82nd Advisor Brigade to A-Stan in June
Washington Post, "4,000 More US Troops to Be Sent to Afghanistan." by Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe. 26 MAR 09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
President Obama is pushing to send a brigade from the 82nd as an Advisor Brigade,
Quote:
The extra 4,000 troops, expected to deploy in June, are to fill that gap. In a sign of the new importance the administration is placing on the mission, a brigade of the U.S. Army's vaunted 82nd Airborne Division is being broken up into 10 to 14 member advisory teams, the Pentagon official said. Until now, the military has relied heavily on inexperienced National Guardsmen to fill out the teams.
Does anyone know what the makeup of these 10-14 man teams will be? I'm guessing it will be more pairings at the company level, with a couple BN or BDE teams following the MiTT / ETT model, but that's just a guess.
Quote:
The assignment also represents a major cultural shift for the service. Most rising Amy officers have gone out of their way to avoid advisory duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, preferring assignments with more traditional combat brigades and battalions. Advisory team jobs have been widely seen as career killers.
If an entire BDE is being tasked, I don't see everyone volunteering, and if officers, nco's, and Soldiers will be on these teams, so I don't see the relevance to just officers. I also knew senior NCO's that wanted nothing to do with MiTTs (and a few who were tasked, and are doing their duty honorably). If a company commander or 1SG lose their companies to advisor duty, I don't think they'll be relieved and excited, but I could be wrong.
I think putting people who know and work together is a better option than individual augmentees, but again, unless these teams have selection criteria, the wrong people could end up in the wrong places. Also, how many of the BDE will be advising, and how many will be in support on FOBs?
This is going to be the test run for the Iraq Advisor Brigades, but I hope they're not just throwing a BDE into this with little warning and train-up, which is basically the augmentee method.
Personal note: I "volunteered" for an Iraq Border Transition Team out of my CCC, expecting to leave late this year, but a medical issue has popped up that may pull me out of the fight for a while (or long while). Hoping it will clear up, but the doctor actually knows what he is talking about, whereas I just want to get out of TRADOC and back in the fight.
Yeah but I think it's both more complex and more simple.
I've heard that the Army's preference for the Advisory mission is to take a Bn or BCT, give it some added Specialists and a mission specific trainup and send it forth for a year to do great things. That, IMO, is a very good fix with both training (for the Bn/BCT and the assisted nation or force) and minimal disruption of the total force values. A key factor will be the quality of the trainup (and the first one is bound to be poor in comparison to later editions), :cool:
However, I've also heard the new crowd at DoD doesn't like that idea and is inclined to opt for dedicated Advisors. That's really dumb IMO. It will not be popular (which is machts nichts) and it will be disruptive and will result in persons not current going to train others -- so we'll probably do that... :rolleyes:
So maybe this thread reports an effort to give it a try and see how well it works. On that basis, picking the 82d makes sense. ??? We'll see, I guess...
LoW, ROEs & the ethics/morality of warfare ...
While ruminating about in the above subject matter area, I came upon a thesis by Colonel Peter A. Newell, "Preparing the strategic sergeant for war in a flat world: Challenges in the application of ethics and the Rules of Engagement (ROE) in joint / multinational / multicultural operations" (20 May 2008), which is online at www.dtic.mil/. Googling also works.
In the usual run of things, I end up reading materials by active and retired JAG officers, and by I Law professors (some of them are actually OK). It was refreshing to see this subject approached by an infantry / armor officer who has no apparent legal background in his bio.
The thesis has five parts:
Quote:
Chapter I – Introduction
Chapter II – Doctrinal Review (a non-technical focus on: The Theory of Armed Conflict; US Policy and Law; Rules of Engagement; Commander’s Intent)
Chapter III – Situational Analysis (focus on his Analytical Model & Case Study – The Fall of a Warrior King) - discussed here at SWC in "
Sassaman Interview"
Chapter IV – Training (focus on Institutional Training; Combat Training Center Program)
Chapter V – Summary and Conclusions (focus on Understanding the Law of War; Collective Training)
This is simply a good, practical article, which should be more relevant to combat officers than to armchair lawyers (though it certainly held my interest).
COL Newell also comes recommended by 120mm.
Its relevance to this thread is here:
Quote:
Deploying brigade to test 'advise and assist' concept
May 01
By Gary Sheftick
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, May 1, 2009)