Talk:United States Air Force Security Forces/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infantry?

On 2 November 2017, the lead was changed to read; "Air Force Security Forces, sometimes referred to as Air Force Infantry".

This addition has been removed repeatedly by various IP users, (see 1, 2, 3 & 4) who also add edit summaries that state quite emphatically that the Air Force Security Forces (AFSF) are not considered "infantry". Each time, they have been reverted by the same editor that added this line in the first place. The line has three sources attached;

The first source relies on quotes from an article, two in fact, from the same interviewee; ""The biggest benefit is that we work together as a team," said Mr. Randy Toulou, 141st SFS Readiness Training Coordinator. "We are the Air Force infantry and we go outside of the wire on occasion."" and (from the same person) ""Our mission is to deploy down-range and work as ground infantry," said Toulou. "We are the eyes and ears from a forward operational stand point outside of the wire."". As opposed to any official statement from the Air Force or being listed as "infantry" in any AF nomenclature, this is really just a single, personal opinion where the security teams are being compared to infantry when they go off-base to engage enemy combatants.

The second source is an association website that has the heading "AIR FORCE LIGHT INFANTRY" above a list of units that belong to the association. Some of these units are described in the 'history' section of this article as a Vietnam-era experiment where the AF had some of their Security units take Ranger training so they could be deployed in combat during the war. The experiment was short-lived and these units either no longer exist or are no longer Ranger-qualified.

The third and last source also relies on a quote from an article about one of the AFSF teams, that states; "...many are qualified in skills that make them more like Air Force infantry than cops.". They are "like" infantry, so in other words... they're not.

This line will continue to be challenged which is just continued disruption. As the sources don't exactly support the notion that AFSF are "infantry", I think it would be better to move this comment, and their refs, to the history section where they are discussed in more detail. The line can then be expanded upon and clarified, something to the effect of; "during the Vietnam War, some AFSF units were trained as Rangers so they could be utilized in combat as a type of "light infantry" for the Air Force." That is, of course, if the line isn't just removed completely. As it stands right now, referring to the AFSF as "infantry" isn't supported by either WP:OFFICIALNAMES or even WP:COMMONNAMES.

References

Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My impression was that the first source is the most reliable for being called that, and that’s why I put the sometimes referred to as, in concert with the other sources. It was also published on an Air Force site (meaning having gone though official approval, and is an considered an offial statement by the Air Force). It indisputably has the role, but not an official title (hence why the sometimes referred to) in these sources, one of which from an official Air Force site. I’m not sure either offial names or common names apply, since it’s a) not referring to the article name and b) not claiming to be an official name, just that in a number of sources it is refered to as it.

I also want to point out that the sources are about both Vietnam and modern era (as in current operations today). I interpret the third source to state that the have a duel role. It may be contentious for some, but this doesn’t change the validity of the statement given the military and other sources. Garuda28 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the first source was published on an AF site, and it certainly was vetted, especially to ensure nothing classified was compromised. But it is not an "official statement by the Air Force". While the AF may have approved of the interview as a whole, that does not mean they officially endorse any one particular statement or opinion in the interview. And that's what that is, an opinion. And a comparative one at that. You have one guy that, in his opinion, thinks the AFSF units act like infantry when off-base. Nothing in that article indicated that the AFSF is otherwise "referred to as infantry" by anyone, anywhere, at anytime. The other interview quote, if anything, confirms just the opposite. If 'X' "acts like" 'Y', then 'X' is not 'Y' (it is 'X'). The last site is just a header on what is basically a personal website, (likely the association treasurer doubling as webmaster) with no AF oversight or endorsement whatsoever.

Look, there is a reason all these guys (IP users) are removing this specific item. It's not random, and it's certainly not vandalism. They're actually adding edit summaries to make it clear that this is wrong. And there's enough of them that at least one or two knows this for a fact. They are either Air Force, or ex-Air Force, or related to Air Force, or something like that. And while their edits fall under WP:OR, and were justifiably reverted, it doesn't make them wrong. And as long as that line remains there, the article will continue to be edited and reverted, edited and reverted, rinse and repeat, and so on. That's disruption.

I think the article would be better served if the "infantry" comment was at least moved out of the lead. Would you consider moving it into the body of the article, and expanding on it for clarification? (perhaps in the history section, as I suggested above) This can only make the article better, and put an end to the disruption. - ^theWOLFchild 02:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing! I can remove the header aspect for sure, for the sake of reducing disruption. Garuda28 (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow... for moment there I though you were being serious. When you said you'd remove it, I figured you move into the body of the article. You really think this is an improvement? Instead of the lead saying AFSF is "sometimes referred to as infantry", you want it to now read, "AFSF is the infantry"? Your sources don't even remotely support that. I don't know if you did that as a temporary joke, of if you're just being a >this<, but I'm trying to work with you to solve a problem and you just made it worse.

I'll check again in 20 minutes. Either that reference to "infantry" will be moved into the article and improved, or it'll just be gone altogether. Unless you can find a solid, reliable, unquestionable source to support it. (which I doubt, because I know you already searched every corner of the internet with google using "usaf+security+infantry" and these three crappy refs were all you could come up with). Otherwise I'll remove it myself. Been really nice "collaborating" with you.</sarcasm> - ^theWOLFchild 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I was actually being serious with you. I apologize if I was unclear, but I meant no intent to deceive. I removed the header, which I thought was the major issue that we agreed upon, with full intent to do a full rewrite tomorrow. I promise, there is no I’ll intent whatsoever.

If I ever do anything that seems deceptive or in ill faith, please let me know. I promise, it is it is never the case. I hope that We’ve both interacted enough, even on opposing sides of arguments, to show that we are both professionals about this. Garuda28 (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok... I see. I thought you were being a smart-ass. but's it's cool if that wasn't the case and you intend to work on this more. As it is, that lead will just cause more problems. It wasn't just the "referring to..." bit, but the whole equating of AFSF to infantry. As a simple blurb in the lead, and with only those sources (which aren't very strong), more and more people will take issue with it. But I think there is something worth expanding on here in the history section. Starting with the Vietnam-era Ranger-tabbed AFSF guys, going off base and 'into the shit', just like the army and marines. Then work up to the present day, and whatever offensive training they take now, and how they still go off base and engage enemy combatants, and not just sit around in gate-houses checking IDs and patrolling airstrips on golf carts. This will make for a better article and stop reverts. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 03:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: no ill will at all. I did actually take up your suggestion to do another search and found a much more reputable source for this. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/20111220.aspx#foo; I think this is the most reliable one to support any claim and want to hold off any changes til we litigate this one.

Looking over your other arguments I see the weak spots, and actually conceded some of this. I’d like to see this one pulled apart first. Either way, I agree the commonly know as Air Force infantry will go. Garuda28 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

revert?

@Garuda28: - ([1]) Why? It says "Force protection" in the lead, the infobox should match up. Leaving "infantry" in the infobox is likely to be as problematic as it was in the lead. My understanding was you had intended to do a "re-write" that would move the "infantry" description/comparison down into the body of the article, with some clarification added and supporting refs. Right now we have "Force protection" in the lead, which is good, it works, it's accurate and it's likely to stop the constant reverts. But to have "infantry" instead of "force protection" in the infobox, where is describes the unit the same way the lead does, just looks silly, and inaccurate. I would suggest you revert yourself, leaving "force protection" in the infobox, and continue with the rewrite you spoke of earlier for the body of the article. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 13:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:My point was that I recommend changing back to infantry due to the strategy pages citation. I wanted to hold off on any changes until you had a chance to look at and dissect it. Direct quote is “The air force does have ground combat troops. They have 23,000 men and women assigned to this security force duty. The security forces are trained and equipped as light infantry, although their primary job is base protection and police work. These security troops regularly train with infantry weapons (mainly assault rifle, pistol, and light machine-gun.) ” https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/20111220.aspx#fooGaruda28 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Garuda28 - trained and equipped as light infantry, again being compared to light infantry, but their primary job is base protection and police work, specifically described as force protection and law enforcement. This is where I think you run into trouble. You keep finding these tenuous sources that either compare the AFSF to infantry or casually describes them as infantry as an opinion. But the Air Force does not list any of their security units as infantry. That is an important fact, and one of the reasons that so many people dispute, and try to remove the mention of "infantry". I can only say again, that as far as the lead paragraph and the infobox are concerned, they should be listed as "security", "force protection" and "law enforcement". Any descriptions or comparisons of AFSF as "infantry" should be moved to the body of the article, with additional content to expand and clarify. This would both improve article and help keep it stable. - ^theWOLFchild 22:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thewolfchild my interpretation of the source is that the sources are starting that it is a secondary role, and while I agree keeping it out of the intro, I think that since the sources also state that it has that role it is a perfect fit for the role category in the info box. (To clarify, for the info box I propose moving the infantry reference from type to role, which I think meets what your talking about). The most reliable of these sources all give light infantry as on of its roles. Garuda28 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries! I was waiting to make any big changes to the article till we got a consensus on this topic, and I completely understand. I’ll keep watching this page, and revert any changes to the intro, directing them to the talk page if they want to get a new consensus. Garuda28 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

infobox

Garuda28 - OK, so I had a look at the "StrategyPage" source you added, as requested. I have a couple concerns; first is the actual quote;

• "The air force does have ground combat troops. They have 23,000 men and women assigned to this security force duty. The security forces are trained and equipped as light infantry, although their primary job is base protection and police work. These security troops regularly train with infantry weapons (mainly assault rifle, pistol, and light machine-gun.)"

So, again, we the AFSF being compared to infantry. It specifically states that while they are "equipped as light infantry" ... "their primary job is force protection and police work". So, like the previous source, this quote, if anything, confirms that the AFSF are not infantry. My other concern is the source itself. It appears to be an amateur news website and it's a tenuous source at best. While they state their info is sourced (like WP) they use user-submitted-content (they pay $30 per submission).

References

So far, you seem to be the only person supporting the inclusion of this notion that the AFSF is considered as, or are commonly referred to as, "infantry". The fact is, they aren't. They are not considered, labeled, described as or otherwise known as "infantry" in any official capacity. As far as being "referred to as infantry", I don't believe the handful of questionable sources you supplied is sufficient enough to support adding the term "infantry" as a 'role', (or any other parameter) in the infobox. That's why I removed it again, and unfortunately, it needs to remain removed while tp discussion is taking place and at this point, you're going to need consensus in support of inclusion to re-add it.

I noticed none of your sources are directly from the Air Force. A search of the entire afsfc.af.mil site only produces 3 instances of the word "infantry" being used, and they are all biographies; a couple of officers from the Army Air Corps days that "went to infantry school in 1936" or "started out as a 2nd Lt. in the regular infantry in WWI" and a CMSgt who earned his "Combat Infantry Badge" in WWII. However, that said, here is how the AFSF describes themselves;

• "Air Force Security Forces Center, Lackland AFB, Texas: Organizes, trains and equips Air Force security forces worldwide. Develops force protection doctrine, programs and policies by planning and programming resources to execute the missions of nuclear and non-nuclear weapon system security, physical and information security, integrated base defense, combat arms, law enforcement, antiterrorism, resource protection and corrections. Identifies and delivers emergent and future force protection and force application solutions through modeling and simulation. Acts as the executive agency for the Department of Defense military working dog program."

They site continues with additional information;

• "The Air Force Security Forces Center has four divisions: Corrections, Innovation, Operations, and Plans and Programs" The "Operations Division is further sub-divided into branches;
  • "Operations Division Mission: The Operations Division provides policy, resource advocacy, and guidance across the force protection spectrum in the areas of doctrine, antiterrorism, training and conducts vulnerability assessments. Branches: The Division is composed of eight branches:
    • AF Vulnerability Assessment
    • Aggressor
    • Current Operations
    • DOD MWD Program Management
    • Force Protection
    • NORTHAF Force Protection
    • Police Services
    • Security & Base Defense"

Again, the AFSF is clearly described as "force protection", "law enforcement" and "security". No mention of "infantry"

References

I also checked the main Air Force website, airforce.com, and there is not one single mention of the word "infantry" for the entire site.

I realize that some other countries use the term "infantry" to describe ground forces from their navies and air forces, but that just isn't the case in the US Armed Forces. That term is used specifically for the Army and to some degree in the Marines. And while you keep mining the internet for any mention of "infantry" in connection to the AFSF, it's factually inaccurate and misleading to use the term in either the lead or the infobox of this page.

That said, I believe there is some value to the sources you found, and that they could be used to improve the article. The "history" section could be expanded to add the info you found, to support how Vietnam-era Ranger-qualified AFSF units were trained, equipped and deployed in a fashion comparable to "light infantry". Additionally, in the either the "Security forces" section or the "Recent events - Changes to deployment length and training" sub-section, you could support how present day units are trained, equipped and sometimes deployed off-base to engage enemy combatants in fashion similar to "light infantry". Again, I believe this would improve the article and help keep it stable. I believe you mentioned doing a "re-write", but so far, I've only seen the word "Infantry" being added, removed, added and removed from the lead, and added, removed, added (and now again removed) from the infobox. I would ask that you not add it to the lead or infobox again without consensus. (sorry it has to be this way, I really am trying to work with you, but I also want the article to be factually correct and stable, and we should follow the guidelines while working this out). This is now much longer than I intended, So I'll wrap this up and just say again, please consider the re-writes for the article body. Thanks again and Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion/debate for some time and I concur completely that AFSF are NOT infantry. Not only does the USAF not declare them as such, if AFSF can be classified as infantry, then so can USA and USMC Military Police. Army and Marine MP units do have a secondary mission of serving as "provisional" infantry (just as do Army and Marine combat engineer units and Navy "Seabee" units, for that matter) and in the current "long war" there have been instances of field artillery and air defense units being relieved of their primary duties and used as "provisional" infantry (especially in the Marine Corps). Even USMC field bands also have a secondary mission of serving as an "infantry" platoon, primarily for headquarters security and defense, when deployed into a combat zone. In fact, per Marine Corps doctrine, every Marine, regardless of rank, MOS, or unit is liable for assignment to a "provisional" infantry unit in an infantry-type position appropriate for their grade of rank. That is one reason why ALL Marine are trained as basic riflemen, ALL Marine Corps NCOs and Staff NCOs are required to obtain, possess, and demonstrate through formal Professional Military Education Courses their ability to lead Marines in infantry combat, and ALL Marine Corps officers, both warrant officers and second lieutenants, male and female, regardless of MOS from administration and supply to lawyers and aircraft pilots are professionally trained to serve as rifle platoon commanders, and remain liable for assignment to infantry units or other ground combat units throughout their careers. So, if AFSF are infantry, then so is every Marine Aviation unit or the most "rear echelon" combat service support unit in the Marine Corps (and probably in the Army). Even the U.S. Navy doctrinally maintains the concept of "Naval infantry" for the use of Sailors in provisional infantry (and field artillery) units ashore when organized into companies, battalions, regiments and "Naval infantry" brigades, but they do consider ship's companies as "infantry." The Navy does not even consider, or describe, its Masters at Arms (viz. Navy MPs), Seabees, SEALs, SWCC, or anybody else as "infantry" in normal discourse.

So, in conclusion (and please excuse my long comment, perhaps bordering on a "rant", but I am tired in general of people declaring something to be what it is not, in this case and others...) AFSF are security and force protection troops not infantry. They are superb, and essential, at what they do but they do not have the mission, or capability, of the infantry.CobraDragoon (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources and evidence

Official U.S. Government Sources

Since the discussion above is so crowded, I decided to pull out reliable sources from the argument above, along with any new ones that pop up in the future. This is not an attempt to restart or re-litigate the debate above anytime soon. Garuda28 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1018633.pdf

"Security Forces Airmen, the Air Force’s infantry, operate with an air-mindedness that incorporates the implications of airpower"

(Air University Research Report)

http://www.141arw.ang.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/437711/show-of-force/

"We are the Air Force infantry and we go outside of the wire on occasion."; "Our mission is to deploy down-range and work as ground infantry,"

(Statements from 141st SFS Readiness Training Coordinator through an Air Force public affairs article)

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airman_archive/2010%2003-04.pdf

"Though the entire unit is trained in fire-team tactics, numerous different weapons and other special skills, many are qualified in skills that make them more like Air Force infantry than police."

(Excerpt from an article in Airman Magazine, the official magazine of the U.S. Air Force)

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)

http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Features/Article/666183/what-we-bring-to-the-fight/

"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."

(Statements from 366th SFS unit training manager through and Air Force public affairs article)

http://www.aviano.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/282295/arr-more-than-a-defenders-motto/

"Security forces have historically used the phrase HUA, since we are often considered the infantry of the Air Force."

(Article written by Chief Master Sgt. Mike Yoakum , 31st SFS, and published on the Aviano Air Base website)

http://www.144fw.ang.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/442415/ftx-desert-fox/

"The Security Forces career field is unique. A lot of people see us at the front gate and think that is all we do, but when we go downrange we are truly the Infantry of the Air Force,"

(Statement by Master Sgt. Jimmy Schiotis in an Air Force public affairs article)

News Media

https://repository.tcu.edu/bitstream/handle/116099117/18510/19991104.pdf?...1...

"The security forces act as the police on base, and they conduct investigations into fraud and terrorism. During wartime, the security forces act as the Air Force infantry."

(Excerpt from 1999 TCU Daily Newspaper)

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/10/20/va-fueled-opioid-crisis-killing-veterans-681552.html

"Take Mallory Dinkel, an Air Force infantry soldier"

(A Time magazine article referencing to SF as Air Force infantry)

https://search.proquest.com/docview/222786740

"Women may train for Air Force Infantry"

(Excerpt from Minerva)

http://www.holmesbargainhunter.com/article/20150831/FEATURES/708319997/-1/hbh

"Air Force security forces, when deployed, become the infantry of the Air Force and do duties like clearing buildings, guard Humvee convoys and are trained to protect planes."

(Excerpt from The Bargain Hunter, local newspaper)

https://www.legion.org/yourwords/personal-experiences/212167/military-working-dog-70-years-praise

"One of our temporary Provost Marshalls (a Captain) referred to them as, “The Infantry of the Air Force.”

(Excerpt from American Legion article)

http://www.hngnews.com/mcfarland_thistle/news/local/article_9475ea06-259b-5e41-9b40-dde1a7d3b564.html

"Upon enlisting, Craft joined the Air Force National Guard’s security forces, which he calls the infantry of the Air Force."

(Excerpt from McFarland Thistle; local newspaper)

Discussion

• This is not an attempt to restart or re-litigate the debate above anytime soon. Garuda28 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Geez, is this what all these posts have been about? I keep seeing this page pop-up on my watchlist so I finally have look and I see you spent what appears to be a lot of time and effort to compile this huge list, and it's all about... infantry? I thought this was resolved? You even say you're "not looking to re-start this", so why? And why here? Why not save all this on one your user pages? Taking up such a big chunk of an article talk page with something that doesn't seem to have a purpose is probably not the best use of resources. "Infantry" in mentioned in the article five (5) times, with a sixth instance of "infantry" on the header of one of the navboxes. It's not going to be re-added to the lead or the infobox without consensus (likely an RfC at WT:MILHIST) so, honestly my friend, I don't see the point here. Perhaps store it in User:Garuda28/USAFSF info for now? That look's like some great research though. There are plenty of other articles here that could benefit from your mad research skillz, bro! Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Thewolfchild: Personally I have no interest in restarting the debate anytime soon (although I disagree on the end result), but if someone else does I want reliable sources to be available, so neither side runs into the issue of unreliable sources being a limiting factor rather than information (like a few of the pro sources did last go). And I agree, consensus is against currently, so nothing will be changed without conesenus, and I will revert all changes against consensus and direct them here. Not trying to upset the balance, but I think some clear information is a good thing. And thanks, actually came across it in some school research!Garuda28 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Edit: Acutally I think there is enough new evidence to prompt some discussion on some aspects. I’ll probably start a new section on Sunday, ping all relevant parties, and put forward a clear proposal. Basically I’ll start of with evidence about their nickname/alt name. It’ll be non-confrontational, I promise :)Garuda28 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semantics are important.

Let's start off by clearly defining "Air Force infantry".

Infantry#Air_force_and_naval_infantry

Air_force_infantry_and_special_forces

If you disagree with these definitions then I suggest you go about editing those articles as they set the reference framework.

The cited references in the previous revisions were tangential at best and wholly unnecessary given this context.

The new revision reference is Air force infantry instead of infantry for accuracy. Hopefully this cleared things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.70.198 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

66.232.70.198 So we had a similar debate a few months back. On Wikipedia, we don’t use other articles as sources or citations, but rather only third party citations. In this case, to support your argument, you’d need to use reliable citations that directly refer to SF as infantry. I would reccomend looking at previous discussions or adding new arguments with new sources if you seek a change. Garuda28 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Infantry source

“We’re somewhat of a blend between a light infantry unit and a military police company” - Brig. Gen. Andrea Tullos. If they’re not considered infantry because of “blend” they can’t be considered military police either. Source

References

2600:1003:B02F:D26:5DCB:BD47:6AA2:CC38 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length already. The fact that USAF (AF) Security Forces (SF) teams are being trained and equipped to engage enemy combatants outside of airbase perimeters is important info and worthy of inclusion. The AF is obviously excited about the expanded capabilities, and several sources have various AF personel comparing the new SF teams to the infantry of the army and marines, much like the quote posted at the top of this section. Again, worth adding to the article, but not to the infobox. The AF has not officially designated any of these SF teams as "infantry". While comparisons can be made, it's not official. The infobox is a snapshot, with point form entries of specific info. It's not a prose section where we could add "infantry" and then attach an explanation that like; "well, but not really. They're a lot like a light infantry brigade, and even have comparisons made as such, but as of yet, they have not been officially designated... blah, blah, blah" - That just doesn't work for the infobox. Info like this can be added to main body of the article, and already has almost a half dozen times;

• "the official history of the USAF Security Forces referring to them as the Army Air Forces' "infantry""
• "task forces to be organized and equipped like infantry"
• "Air Police found themselves in a number of ground combat roles, some of which more accurately reflected an infantry-type role"
• "Security Police squadrons being trained in the use of light infantry tactics"
• "Security Forces specialists were also attached to Army and Marine infantry units"

Plenty of comparisons, but no official designations. For instance, say the AF renamed the "820th Base Defense Group" to the "820 Air Force light infantry brigade" With something official like that, we could add infantry to the infobox. - wolf 07:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)