The Army's FAO Program -- Room for Improvement?

[John T. Fishel]

FAOs would rotate between branch and FAO assignments with no penalty for the extended FAO training. Well, the world is not ideal. The attempt to fix some of the inequities that came in OPM XXI did smooth out the FAO career path to rank, Unlike the bad old days, few of today's FAOs will retire as Majors while many more than in the past will retire as full Colonels. What won't happen is that FAOs will not make general without the help of the Fairy Godmother Department (which everyone knows is quixotic at best). So, there will be no more Fred Woerners, Karl Eikenberrys, John Ellersons, Joe Stringhams, et. al.

A second point is that if you want to put FAOs in command positions for MiTTs, you will have to direct the command selection boards to weight FAO much more highly. In the bad old days, this kind of thing was done, but haphazardly. That was, in fact, how John Waghelstein got selected for Colonel and was positioned to be selected to command MILGP El Salvador.

Third, I beg to differ on language. In my experience (48 years in and out of Latin America) the way to keep language up and advance it is to use it. That means being assigned to places where the opportunity exists to live and work "on the economy." Additional training may be nice but it really doesn't beat using the language every day. Generally, the FAO who uses the language does so by choice. It is easy enough to fall back on working in English and socializing with English speaking nationals. And no amount of additional training is going to overcome that propensity.

Fourth, the ability to empathize with another culture is something that cannot be taught. Some have it, some don't. Education and training can enhance the ability or conversely, give those who don't a degree of sensitivity to the issue. But this is a talent... and like all talents can't be taught.

Fifth, just because an officer is a FAO does not mean that the talents and skills are transferable in every case from region to region. While I have seen any number of FAOs who could and did operate well cross-culturally in multiple regions, I have also seen some who never could make the transition.

Sixth, it is essential to remember that as a FAO one is an American military officer who must be professionally current and competent to do his branch and FAO jobs. Indeed, the FAO must be generally current and competent in military matters because the FAO job will almost certainly cross branch (and even service) lines. Which brings us back to Old Eagle's comments on the bad old days. Dual tracking, IMO, generally was good for the FAO, the Army, DOD, and the nation. In fixing the inequities, we lost something that has yet to be regained.

Cheers

JohnT

[Tom Odom]

I will offer a couple of more points.

a. Dual tracking versus single tracking--depends on the individual, that person's professional ethic, and branch. I knew dual trackers who were incompetent in both their tracks. I knew generals who claimed FAO qualifications but never served in a 48 assignment. I knew FAO single trackers who completely lost touch with the Army. In my case I was a defact single track MI FAO for 15+ years on active duty and a rather unique year last year as a civilian FAO. MI used me as a FAO strategic analyst in MI assignments so while I was essentuially single tracked I was slotted in MI jobs on occasion, one of which was current intell for the Army staff in Desert Shield and Storm. Indeed the DCSINT in the Army in the late 80s used to say he was glad that DCSOPS had the FAO program because Army Intell got its strategic analysts for free. My bottom line is that it depends on the individual's goals and the Army's ability to use what it has in hand. FAOs--good FAOs that is--do not follow cookie cutters and as soon as some personnel professional starts down that road, the Army starts losing.

b. On crossing regions, I was also somehwt unique in that I qualfied and held two regional ASIs for the Middle East/North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa and I did tours on the ground and in CONUS that worked both areas. Old Eagle got at one aspect of that when he talked about crossing regions; that is that interagency interactive skills worked across regional lines.

c. On "operational" versus FAO tours, let me say that I did 2 wars as a FAO on the ground and Big Green was nowhere around for most of it. I left US tactical units in 1979 but I served in and around international tactical forces on two continents. As for competence in US doctrine and operations, I taught at CGSC, did Desert Shield/Storm, Provide Comfort, and Restore Hope as current intelligence officer for the ARSTAFF. I ground guided Operation Support Hope and established relations with a new government including military-military relationships. I wrote the central Africa campaign plan for USEUCOM and State. My bottom line in this is that at least for Middle East and African FAOs operational can be very tactical with live ammo.

d. The Army wants FAOS but nice neat personnel development plans won't give the Army the FAOs it needs. Regardless of tracking systems, we need a senior level mentor and monitor to make sure HRC does not again screw it up.

Best
Tom

[John T. Fishel]

As someone once told me, the best career manager is you, yourself. And a senior level mentor is very desirable.

Reorganizing can only create the opportunity to fix a problem - it really can't fix it and often has unintended consequences. While teaching at CGSC, a few years after you had gone on to bigger things, I felt it incumbent on me to advise my FAO students that they could do everything right and still retire as Majors. Nevertheless, they would still have the assignments they wanted. OPMS XXI meant that most FAOs could expect to retire as LTCs and many would have a chance at COL. That was a good thing but it also made it somewhat more difficult to re-blue.

I'd like to see the system take a half step backwards so that FAOs could still dual track and have a chance at some of the command slots and even reach for the stars. Neverless, I second Tom in noting that there are incompetent FAOs in both the single and dual track systems ... who are/were also incompetent in their basic branch.

Cheers

JohnT

[Pete]

A friend of mine became an FAO with the specialty of Greece after he commanded a Field Artillery Detachment there in around 1980. He was not aware that the U.S. Army had provided assistance to the Greek government fighting against the Reds during 1947-1950 until I told him so. One would think that would be an important thing for an FAO on Greece to know -- it's certainly no secret to the Greeks.

[John T. Fishel]

we have known FAOs who were not particularly good in heir specialties (not to disparage your friend) - either FAO or basic branch. That said, I believe FAO training to be worthwhile in itself.

Cheers

JohnT

[Pete]

My friend said the biggest incident during his command of the detachment in Greece was when some of his soldiers got into a bar room brawl with some members of the Greek Communist Party. The main Greek Communist newspaper had an overheated story on how U.S. Army soldiers had made an unprovoked attack on law-abiding Greek citizens.

[Pete]

On a gun forum (jouster.com) I read that Greece is returning M1903-series and M1917 U.S. rifles to the U.S. Government, which are being sold to the public through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I have not read of M1 rifles and carbines from Greece being offered for sale by CMP but without doubt some of them were sent there after WWII.