.

Regards,

Bad Karma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.228.92 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur strongly with Chuck Pfarrer's on the record statement about SEAL Team combat in Lebanon.

As a suggestion to unqualified experts, it might be appropriate to defer to guys who know the history. An objection to listing a part of SEAL Team history because you don't like the links is pretty petty. Where does the Mogidishu link go? Or the Achille Lauro? Why's that matter so much?

I'm pretty sure that the do and undo battle could go on forever, but seriously, why's somebody who is obviously not a SEAL meed to have the last word? Like the man said, if you want to become an expert, join up and make some history yourself.

Frankly, there a hell of a lot more places SEALs have seen combat-- and you ain't never gonna know.

Just a tip from an old frogman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogdaddy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not once have I claimed to be an expert. I never claimed to be a SEAL. I am not claiming that there was no military or SEAL involvement in Lebanon. I am not demanding that this part of SEAL history be excluded. Do not misconstrue what I've said. This part of SEAL history is obviously significant. What I have suggested is that this history be added to the article. What I am also saying is that links that have nothing to do with the article should be removed. Outdawg (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude,

why don't you make it link up to the page about the Multi National Peacekeeping force? Write an article about NSW in Lebanon. Or just leave it alone?

People are being polite. I think they realize that you're not a Team Guy. (You're way too obsessed.) They're just wondering why you seem to be disrespectful and hung up on some web linkages that no SEALs are complaining about.

If this were the HELL'S ANGELS page, would you be so quick to undo MEMBERS contributions?

Just a tip from the Frogdaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogdaddy (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Multinational Force in Lebanon was an article. I would've just added that in the first place. Outdawg (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Combat Action of Naval Special Warfare in Lebanon

From: CP PFARRER, 1130, USN, SEAL (ret) To: Wikipedia User // Outdawg // Subject: Lebanon

Sir:

I've written to introduce myself, and do so using my real name. It's been pointed out to me that you have, on several occasions, seen it appropriate to remove Beirut Lebanon as a SEAL Team combat engagement. As I am certain that you have done so out of a well meant concern for historical accuracy, I have written to acquaint you with several facts.

During the period April – November 1983, FIFTH Platoon, ST-4 conducted more than 100 combat operations in support of the Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (MNF) in Beirut, Lebanon. According to official US Navy command histories, ten times as many SEAL combat operations were carried out in Lebanon than in the entire US invasion of Grenada (Urgent Fury). These operations included direct action, combat search and rescue, anti swimmer operations, hydrographic recon, S & R, counter sniper engagements, HVT target interdiction, ANGLICO missions, as well as convoy, VIP and diplomatic protection. SEAL detachments served in the battle at Suq al Garb, and other locations as far afield as Sidon, Juneyah and Tripoli.

These facts may be found in unclassified abstracts of the Command History of SEAL Team FOUR. Other SEAL missions within Lebanon remain classified. In this one deployment, FIFTH Platoon ST-4 earned the Navy Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Unit Citation, Meritorious Unit Citation, Navy Expeditionary Medal, and the United Nations Peacekeeping Medal-- in addition to numerous individual citations and decorations for operations under fire. These records, too, may be verified by US Navy documents. Interested historians are encouraged to consult this information.

Thank you for your vigilance, dedication to historical accuracy and interest in our history. As a non SEAL, it is courteously suggested that you refrain from removing this tribute to the Naval Special Warfare Operators who served in Beirut. Their service was harrowing. You may rest assured that SEAL Team members, those who have earned the right to wear and display the Trident, acknowledge Lebanon as a significant part of our shared combat history. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Chuck Pfarrer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 666163 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Greitens

I am not sure whether Eric Greitens is a notable SEAL or not. According to Whitehouse.gov Mr.Greitens was a White House Fellow and Navy SEAL.

Eric R. Greitens, 31. Hometown: St. Louis, MO. Lieutenant Greitens holds an A.B. degree in Ethics and Public Policy from Duke University, as well as an M.Phil., and a Ph.D. from Oxford University. Greitens was selected as both a Truman Scholar and a Rhodes Scholar. He has participated in numerous humanitarian service projects abroad including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Children’s Fund efforts in Rwanda and Zaire and at Mother Teresa’s Home for the Destitute and Dying in India. Greitens currently serves as a Lieutenant in the Navy SEALs. He is an accomplished boxer and award-winning photographer.

Are there any other reliable sources that can confirm this info? Outdawg (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford doesn't issue PhD's. It's a DPhil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.194 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your issue appears to be whether he is "notable" or not, and you don't consider the White House's website a reliable source. Don't be such a douche. Better yet, pay a hobo to smother you with a pillow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.170 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realize this happened a month ago? The issue has already been resolved. Out (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Further reference from the White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fellows/alumni/2005-06.html
See 1/3 of the way down the page. Further confirms Naval Career and early commands.

This should be sufficient. Benchmark.stl (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PST section

To the users who continue to make the same edit over and over, stop changing the competitive scores for the PST. The correct scores all have refs. Out (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

SCUBA

I pretty sure most of the references to Scuba is innaccurate in this article. SEALs and of spec. ops. groups use rebreathers, bubbles would give their positions away. Could anyone either explain this to me or remove it from the article.JakeH07 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Scuba is only mentioned twice in the article - both in the bit talking about James Cahill - any research on him will indicate that he was an important popularizer of Scuba in the US. That said, SEALs use both Scuba and rebreathers, depending on the mission. CruiserBob (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

the specialist training of the Navy Seals

Is it not strange that these specialist soldiers receive a shorter and less intense training course ( or so I gathered by the facts given on the page and my own personal knowledge gained by the governmental websites) than the British Royal Marines, who are not even the Seals equivalents in the British army (the SBS, Special Boat Service, are)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.133.61 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude you have been asking these same ridiculous questions on other U.S. military article talk pages. Your comments should really be deleted considering that they really have nothing to do with the actual articles. To answer your question, SEALs train their entire career, its SEALs not "Seals" and they are sailors not soldiers or marines. Out (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is real short. Just add all of the months below :-) I get 2 years, 7 months, and 1 week to become a full-fledged SEAL.

1. BUD/S Indoctrination: (5 weeks — Coronado, CA)

1. BUD/S Phase I: Physical conditioning (2 months — Coronado, CA)

1. BUD/S Phase II: Diving (2 months — Coronado, CA)

1. BUD/S Phase III: Weapons, demolitions and small unit tactics (2 months — Coronado, CA)

1. Parachute Jump School: (1 month — Ft. Benning, GA)

1. Advanced Sea, Air and Land Training: (5 months — Coronado, CA)

1. Graduation and Receive Naval Special Warfare SEAL Classification — (NEC) Opportunities for Advanced Training.

1. Report to First SEAL Team or SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Team (Virginia Beach, VA; Pearl Harbor, HI; or Coronado, CA).

1. Individual Specialty Training (6 months) while assigned to a SEAL Platoon or SDV Task Unit.

1. Unit Level Training while assigned to a SEAL platoon or SDV task unit (6 months).

1. Task Group Level Training (6 months) while assigned to a SEAL Platoon or SDV Task Unit.

Msjayhawk (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

US Marines in the SEALs?

I would assume that the marines could come over and get into the seals if they wanted (especially if they will let in coasties:-) since they are in the same branch (United States Naval Fleet Marine Forces). Anyone out there confirm this?

Msjayhawk (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Marines can't go to BUD/S.

Any sources?? Msjayhawk (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[2] I believe from what I read here Marines can become SEALs but they first must complete their enlistment as a Marine then they must re-enlist in the Navy. Same thing goes for the Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard. annonymous 2/26/09 4:05 AM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.9.244 (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a buddy at Annapolis in 1984 that was going to reup after 4 years in the marines and try for BUDs but he got an appointment to the Academy, and last I know was a Marine Officer in SD... Msjayhawk (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Marines are not supposed to get into BUD/S. HOWEVER, it has happened, Dick Couch's Finishing School has a brief interview with a former Marine Lt. who managed to transfer and went to BUDS before his tour (is that the right word?) was up. But is there is at least this one example of an active duty marine going directly into SEAL SQT without re-enlisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.138.52 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The key word is former. Anyone can go to BUD/S who meets the training pre-reqs as long as they are enlisted or commissioned in the Navy or Coast Guard at the time they receive their orders (with a few very rare exception such as Navy astronauts). There has never been any active member of any other service who attended BUD/S. If my memory serves the individual you are referencing transferred his commission from the Marines to the Navy with some bureaucratic voodoo. In other words he left the Marines and joined the Navy in order to get a school seat.TomPointTwo (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WRONG. Foreigners have attended BUD/S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.154 (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Marines are currently not allowed to switch services and join BUD/S, nor are any other servicemen that are not in the Navy; in other words, they are only taking sailors who are currently enlisted/officers in the Navy. However, they have allowed cross-service transfers in the past. Kiaomi (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

BUD/S training (as opposed to selection)

Official Navy sources (including, but not limited to http://www.sealchallenge.navy.mil/seal/buds.aspx ) refer to BUD/S as training, not selection (to see for yourself, compare the Google results searching for "BUD/S training" site:navy.mil as compared to "BUD/S selection" site:navy.mil ). While some weeding out occurs, most of it occurs during the first phase of BUD/S - the diving phase and the land warfare phase are very much about training rather than weeding out. CruiserBob (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll find some sources and edit it. Aaron mcd (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Presidential One Priority

Could someone knowledgeable please comment on this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roy_Boehm#Presidential_One_Priority please? Thanks Proxy User (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

navyseals weapons

m16  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.236.154 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 

Inline Citations

This article may benefit from some inline citations; it'd be nice if we could set about it. I'll try and give it a go at some point. TheFireTones 14:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Verify

Can anyone verify the length of SQT, because from the sources I found its only 12 weeks, not counting jump school or cold weather survival, which would add up to about only 20 weeks of SQT.

If know one is able to list a source, I am going to edit the length and edit the listing of SQT's curriculum and provide sources unless anyone is opposed ? Aaron mcd (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pipeline

The length of SEAL's parachute training is quite easy to determine. According to the Official US Navy Tactical Air Operation School the length of training is 3 1/2 weeks freefall and 5 day static line. Which in days is about 31 days and according to their calender for the 2009 year it is in fact exactly 31 days, which is 4 1/2 weeks. Users editing this page really need to check their facts. http://www.tacairops.com/index_files/Page293.htm Aaron mcd (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk Clean-up

I did a minor clean-up of the this talk page, rm some vandalism from it, my old section, etc. This talk page seems pretty big and hard to follow. If anyone agrees please rm your old sections if the discussion if dated or no longer relevant, just remember to follow the wiki talk policies. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

History Section Is Lopsided

Did the SEALs do anything between 1972 and 2009? The Vietnam War account is overdetailed (if the material is worth keeping, it might best be summarized in the main article with a linked detail article on SEALs in the Vietnam War), and not very neutral. After that, nothing. The pre-Vietnam history seems more in line with offering the right level of detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.218.206 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The History Section as a whole is not un-neutral in my opinion, could you tell me where the non-neutrality is? Also, to add to the to-do list for the history, is some of the things mentioned needed to be verified or removed. ex. Do SEALs crack safes? (no). Aaron mcd (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________

1975 during the evacuation I can affirm at least one SEAL team was taken aboard at Cubi Point, PI and deposited upon the S. Vietnamese coast after the NVA had secured the area; a once-large USA base. The SEALs went in "ready for bear." We did not return to pick them up; other arrangements surely having been made. Never heard of what happened to them and despite extensive, intensive Web searching no\mention of that operation found.Obbop (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Security

I was at the bookstore (B&N) yesterday and saw a book about the SEALs. As I looked through the book in nearly every photo, faces are pixelated. I also recall an episode of Mail Cail with a segment about SEALs in which faces are blurred. Furthermore, a long while ago I read article about a submarine that stated there were SEALs stationed aboard, and that they had to maintain anonymity. So it seems that security and privacy procedures were taken in those three cases.

Yet, in the pictures on this page, faces and sometimes names are revealed. For example, in the 'surf' endurance training photo you can see faces and even name tags. In the photo of the sniper team, faces are partly visible and names are mentioned in caption.

Note, I am not here to complain that the pictures on this page should be censored. I'm just confused about the security and privacy restrictions when it comes to depictions of Navy SEALs. --71.214.246.205 (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate training article

The training section for the Navy SEALs is lengthy and in depth on its own. I propose create a new article for the various training phases to reduce the scope of the article. I would think that a simple paragraph or two for BUD/s, SQT and Squadron level training workups with links to the new training article would be more appropriate and allow the primary article to expand its focus on history, makeup and operational activities making this article easier to navigate. This would also allow for more space to be devoted to the particular details of those formal training environments in a separate area without crowding this one.

The new article could be titled "United States Navy SEAL Selection and Training". Thoughts? TomPointTwo (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no objections I wrote up a short synopsis on the main article and created the new article United States Navy SEAL selection and training. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2 similarly-named pages

In Category:United States Navy SEALs, I just noticed there are two articles with almost the same name:

• United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group
• United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group

Should these be merged? Eagle4000 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Face Book

Are Navy Seals allowed to have a Face Book profile? 97.115.195.226 (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they're discouraged from advertising their work. Though former members of highly classified units like DEVGRU probably aren't allowed to even mention it. Dietcoketm (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Change Word

Is there a reason that above the SEAL trident it says Navy Seellells?(or something to that affect) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.67.43 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

navy seals pwn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.247.233 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Anaconda: Fate of Chapman and Roberts

Someone cross-check the statement "Roberts was eventually killed after engaging and fighting dozens of enemies for almost an hour." with the actual article with which it is linked at Operation_Anaconda#Fate_of_Chapman_and_Roberts. I can't seem to find a cite for what initially appears to be a sensationalist conjecture.

Philpill (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Panama Corrections

The section on the Panama Invasion reads more like "regimental history" than factual history. A serious issue of POV.

The raid on Balboa Harbor is a classic example. The mission was totally unnecessary as the dock facilities were scheduled to be secured at H-Hour by elements of TF Bayonet. Further, lock-down of roads within the old Panama Canal Zone (which occurred a couple hours before H-Hour) would have prevented the PDF boat crews even reaching their boats. Neither of the two boats were Noriega's personal craft - they were patrol boats - part of the Panamanian coastal patrol unit. Despite these facts, the SEALs were obsessed with pulling off an underwater attack an lobbied long and hard for permission to mount it. They were finally granted that permission.

The execution was even worse than the planning. Their crypto gear failed in the hours before H-Hour (a common problem among SEALs on D-Day, attributed to their using the wrong key), so they were unaware H-hour had been advanced. Further, one of the two small craft carrying them to the insertion point had engine failure, which delayed the insertion. Once in the water in the night, they were unable to navigate accurately and had to keep surfacing every 20 meters or so to orient themselves. By now, the SEALs were seriously behind time.

By the time the SEALs neared the docks, MPs from TF Bayonet had siezed the harbor and both patrol boats after a short fire-fight and were securing commo and charts from the boats. MPs on the docks spotted the SEALs as they kept surfacing and tried repeatedly to hail them to abort the mission. Although only a couple dozen meters away, the SEALs remained unaware of the attempts to gain their attention and proceeded to the boats where they planted the explosives. Meanwhile, the MPs quickly evacuated the boats and cleared off to witness the explosion. Both both were sunk, as was the floating dock to which they were moored.

During the extraction, the SEALs 'thought' they head an oncoming deep-draft ship transiting the Panama Canal and dove deep - pushing the excursion limits on their closed circuit systems. In fact, the Canal had been closed hours before and all traffic on the Canal had been halted and was stationary.

These SEALs then were scheduled for extraction off Balboa. Due to poor coordination with TF Bayonet, they failed to realize that their extraction point was near offshore of a roadblock established by TF Bayonet elements. When fleeing PDF elements attempted to run this roadblock, it set off a short firefight. Unaware of the roadblock, the SBU members manning the extraction craft believed they were under attack themselves, and opened fire on the TF Bayonet element. Fortunately, their marksmanship was poor and TF Bayonet suffered no casualties from this mistake.

The operation lends little credit to Naval Special Warfare, and hardly justified the attempt to enter the record books. The only thing to be said in its favor is that at least no one was killed or injured on either side. The final chapter of this episode was that the US quickly was forced to donate two patrol boats to the reconstituted Panamanian coastal patrol force.

There is much more to be said about the Patilla mission beyond what has already been written, but space and classification prevent full disclosure. I would note that the comments on the SEALs having reservation about the mission are wrong, and only surfaced after the debacle. The original mission was to deny the use of the airfield as a point of entry for reinforcements flying in from Rio Hato - as happened during the earlier coup. This was originally tasked to a sapper team which was to drive onto the undefended airfield (avoiding the one guarded hanger) and placing a cratering charge on the runway. The SEALs lobbied hard to take this mission from the conventional unit who owned it, then changed its objective to seizing Noriega's aircraft in the guarded hanger, and finally developed the inflated troop list and the route of approach, which, during the actual mission, placed them under surveillance of a surface search radar operated by the PDF. In short, the SEALs got exactly what they wanted over the only reservations that were stated during the planning were from non-NSW personnel who repeated warned them that their plan and tactics were faulty. The on-ground commander of the assault (not the officer who remained on the boat) was the same officer whose SEAL platoon had four men drowned off Grenada; this raises a question on SEAL leader development and selection. Ultimately, it turned out that Norieaga's jet was guarded by just two men with one rifle and one pistol between them; it was these two PDF defenders who inflicted 4 KIA and 8-13 WIA on the SEALs (the number of WIA varies based on report).

The ground tactics employed by the SEALs were later judged so deficient that US Army Ranger and SF personnel were assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command (down to Group level) to revamp and upgrade NSW land tactics and training.

I have refrained from posting this on the main page as much of it is drawn from personal observation of the swimmer attack (I was on scene), and present at the planning meetings where the Patilla mission was transferred to the SEALs - neither of which, unfotunately, meets Wiki's attribution standards. When the After Action Reports of NSWG-2 and TF Bayonet are finally unclassified, additional errors will be available for analysis.

160.149.1.36 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I know how the section reads and it's because I pulled most of it from attributable sources which, when dealing with military special operations, tend to be... sensitive to individual or community paradigms. A lot of what you've said jives with my understanding of the Panama situation and NSW in the 80's in general but some of it seems to be a bit too far. Either way I'd love some new sources on the matter but, like you already said, your own experiences are not citable. Unless you wrote a book :) If you have any insight into where to dig around for some new reliable sources I'm all ears. I'd also suggest you register an account here, it makes everyone's life easier, including your own. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up when I get home (am on the road at a JFCOM exercise now) but doubt I have anything citable. As I said above, everything I discussed was either from personal observation, unit AARs, or, in the case of the actual attack on Patilla, from discussions with participants in the attack. A few years after Panama, I was one of the Army guys assigned to NSW in the mid-90s and had access to the AARs from Grenada and Panama, and worked with many of the folks who had been on the ground at Patilla. Back then the SEALs not only had a good lock on info concerning the actual events (through classification) but also an effective propoganda machine. They had a reserve SEAL CAPT whose summer drill duty was to sit in an office at WARCOM, collect SEAL sea stories and publish them in hoorah books. Ever hear of Dick Couch? Regimental history is to history as martial music is to . . . yeah. By the way, following is a citable link that notes the target at Balboa Harbor was a patrol craft - and not Noriega's personal craft. [pg. 52. http://books.google.com/books?id=E9v2t2FQffYC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Balboa+Harbor+Seal+attack&source=bl&ots=OSl4sxy8UJ&sig=x2BFCYIll1UlbtI1eoTV7HKoXsQ&hl=en&ei=dnRUTJzzGoH68Aa10o2sAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Balboa%20Harbor%20Seal%20attack&f=false] It gets most of the rest of it wrong (1 boat vs 2), but at least it gets the patrol boat aspect right. This source is also a good example of artful editing of the facts. Note how it mentions the first SBU craft dropping off the first swimmer pair, then merely mentions the second pair was inserted minutes later. Thus it glosses over the brakdown of the second boat (the first boat returned to the layover position to get the second swimmer pair, thus spintering the attack force and prohibiting a coordinated assault). It also glosses over the actions of the two teams, making it sound as if they performed together, when in fact, having been inserted several minutes apart at two different locations they didn't link up until the extraction site. There's a reason for that. The AAR goes into some detail about the mishaps and accidents encountered by these two teams grouping about in the dark.

24.39.246.130 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's why NSW was all about the idea of giving Couch access to the pipeline to write all those books after he retired. I knew he still puttered around in some reserve capacity after he left to go work at the CIA but I wasn't aware that's what he was doing.

The AAR's would all be citable but I doubt any of them are declassified. If they were though and it was really sticking in your craw you could always FOIA them, I guess. Or get someone else to FOIA them if you don't want to rock the boat. I'll comb through that source and see if I can pull anything without just muddying the waters. I also vaguely remember one of my books clearly making the distinction about the patrol boats but I have to dig around some in my library. Feel free to hit me back on my talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Michael Walsh involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.154 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seal Team Two Patch is missing

I thought it was a typo, but it doesn't appear to be one and the patch picture is missing. You can see what it looks like here: <http://www.armysurplusworld.com/product.asp?ProductID=26041> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarkn (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

List

Added the Portuguese DAE. For reasons, see article "Special Actions Detachment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prtgl93 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

viggo mortensen

Who put viggo mortensen from GI Jane as "SEALs emerge from the water during tactical warfare training in 1986."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_SEALs_comming_out_of_water.JPEG

major lulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.236.154 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not Viggo Mortensen. Major lulz, indeed. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Osama

They done bus a cap in Osama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.72.133 (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Osama Bin Laden is not dead!! I read about his history and turns out he has a twin!! He could have been tricking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.246.200 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, so far, Osama Bin Laden is dead, according to U.S. and British authorities. If you feel that many people disagree upon this fact, then you may post a discussion on the Osama Bin Laden talk page. Conspiracies are not usually allowed in the execption of major consipriacies (such as the Roswell Conspiracie), which can be added as sections on the article. Also, please remember to sign your comments using four tildes(~). Shakinglord (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To our best knowledge Osama Bin Laden died of led poisoning May 2. 2011. Glad I could help. 65.35.249.125 (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

UDT's

UDT. Under water demolition team. This is my impression and I may be wrong but in WW11 weren't they UDT's and called "Frog Men" and from that to Seals"? 99.23.126.71 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption correction?

This photo [3] is captioned in the article as

    "Members of SEAL Team 4 immediately before the start of Operation Urgent Fury"

but the description attached to the photo is

  "In this undated file photo, members of Seal Team 4 pose for a group photo before Operation Just Cause."

Does anyone know which is correct? Seems it can't be both. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the result of an error on my part. I uploaded and inserted the photo and wrote the caption but somehow put it in the wrong spot. The pic belongs to a group of SEAL Team 4 before Just Cause. I've corrected the caption and moved the photo. TomPointTwo (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it SDVT-1 or SDVT ONE - and where is it headquartered?

In the section titled Seal Teams, the article says

    "There are also an SDV unit, SDVT-1 located in Pearl Harbor, HI"

But in the subsequent chart, the HQ column says it is headquartered in California with a detachment in Pearl Harbor. Which is correct?

Also - above the chart the unit is referred to as SDVT-1 but in the chart it is called SDVT ONE. Could someone with knowledge of the subject please change both to the correct format? —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"1" is used in abbreviations and "One" is often used when it's written out. Either is acceptable. The HQ confusion is probably the result of from, after the decommissioning of SDVT-2, editors never moving SDVT-1 to their new HQ in HI where they previously had a Det. I have fixed this as the are HQ'd in HI (gotta follow the subs) and maintain Dets in CA and VA. You have a sharp set of eyes, thanks for catching these errors. TomPointTwo (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"SEALs in 2004" photo

The photo in the 'Al Faw and Iraqi oil infrastructure' section of the article that shows two SEALs with the caption 'SEALs in 2004' is also shown in the book 'US Navy SEALs in Action' (1995, Zenith Press). Obviously it is not a 2004 photo. 70.226.167.75 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how/why that photo ended up where it did and labeled as it was. I've removed it as it doesn't really add anything to the article; it's a standard fare "from the water in face paint" PR photo anyway. TomPointTwo (talk)

"organic land mobility platform" ???

In the section "Afghanistan", it mentions "organic land mobility platforms". Is this just simple vandalism, or some kind of weird military jargon that needs translation ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman101 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that, it's military jargon, I'm afraid. Sometimes I don't even realize I'm doing it. A platform is any unique piece of equipment, land mobility is obvious and organic indicates that it is inherent in the structure of the unit. The subject actually has its own article which I wasn't even aware of until now. I'll link this stuff out where I can to make it more easily understood by the casual reader. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Further careful reading of the paragraph does enable one to guess that in this context, the term refers to the adapted Humvees. Rather that bother to include links, may I suggest simply replacing "a lack of adequate organic land mobility platforms" with "their lack of vehicles", which everyone will immediately understand ?

(Rather than thinking that it refers to a horse, which would also have perfectly fitted the description. Nay ?  !-) Darkman101 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Origins

There were no U.S. Navy SEALs during WWII. Although there were similar training and groups, as mentioned in the origin section, they were NOT THE SEALs. The United States Navy SEALs formed under President J. F. Kennedy in 1962. http://www.navyseals.com/learn-about-us-navy-seals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're adding disputed tags. I don't even understand what it is you're disputing. The article doesn't assert there were SEALs in WWII, the qualification didn't even exist yet. It simply points out the units and tactics which were precusors to the SEAL community. What, exactly, is your problem with the section? TomPointTwo (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the section again and it seems someone goobered up the wording. I guess I can see how it could be interpreted as if the section were asserting the SEAL program began in WWII. I've changed it. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The box at the top right also includes "World War II" under "Engagements," maybe that's what they are objecting to?

SEAL Team organization

This section is very confusing in wording and I think needs a visual aid.

    "Each SEAL Team is commanded by a Navy Commander (O-5), and has a number of operational SEAL platoons and a headquarters element."

Ok, so the table later in the section shows that each of the existing Teams has 6 platoons.

    "A SEAL Team has a Staff Headquarters element and three 40-man Troops. Each Troop consist of a Headquarters element consisting of a Troop Commander (O-4), a Troop Senior Enlisted (E-8), a Targeting/Operations Officer (O-2/3) and a Targeting/Operations Leading/Chief Petty Officer (E-6/7). Under the HQ element are two SEAL platoons of 16–20 men (two officers, 14–16 enlisted SEALs and sometimes two enlisted EOD Operators making a platoon of 18–20)" 

So each Troop is considered a platoon? Plus the two HQ element platoons, shouldn't that give us 5 "platoons"? 209.34.116.167 (talk)

I also find this very confusing. First it says that a SEAL team consists of platoons and a HQ element, but then BAM! troops come into play. How is it really structured? What's the difference between troops and platoons? Can someone please clear this up? Thanks. --90.190.172.85 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Errors at the end of first paragraph...

"...as well as the maritime component of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM, Currently under the command of Admiral Jeremy D George."

1) The "C" in "Currently" needn't be capitalized.

2) There is a missing closing parenthesis.

PrintedScholar (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

animals

animals are stupid , and dont kno anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.68.128 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

At least they can articulate properly formed sentences. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article is Not Well Written

This article is poorly written with weak sentence structures. It doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article. Also, it has many grammatical and/or punctuation errors. And as far as I can tell from other comments, some information here is either missing or incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auprwtv (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

An astute and precise description. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you as you begin to remedy this acutely identified situation. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I can help. Under "Birth of Navy SEALs & Vietnam," for instance, we have "While his announcement of the government's plan to put a man on the moon drew all of the attention, in the same speech he announced his intention to spend over $100 million to strengthen U.S. special operations forces and expand American capabilities in unconventional warfare." All of the attention? Everyone in the world's attention? How on Earth did anyone manage to create a Navy SEAL program while every single person on Earth's attention was focused on putting a man on the moon? This is poor, unsourced writing. How about: "While his announcement of the government's plan to put a man on the moon drew massive media attention, in the same speech he announced his intention to spend over $100 million to strengthen U.S. special operations forces and expand American capabilities in unconventional warfare." (citation) Why not simply adhere to editorial standards, rather than expect, and respond to flak from those who know how to write/cite? o0drogue0o 11:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

See the "edit" button in the upper right hand corner of the page? I'd start there. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

SEAL demographic issues

The SEALs have a longstanding demographic issue, as indicated here [4] from TIME magazine. An editor is expressing claims that notation of this in the Wiki article "does not represent" the article from TIME, but this is dishonest. From the article: Gaps exist in minority representation in both officer and enlisted ranks for Special Warfare operators. Diverse officers represent only ten percent of the officer pool (for example, African Americans represent less than 2% of SEAL officers). Diverse enlisted SEALs account for less than twenty percent of the total SEAL enlisted population. Naval Special Warfare is committed to fielding a force that represents the demographics of the nation it serves. This contract initiative seeks effective strategies to introduce high potential candidates from diverse backgrounds to the opportunities available in Naval Special Warfare.

In other words, the SEALs admit: they have a demographic problem stemming from being an almost entirely whites-only group that has come from issues in their recruiting chain and the Navy is trying to remedy this problem. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, no need to call me a liar. Such hysterical accusations of malicious intent only make you look, well, hysterical. Secondly, you're adding material to the article not backed by the blog post you're providing. Things like there being "less than 20 African-American members out of 2400 active SEALs" and making claims such as the SEAL community being the "least integrated of all US military groups", whatever that means. Neither of these sweeping statements, nor the subjective terminology you use such as "systemic" and "remedy", can be found in the source you provided. That's coming from somewhere else, maybe your head, I don't know. Lastly, while there are no doubt some things in the source worth referencing, the addition doesn't belong in the lede of the article. I'll wait for you to remove the edit (again) or I'll just sit on my hands until someone else comes along and fixes it, I'm not going to do the back and forth with you all on my own.

On a tangentially related point, you're also, likely inadvertently, reverting an unrelated edit I made. If you could fix that that would be super. Thanks. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you're even lying about my edit. less than 20 African-American members out of 2400 active SEALs - That was from a Yahoo discussion, and I pulled it and rewrote on your first argument.

SEALs being the least integrated - true. The US Army is the most integrated of the US forces and likewise for the Army Rangers when it comes to Special Forces teams.

Argue facts or don't argue at all and stop lying about the edit. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That link you provided says nothing about the SEAL community being "the least integrated" anything. I also eagerly await your corresponding references for the rest of the assertions you've made. I do hope they aren't additional, unlinked, Yahoo Group discussions. See where I'm going with this? Detect a pattern? We're also still stuck on the subjective language and inappropriate placement. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the source. It's the usage that's wrong.

The claim "least integrated" asserts some degree of intent, which clearly isn't there. This isn't a "systemic issue" with the Navy either. It's the wider society.

It's ridiculous to think that the Navy could attract the same proportion of SEAL officer candidates. First, college graduation rates aren't the same -- especially for men. Second, with SEALs being exceptional men, and the positive side of affirmative action being what it is (not that it's all positive, but part of it is), the problem the Navy has is that exceptional black men have more attractive opportunities taking them elsewhere. Third, young college educated black men tend to be more politically liberal (although this could well change). Young black liberals are no more likely to become SEALs than young white liberals. As I said, it's the wider society.

I don't think the racial make-up is important enough for the article, but if it's going to be included, the new text needs to be less shrill.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2012 (DAN)

Vandal sack

This article got 4channed. Ouch. 198.151.130.38 (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"The leading offensive force in the world"

I've reverted this, but even as it is, it could do with some backing up. For example: "according to Janes, one of the leading offensive force in the world" (I have no idea whether or not Janes actually say this). --stochata 17:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you guys would quit changing the page, stating that the SEALs are among the best, i got those articles from the offical SEAL page from www.navy.com and from the SEAL Encyclopedia written by a Green Beret, US Army Special Forces, so do research before you change (deleted) you don't know about (deleted).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

Listen (deleted) whoever is changing the page is pissing me off, according to www.navy.com, on their SEAL page, it states the SEALs are the leading offensive force in the world. "The Encyclopedia of the Navy SEALs" , written by a Green Beret and the First SEAL Roy Boehm, it states that the SEALs are the most well equiped, and best special operations/counter-terrorist unit ever assembled.

quit changing (deleted) before you do research, so now you know—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

Why are the first two paragraphs of this article identical to text on [5] ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

those two articles are taken from the SEALs' home page at navy.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think direct propaganda is a little out of place? It needs to be made a quote.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.229.196 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the re-addition of the "leading offensive force" bit. For one, it's redundant; we already have it (cited) in the first body piece, which is much better. No point in saying it twice. Second, it's POV to just go ahead and say it. No way around it. I don't mind saying "So-and-so says they're the best", but I do mind saying "Everyone thinks they're the best". Finally, it adds nothing to the article to have it in the intro. See the pages on avoiding weasel words/peacock terms and the NPOV page for more. Deltabeignet 04:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the first paragraph in this article. Everyone thinks their special forces are "the best in the world". Avalon 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't say that the SEALs absolutely ARE the best in the world unless they indeed are. The Navy SEAL website alone is not a trustworthy source. Of course the SEALs think the SEALs are the best. The fact that there is any debate at all means that you have to say "one of the best" or something along the lines of that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Consider the number of botched operations at critical moments before you sing this song, please. Look at the history; examine the invasion of Grenada, the history speaks plainly. Look at the invasion of Panama under the same light. I visited the official SEAL site recently (I believe it was the official site) and they say the SEALs have learned from these mistakes and I believe that statement. I’m sure the modern operations are/were much better coordinated in the Gulf conflicts but the operational record should be examined as a whole before anyone makes a claim that the SEALs are superior to say the British SAS. There is no personal bias against the Navy Seals from me, just a bias of this ridicules claim. joliver375 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Between Grenada and Panama the SEALs had several missions and only failed one! Yeah there were some mishaps during some missions, some mishaps were not the SEALs fault, but not all missions go perfectly and the SEALs adapted and carried out there objective successfully. Also a lot of these missions were not well planned some even had no intel. Your right that modern operations are much better coordinated. Back in the day there were flaws in the joint command structure, in planning, communications, support etc. In Grenada the SEALs had four missions and failed one of them. There four missions were: recon of the Salines Airfield prior to the Rangers airborne assault on it, beach recon near Pearls Airport, the capture of a radio station and the prevention of its broadcasting and lastly seizure of the Government House and keeping Governor Paul Scoon safe until reinforcements arrived. The failed mission was the recon of Salines Airfield prior to the Rangers airborne assault on it. There were delays in getting to the launching point. One of the planes that were transporting SEALs went off course which isn't really the SEALs fault. Rain with heavy winds then started right before the SEALs jumped and it messed up the insertion and four SEALs were lost at sea and never found those were the only 4 SEALs who died in Grenada. The mission was postponed until the following day and there were problems on that day too. The SEALs boats got swamped and there radios were wrecked by the seawater. The Rangers ended up having to parachute into Salines Airfield with no intel but the Rangers mission was still a success. The beach recon of Pearls Airport was a success and the Marines landed there without any problems. The SEALs successfully seized the Government House and kept Paul Scoon safe. They fended off attacks throughout the night until reinforcements arrived in the morning. For the capture of the radio station the SEALs were relying on surprise but when they got there surprise had been lost. During insertion the SEALs took fire. The SEALs were under attack by a heavy force of Grenadian soldiers and they decided they could not hold the radio station so they instead destroyed the radio transmitter and then fled to the sea while fighting off the enemy. They got rid of the enemy and sat in the sea until a helicopter spotted them several hours later. In Panama the SEALS had a few missions and all were completed successfully although one went badly but was still completed. The SEALs were divided into four task units. Task Unit Charlie and Foxtrot's mission was to secure the Atlantic and Pacific entrances to the Panama canal. Task Unit Whiskey mission was to destroy Noriega's boat in Balboa Harbor. Task Unit Papa mission was to seize Paitilla airfield and destroy Noriega's plane. Task Unit Charlie and Foxtrot accomplished there mission without any problems. Task Unit Whiskey inserted combat swimmers into Balboa Harbor who attached explosives underwater to Noriega's boat and destroyed it. Task Unit Papa had to seize Paitilla airfield and destroy Noriega's plane and ran into some problems during there mission. The missions plan was horrible. The planner of the mission, Commodore John Sandoz, had asked an experienced SEAL under his command, Lieutenant Commander Mike Walsh, to review his plan. Walsh immediately rejected the original plan and offered three different much better plans of his own but Sandoz rejected all of them. Lt. Cdr Walsh refused to sign an endorsement for Sandoz's plan and was moved from operations to logistics for his refusal. During the mission the element of surprise had been lost. 4 SEALs ended up getting killed which were the only SEAL deaths in Panama and several were wounded. The objective of the mission though was completed SEALs seized the airfield and destroyed Noriega's plane. The mission should have been done by the Rangers who specialize in airfield seizure. It was like a conventional assault. 99.182.194.49 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you can't justify the Seals as being the most effective group in the world on the basis that their website says so. Otherwise I'm rewriting the Trinidad and Tobago account on the basis that my friend Tim thinks that it's got the strongest economy in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.199 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SEALs are universally considered one of the best special operations forces by every military expert. To say they are the best offensive force is inaccurate as the U.S. Army outnumbers them 10,000 to 1. To argue about whether they are better than Green Berets or Marine Force Recon is also pointless and refering their web page doesn't add to the 'arguement'. The Marines say they are the "world's finest fighting force". Best to state that they are among the most elite special operations forces in the world as with all the others. C.Carcharias (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The SEAL is one of the best units we have in our arsenal - they are FAR from being the best. They are STILL an entry level special operations unit - which means people from the streets can go straight into the program. SEAL Teams, Green Berets (SF), and the Rangers are all entry level SOF units. Within the SEALs you have DEVGRU (SEAL Team 6) - a unit which the best SEALs try to get to. Here is a fact: A DEVGRU operator considers being selected and assigned for duty with Delta Force as a career ADVANCEMENT. So I hope that says something in terms of what is the best unit within our military. Signed D. former 75th Ranger Regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.240.185 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is completely FALSE that DEVGRU operators see Delta Force as a career advancement. It's a false rumor. DEVGRU and Delta are equivalent. They usually train and deploy together. A lot of these missions Delta has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, DEVGRU operators have been right there by there side. So why would DEVGRU operators see Delta as a career advancement? It makes no sense, careers in both units are basically the same and they do the same stuff together! And on top of it most SEALs stay loyal to the SEALs. 99.182.194.49 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)