Talk:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance

Special operations capable forces - does the term actually exist?
The USMC used the term special operations capable for a Marine expeditionary unit designating it as Marine expeditionary unit (special operations capable) (MEU(SOC)). A Force Recon platoon in a MEU(SOC) never received a designation and formed part of the Maritime Special Purpose Force. On a side note, Nicholson concluded in his 1994 thesis that only four of the twenty-one missions that a MEU(SOC) was certified for were true special operations missions. The four missions would be carried out by the Force Recon platoon.

This article describes Force Reconnaissance as "one of the United States Marine Corps' special operations capable forces (SOC)" and the type in the infobox is "Special Operations Capable (SOC)". As far as I am aware the USMC has never used the term special operations capable forces and the term has never been used by the United States Armed Forces. I stand to be corrected. Special operations capable was a designation for a MEU not a Force Reconnaissance Company or a Force Recon platoon.

In December 2008, created an article titled United States Marine Corps Special Operations Capable Forces that does not cite any sources for the term Special Operations Capable Forces. The introduction discusses the establishment of the Marine expeditionary unit (special operations capable) program.

In January 2009, RekonDog changed the introduction of this article from "special-purposes units roughly analogous to the U.S. Army Special Forces and are widely recognized as the "special operations forces" of the United States Marine Corps" to "are one of the United States Marine Corps's special operations (capable) forces". ReckonDog later in January changed the type in the infobox from special operations to special operations capable.

The type in the introduction and the infobox should be substituted if the term never existed and is a Wikipedia creation. Neither of the USMC publications the Organization of the United States Marine Corps or the Ground Reconnaissance Operations uses a term to characterize the Force Recon type. One option is to use special operation forces. From what little I have read on Force Recon it would in my opinion fit the definition of a special operation force in List of military special forces units. Although in the US it is not formally considered a special operation forces (designated by the Secretary of Defense).--Melbguy05 (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * dunno if you'll get much of a reaponse here, you might want to post a notice at WT:MILHIST as well. (imho) - w o lf  01:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Change type to special operations forces
I suggest changing the type in the introduction and the type in infobox to special operations forces. Pietrucha in his 2019 dissertation says that "In more recent years, the Marines have sported one of the most elite special operations forces, United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance (Force Recon or FORECON). However, Force Recon was not and still is not a component of USSOCOM". Southworth and Tanner in their 2002 book say that in regards to the USMC you can't "describe 172,000 men as Special Operations Forces .. the rest of the Special Operations world recognizes that it applies to Marine Force Recon". McNab in 2013 book says "In a reversal of the Vietnam era, when division-level recon was emphasized, the stress is now placed on the force reconnaissance unit and direct-action as a special operations unit". Ryan, Mann and Stilwell in their 2003 book say that "the US Marine Recon Battalions are a much neglected special forces group within the US military, probably because they are not part of USSOCOM." The introduction to the article would include that FORECON is not a "Designated Special Operations Forces" that is part of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Melbguy05 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The designation (terminology) "Special operations capable" applies to a MEU not to Force Recon. Force Recon is not described as a "Special operations capable force" by the USMC or in literature. Melbguy05 (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look into what gives a MEU a SOC certification, it is all taskings accomplished by Force Recon companies. The special operation capable certificate of a MEU refers to the capability of its Force Recon company. Fenwaypenguin (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * SOC certification requires predeployment training in three phases for the MEU's elements: Command Element, Ground Combat Element, Aviation Combat Element and Combat Service Support Element. "Each element within the MEU is required to undergo specific training and evaluation throughout each of the phases. The three phases culminate in the MEU being designated special operations capable." The designation "Special operations capable" is for the whole MEU. The USMC describes Force Recon as a "ground reconnaissance unit" while in literature it is described as a "special operations forces". Melbguy05 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * SOC certification is based on Force Recon able to do the taskings and their supporting and commanding elements ability to do their part related role. Force Recon is the most essential element in the certification. I will concede there is room for debate there.
 * But special operation forces as a label for Force Recon is completely inappropriate. Literature has no bearing when all official sources that contradict the notion. The USMC, SOCOM, and Force Recon do not consider Force Recon to be special operations therefore it is wholly inappropriate to refer to them as such. Further, there was many issues with the literature. First, most of the references predate the creation of MARSOC and the Marine Raiders. The creation of MARSOC totally changed Force Recon's mission set. Any references to Force Recon being "special operations" that predate 2006 are wholly relevant to their current status. Further, many of the references in literature concede that Force Recon is not actually special operations but "like" special operations. This explanation concedes that they are not special operations and the author is putting forward an opinion that conflicts with fact. It is misleading to a reader to label Force Recon special operations then expect them to read a note to understand that they are, in reality, not. This is poor communication and contrary to Wikipedia style guidance. Since this matter is core to a reader understanding Force Recon, Force Recon should be first and primarily referred to as what they are. They are not a special operations force, not unit of SOCOM, and they are not considered special operations the USMC, DOD, or SOCOM. A note or later paragraph can explain their capability as being similar to special operations in a limited way, their connection to SOC certifications, then if necessary, post 2006 literature references can be made to explain that some people consider them special operations despite all official sources disagreeing. Labeling Force Recon as special operations outright would require many edits across Wikipedia to maintain consistency. Navy EOD, Army Reserve civil affairs and psychological operations, Army LRS, Marine RTT units all have special operations-like capabilities and have been referred to by literature as special operations despite not being so in official capacity or reality. Fenwaypenguin (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't reliant on official sources. It has a WP:NPOV considering all sources.
 * Do you have a source for Force Recon's mission set changing after MARSOC was created in 2006?
 * The 2019 source is clear "Marines have sported one of the most elite special operations forces, United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance." The 2008 source is clear "Force Recon Companies..they are special-purpose units, widely recognized as the Special Operations Force of the United States Marine Corps."
 * To maintain consistent labels across Wikipedia - units that receive the same training as Force Recon - to be able to conduct combat swimmer operations, boat operations, helocast/HRST operations, combat dive operations, parachute operations (HAHO/HALO), submarine operations, assault climbing, etc.. - are labelled as a special forces/special operations forces.
 * The USMC state that Force Recon shares many of the same TTP [Tactics, Techniques and Procedures], terms, and equipment with special operations forces (this would be referring to " 'designated' special operations forces").
 * Force Recon was discussed last year at WT:MILHIST with one editor commenting that "Force Recon is certainly a special operations unit".
 * If there is potential for a reader to be confused between "special operations forces" and "designated special operations forces" then Force Recon can be labelled as a "special operations unit". Melbguy05 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of sources do not identify Force Recon as special operations forces. The fact that some sources, that have numerous mistakes in fact, does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against the notion. Nor does a single editor agreeing with the notion. Labeling Force Recon as SOF relies on a minority of opinions and the minority of sources. Introducing the new terminology of "SOF" and "designated SOF" is nonsensical. This terminology does not exist outside your comment and Wikipedia does not allow original research or first hand sources. Nor should it be practice to introduce new terminology when the current special operations vs special operations capable/special purpose terminology exists and is widely used. A quick google search that yielded 7 sources that explicitly state that are not special operations and identify them as "special purpose" forces. Any decision needs to be made based on the preponderance of evidence, giving account to reliability of sources, and not based on a minority of cherry picked single sources. Insistence that Force Recon is SOF seems to be rooted in loyalty to the unit and unit pride as opposed to fact-based decision making. USMC doctrine does not identify them as SOF and nor does the overwhelming majority of sources. Thus the conclusion should be made that they are not. Further, combat swimmer operations, assault climbing, helocasting, and boat operations are all capabilities employed by conventional force units. Conventional Air Force pararescue, Navy EOD, Army Engineers, and Coast Guard all use these tactics. Force Recon having these capabilities is not evidence of their SOF status. Nor would capabilities alone enough to label a unit as SOF. Fenwaypenguin (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your saying the 2019 and 2008 sources are not reliable sources? and the 2002 source that states "the Marine's own "elite". Though no one in the Corps uses that word, the rest of the Special Operations world recognizes that it applies to Marine Force Recon." is also not a reliable source?
 * "Designated special operations forces" is a term used in the doctrine for special operations and has been used by the USMC. It is not a new term.
 * What are the links for the 7 Google search results that identify Force Recon as "special purpose" forces?
 * You didn't comment on "combat dive operations, parachute operations (HAHO/HALO), submarine operations". Unit capabilities and sources that describe a unit as special operations/forces together with recognition from the USMC that they have the same TTP, terms, and equipment should be enough to label a unit. Melbguy05 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you're completely sidestepping the argument regarding preponderous of sources. Yes, I am saying that those sources are unreliable. Opinions and editorials have less reliability than fact-based argument. Your interpretation of them is even more questionable. The 2019 source is a master thesis from a STUDENT at NPS regarding "How SHOULD SOF be organized." It's a speculative piece about new ways SOCOM can be reorganized. Including this as a source is highly questionable. When you're saying that "literature has described Force Recon as special operations," you should be saying "almost all literature clearing states that Force Recon is not special operations, but there's four examples (2 outdated) that state that they are." 2002 is before the creation of MARSOC so that source is completely irrelevant. Force Recon was elite, the MARSOC took their elite operators. Force Recon currently has no selection or addition requirement above the traditional Recon battalion. It's a rotation assignment without permanent members. There are no sources that label them as SOF without acknowledging that this is minority and controversial opinion. Sources that label them as conventional forces do not have to include this caveat. I'll include them at the end of this reply. In the source you listed "designated SOF" has the exact same definition as SOF. You are creating a delineation that does not exist. That is original research. Force Recon clearly fits the existing "special purpose" and "special operations capable" label. There are conventional units with dive, HALO, and submarine capabilities. As I mentioned, conventional Navy divers do most of those things. Army ROTC cadets attend HALO school and combat diver school as a broadening opportunity. Those capabilities are not purely SOF capabilities. In order to be SOF, you must do SOF missions, which Force Recon does not. Further, many conventional units regularly support SOF operations without being SOF. Army aviation, Army Reserve Civil Affairs, Army Reserve PSYOP, Navy submarines all regular support SOF operations and receive enhanced training to do so. Having an enhanced skillset in order to operate with SOF does not make a unit a SOF unit. SOCOM has the SOF Truths documents. "Truth V. Most special operations require non-SOF support." Special operations capable/special purpose forces like Force Recon fit in that category perfectly.
 * At this point, I think we've exhausted our arguments and we should both recuse ourselves from making a determination. An editor or other third party should determine the direction of this article. No further edits should be made until that third party has made a decision.
 * https://gendischarge.com/blogs/news/marine-recon-vs-marine-raiders-marsoc
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/03/01/where-does-marine-force-recon-fit-in-the-world-of-special-operations/?sh=234397767c1f
 * https://www.marines.mil/News/Tag/29518/force-recon/
 * https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/3255497/26th-meu-completes-magtf-interoperability-course/
 * https://www.dvidshub.net/news/445842/26th-meus-maritime-special-purpose-force-supports-nsw-during-exercise-trident-23-4
 * https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/MMD.htm
 * https://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-special-operations/usmc-recon-fitness-training
 * https://greydynamics.com/marine-force-reconnaissance-a-marine-corps-staple/
 * https://coffeeordie.com/marine-recon Fenwaypenguin (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, taking this to WP:3O, and then (if necessary), to WP:DR, would probably be a good way to go at this point. (jmho) - w o lf  10:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you provided referred to FORECON as "special purpose". Four sources used "special operations capable" with one gendischarge WP:USERGENERATED and another forbes a blog also WP:USERGENERATED.
 * I have removed the "special operations forces" references except for the USMC reference. I changed the type of unit from "special operations capable" which is term used for a whole MEU to a "deep reconnaissance" unit. Melbguy05 (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If all the sources or "literature" refer to the as special operations capable, shouldn't that be their label regardless if that term technically refers to a MEU(SOC)? I think you should have waited for a 3rd party to make a call. But so be it. I have no reservations with addition deep reconnaissance and removal of special operations. Fenwaypenguin (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)