Conus Support Team??

I copied this out of an email response I wrote - I've been considering the roles of HSOCs for about a year now. Then today I got the idea of being able to access a CST (CONUS Support Team)- The President said he was looking for ways for the more professionals to help - this would provide support to commanders & staffs by people who might not wish or be able to deploy, but were desiring or willing to help. The teams might be ADHOC, they may change, they may be temporary, but that would be OK, maybe even desirable since you want more professionals who have experiences in addition to their qualifications, not just smart people with a degree. It would have to be managed by somebody, but imagine the flexibility! You could even bill some of it as a USG internship. I don't think you'd want career CST types unless it was a second career or in additon to their day job. A guy like Marc would be perfect as he already donates a great deal of his time and is having a positive impact on operations here (yes Marc - I've stlen everything you've offered up in one form or another to help the mission and those pursuing the mission:wry: if I've not told you and the rest of the SWC - thanks!). Most communities could support something like this - maybe we should run an add in some paper somewhere, establish a group leader and marry them up with a unit?

Thoughts?? What kind of professionals would be useful? What kind of experiences would be beneficial to those skill sets? What kind might not be? How would the group be involved? Would you need a leader and what kind of person might that be. Somebody could do this, and do it right - it could be a USG organization, or it could be a contractor - both have pluses and minuses.

This email actually started as a discussion on Aided Decision Making software (Selil probably has some good thoughts on that one as well) - iworked allot with these concepts back at Knox when I working FCS in the Battle Lab - I never thought the acronym GUI (pronounced "Gooey" for Graphic User Interface) would be in my lexicon:D

Quote:

---

Aided decision Making tools are still being developed and pushed - a study awhile back by RAND on cognitive readiness deterimined that people could only do so much, and while that is sort of a blinding flash of the obvious - some people have to be told its OK to have limits. The development community then hit upon the idea of using intuitive software to aid in decision superiority. The problem is though that computer work in input/out put either by a program or by new user information. Computer analysis of somethings are better then others; things with physical properties such as routes (hydrology, geological features - gradient, soil composition, time distance stuff etc meshed with how long you have to get some where and what you are trying to move - can be useful, but computers dealing with people gets messy (except in a computer simulation where the people are run by the machine). People do crazy things like stuff other people in rice sacks.
I worry a bit that the Army will cut a corner somewhere - because we always try to invest in technology vs. people. I'm not arguing for mongoso deployable staffs, but I do think our guys need better educational development earlier, and that we could supplement them with a HSOC (Home Station Operations Command) like organization- for every deploying MSC that is staffed so that a group of professionals with skills unavailable in the staff - anthropologists, sociolgists, psychologists, etc. Call it 3 x 8 hour shifts that these guys would be colocated where they could brainstorm and act as an adjunct to the staff. They would not have to be on a specific post, but it would be preferable if they were in the same city and could travel to the same physical location. They could begin supporting a specific MSC at its alert so it could be part of the mission prep and establish relationships. Then it would take it all the way through its deployment.
If a new unit is set to RIP with the unit redeploying, it may be more beneficial for that unit to fall in on the HSOC (you know a better term for this might be CST - Conus Support Team) since that CST is now very familiar with the METT-TC (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops, Time, Civilian) components of that geographical area. There would be some security issues, but let the contracting agency do the hiring and providing the secure location - could be on any allied military base. What's great about the US is we have a diverse and educated population, although if you wanted I suppose you could go outside of the US as long as you could deal with the security issues.

---

A couple of other thoughts occured as I was doing PT (yes we have made us a gym here - although we had to steal all the equipment:D - you have to stay in physical shape to sustain mental and emotional strength)

1) Marc had said awhile back that allot of the scientific community is turned off by the military. Even if we got some of the folks we'd like, it'd still be very beneficial to have them able to interact with their peers outside the
group(s) - this means an IO message that says, "we're not here to exploit your work to further an empire, rather we want to avoid misunderstandings, needless bloodshed, shorten conflicts and improve things." We have to change the perception of what we do by a very important part of our society.

2)These CSTs should be networked into a CoP so that what is relevant in one area can be applied to the context of other areas. Part of this is knowing what works for others, but also what is not working for others and why.

3) We have a sort of model here on the SWC, although maybe not all the skills we'd like. However, this CoP and some of the Blogs that we're linked to provide free advice, intel, research, etc. that a CST could make use of.

What would such a team look like? How many is just right (not too big, not too small). Is shift work a good idea where they could always be available - is it sustainable? Would the additional requirements be a shift leader? Would shift leaders report to a team leader? I think the number of AD military needs to be kept small or maybe 0 - they'd be more of an advisory role if anything - however, such and assignment would stimulate innovative thinking and expose AD to things outside their normal experiences.

If you used contractors, you might not get the "public service" effect the President spoke of, and it would not be cheap - there would also be artificial metrics of "what have you produced lately?" which in my mind emphsizes quantity over quality. Maybe there is a hybrid to be had. Or maybe we just need to start a new agency/service that serves as an adjunct to DoD (because they would be the primary benficiary)

Hi Rob,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

I copied this out of an email response I wrote - I've been considering the roles of HSOCs for about a year now. Then today I got the idea of being able to access a CST (CONUS Support Team)- The President said he was looking for ways for the more professionals to help - this would provide support to commanders & staffs by people who might not wish or be able to deploy, but were desiring or willing to help.

---

In general, I think it would be a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, it takes advantage of one of our strengths, which is distributed operations. Second, I think it might relieve some of the popular frustration with the way both current wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) are being handled.

Let me clarify that last reason. I think that many people, at least in Canada and, I am sure in the US as well, are frustrated because "we" (civilians) can't "do" anything. Many of us feel similar to what 120mm expressed in his comments about charities. We are paying for these wars via our taxes, told how important they are, and then told "leave it to the professionals" - this isn't exactly conducive to getting people motivated :wry:. So, this strategy is more closely allied to 120mm's strategy of dealing with charities - invest time and money in something you choose and check out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

The teams might be ADHOC, they may change, they may be temporary, but that would be OK, maybe even desirable since you want more professionals who have experiences in addition to their qualifications, not just smart people with a degree. It would have to be managed by somebody, but imagine the flexibility! You could even bill some of it as a USG internship. I don't think you'd want career CST types unless it was a second career or in additon to their day job. A guy like Marc would be perfect as he already donates a great deal of his time and is having a positive impact on operations here (yes Marc - I've stlen everything you've offered up in one form or another to help the mission and those pursuing the mission:wry: if I've not told you and the rest of the SWC - thanks!). Most communities could support something like this - maybe we should run an add in some paper somewhere, establish a group leader and marry them up with a unit?

---

Hey, Rob, you can't "steal" what's offered as a gift :D. I hope some of it has been usefull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

1) Marc had said awhile back that allot of the scientific community is turned off by the military. Even if we got some of the folks we'd like, it'd still be very beneficial to have them able to interact with their peers outside the group(s) - this means an IO message that says, "we're not here to exploit your work to further an empire, rather we want to avoid misunderstandings, needless bloodshed, shorten conflicts and improve things." We have to change the perception of what we do by a very important part of our society.

---

I think that that is a really good point, Rob. BTW, some of the "turn off" is from a feeling of inadequacy and some of it is from the difficulties in bridging the different worldviews. In order to get the ball up and rolling, probably the best strategy would be to concentrate on the same terrain as the NGOs - e.g. the flying hospitals, relief work, etc.

It would e a fairly hard sell to get support teams for the current wars, although probably easier for Afghanistan than Iraq. The easiest would be for operations in the Horn of Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

2)These CSTs should be networked into a CoP so that what is relevant in one area can be applied to the context of other areas. Part of this is knowing what works for others, but also what is not working for others and why.

3) We have a sort of model here on the SWC, although maybe not all the skills we'd like. However, this CoP and some of the Blogs that we're linked to provide free advice, intel, research, etc. that a CST could make use of.

---

Good idea. Personally, I think that the backbone product should be something like wikipedia. That way if your unit is going to be deployed to, say, the Kenyan border to cordon off Islamists coming out of Somalia, you could get decent background information and a contact for a CST thatis specializing in the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

What would such a team look like?....

If you used contractors, you might not get the "public service" effect the President spoke of, and it would not be cheap - there would also be artificial metrics of "what have you produced lately?" which in my mind emphsizes quantity over quality. Maybe there is a hybrid to be had. Or maybe we just need to start a new agency/service that serves as an adjunct to DoD (because they would be the primary benficiary)

---

Let me toss out an alternative organizational model. First, there would be three levels of CST "membership" and access:

1. People who have a basic security clearance from any Coalition and/or NATO country and, really, only have access to the wiki and the board. There should be a simple application form for this, and remuneration should be minimal - maybe a tax write off and a small honourarium. Ideally, students would also have some potential to access this as well (think recruiting <evil grin>).
2. People who wish to become either area or unit support specialists - similar to your original formulation, Rob. Now we are starting to talk about a fair amount of time, so the trade off between "public service" and remuneration gets to be tricky. The types of people we are talking about are, probably, going to be able to command a pretty good salary, so the motivational factor has to take that into account. I would suggest a three fold recruiting strategy: a tax break (maybe a 150% deductible "Gift" category); some basic type of remuneration; and, finally, some type of conference or convention with status recognition perks. You might be able to get away with the status recognition by itself, but only if there is some tie into people's income (take a look at the Microsoft MVP program for a really good example of this).
3. A small core, including some AD people, who manage the backbone of the program and are responsible for "selling it" both inside the forces and in the civilian world.

Honestly, I would not use contractors for this - it's too expensive and goes against the "public service" element. Where you might use contractors is for the background checks - in the same manner as third party recruiters. Still and all, I'd advise against it.

One final point - the name. Now, this may just be a pet rock of mine (to grab Steve's term) but, as a Canadian nationalist, I really dislike he CONUS part of the acronym. I wold suggest that you change the "C" to mean "Coalition". Besides that, it gives you a bigger pool to draw on and is more likely to get people who have different worldviews.

Marc

Hey Marc,

Quote:

---

One final point - the name. Now, this may just be a pet rock of mine (to grab Steve's term) but, as a Canadian nationalist, I really dislike he CONUS part of the acronym. I wold suggest that you change the "C" to mean "Coalition". Besides that, it gives you a bigger pool to draw on and is more likely to get people who have different worldviews.

---

Concur - it is a Global War and would benefit from non-centric, expanded views available from partners. It would also place it above politics in some regards, since everyone is a stakeholder (although some may not realize it yet).

Quote:

---

The easiest would be for operations in the Horn of Africa.

---

How about we consider a task organization for this AOR? Africa is something Stan and Tom know allot about. It offers up tribal/clan type challenges. It has plenty of agricultural, educational, diplomatic (includes the potential challenges posed by other players), medical, security, governmental, economic/buisness, cultural, logistics and the list goes on kind of challenges. It looks like AFRICOM will happen, and it looks like it will be increasingly important as the future progesses.

Tom Odom revived the "Pet Rock" craze. I am going to try and talk him into creating a "Guerrilla Warfare Rock" for officers. If the officer doesn't get it! a wild young buck sergeant will throw the rock at him and say read the back. Of course on the back will be Tom Odom's principles of Guerrilla Warfare.:wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

How about we consider a task organization for this AOR? Africa is something Stan and Tom know allot about. It offers up tribal/clan type challenges. It has plenty of agricultural, educational, diplomatic (includes the potential challenges posed by other players), medical, security, governmental, economic/buisness, cultural, logistics and the list goes on kind of challenges. It looks like AFRICOM will happen, and it looks like it will be increasingly important as the future progesses.

---

Sounds like a plan to me, and it would probably be one of the best areas to start in. The main potential hitch I see with starting on it is in the area of resources. I do have server space, and I can get more, but it's not secure. I don't know enough about the vBulletin software to know if we can get a private group area set up (SWJED???).

On the plus side, there is a lot of information on Africa. I think it might be a good idea to look at the Horn area to start. This area has a long history of study and activity by NGOs as well, so it would have a good "draw".

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Tom Odom revived the "Pet Rock" craze. I am going to try and talk him into creating a "Guerrilla Warfare Rock" for officers. If the officer doesn't get it! a wild young buck sergeant will throw the rock at him and say read the back. Of course on the back will be Tom Odom's principles of Guerrilla Warfare.:wry:

---

Love it! What a great "fundraising" idea for the SWJ!!!!

Marc

I didn't mean to interrupt the discussion, that item is actually supposed to go to your bloody soapbox. See what happens when you try to do stuff fast at work:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

I didn't mean to interrupt the discussion, that item is actually supposed to go to your bloody soapbox. See what happens when you try to do stuff fast at work:(

---

I know the feeling! I'm juggling between University related stuff and consulting stuff in Toronto right now... I keep thinking that I may have suggested to my university that they develop an integrated strike capacity for dealing with Islamist insurgents :eek:.

Marc

There ain't going to be a coordinated USG effort anytime soon. I know what the President said, but there is currently too much infighting within departments and amongst the departments. There also hasn't been any resourcing allocated to it.

Hi Jimbo,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

There ain't going to be a coordinated USG effort anytime soon. I know what the President said, but there is currently too much infighting within departments and amongst the departments. There also hasn't been any resourcing allocated to it.

---

I'm afraid you are probably right :wry:. Maybe a "private" pilot project would act as a spur. At the minimum, it might get some private support for the idea and a little PR. Still and all, the general philosophy behind it is that of a "People's War", just turned on its head:D. Besides that, if we do go for the C=Coalition, then maybe some funding / resources would show up from other Coalition partners.

Marc

Quote:

---

Tom Odom revived the "Pet Rock" craze. I am going to try and talk him into creating a "Guerrilla Warfare Rock" for officers. If the officer doesn't get it! a wild young buck sergeant will throw the rock at him and say read the back. Of course on the back will be Tom Odom's principles of Guerrilla Warfare.

---

Hey Slapout,
That would be me, Then Tom's NCO. Can't remember any rocks, but did pull the reigns a tad. Carrot and the stick comes to mind :D

Regards, Stan

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
There ain't going to be a coordinated USG effort anytime soon. I know what the President said, but there is currently too much infighting within departments and amongst the departments. There also hasn't been any resourcing allocated to it.

I'm afraid you are probably right . Maybe a "private" pilot project would act as a spur. At the minimum, it might get some private support for the idea and a little PR. Still and all, the general philosophy behind it is that of a "People's War", just turned on its head. Besides that, if we do go for the C=Coalition, then maybe some funding / resources would show up from other Coalition partners.

Marc

---

Besides, the people who frequent this site may not be the decision makers, but we are the poor schmoes who get the tasking:wry: Not to mention that there is probably more useful diversity on this site then any branch of the USG:D Think of it as an IO campaign with a freebie thrown in for good measure. What says the SWJ?

Quote:

---

I didn't mean to interrupt the discussion, that item is actually supposed to go to your bloody soapbox. See what happens when you try to do stuff fast at work

---

Slapout, if you can't have fun while you work, then its too much like work. When we wind up taking ourselves to serious, its probably time to take a real vacation. Beisdes, you (and at least two others I know here) are the resident LE SMEs - we'd be lost without you guys.:)

This is what I am in D.C. working on. The issues definately lie at the level just below "Secretary". Really it is the level between senior level career bureaucrat and bottom level political appointee.

Well from one poor schmoe to another - let us know if we can help.

I think those are great ideas Rob. They're challenging, but good nonetheless. I'd like to think of the proposed CSTs as a directory or "google" of sorts. The guy on the ground has an issue, and even if the CST member doesn't have the answer (or they do not have the rope to impact decision-making directly), they can provide the referral to information that will help.

That happens all the time here when someone puts out an RFI, or poses a question in their post. Recommendations come out in the responses, not necessarily answering the query, but saying "check this out."

As for areas of expertise that we need to mine from, here's a short list:

-A down and dirty retired beat cop, preferrably from a tough inner city beat. Philly, Baltimore, Detroit or NYC would do nicely. Narcotics or undercover experience would be a plus.
-A former or retired ICE agent. Cracking the code on how the smugglers practice their craft is a key to 25% of the kinetic problems.
-A top-of-the-line linguist. Access to language software on both ends would be a must.
-Pediatric and prenatal physicians and RNs.
-A successful venture capitalist. Those types of guys can sniff out where the pump needs to be primed very well.
-A journalist who could archive all the writing and blurbs that the CST puts out.
-Someone with public policy/administration/planning experience.
-A veteran of UNHCR and USAID work. The important thing with this person is that he/she would have to have had experience on an actual mission, not an admin or policymaker who never left the beltway.
-A veteran of a neighborhood watch initiative.

The biggest obstacle I see with the process of working with a CST would be time. If you stop and think about it, the guys on the ground are already overwhelmed with current and future ops, reports to higher, and the daily white noise that makes steady state ops anything but. Getting a CST tied into a COP would be difficult, and even then, you'd spend a lot of time simply articulating the issue at hand and building situational awareness that these CSTish issues would get shuffled to the bottom of the deck of priorities.

If they were tied into the civil affairs folks, then I think there would be more bang for the buck, because CA is generally a longer-term effort and already focuses effort at the project level (keep the former cops tied into the guys at the tip of the spear though).

I think a more likely branch to this would be CST support of a CA unit during its pre-deployment phase. After the pre-deployment site survey, the leadership could come back and host a conference. All the current/pending projects get laid out, the friction points to current ops are discussed, and best practices of the in-country unit are thrown out on the table for discussion. It would require something like two weeks, some per diem and travel funds, but it would be manageable given the right command influence and focus. Instead of looking at how the in-country unit is doing business solely through the military lens, the CST could serve as a "murder board" of the ideas and initiatives. Given the sensitivity of current ops, I think there would be too much push-back on having them tied into a COP, while working at home from their Apple. Front-end efforts, coupled with post-deployment defriefing efforts, might gain more traction.

In probably every CST position, we'd have to look closely at their background and steer clear of some retirees. Not that retirees don't have experiences to offer, but they still look too much like us (the active duty guys) and could become deadlocked in a spiral of, "well, when I was in uniform..." I don't think we'd want that, but rather frank assessments. Sometimes we need someone to step back out of the hurricane and say that we are all hosed up in our approach.

Another downside I see to getting this kind of idea approved is we would see significant push-back from the lessons learned centers. We are supposed to reference them first, or so I have been lead to believe, because they have captured the lessons from those who have gone before. :wry:

Hi JC,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

As for areas of expertise that we need to mine from, here's a short list:

-A down and dirty retired beat cop, preferrably from a tough inner city beat. Philly, Baltimore, Detroit or NYC would do nicely. Narcotics or undercover experience would be a plus.
-A former or retired ICE agent. Cracking the code on how the smugglers practice their craft is a key to 25% of the kinetic problems.
-A top-of-the-line linguist. Access to language software on both ends would be a must.
-Pediatric and prenatal physicians and RNs.
-A successful venture capitalist. Those types of guys can sniff out where the pump needs to be primed very well.
-A journalist who could archive all the writing and blurbs that the CST puts out.
-Someone with public policy/administration/planning experience.
-A veteran of UNHCR and USAID work. The important thing with this person is that he/she would have to have had experience on an actual mission, not an admin or policymaker who never left the beltway.
-A veteran of a neighborhood watch initiative.

---

Love the list! Let me toss out a few more:

- a human rights specialist who has worked iwth displaced peoples
- a couple of epidemiologists
- a number of priests, rabbis, imams, etc. from a variety of different faiths
- some professional storytellers (I'd recommend Diane Walkerstein)
- some "social justice" people (a Canadian crowd on the whole, but the Catholic Worker type from the US would fit in - they are realy good at local community building).
- a couple of veteran NGO organizers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

The biggest obstacle I see with the process of working with a CST would be time. If you stop and think about it, the guys on the ground are already overwhelmed with current and future ops, reports to higher, and the daily white noise that makes steady state ops anything but. Getting a CST tied into a COP would be difficult, and even then, you'd spend a lot of time simply articulating the issue at hand and building situational awareness that these CSTish issues would get shuffled to the bottom of the deck of priorities.

---

That's why I was suggesting that three layer model, in part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

I think a more likely branch to this would be CST support of a CA unit during its pre-deployment phase. After the pre-deployment site survey, the leadership could come back and host a conference. All the current/pending projects get laid out, the friction points to current ops are discussed, and best practices of the in-country unit are thrown out on the table for discussion. It would require something like two weeks, some per diem and travel funds, but it would be manageable given the right command influence and focus. Instead of looking at how the in-country unit is doing business solely through the military lens, the CST could serve as a "murder board" of the ideas and initiatives. Given the sensitivity of current ops, I think there would be too much push-back on having them tied into a COP, while working at home from their Apple. Front-end efforts, coupled with post-deployment defriefing efforts, might gain more traction.

---

Really good idea and, I suspect, more saleable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

In probably every CST position, we'd have to look closely at their background and steer clear of some retirees. Not that retirees don't have experiences to offer, but they still look too much like us (the active duty guys) and could become deadlocked in a spiral of, "well, when I was in uniform..." I don't think we'd want that, but rather frank assessments. Sometimes we need someone to step back out of the hurricane and say that we are all hosed up in our approach.

---

Yeah, that is a potential problem. It's one of the reasons I was suggesting that it be opened up to everyone in the Coalition. That way, even if you do get a lot of military retirees, you are still going to have different cultural lenses aimed at the problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

Another downside I see to getting this kind of idea approved is we would see significant push-back from the lessons learned centers. We are supposed to reference them first, or so I have been lead to believe, because they have captured the lessons from those who have gone before. :wry:

---

I agree, hat might be a problem. Then again, sometimes two problems can be a solution. What about tying the Lessons Learned centres into the entire project? Part of the CST idea is to get civilians involved, but that certainly shouldn't mean leaving the military out of it - that would be nuts! The LLCs are certainly a major group that could help give context to the entire CST initiative.

Marc

I just realized that Rob's quoted email on Aided Decision Making software already hit on the issue of utilizing a CST pre-deploy. I glossed over it and didn't read the fine print I suppose.

One thing I'd add is that the size of a CST would have to be managed ruthlessly, lest the murder board turns into an endlessly deliberating jury. There's a group dynamic model that postulates the ideal size for a consulting team, but it escapes me right now.

1-A marketing specialist, good at selling ideas.

Which ICE program? I am ATF-ICE (Isolate the Criminal Element) certified part of project safe neighborhoods. We targeted convicted felons who had firearms. That was pretty kinetic:wry:

2-Counter stalking is full of under used TTP's that are very applicable to COIN and GWOT.

3-Old style police TTP's that have gone out of style. Not that many people know about them so you have the element of surprise. They were not usually written done either you learned them like an apprenticeship program.