Expanding the Role of the Foreign Area Officer

[Ali Omur]

I want to first introduce myself, my name is Ali Omur and I am an US Army Major and a Foreign Area Officer. I have had several overseas deployments to include OEF/OIF and wanted to solicit feedback on an idea I have to expand the role of Foreign Area Officers.

The Army has a trained cadre of foreign area and political science experts that are the ambassadors and diplomats of the US Armed Forces overseas known as Foreign Area Officers (FAOs). FAOs receive years of extensive training in foreign languages, diplomacy, strategic intelligence and international relations. They fill a wide range of posts both at home and worldwide. One can find FAOs serving as military attaches at foreign embassies, providing analysis on foreign nations out of the Pentagon or working as country experts to the major combatant commands. Besides all of the great work they do in these critical areas, there is still another way the foreign expertise of FAOs should be put to use…as a tactical-level commander’s advisor.

Under current force structures, FAOs are completely absent below the combatant-command level. FAOs would be a valuable asset to the Division and Brigade-level commander within the wide range of full spectrum operations. Full spectrum operations, such as stabilizing the situation, securing the peace, building host-nation capacity and transitioning authority to civilian control all require an intensive understanding of foreign civilian populations and military forces. FAOs, by virtue of their training, possess a deeper understanding of the local population in terms of politics, culture, military and economics. Having an expert advisor on such matters would be of immense value to commanders who are already juggling a multitude of concerns. A trained FAO on the staff of a division or brigade-level unit would provide much needed advice to the unit commander, serve as the commander’s representative in building ties and relationships with the local population and leaders, and provide expert and on-the spot data and analysis to higher headquarters.

MAJ Ali N Omur. The views I have expressed are my own personal opinion and do not relfect the views of the US Army.

[patmc]

Sir, welcome to the site. Would you recommend assigning FAO's to DIVs or BDEs in CONUS, or just during deployments? I agree they would add a lot of valuable experience, but pulling them back to the states would take them away from their "real job," and you may have to guess which area to focus on, rather than having a FAO from each area, due to manpower limits. How large would the FAO force need to grow?

If the Army plans to do COIN and expeditions for a generation, it needs to grow advisors and FAOs, to keep a valuable and informed footprints where they are needed.

[Ali Omur]

Thanks patmc for your feedback and question. I definitely believe that FAOs should only be assigned when the units are in theater...the Army invests too much money and training in FAOs to have them sitting "idle" when assigned to units back in CONUS. Plus, the FAO program wouldnt have to grow too large if they are only assigned to divisions and brigades during a deployment.

[Norfolk]

Thanks patmc for your feedback and question. I definitely believe that FAOs should only be assigned when the units are in theater...the Army invests too much money and training in FAOs to have them sitting "idle" when assigned to units back in CONUS. Plus, the FAO program wouldnt have to grow too large if they are only assigned to divisions and brigades during a deployment.

Hello Major, and welcome to the SWC.:) You've raised a rather intriguing subject here. Very offhand, what you propose seems almost like a resort to the old and generally successful British institution of the Political Officer (a civilian, mind you, but nevertheless intimately familiar with the Military, and serving as the coordinator/facilitator between military operations and political objectives). Might this be a fair, if very loose, comparison of sorts?

[RTK]

Thanks patmc for your feedback and question. I definitely believe that FAOs should only be assigned when the units are in theater...the Army invests too much money and training in FAOs to have them sitting "idle" when assigned to units back in CONUS. Plus, the FAO program wouldnt have to grow too large if they are only assigned to divisions and brigades during a deployment.

Having worked with a few in theater, I concur. They're too valuable to be sitting in the States on staff in garrison but are a huge premium. Perhaps a training program for staffs, particularly S2s, S3s and Pre-command courses to properly use these assets is in order, however.

[John T. Fishel]

As an OLD FAO, your proposal takes me back to the future.:wry:

Once upon a time, FAO was a functional area in a dual tracked world where each officer had a branch and a FA. Assignments, in theory (and to a lesser extent in reality) alternated between branch and FA. So, an Inf FAO was expected to command a company, be a bn S3, and bn commander - in between he served FAO assignments as a Pol-Mil officer, Army section chief in a SAO, and as a DATT. Some had excellent timing and retired as 06s or rarely as 010s; some had bad luck and retired as 04s.

Along came Force XXI which allowed FAOS to single track. It tended to regularize a career with most retiring as 05s and a normal number as 06s. But it tended to restrict the opportunity for any FAO to make 07 or higher. (I grant you that the gods may smile once in a while - or perhaps it is the Fairy Godmother Dept) but the Freddie Valenzuelas, Bernie Loeffkes, Fred Woerners, and John Abizaids are likely to be nearly an extinct breed under the current system. The other unintended consequence of the Force XXI reform was to largely eliminate FAOs from the staffs of bn, bde, and div and certainly from command assignments in those combat units.

Don't know quite how to effectively remedy the situation - we clearly need FAO expertise at the tactical and operational level. A return to the dual track system would, IMO, be the easiest way to achieve the goal but it would be frought with the same career inequities and randomness as it was in the past. Perhaps, it could be modified in such a way as to get the best of both worlds...

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

been a stepchild. It really needs to be mainstreamed and they need to be heeded early in the planning process. We spent (and still spend) millions training those guys and did -- do -- not listen to them. Could have saved ourselves some lumps if we had. Recently as well as long ago...

Interestingly enough, easily the best two Battalion commanders I ever had and the best staff Colonel for whom I worked for were FAOs doing their branch time. Lot of talent there...

[Tom Odom]

As a dual area FAO for the Middle East/Nroth Africa and subsaharan Africa, I would agree that FAOs should be on the ground in the operational and tactical arena. Minimally I would say that division commanders should have an experienced FAO as a POLAD equivalent to actual FSO POLADs at higher headquarters.

John T brings up the old days of the dual track; in some cases it worked and in otthers it did not. I met a number of dual trackers who were paper qualified in their areas but had surface knowledge. I also met other FAOs who were defact single-tracked whose grasp of military affairs was equally superficial. I was cited as an example of FAOs along with LTC Tony Marley in GEN Sullivan's memo to the DCSOPS (G3) and DCSPER (G1) about fixing the program to retain to quality FAOs. I chose to retire at O5 as did Tony. Sullivan's fix was the Force XXI single track.

Personally I was OK with single track as I was an MI officer with a FAO secondary for 15 years. Working as a FAO tracked closely with strategic intelligence; that would not work well for an Infantry FAO.

But some of the best FAOs (and one of the worst) I have met were AG; they left AG for FAO because they wanted to do something operational and they did well. The exception was my replacement in the Congo and I don't think that was related to branch issues. Rather that was just dog-assed stupidity; Stan can expand on that if he chooses to do so.

Overall I agree the program is critical; I have head through contacts like Old Eagle--himself an Infantry/FAO who dual tracked--that certain geniuses are saying perhaps a FAO program is too expensive in wartime. That sort of thinking is dangerous.

Welcome to SWC,

Tom

[Old Eagle]

I was a dual-track IN/FAO. Had no problem making gates in both fields. There are advantages and disadvantages to both COAs (dual/single track) -- duh!

Bottom line is that if the Army expands FAO force structure, it must support the changes with resources. There was a time when getting a FAO assigned meant that you got a guy (or gal) with a masters in his/her area, an appropriate language, and on-the-ground experience (In-country training) in the region. There was a concerted effort to get all FAOs to those standards. I understand that in the meantime, qualifications have become more spotty due to resource constraints.

The Army actually deleted FAO slots from tactical organizations because they were not performing FAO-type functions. With the flattening of the "levels of war" construct, tactical organizations are now operating with operational and strategic impacts. It may therefore make sense to put 48s back in lower level units.

[John T. Fishel]

You both support what my experience told me. Frankly, you can probably make either or both single and dual tracking work. Old Eagle, under the old dual track system making gates in both was IMO more of a crap shoot than under single track. But, as Tom suggests (I think) dual track was more flexible in that one could often single track under it. Downside was the FAO in name only who really didn't know jack about the culture he was a supposed expert about. But then, no system is perfect.

Borrom line, we do need more FAOs at the tactical and operational levels and they have to be supported - another statement of the obvious.:rolleyes:

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

LATAM, Euro and Korean FAOs got the best of both worlds. We could serve in theater in our branches, allowing us to keep up language skills and situational awareness. Other areas weren't as fortunate.

[Tom Odom]

LATAM, Euro and Korean FAOs got the best of both worlds. We could serve in theater in our branches, allowing us to keep up language skills and situational awareness. Other areas weren't as fortunate.

Good point and matches my impressionistic experience in dealing with FAOs for those regions. Africa and Middle East/N Africa as regions were as you say a different kettle of fish. In some cases, I found 18 series officers who were quasi FAOs (or actual 48s) to be very effective because they dual tracked on regions they were focused on to begin with.

I agree with you and John T; a rigid approach does not work well. There needs to be some flexibility in the system. In 1985, Dan Larned approved my second area qualification because he was willing to be flexible (also known as common sense). But as we all know, big Green is not the most flexible organization until a 4-star or a herd of 4-stars makes it so. It would help in that regard if we actually had a 4 star with FAO qualifications.

Tom

[Ali Omur]

Thank you to everyone for the welcome and feedback. I have been watching the threads and discussion on SWJ for a month or so, and I have been impressed with the level of experience and quality of debate everyone brings to the forum. The topic I posted is the thesis for a paper I am writing, and the feedback you all have given me is quite helpful. Since becoming a FAO I have strongly felt that we can and should contribute to the operational side of the Army. There is already an initiative in place that will allow FAOs to be Military Transition Team Chiefs in Iraq, but I think utilizing FAOs as a "POLAD" so to speak for divisions and brigades would be of immense value.

I look forward to getting to know everyone and contibuting to the forum.

[Stan]

Since becoming a FAO I have strongly felt that we can and should contribute to the operational side of the Army.

The FAOs I know, and have worked for, have been the very reason I was successful as an Army NCO.

Their significant contributions -- often at great personal risk during civil war, social and political upheaval -- sadly were never recognized. My FAOs frequently adjusted "National Attention" to situations gone haywire, and took a good many ass-chewing doing said.

Welcome aboard !

Regards, Stan

[Juan Rico]

i've been a long time lurker of this forum, and just wanted to mention that you guys are top notch. i've learned much from reading thru the various discussions and debates. don't know if you guys have read this article by kaplan (it's actually part of 'imperial grunts'):

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200403/kaplan

Our hotel was two hundred yards farther along the railroad tracks, a poured-concrete blockhouse with hard beds, hideous furniture, and cracked windows. Wilhelm quickly changed into his BDU, adorned with Ranger and paratrooper insignia, and put on his new U.S. Army black beret. We all gathered in Wilhelm's room. Colonel D. Battsengel, the leader of the Mongolian delegation, ordered breakfast brought up: buuz, or mutton-ball dumplings in goulash; fatty cold cuts; and salty camel's-milk tea. We cleaned our plates.

"The American military will eat anything, anywhere, anytime," Wilhelm announced to our hosts. Major Altankhuu translated. (Though Wilhelm's Russian is fluent, his Mongolian is more rudimentary.) Everybody laughed. After asking the name of a Mongolian officer a second time, Wilhelm, apologizing, said, "I always ask for a name twice. When I remembered a woman's name the first time, I knew she would be my wife." Laughter again. Wilhelm's friendly banter and broad smile never faltered.

After small talk about wrestling and martial arts, Colonel Battsengel told us he was from northeastern Mongolia, where Genghis Khan was born and probably is buried. Formally welcoming us to East Gobi Province, Battsengel said that the tempo of development there was about to pick up dramatically, with the establishment of an economic free-trade zone, manufacturing plants, and a Chinese casino on the border. The population of Zamyn-Uud, he said, would soon increase from 10,000 to 30,000. The Chinese were pushing hard to establish casino gambling in Mongolia, an enterprise that favored their business acumen and organizational skills.

[Juan Rico]

there's also a great article from this site that's a bit dated but still very relevant:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kaczmar.htm

“... today we lack the linguistic and cultural skills and resources fundamental for competing in the new international environment. We can no longer define our national security interests in military terms alone. Our ignorance of world cultures and world languages represents a threat to our ability to remain a world leader.”

- Senator David Boren, Chairman Senate Intelligence Committee

The FAO program, as currently established in the Marine Corps, makes an effort to give participants language and cultural training. There are two tracks established in the FAO program. The first, the Study Track, seeks to train Captains through Majors in area-specific languages, military forces, culture, history, sociology, economics, politics, and geography.73 Currently, it involves one year at the Naval Post Graduate School yielding a master's degree, follow on language training at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), and a structured six month in-country training program. This training package typically requires a three year payback tour. Following the completion of training, there is a requirement for the Marine to serve m a billet, normally in the Joint Service arena, utilizing the skills he has learned.74 This is the most in-depth program used by the Marine Corps to develop area specialists. Following a payback tour in the area studied by the Marine, that individual becomes an expert on that culture because of his immersion in it. At the present time the Marine Corps FAO Program provides training covering the following languages and areas within the Study Track: Arabic, Chinese, Thai, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese.

[Juan Rico]

my questions, i guess, are a bit on the low level since i'm just a student, but do Marine and Army FAOs train in different venues? if so, do they eventually come together at some point before deploying to their individual areas of responsibilities? do FAOs from the various branches of service work together?

[Old Eagle]

As you might guess, you can't "train" a FAO. You have to educate and develop him/her over a number of years. At the basis of the old Army FAO program was a short orientation course, language training (normally at DLI), grad school, and a year of in-country training. In fact one of the critiques of that program was it took young officers out of the mainstream force for too long. (Truth in lending -- I got my language in college, then grad school and ICT under the auspices of another, non-FAO, program. The Army was nonetheless happy to accept me.) I also now understand that one or more of those steps may be short-cutted now.

What that means, back to your question, is that not only do Army and USMC dudes and dudettes not "train" together, the Army folks don't even train together. We do serve together, however.

When explaining Army FAO opportunities and career development to aspiring officers, I'd generally categorize future assignments in 4 broad areas -- policy & plans (J5, OSD, interagency, etc), security assistance, and two types of intel -- analysis and operations. In my own mind a well-rounded FAO would build assignments in more than one area, so as not to become a one-trick pony.

Given the above paragraph, you can expect to see your colleagues from other services on staffs and in embassies. In fact, what normally develops is a fairly close group of practitioners who cross paths throughout their careers.

Rec you go to FAO assn website at www.faoa.org. I think that each of the Service proponents has a link there.

Oops -- guess I gave a Rob Thornton asnwer to your pretty straightforward question.

[Tom Odom]

you can't "train" a FAO.

Now Stan would agree with that one!


Oops -- guess I gave a Rob Thornton asnwer to your pretty straightforward question.

Ony if you rewrite and triple it....


We love you, Rob :D

[Juan Rico]

What that means, back to your question, is that not only do Army and USMC dudes and dudettes not "train" together, the Army folks don't even train together. We do serve together, however.



thank you, sir... do you think development and education of FAOs should be consolidated OR is the status quo actually better for the autonomy of FAOs? how independent are FAOs? is mr. kaplan's account of col. wilhelm in mongolia the average or is this an exception?

(i apologize for taking this discussion on a tangent, away from maj. omur's more relevant tactical matter)

[Old Eagle]

I don't believe that "training" should be consolidated, in fact, I don't think it can be. Certainly, if you continue ICT, then everyone can't go to the same country.:D

I also think that the Services should use a wide variety of the very best grad schools, and not try to cookie cutter everyone's education at only one central location.

Language -- your call.

Yes, the COL Wilhelm story is pretty representative of what a lot of us have done. I invite John T and Tom to amaze us with tales of the developing world. Stan, too, of course, just not about any of our escapades.

[Stan]

Now Stan would agree with that one!


Train FAOs :D

Generally DAS and SAO SNCOs will break the young FAOs into submission, then you're off to a cushy assignment in Sub-Sahara (with the same Sierra and snappy NCO) :cool:



Language -- your call.

Stan, too, of course, just not about any of our escapades.

I'd have to say that nearly every FAO in both Africa and here would never have been remotely as successful without the benefit of language training. Ants Teetsov (the old fart is still alive, but now on half day schedules at the MOD) still talks about you and your great German language abilities. Where would you have gone without additional languages ? Well, there is your shinning face and pesky demeanor to go with ;)

[Old Eagle]

You're right about my non-existant Estonian. I did manage to use my Finnish, however, but not with many Stones. Older gen tended to German (my strong suit) and younger ones to English (still a challenge).

I thought Teetsov died a coupla years ago. That's what one of the Swiss reported. Gotta watch my sources.

You haven't lived until you've sat in Ants' apt, eating little fishy sandwiches and swilling vodka. One of my prissier bosses told me on the way to my first encounter there, that he wasn't going to eat any "disgusting little fish." Clearly not a FAO. To this day I am sure that the vodka killed anything I may have ingested. HELLO!!!

[Cavguy]

Two combat company commander friends of mine went FAO - both as Russian FAO's beginning in late 2004.

First they went to DLI for Russian for a year, and then to Garmish (Marshall Center) to do a "walkabout" type thing for a year in Russia/East Europe. Now they're both going back Grad school (both to Ivy League schools) for two years. I'm sure there was some FAO courses in there as well. Following Grad school they'll be out in the force.

[Stan]

You haven't lived until you've sat in Ants' apt, eating little fishy sandwiches and swilling vodka. One of my prissier bosses told me on the way to my first encounter there, that he wasn't going to eat any "disgusting little fish." Clearly not a FAO. To this day I am sure that the vodka killed anything I may have ingested. HELLO!!!

I've got an old B&W that Ants shot... there were better days after that relatively cheap vodka and those RAW (smoked) fish burgers with a slice of boiled egg on top :)

I recall SF types cheesing around Eastern Estonia on *ahem* immersion training. The Ambo caught wind of that and told the unit they could go to Russia to immerse, or, get out. They left to learn Russian in CONUS :D

Albeit amusing, I think the Ambo, armed with but the English language, neglected to fully comprehend the current need for Russian speakers in the Armed Forces today. Wish I could check back with the old buzzard and see what he now thinks (about our lack of adequate foreign language capabilities).

[Old Eagle]

I was there for the Russian debacle. They weren't SF, they were MI. No country or theater clearance. (Not a good start.) Somebody (I thought it was you) busted them at George Browne's. Ambo's point was that he would welcome anyone coming to country to learn Estonian, but not Russian. It gave the impression that the USG believed that EE was still part of the Soviet Union. Frankly, I was on the Ambo's side. The sending unit had ample opportunity to make good w/Ambo, but elected not to do it. At the time, St. Pete was equally open as Tallinn, w/o the political baggage.

[Tom Odom]

I don't believe that "training" should be consolidated, in fact, I don't think it can be. Certainly, if you continue ICT, then everyone can't go to the same country.:D

I also think that the Services should use a wide variety of the very best grad schools, and not try to cookie cutter everyone's education at only one central location.

Language -- your call.

Yes, the COL Wilhelm story is pretty representative of what a lot of us have done. I invite John T and Tom to amaze us with tales of the developing world. Stan, too, of course, just not about any of our escapades.

I only amaze myself and embarrass Stan..or maybe the reverse...or was that amuse Stan and embarras the US? :D

Developing does not describe the Congo---better to use diminishing or devolving because progress does not apply to Kin La Belle et le Congo.

Agree also on the diverse schools. I went to NPS on the Top 5% program (fooled 'em) when funds were tight under Jimmy the Peanut. NPS turned out to be a great school but going to grad school in more lefi-wing settings has its own charm :D

Fish burgers with sliced egg? Try the feces fed grubs scorched on a hot oil drum lid. Now that's adventure. :eek:

[Old Eagle]

Yeah, my boss, a mideast guy says that the C in 48C stands for champagne FAO. Guess I resemble that remark.

[Stan]

I was there for the Russian debacle. They weren't SF, they were MI. No country or theater clearance. (Not a good start.) Somebody (I thought it was you) busted them at George Browne's. Ambo's point was that he would welcome anyone coming to country to learn Estonian, but not Russian. It gave the impression that the USG believed that EE was still part of the Soviet Union. Frankly, I was on the Ambo's side. The sending unit had ample opportunity to make good w/Ambo, but elected not to do it. At the time, St. Pete was equally open as Tallinn, w/o the political baggage.

Affirmative; it was me that first spotted them in Old Town and I agreed with the principle reasons for their removal (lack of CC, etc.). As far as USA impressions go, we've got so many of those Jehovah's Witnesses running around in black suits speaking (err, learning) Russian in Tallinn, that I have to wonder who ultimately controls these freaks of nature abroad, and do we seriously concern ourselves with sending the wrong message. Adds a whole new meaning to Ugly American. Bilateral Affairs (stepchild to the Mil-to-Mil with far less cash) has so many programs running now, that finding a Soldier in Tallinn is child's play. Those that do make an effort to communicate, still try Russian first before switching to English.


I only amaze myself and embarrass Stan..or maybe the reverse...or was that amuse Stan and embarras the US? :D

Developing does not describe the Congo---better to use diminishing or devolving because progress does not apply to Kin La Belle et le Congo.

Agree also on the diverse schools. I went to NPS on the Top 5% program (fooled 'em) when funds were tight under Jimmy the Peanut. NPS turned out to be a great school but going to grad school in more lefi-wing settings has its own charm :D

Fish burgers with sliced egg? Try the feces fed grubs scorched on a hot oil drum lid. Now that's adventure. :eek:

I think you deep down were trying to amuse me. The Belg described Zaire as Malfunction Junction.

Hmmm, grubs in hot oil (there's no emoticon to convey puking)... Ranger, I told you not to eat those things cooked in front of the Embassy. The thought of our drivers showing up in the AM having had a few grubs on their breathe just made my day :wry:

[Tom Odom]

Yeah, my boss, a mideast guy says that the C in 48C stands for champagne FAO. Guess I resemble that remark.

All that changed in my mind when Yugoslavia fell apart. Suddenly the European FAOs around the Pentagon and DC in general got a new meaning in their lives.


Stan, we did have our laughs so I guess I succeeded. I still chuckle at the thought of Yigal raiding those UNHCR trucks to swipe a UN flag outside our favorite eatery on Lake Kivu.

Best

Tom

[Old Eagle]

Funny you should mention one of my old stomping grounds.

As it turns out -- hey Ali pay attention -- at the height of the various live fire exercises in YU, the Army managed to eliminate 3 of the best regional experts it owned by passing them over.

I recounted this episode in an article I wrote for the FAOA Journal a hundred years ago: I was walking out of the 5-sided nuthouse with a GO neighbor of mine enroute to the parking lot. On the way, he greeted a Yugo FAO I knew from a previous incarnation. He then mentioned that the FAO had worked for him on the Joint Staff and was one of the critical members of the SEEur team -- spoke Serbo-Croation, knew all about how ethnic groups interacted, had contacts in the region, etc -- absolutely brilliant. As almost a throwaway, I told the general that I hoped that he had "top blocked" the officer. No, the gen replied, "he's only a FAO and I needed to save my top blocks for some of the combat arms officers who wanted to command bns." By the time I returned to DC the next time, the officer had been passed over twice to LTC and was on his way out, right in the middle of the major US interventions. Guess we showed him!

[Ken White]

my frothing rants at the personnel system, HRC and Generals and their priorities. I refuse to be baited, I'll just go quiet quietly drunk and exude silent wrath... :mad:

Contemplating on how well -- or how poorly -- the Army can reinvent wheels -- and the old saw that continuing to do the same thing hoping for a different result is insanity. :wry:

I wonder if your neighbor ever considered the fact that not necessarily everyone who wants to command a Bn should do so...

[Tom Odom]

my frothing rants at the personnel system, HRC and Generals and their priorities. I refuse to be baited, I'll just go quiet quietly drunk and exude silent wrath... :mad:

Contemplating on how well -- or how poorly -- the Army can reinvent wheels -- and the old saw that continuing to do the same thing hoping for a different result is insanity. :wry:

I wonder if your neighbor ever considered the fact that not necessarily everyone who wants to command a Bn should do so...

As I have said on here before, one of the common sense tests the Army still fails miserably is selection for resident War College. FAOs are the only element in the Army that deal with strategic issues as centerpiece to their existence. The War College is there trying to expand the mindset of selected officers with regards to strategy and its role--hopefully--driving operational and tactical levels of war. But FAOs do not get selected for resident War College; the best you could hope for (at least when I was in the zone) was non-resident. I suspect that any FAO who did make it did so as a dual tracker who commanded a battalion. As for GO top blocks, the DCSOPS then LTG Peay top blocked me on a special and I have no doubt that rating was important to reaching O5. It did not get me to resident War College.

Which brings up another subject--My experience with FAOs was they tended to eat their own. I had one try and make a snack out of me early on and I know that he did so to several other FAOs. He was a DATT 6 times who never mentored and always looked for chicken caca. In my case it was a coffee cup that I forgot to clean and my "failure" to keep tabs on Sudanese Army buddies after I had graduated from their junior CGSC (CAS3). In this case, he was both my rater and my senior rater--waived and approvedby personnel command. So he gave me a "2" on the front of my OER as rater and then top blocked me on the back as senior rater. Then lost the OER; I ended up giving personnel command a zerox copy rather than have a one year gap in my record.

Another senior FAO--in fact the last Africa bureau chief of DHS/DAS--used another FAO's first name on my 1st rating as the DATT in Zaire. The othr guy has the same name and we both were qualified as 48Gs. Plus we both had worked with this guy before. Still I believe--color me old fashioned--you should be able to get the first name correct of someone you are rating.

So it ain't just the GOs preserving future battalion commanders; it is us as well.

Best

Tom

[Ken White]

Friend of mine some years ago was setting off to Benning for OBC, his Retired Colonel father gave him only one bit of advice for the impending career; "Be good but not too good -- if you're too good, your peers and raters will kill you because you're a threat."

That is really, really sad.

A system that breeds that and is known to do so should not be tolerated and should be dismantled -- instead, we refine it...

[Rex Brynen]

Still I believe--color me old fashioned--you should be able to get the first name correct of someone you are rating.

Absolutely, Bert. Great post!


:D

[Tom Odom]

Absolutely, Bert. Great post!


:D

Thanks, Ralph!

[Tom Odom]

Absolutely, Bert. Great post!


:D

PS, Ralph

I thought you would get a kick out the fact that the same guy who as Chief of the Africa Bureau of the Attache System got my name wrong as DATT wanted to close the station in late 1993 when he learned that the Zairians were refusing to accredit me. Keep in mind that we had a war going on across the river in Brazza, one in Angola, one in Rwanda, and Zaire itself had had 2 large scale military mutinies in 3 years. Had he closed us, there would have been no station for the Goma crisis and what became the African World War in the next three years.

I got to talk to the Director DHS MG Jack Leide and convinced him that Zaire should stay on the books--that I could operate between the cracks of diplomacy and still get the job done.

Bert

[Ron Humphrey]

In reading through the descriptions and focus of FAO doesn't this seem like somewhat of an IO generalist occupation moved to the next step of greater regional understanding through further ed and language specialization.

In other words would this be somewhat of a good career track progression for for 30's?

[Tom Odom]

In reading through the descriptions and focus of FAO doesn't this seem like somewhat of an IO generalist occupation moved to the next step of greater regional understanding through further ed and language specialization.

In other words would this be somewhat of a good career track progression for for 30's?

I am not sure what you are asking. As a 48--especially as a 48J on the ground in Africa--I was initimately involved in what would later be described as IO. Indeed I got on the phone to the Joint Staff from Goma when Radio Television Milles Collines was still broadcasting saying that we were losing the information war. I was also involved in advising the UN on demining awareness and used that work when setting up the US-Rwandan Demining office. Certainly IO considerations had great weight when we crafted a campaign plan for Rwanda.

Could I have used an IO officer? Perhaps. I did use PSYOP as part of the demining effort. And I saw first hand how an NGO doing mine awareness got it wrong with the new government.

Would a 30-series officer with some regional specialization and language be useful? Again, perhaps as long as there was a FAO watching and mentoring. I say that because I did just that with the PSYOP team and the SF teams that I had. They were somewhat regionally specialized and had some language skills. Most did very well. Some however went so far astray that they nearly derailed the demining program.

I guess my bottom line is that a generalist in IO would be better served to compliment the regional and pol-mil skills of the FAO. Doin a 2-fer would be like marrying first cousins; the results might be OK but then again they might not.

Tom

[Ron Humphrey]

I am not sure what you are asking. As a 48--especially as a 48J on the ground in Africa--I was initimately involved in what would later be described as IO. Indeed I got on the phone to the Joint Staff from Goma when Radio Television Milles Collines was still broadcasting saying that we were losing the information war. I was also involved in advising the UN on demining awareness and used that work when setting up the US-Rwandan Demining office. Certainly IO considerations had great weight when we crafted a campaign plan for Rwanda.

Could I have used an IO officer? Perhaps. I did use PSYOP as part of the demining effort. And I saw first hand how an NGO doing mine awareness got it wrong with the new government.

Would a 30-series officer with some regional specialization and language be useful? Again, perhaps as long as there was a FAO watching and mentoring. I say that because I did just that with the PSYOP team and the SF teams that I had. They were somewhat regionally specialized and had some language skills. Most did very well. Some however went so far astray that they nearly derailed the demining program.

I guess my bottom line is that a generalist in IO would be better served to compliment the regional and pol-mil skills of the FAO. Doin a 2-fer would be like marrying first cousins; the results might be OK but then again they might not.

Tom

As you have just pointed out it seems like what an FAO does is IO+ or in otherwords might be one way of understanding where the IO officer fits in this sense.

To the layman such as myself it is sometimes difficult to place the actual role of the 30 but in thinking along the lines of an IO as the jack of all trades master of none and the FAO as the next evolution jack of all trades and master of several it at least paints somewhat of a more coherent picture.

OR I could be comparing apples and SPACESHIPS:wry:

[Matt Romagnuolo]

Interesting post - I'm a 48J Major currently serving as the SAO in Djibouti.

There are existing organizations (recently designed) to do exactly what you suggest - place FAOs with deploying units. They are the International Military Affairs (IMA) organizations at Army Service Component Commands - ARCENT has stood theirs up, and Army Africa is starting to man theirs. The expressed intent is to use the FAOs assigned to the IMA to support BCT and Division level commanders - I'm not sure if it is actually working that way. When not deployed, the FAOs work with their region's countries on Security Cooperation programs.

Also, there has been a lot of talk lately about a single-track FAO "Path to General Officer" including Army centrally selected positions for COLs to support their selection - Serving as IMA Chief as an 06 has been proposed as one such job.

As of a few weeks ago, FAOs of all areas of concentration will be considered for command of training teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. YG92 will be the first to be considered.

Matt Romagnuolo