And if your concept of spec ops was valid, there wouldn't be a need for paratroopers or even an army - we'd just have a bunch of spec ops people running around Iraq and Afghanistan. You've been watching too many Hollywood movies. It may or may not important to sort out those of our ground troops who might, in a pinch, be third string Olympic contenders. But they don't win battles like Bastogne, regardless of what your Hollywood-fueled fantasies may tell you. (And the fact that you haven't heard of the 508th, but seem to have ample information about the snake-eaters tells me that you've got a serious problem with proportion. Snake-eaters get to brag about being Olympic wannabes at best, but para divisions destroy large enemy units).
The idea that SPECOPS personnal can be pumped out in large numbers is incorrect. Few people who seek entry into the special operations unit or their respective military branch succeed.
Your third string Olympians comment is something I’d expect from a horse’s ass like Mrs.Bill Clinton.
It’s fine that you are aware that the Battered Bastards of Bastogne were the 508th but it has nothing to do with the current state of war.
I was incorrect about the position of paratroopers on the climb to the elite ranks. Rangers, Green Berets and Delta Force are more highly trained and skilled than are paratroopers thought I do realize Rangers are often in the paratroopers’ ranks instead of a Ranger Battalion, however, the question of Rangers being an elite force is also debated.
In case you haven’t realized, SPECOPS isn’t designed to fight large battles. It requires men who can accomplish a difficult task without the support of a large force, unlike paratroopers.
I am still chuckling about your Hollywood movies comment. It’s incorrect but still funny because of its silliness.