Expanding the Role of the Foreign Area Officer
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.
Agree, John. The program is critical and has always
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...
Near and dear to my heart
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.