I posted this on another site...
I think what no one is realizing or even aware of is Marine Corps Training and Advisory Group (MCTAG), and what their role is. An exert;
MCTAG's mission;
"Provide conventional training and advisor support to Host Nation Security Forces(HNSF) or to GENERAL PURPOSE FORCES PARTNERING WITH HNSF (read: SC MAGTF)
IOT...."
Its not mentioned but I do know MCTAG's focus is FID/coin (note coin in lowercase as its not the center of gravity but in many cases goes hand in hand with FID). It was stressed to me that they ARE NOT SF. Now if someone can tell me the difference in the execution of advising or FID/coin from a MSOAG or ODA TEAM, please let me know, I think there is probably not much difference. When I worked w/ MiTT's in Iraq, the some of the best MiTT Team Leaders were SF Major's who elected to do MiTT's. One in particular who had spent 10 years w/ 5th and 7th Group, told me that being a MiTT Team Leader was the purest "SF" mission he has ever done. He had a good team, but since the were all regular Army (except his 18E) they were ready to quit by the 10th month in Baghdad. My point is that FID/coin isn't something limited to SF but certainly SF (Army ODA teams) have been doing this for the last 40 years, and they know a thing or two about it. I think FID/coin can be executed by other forces who aren't SF types BUT as I witnessed first hand in Iraq, not every Soldier/Marine is cut out for that sort of mission. What will be key for an organization such as MCTAG and SC MAGTF are the people entrusted w/ this mission. Quality over quantity and the training given to them. There is a good chapter in OP 19 (Ch 13) written by a couple of folks who outlined what FMTU selection should consist of. You could be an outstanding DA type but that doesn't mean you are cut out to be an adviser. MCTAG is suppossed to be the glue that ties SC MAGTF to these nations. MCTAG teams are on the ground when SC MAGTF shows up and still there when they leave. It is also outlined in the "Long War Concept" by Gen Conway.
Also I think we have been doing the SC MAGTF for years as someone pointed out. Out here in III MEF, we send Marines all over the far east to do everything from training with HNSF to building roads, schools and hospitals. We also do immunizations and other medical/dental functions.
Sorry to ramble on.
SF
As another Co Van who happened to work
with Paul Van Riper when he was one -- even though he was with the VNMC and I was with a neighboring Ngay Dzu Bn -- I'm inclined to disagree with the concept of a dedicated Advisory element in either service.
Perhaps if I'd had the benefit of the MATA course I might feel differently; perhaps if I'd felt my results and those of the many other dedicated advisors I saw over the years there were worth the effort expended, I might feel differently.
That's inconsequential stuff. My biggest fear is the Parkinson's Law effect. We develop a capability that we need here and now but may not need in the future. If that capability exists and is not needed, the pressure to put it to work becomes significant -- whether it's the best solution or not...
Not sure I was confused; maybe that means I was
and just didn't or don't realize it... :D
In any event, I'm on board with MCTAG and MCSOAG -- as well as with the SC-MAGTF which I think is a great idea. As Bill Slim said, a good Infantry Battalion with the proper training can do most anything one could want...
I agree for the most part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CaptCav_CoVan
Ken:
I think insurgent warfare is here to stay...
It will try to be, whether we let it or not is TBD. Regardless, I don't question the need to be capable of fighting it, just a matter of where one places ones emphasis.
Quote:
...We already coverted arty batteries into MPs and infantry, and being trained as an 03 commanding a company is not the same skill set required fo advisors.
Agree that we did that and that those so converted basically did a good job. I'd also suggest that was necessary because the force structure was still oriented to crossing the north German plain -- eleven years after the need to do that had probably disappeared for many years in the future. :mad: The Army is now changing that and hopefully, will get a balance about right.
You're of course correct that advising a battalion and commanding a Co require different skills. However, I think most Captains, Army or Marine are good enough to cope with both skill sets -- all that's required is a good MATA like course. There are also some guys who'd make great advisors but are only marginal co cdrs -- and vice versa. We don't do will in fitting pegs into holes.
We also need to develop some highly accelerated conversational language training modules with acceptance of the fact that a 75% solution is better than none.
Quote:
...Some of the better Army MiTT advisors I worked with in Iraq were Army reservist - not the hard-charging, kick-the-door-down infantry commanders we create as Marine officers. Thery had the pateince and understood the capacity development side of things as many of them were businessmen back home...
Totally agree -- my solution for the Army would be use to use the USAR for that mission; say an active BCT worth of dedicated advisory experts plus the school which should remain in being and then four of five times that in the USAR who train for only that mission.
Quote:
...If not a dedicated force, then expand training, and develop a capability in the Marine Corps similar to the Army FSO program so we can be prepared for Africa or South America and it does not take us three years to figue out what is going on and how we should fight it.
Again, I agree. It's always irked me that the FSO program spends a fair amount of change training people -- then the system tends to ignore their generally quite sound advice. Dumbb with two 'b's. The Corps and the Army need good FSOs and the senior leaders need to listen to them (that's probably more important than having more of them).
The key thing to me is that we not make the mistake of post Viet Nam and try to totally blank out COIN and FID. We don't need to repeat that stupidity.
We're in broad agreement, just quibbling over implementation. ;)
Heh. Truer words were never spake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boot
...One last thing; I think in the Marine Corps case, this has been overlooked. Many of the mid grade to senior Officers and SNCOS who won the battles in the Pacific during WW II, cut their teeth in those small dirty savage wars of peace between the World Wars. I am willing to bet that this probably holds true for the Army to some degree also.
or written...
When I went in the Corps in 1949, a lot of those folks were still around and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind I learned more about combat from them in four years than I learned in the subsequent 40 or so...
If you can do the basics really well, all the rest is quite easy.
Good points all...