1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)

Official shoulder insignia of the 1<sup>st</sup> Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)

"When the hour of crisis comes, remember that 40 selected men can shake the world." -- Yasotay (Mongol warlord)

300 Spartans holding off the entire Persian Army at a narrow pass.....Chamberlain's 120 Deserters attacking with fixed bayonets on empty rifles to save the flank of the Union Army at Gettysburg. Two Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta Snipers fast roping from a 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment Blackhawk helicopter into a helicopter crash site surrounded by gunmen to save a wounded airman......Time and time again the actions of a few-even one man, can save the day-the trumpets are calling now.

Despite an amazing string of victories from Grenada, Panama, Haiti and the Persian Gulf, things are not well within the U.S. Military. Somalia's urban debacle should have warned us that the "lessons" of Vietnam have not been learned, just pushed off into the corner. The U.S. Military as one of the few remaining social institutions still respected within the nation, cannot afford "another Vietnam" nor can the world suffer the impending darkness if the forces of freedom cannot keep the world free.

This web page-this warning sign posted----is your call to action-to press for the changes needed to prevent disaster. You must decide if you are to become a "Spartan", a member of the "20th Maine" or the Delta heli-team, as you read this narrative. The darkness is coming and I must write quickly.

Many people join and/or are associated with the U.S. Military for the emotions-of jumping out of aircraft, being in charge of men, maneuvering a tank cross country, wearing the >uniform, saluting or being saluted, of sounding off: "HOOAH", OHHRAH" or ">AIRBORNE".

A 1st TSG (A) member writes:

"It's always come down to a few people with vision mixed in with the so called 'warriors'. The warriors fight for personnel glory and the masculine virtues of the tribe, team, and squad. These are the kinds of people who have always been drawn to military service to impress others. They love the uniform and they want everyone to think they are special. They see themselves slaying their countries enemies in single combat (Rambo), with women worshipping them on their knees and fathers, uncles and other role models respecting them as better men then themselves. I think we are all like that when we first take the oath but soon after real life sets in. The warrior finds himself on police call and other mundane stuff of the Soldiers lot. He is disappointed and wishes he could fight in a real war. But there isn't any such thing as a 'real war', so he does his time just waiting for it to be over and tries to keep up the image of being a warrior. After a while with the right leadership they become pretty good Soldiers but they lose a lot of their initiative. They just want to "fight" not do all this BS like prepare.

That's why guys like Hack were so successful. They were tough on their troops and emphasized they were warriors, just like they always wanted to be and at the same time took care of all the war fighting art themselves. Patton wasn't so different, he gave his troops energy and a place to belong by his brutally hard training. He 'forced' them to prepare and they loved him for it because he made them the warriors they wanted to be. But Patton himself was without illusions about the nature of war and what it takes to win. A constant theme in his writings is that the troops will find out how stupid this warrior stuff is. He prepared his men to do frontal assaults and told them it was the epitome of the warrior way, but in actual combat he would relieve a commander who really used frontal assaults. He walked a line between macho brutality (the Third Army was known for it's lack of concern for prisoners and I have read insinuations that he was very indulgent towards his troops in combat all though he demanded iron discipline once they came off the line) and intellectual discourse that many people found disconcerting. I once had a 3rd Army veteran tell me, 'we would never treat them [prisoners] badly, but we would shoot them.' Some members of the press ( Andy Rooney, 60 Minutes) believe he executed many GIs for cowardice ( It's believed as many as 54, a book is coming out soon about this). The Patton family are denying it happened and maybe it didn't, but in Patton's personnel writings he makes a strong case for doing it. I hope he did not but I know he wrote about it in his diary (edited out of War as I Knew It) and on one occasion gave an interview saying that's what we should do.

The visionaries are always at odds with the warrior culture. Their very nature as artists makes them recoil from the ego that most warriors use as their foundation. Creativity takes an understanding of the true nature of the vehicle you are using to create with. Wanting to be a warrior almost always means you ignore the nature of war because no reasonable man would want to kill or maim or have it done to him. Great leaders like Patton and Gavin seem to have a gift for keeping the warriors in their own little world while preparing them to be Soldiers. It's a gift that I never had. I admire men who can do it.

For example the Dragoon concept makes it possible to do both like the Armored Calvary. I just hope that the men who would execute the concept have the vision. It really seems to be in short supply."

But when you are cold, wet, tired, hungry, that last ounce of sacrifice takes more than esperit' de corps. Marine Raider founder Evans Carlson said before assaulting Tarawa in WWII: "It takes CONVICTION." To have a vision, you must have CONVICTION.

Conviction. Doing what has to be done because it must be done. It's up to each generation to fight the evil of its day-our time has come-it is NOW. What can a small studies group do? Plenty.


The Japanese Army of just 3 divisions defeated the entire British Army in Malaya and Singapore. Their "secret weapon": bicycle jungle infiltration tactics created by a "Studies Group"

"Early in 1941 Colonel Masanobu Tsuji, (scroll down after clicking link) a veteran of the China campaign. was allocated a shoe-string budget and put in charge of a small Southern Military Studies Research Group in Taiwan to investigate problems of jungle warfare. Tsuji was given a report drawn up by two senior Japanese army officers, who had visited Malaya in September 1940. They advised that any attack on Singapore would have to come from the north and reported that the British Air force in Malaya was understrength and its planes obsolete. Tsuji appreciated, as Percival and Dobbie had pointed out, that a frontal attack on Singapore was scarcely feasible but her back door stood open, and he realized that British propaganda was deluding only her own people.

Tsuji embarked on his task with enthusiasm and verve. The challenge was enormous, for the Japanese Army had no experience of fighting jungle warfare. Soldiers accustomed to cold weather fighting had to be trained to face tropical conditions, and cavalry, which was used in China, had to be abandoned in favour of bicycles. The 25th Japanese Army, which was hurriedly assembled for the invasion of Malaya, was put under the command of Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita, probably Japan's most able general. The son of a humble village doctor, Yamashita was then fifty-six years old and was Tojo 's contemporary and rival. He had headed the Japanese military mission to Germany and Italy in 1940 and served in Korea and North China, until November 1941 when he was summoned from Manchuria to command the attack on Singapore.

Yamashita was offered five divisions but decided to employ only three, knowing that this was the maximum force which could be fed and maintained as his supply lines became extended south. The 25th Army comprised the Imperial Guards, the seasoned 18th Division and the highly experienced crack 25th Division, which was one of the best in the Japanese Army.

The Japanese secret weapon was the bicycle and it gave them speed and mobility in the advance down the Malay peninsula

The Japanese swept down the Malay peninsula, carried forward by audacious planning, good fortune and the exhilaration bred by success. The main body of the force were disciplined, hardy and vigorous Soldiers, who had fought together in the China campaign. Yamashita used his mastery of the air and the coastal waters to conduct a dynamic technique of infiltration, enveloping and outflanking which bewildered the defenders and compelled them to withdraw to avoid being cut off from the rear. Confined by the communications system of one trunk road and railway line, the British defence lacked mobility and the Japanese could defeat them in detail. Without tanks and anti-tank guns or prepared lines of defences, the Commonwealth retreat was inevitable, and the Japanese drove relentlessly south. Ironically, when he was almost out of ammunition, Yamashita attacked and General Percival surrendered to his bluff.

Victory brought a thrill of exhilaration to Japan and her allies. The previous year German military leaders had told Yamashita it would probably take five divisions eighteen months to conquer Singapore. In fact, the mission had been accomplished by three divisions in just over two months. For the British, the loss of Singapore was the blackest moment of the Second World War and, in the words of Winston Churchill, 'the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history'.

Another famous organization with "Studies Groups" was Military Advisory Command Vietnam's Studies and Observations Group or "MACV-SOG". Actually MACV-SOG was an ultra-secret joint services unconventional warfare command operating throughout Southeast Asia, most notable public success being the famous Son Tay POW rescue mission that while an empty camp was found, killed over 200 foreign "advisors" which forced the North Vietnamese to consolidate our men in captivity into a single prison where they had mutual support for resistance. Other missions are still clouded in secrecy even though a recent book by retired MACV-SOG veteran, Major John Plaster has revealed some new insights. MACV-SOG had a Ground Studies Group (SOG 35), a Training Studies Group (SOG 38), a recovery studies group (SOG 80), and an Airborne Studies Group (SOG 36). (From Shelby Stanton's "Green Berets at War: 1956-1975, page 232). It is in this same spirit of bold innovation that we formed the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) from the previous International Tactical Studies Group (ITSG).


The following are the key problem areas within the U.S. Military, along with proposed solutions-in some cases never before described,---you can help by writing/calling/e-mailing back to the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) and joining the fight. We have a >Military Reform mailing list (scroll down to link to join) to network and cross talk ideas. Your ideas count and we can see to it that they are advanced within the U.S. military. This is not about money or prestige or making status-it's about the men, the mission: victory or defeat. The "enemy" is not just others, it's much higher than that-in the final analysis it's for mankind-we are fighting for each other. The following are concept papers available from the 1st TSG (ABN) now made into hard-hitting, no-holds-barred web pages:









The world we live in moves by air and is becoming urbanized...

Whenever U.S. Military men look outside of their private micro-society at the world around them, they'll see a mass of confusion now that the Cold War superpower face off is gone. Many long for wars of national armies meeting on the rural battlefield when social conditions are simply creating sporting contests within nation states.


Talking about women in the military today will get you kicked out of the U.S. Military: if this scares you what makes you think you'll move under enemy fire? Physical courage is a function of moral courage.The whole point of women in the military is not on whether they can do the job or not but on WHY.

Women that want military "careers" want the same existentialist "ego-trip" that the men have. If you leave these morally bankrupt foundations intact for men we have no "leg" to stand on to deny women a chance to "prove themselves" and other self-centered vanities. The military is a necessary evil. We must do what must be done. Everything on top of this is "gravy." Most military men/woman are not talking about the battlefield or improving themselves and their equipment-"their heads are not in the game". They are actually on the sidelines of their profession worrying about their careers, their job survival, paying bills, being promoted, etc....not the profession of arms. The nation expects them to be tactical experts when the average military person doesn't even have a clue about even the basics! "Up or out" is a major cause of this.

We live in a world created by the Judaeo-Christian God as described in the Bible. This cause and effect universe has females optimized for childbirth and family rearing. This is not to say women cannot kill or act as >Soldiers-it's just not ideal. If a woman wants to be a figher pilot or a Ranger to "prove" themselves or that "women can do it"---this is the wrong reason to be there in the first place. If enough women voters insist, eventually civilian authorities could force-feed the U.S. Military to try to keep all jobs open to women including combat. To preserve an illusion that women are "equals" the military will lower performance standards, enforce "gag" rules and inflict severe penalties on those who "sexually harrass" women Soldiers. The truth is, despite what cartoon heroines do, is that women are a physically vulnerable group on planet earth-the recent "tailhook" and recruit training scandals show this. Thousands of women, not men, get raped, murdered and victimized each year. Sure there's a few exceptional women that can defend themselves, but it's the rule that's important for general policy/guidance.

A Marine ANGLICO Captain writes in:

""Name a coed professional sport. You can't. Not football, baseball, golf, tennis or bowling. If our 'society' sees it unfair to mix genders in a game, it is 'not yet ready' to mix them in combat. . . . no matter how PC they think they are."

By placing women into combat roles we are accepting a handicap of generally a physically weaker Soldier-if so we ought to have the same fitness test standard to squeeze out maximum female potential and institute a daily/weekly martial arts regimen. Also there should be no age group breaks on the fitness test either,one standard for all. This should be a >COMBAT TASK SPECIFIC---NOT SPORTS fitness test. We need to be ready to accept the possibility of gruesome disfigured bodies of women Soldiers and potentially atrocious tortures if our women Soldiers are captured. Sorry but the physical world doesn't stop for our fantasies. The best way to stop the feminist movement into our military is by rejecting the general society's existentionalism that you are what you do or how much money you make.

Women do not need to have a "career" to be somebody, being a mother is an extremely high aspiration-without them life is not worth living. If a women wants to be in the military to defend freedom or pay the bills, not fill some inner personal void this is okay. From a practical point of view, combat should be excluded as much as possible without "career" opportunities being denied. The way to do this is to stop the military from being a "yuppie" upward mobility ego trip mirroring civilian society---- by 20 year enlistments. You join the military to concentrate on defending freedom, not advancing yourself.

The world we live in is a cruel and cold place that seeks to dehumanize-especially women. Far be it from me to want to deny self-esteem from a woman that wants to be in the military, but this is really rather sad. You ought to join the military realizing you are a complete person already-your character is challenged and some cases formed but your self-worth should be based on your unique individual identity not what an external human organizations gives you, labels you or packages you. Stop military existentialism in general and get a warrior emphasis back in our military and the "feminist" problem will go away.

We'd be left with men/women focused on >battlefield excellence. The women that chose to be involved will be there then by conviction, will know the risks and accept them. The modern battlefield is non-linear so even excluding women from combat arms doesn't shield them from the horrors of war. If we do not face these realities and make adjustments according to our choices we beg for a future military disaster.

We must always remember the "women" or "woman" is a kind of man. When we talk of the "men" it's about women for women, for men, for humanity.


"The age of heroes is not so long past,
so long as there remains ONE MAN,
who conytributes to sustain the weak,
mold the characters of the young
and bring hope to the lives of the needy..."


"It is not the critic who counts,
not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or the doer of deeds could have done them better....
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in he arena;
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;
who arrives valiantly;
who errs and comes short again and again;
who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause;
who, at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement;
and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly;
so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither defeat nor victory...."---

President Theodore Roosevelt, from his "Citizenship in a Republic" speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910.