Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 162

Thread: AFRICOM and the perception mess

  1. #41
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    My significant other is away to the African Studies Association meeting and it occurred to me to browse the program to see how many presenters are taking AFRICOM as their topic. Only two, it turns out, both of whom list Africa Command as their affiliation. I suspect that runs counter to some folks’ perception of perceptions in a couple of ways.

    -------------------

    Commanding Africa (Saturday 1415–1615)

    Chair: William Minter, AfricaFocus

    Liza Briggs, US Africa Command – “US Africa Command: a socio-cultural lens on military engagement”

    Ibrahim Ndzesop, University of Paris I – “Mercenaries and military manpower in African history: when do states use mercenaries?”

    Stephen Harmon, Pittsburgh State University – “Kidnapping and contraband: al-Qaeda in the Sahara-Sahel region and its implications for regional policy”

    Maureen Farrell, US Africa Command – “Gender mainstreaming with African militaries: a role for AFRICOM?”

    Discussant: William Minter, AfricaFocus
    Interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it kind of stands out that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM... no AID, no DoS. That kind of matches what KingJaja said about the US presenting a military-dominated face... you'd think they'd want to balance out a bit by sending at least one from the civilian side, though it may just be a matter of insufficient interest.

    Second, the topics chosen by the AFRICOM speakers seem intentionally bland. Given the range of issues confronting African militaries and the range of problems presented by civil/military relations, a discussion of "gender mainstreaming with African militaries" seems deliberately peripheral.

    I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by backing away from major issues, even if those issues are controversial and present few really good options. I'd like to see more discussion on issues like... well for example: given that human rights abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, for many African militaries, what's a more effective way to improve that situation, isolation and exclusion of offenders or an attempt to engage and influence?

    Of course nobody really has a good answer to that question, because there is no really good answer to that question... but it doesn't hurt to let people know we're thinking about it and soliciting opinions for consideration.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it kind of stands out that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM... no AID, no DoS. That kind of matches what KingJaja said about the US presenting a military-dominated face... you'd think they'd want to balance out a bit by sending at least one from the civilian side, though it may just be a matter of insufficient interest.
    Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM? If that it is the case, then it suggests that AFRICOM is better funded than AID or DoS, and I can see why/how.

    We follow the news and we read that about one quarter (I hope I am correct!) of DoS budget is being spent on the embassy in Baghdad. I also hear that you plan to have 16,000 people there. So, am I correct to assume that DoS has less people to attend to non-essential activities right now (Iraq will be the priority this year and the next)?

    I don't expect DoS to pull away people from Europe (financial crisis) or Asia (pacific century) and send them to Iraq. I think they'll pull out people from Africa and Latin America and send them to Iraq.

    So I expect AFRICOM to be doing a little bit more of DoS activity next year to make up for the shortfall.

    Once again, I might be wrong.

  3. #43
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM?
    The cited agenda listed two presentations from AFRICOM representatives and none from other American agencies. Others might have been attending.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    If that it is the case, then it suggests that AFRICOM is better funded than AID or DoS, and I can see why/how.
    I don't think funding would be the constraint: it costs very little to send someone to give a talk in New Jersey. More likely they just didn't bother.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    We follow the news and we read that about one quarter (I hope I am correct!) of DoS budget is being spent on the embassy in Baghdad. I also hear that you plan to have 16,000 people there. So, am I correct to assume that DoS has less people to attend to non-essential activities right now (Iraq will be the priority this year and the next)?
    Do you have a source on that one quarter of the budget figure? It sounds superficially unlikely, but many things are possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    I don't expect DoS to pull away people from Europe (financial crisis) or Asia (pacific century) and send them to Iraq. I think they'll pull out people from Africa and Latin America and send them to Iraq.
    I'd be happy to have them send half the contingent here over there. We won't miss them: nobody seems to have any idea what (if anything) they actually do.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    So I expect AFRICOM to be doing a little bit more of DoS activity next year to make up for the shortfall.
    That seems likely, though whether it's because of a shortfall in DoS staff or because the DoS staff aren't involved in any visible activity is difficult to say.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  4. #44
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    [T]he topics chosen by the AFRICOM speakers seem intentionally bland.
    They’re probably a good call. As my advisor once told me about the general topic of a paper I was scheduled to give, it can sometimes be difficult to underestimate how little your audience knows about certain areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM?
    The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of African Affairs (whew) is going to be part of a roundtable about Côte d'Ivoire-related issues and the Senior Advisor for Workforce Development and Youth in USAID’s EGAT/Office of Education (whew) is giving a paper.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  5. #45
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    Are you sure that the only official US representation is from AFRICOM? If that it is the case, then it suggests that AFRICOM is better funded than AID or DoS, and I can see why/how.
    I sincerely doubt AFRICOM is better funded than State for several reasons, but the most obvious are the number of both personnel and locations. The other thing about major commands that tap into foreign assistance money is, the cash is State's and without their approval money is not coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    We follow the news and we read that about one quarter (I hope I am correct!) of DoS budget is being spent on the embassy in Baghdad. I also hear that you plan to have 16,000 people there. So, am I correct to assume that DoS has less people to attend to non-essential activities right now (Iraq will be the priority this year and the next)?
    Sadly, I was unable to store all this info in my head so that I could simply regurgitate it at a moments notice herein.... So I googled it
    I'm really not interested in all those pdf files, so you'll have to do the digging yourself.

    This next story you probably will not like when you read exactly why State is asking for the 62 billion. Scroll down about half way where they discuss barrels of oil !

    Equally relevant to your question on the size of State's budget. More interesting are the traditional military duties of the Office of Defense Cooperation - Foreign Military Sales and International Military Education and Training - are being handled by State. Embassy personnel really don't care for us when we're doing our job abroad, now they have to do our job

    The embassy plans to double in size next year to 16,000 personnel, when it takes over many military tasks after US troops pull out of Iraq at the end of this year, including military sales and training of Iraqi security forces.
    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    I don't expect DoS to pull away people from Europe (financial crisis) or Asia (pacific century) and send them to Iraq. I think they'll pull out people from Africa and Latin America and send them to Iraq.

    So I expect AFRICOM to be doing a little bit more of DoS activity next year to make up for the shortfall.

    Once again, I might be wrong.
    Actually I see just the opposite occurring. Most African posts are short handed - not a lot of happy volunteers. The embassies in Europe are fat and people will be expected to rotate if they wish to retain their career status.

    Other than the number 2 at AFRICOM the majority are military and DA civilians. Military and DA civilians cannot replace Foreign Service and Senior Foreign Service personnel. An entirely different mission and training.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  6. #46
    Council Member Misifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    125

    Default

    One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

    In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

    How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

  7. #47
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default *Answer the question that was asked...*

    Quote Originally Posted by Misifus View Post
    One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?
    No.

    Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily because the number of persons senior enough to hold that Command who can have, much less will have, experience of Africa is microscopic if it exists at all.

    Answer the question my answer will generate: To achieve an end state of Africom commanders possessing local experience would require two things; extensive and long US involvement with the Continent and / or promotion of African experienced FAOs to General Officers in sufficient quantities to provide a pool large enough for a constant stream of 4 Buttons. Neither of those is likely.

    A remedy that is available is to better educate General Officers in the Army (or US Flag Officers in general) to pay more heed to their area specialists instead of relying on their ego centric determinations and to insure that African FAOs are heavily represented on the Africom staff instead of being placed in totally non-germane assignments. Does an African FAO need to be a Training Battlion XO? Almost certainly not. Nor will one do much good in PacCom, FORSCOM, TRADOC or US Northern Command.

    In the design of Africom IIRC, they put an Ambassador nominally with African experience on the TDA, that too is necessary but someone needs to insure he's (a) not an incompetent; and (b) is listened to...
    In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?
    Excellent point. There are cases where certain skills matter a great deal, no question. There are others where they matter little. The US Army's problem is that it has been forced by Congress to take the position that rank is generic and not skill specific. That is, people must be selected for rank as fairly and objectively as possible and the system must cater to that by providing the skills and knowledges to allow the marginal person to perform at a minimum level of effectiveness.

    Unfortunately, that's what the system manages to do -- head for that minimum level of effectiveness. No question that many, even most, in the Army transcend that and can do far more than hit that minimum level but too many can do little or no better yet they must be tolerated due to the 'fairness' stricture.

    The fact that warfare isn't fair seems to have escaped notice...

    Thus my answer to that problem is that the Army must do a better job of identifying what skills wil best contribute to war fighting and articulate a need for Congress to change OPM 21 and allied laws to allow the Personnel system (which needs to lose it's 1917 mindset...) to adapt, place needed skill where they are required and stop wasting money trying to make everyone equal in 'qualifications.' They will never be equal and we waste gallons of money trying fruitlessly to change that. The waste is a problem, a larger problem is the decrease in combat capability and effectiveness that waste produces...
    How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?
    I opine that level of Command shouldn't exist -- but no one asked me. If it does exist as it obviously does, then the requirement for Staffers should insist on the maximum degree of local or area expertise and knowledge that is available.

    The requirement that knowledge be employed is harder to enforce...

    I know most are aware of all that, just wanted to write it down...

  8. #48
    Council Member Misifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily...
    Yes, necessarily. And if they don't have the personnel, then they, the Army, should have planned better for the position.

    Referring to your use of 48's. My opinion is one can't gain 'experience' by transference of the 'experiences' of another. One can gain 'knowledge' like that, but not 'experience.' As a simple analogy, someone can describe to me how to dig a ditch and I can gain the 'knowledge' of how to dig a ditch. But unless I go out there and actually dig a ditch myself, I really don't know squat. For regional commands, I would opine that these commanders need firsthand experience in that region prior to their Caesar-like ascendency.

  9. #49
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

    In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

    How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?
    Such an individual needs to understand Africa, he needs to understand ethnic rivalries and ethnic compositions. He needs to understand that there are many sides to a story and if there are 250 ethnic groups, there are 250 different sides to the same story. He should be able to smell out whether the host nation military he is dealing with is a national army or merely an ethnic militia.

    He should understand the broad socio-cultural trends in the African continent. He should be able to distinguish between the "Bantus" and the "Nilotics", the "Afro-Asiatics" and the "Niger-Congo" people. He should be aware of African colonial history and its impact on the perception of the US in Africa. He should have a frame of reference for assessing the impact of the insertion of US forces in a given host nation.

    He should be able understand the impact of displaying pictures of US forces training soldiers of "country X" today on AFRICOM's website and soldiers from country X massacring civilians tomorrow on US public diplomacy. He should understand demographic trends (on a regional / country basis) intimately.

    Finally, he should know Africa, not as "Africa" but as a continent of 54 different and unique nations.

    I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

  10. #50
    Council Member Misifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    ...I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.
    I think there are several 48's ("48" is/was the numerical designation for a US Army Foreign Area Officer) who do understand what you cited above in post #46. I am hoping that today's US Army appreciates this skill set more than yesterday's US Army. This of course would be due to the increased complexity of the world.

    P.S. Just for the record I have never been a 48 or the counterpart known as a as a "38" for Civil Affairs. In my time 38's were generally in the US Army Reserve, not on active duty.

  11. #51
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It may be necessary in your view

    Quote Originally Posted by Misifus View Post
    Yes, necessarily. And if they don't have the personnel, then they, the Army, should have planned better for the position.
    I doubt it is achievable in the Army's view for the reasons I stated and you probably knew. Wishing and ideals won't change that. You view it as necessary, the institution that is the Army almost certainly disagrees. Thus instead of getting GOs with WW II experience in the Pacific to fight in Viet Nam, we got a slew of them with north western European experience...

    Yeah, that makes your case -- it also makes the Army's case. Those guys may not have done great but they did perform generally adequately. As another Tab Ranger unhappily recently told me, Mediocrity has a quality all it own...

    I go a step further than you -- since the Army knew it would not have such people, it should not have established the Command in the first place. As I said, I disagree with the existence of CoComs. We haven't gotten much right in the world since they were invented -- or, more correctly, over-empowered. That means I disagree with you and the Army.
    Referring to your use of 48's. My opinion is one can't gain 'experience' by transference of the 'experiences' of another. One can gain 'knowledge' like that, but not 'experience.' ...
    Obviously, agreed. Kniowledge cannot substitute for experience but some knowledge is better than none.
    ...For regional commands, I would opine that these commanders need firsthand experience in that region prior to their Caesar-like ascendency.
    One approach -- also one that has major difficulties in implementation. The size of the force and the vagaries of mission locations -- and shifting focus -- will not allow such a tailored approach. It could be done -- anything can be if one wants it badly enough -- but I suspect it would be a hard sell to Congress, much less to the Army heirarchy. Recall also that developing GOs is a 30 year or so process and while that could be shortened -- might benefit from being shortened -- it still will entail more than 15 years or so; a lot can happen in that time. You're also confronted with the changeover in US national focus every 2,4,6 and 8 years due to the electoral cycle; continuity r not us...

    Consider also that you'll be faced with the fact that you have a crowd of area experienced Commander types -- that the vagaries of international politics (as you know, all those other folks out there get a vote on what happens tomorrow...) may cause to be not needed in 'their' area but badly needed in another sector of the globe. I suspect we'll have to get by with are knowledge and not area experience -- it'd be really cool if they'd just use that knowledge...

  12. #52
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.
    Jaja,
    Before you go and sell us all short on the complexities of Africa, or, for that matter anywhere in the world, try a search on AFRICOM and FAO.

    Lots of old friends, memories, disasters. What would life be without those ?

    BTW, the information herein is basically free for you to peruse, but the decades that the US Military and her soldiers dedicated to the program were not.

    What did a wise old Ranger tell me in 95 ? "It's my brain, don't waste it !"
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  13. #53
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    As another Tab Ranger unhappily recently told me, Mediocrity has a quality all it own...
    I believe this is the same as what anthropologists refer to as “the dead hand of competence.”
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  14. #54
    Council Member Misifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I doubt it is achievable in the Army's view for the reasons I stated and you probably knew. Wishing and ideals won't change that. You view it as necessary, the institution that is the Army almost certainly disagrees.
    Well sure they disagree. However, when we get stymied by three nations in Southeast Asia whose leaders were rice farmers , and then today, by two nations in Southwest Asia whose leaders are goat herders...maybe the Army should rethink their position. These guys didn't have the benefit of West Point degrees and follow-on Ivy League degrees. Talent is so over-rated these days.

    Yeah, that makes your case -- it also makes the Army's case. Those guys may not have done great but they did perform generally adequately.
    Three dominoes fell in Southeast Asia. That was "adequate?"

    I go a step further than you -- since the Army knew it would not have such people, it should not have established the Command in the first place.
    I agree. You didn't see me jumping up and down at the formation of AFRICOM. But if they are going to form it. Then they might as well develop the right "talent" to handle it. Instead of picking just someone who has been designated as "bright." Like I said, "talent" is so overrated these days. Look at all that "talent" on Wall Street, the banking industry, insurance, etc. They've done wonders for the economy, eh?

    It could be done -- anything can be if one wants it badly enough
    Yes, I believe we start things and don't finish them because we really don't want them badly enough.

    Consider also that you'll be faced with the fact that you have a crowd of area experienced Commander types -- that the vagaries of international politics (as you know, all those other folks out there get a vote on what happens tomorrow...) may cause to be not needed in 'their' area but badly needed in another sector of the globe...
    You know, the world isn't really so big, and regional experience for at least one designated region, is not that hard to obtain. Like you said, maybe we just don't want it badly enough.

    Thanks for your feedback.

  15. #55
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Before you go and sell us all short on the complexities of Africa, or, for that matter anywhere in the world, try a search on AFRICOM and FAO.

    Lots of old friends, memories, disasters. What would life be without those ?

    BTW, the information herein is basically free for you to peruse, but the decades that the US Military and her soldiers dedicated to the program were not.

    What did a wise old Ranger tell me in 95 ? "It's my brain, don't waste it !"
    Thanks for the info. I had looked at Gen. Carter Ham's CV and didn't see anything remotely connected to service in Africa there until he was made AFRICOM combatant commander (although I read somewhere that his parents were missionaries in Africa, and that he speaks Swahili).

    Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 11-19-2011 at 11:43 AM. Reason: Fix quote

  16. #56
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post

    Thanks for the info. I had looked at Gen. Carter Ham's CV and didn't see anything remotely connected to service in Africa there until he was made AFRICOM combatant commander (although I read somewhere that his parents were missionaries in Africa, and that he speaks Swahili).

    Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.
    Sorry Jaja, I meant do a SWC search for those subjects. AFRICOM and FAOs have been discussed for nearly 5 years herein. Not something new.

    That's a fair question. For some reason all the major commands have been 4 stars. I have no clue I am but a mere retired and grumpy SNCO.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  17. #57
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default "Prestige" -- dealing with peers...

    Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
    Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.
    The Geographic Combatant Commanders do a lot of face to face 'diplomacy' -- or the military to military equivalent -- with the commanders or Chiefs of Staff of Armies and Armed Forces in the nations in their area of responsibility. Military folks are notoriously rank sensitive...

    That's why the French have no one star general and their equivalent to a US four star wears five French stars...

  18. #58
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No, no...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    I am but a mere retired and grumpy SNCO.
    Us retarded senile non-sufficient ossifers are NOT grumpy -- WE are normal; others are just inadequately aroused.
    Last edited by Ken White; 05-16-2012 at 03:04 AM.

  19. #59
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Dysfunctional systems do not stand up...

    as the Actress said to the Bishop...
    Quote Originally Posted by Misifus View Post
    Well sure they disagree. However, when we get stymied by three nations in Southeast Asia whose leaders were rice farmers , and then today, by two nations in Southwest Asia whose leaders are goat herders...maybe the Army should rethink their position. These guys didn't have the benefit of West Point degrees and follow-on Ivy League degrees. Talent is so over-rated these days.
    Ain't that the truth...

    I think a big part of the problem in both regions was that the rice farmers and goat herders were deemed to be just that. Hudson High and post grad degrees could not / cannot conceive such persons to be a threat. And yes, trying to fight a land war in Europe in the rice paddies didn't help. Egos...

    However do recall (as those aforementioned graduates did not) those Rice Farmers were well traveled internationally and had the benefit of some good foreign education and training plus a heavy supply of effective combat goodies -- and competent, experienced advisers -- from others.

    Further consider that the current problem is not the goat herders -- it is our less than stellar state of training and general competence plus the penalty of being the Armed Force drawn from and representative of a very risk averse civilian society that has no clue about the application of force. Couple all that with a lack of will to be mean for fear of international and US public condemnation. IOW, it's not the goat herders; we have met the enemy and he is us in the current sessions.

    None of that is to excuse the US Army who did not and is not doing as well as could rightfully be expected for the support it is freely given.
    Three dominoes fell in Southeast Asia. That was "adequate?"
    All things considered, yeah. Trust me, it could've been worse and it could not have ended much differently no matter what -- or who had been in Command. Wrong war at wrong time, etc. etc. The Brothers Kennedy wanted to boost the US economy and it spiraled rapidly out of hand.
    But if they are going to form it. Then they might as well develop the right "talent" to handle it...
    I don't disagree but I think (a)Africom was not solely the Army's idea -- in fact. I heard they tried to squelch it; and (b) The Per system is too dysfunctional to handle that. That should not be the case but it is and part of the responsibility for that lies outside the Army and within the Congress.
    Yes, I believe we start things and don't finish them because we really don't want them badly enough.
    Absolutely -- probably didn't really want it that badly in the first place but unfortunately the 'system' needs crises. Any crisis will do just so long as we have to one to which to move...
    You know, the world isn't really so big, and regional experience for at least one designated region, is not that hard to obtain.
    That's essentially true but when you meld that regional experience requirement with other requirements believed to be important it isn't all that easy. Age old problems; priorities and time. My perception is the grand schema places regional expertise below tactical and technical competence which in turn is below pedigree and / or appearance or presentation. That's unfair to many but too applicable to some -- the system allows that, even encourages it. It should not.

  20. #60
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    That's why the French have no one star general and their equivalent to a US four star wears five French stars...
    And it doesn't end there. The Estonians go from E-1 to O-00 (a 3rd lieutenant if you will) in a breathtaking 5 years - talk about a pay raise

    They've also done away with Brigadier (as if butter bars weren't already bad enough).

    But, it's a good if not sad point regarding rank and military diplomatic events. There's so much power in the room it's humbling.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •