PDA

View Full Version : Theater Military Advisory and Assistance Group (TMAAG)


SWJED
03-21-2008, 01:03 AM
Theater Military Advisory and Assistance Group (TMAAG) (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/03/theater-military-advisory-and/) by Brigadier General Thomas M. Jordan (USA Ret.) at SWJ Blog

With the newly released publication of its principal operational manual, FM 3.0, the Army defined the principal conceptual underpinnings which will drive operational concepts over the next 10-15 years. The latest edition recognized the importance of understanding the complexity of the operational environment, and the nature of persistent conflict where the application of the military element of power is just one of the key ingredients necessary to achieve success. In light of this understanding, the Army adapted and raised the importance of stability operations onto an equal footing with combat operations. While the Army has made some important changes in training to implement this idea, the pending HQDA approval and resourcing decision of the Theater Military Advisory and Assistance Group (TMAAG) design and implementation strategy represents a visible and demonstrable investment in resources that reinforces the Army commitment to building partnership capacity (BPC) in an uncertain world. The proposed implementation strategy would establish one TMAAG for USARSO in FY10 (EDATE: 16 Oct 09) as proof of principle (PoP). The PoP would test the concept and make appropriate refinements as part of the overall determination to resource additional TMAAGs.

TMAAG’s origin was the Army’s “Unified Quest 2007” series of seminar wargames that supported the Chief of Staff of the Army’s (CSA’s) annual study plan. One of the resulting insights was a potential gap in the Army’s ability to meet Combatant Commanders' daily operations requirements regarding theater security cooperation, military engagement, and Building Partnership Capacity (BPC). The CSA directed TRADOC, and in turn, the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas as the lead to develop an operational concept and organizational solution to the perceived gap...

Ken White
03-21-2008, 01:45 AM
has to wonder why it will take so long to get to a proof of principle test...

I know why, I just don't agree it's necessary and I know it can be short circuited IF the right people want to do that. Obviously they don't. Which is not good...

max161
03-25-2008, 10:54 AM
concept in its current form saying that it is not an Army requirement.

Old Eagle
03-25-2008, 12:56 PM
That's the rumor floating around here. -- See post on "outsiders view" (or whatever). That piece just gets scarier and scarier.

Ken White
03-25-2008, 02:14 PM
Posting rules preclude what I'd like to say. Sheesh.

Old Eagle
03-25-2008, 02:35 PM
In the CSA's defense, TMAAG scratched only a small part of the security force assistance itch, and at substantial cost. TMAAG was Army only, Phase zero only, tactical only, training only, foreign militaries only. It still may have been a step in the right direction. The key now is to see how the USG develops the required capabilities and capacities to successfully engage with foreign security forces in order to build partner capacity.

The true SFA requirement is
joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational
across all phases of operations
from the ministerial/institutional level down to the individual soldier/policeman, border guard, etc
includes organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising (incl combat, if necessary) those forces
includes military, police, paramilitary and infrastructure forces

The argument that "we'll never do another Iraq" is irrelavent. We need to actively build partner capacity before things "go south", but also to build potential coalition partners for future operations.

Ron Humphrey
03-25-2008, 03:28 PM
The only way something like this is going to come about is through a government led effort and organization ?

Like USA:eek: oops forgot that's not happenin;)

Ken White
03-25-2008, 06:07 PM
In the CSA's defense, TMAAG scratched only a small part of the security force assistance itch, and at substantial cost. TMAAG was Army only, Phase zero only, tactical only, training only, foreign militaries only. It still may have been a step in the right direction. The key now is to see how the USG develops the required capabilities and capacities to successfully engage with foreign security forces in order to build partner capacity.Though I acknowledge a cost, I'm unsure the cost was that great.The true SFA requirement is
joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational across all phases of operations from the ministerial/institutional level down to the individual soldier/policeman, border guard, etc. includes organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising (incl combat, if necessary) those forces includes military, police, paramilitary and infrastructure forces.Agreed, an that's indicative of one flaw in Goldwater-Nichols and the creation of Military tribunes... ;) The argument that "we'll never do another Iraq" is irrelavent. We need to actively build partner capacity before things "go south", but also to build potential coalition partners for future operations.Very much true...