I've seen most of what he's talking about, but we're on the third BCT to come in here now, and they have progressively gotten better about their attitudes towards ISF and the problems with COIN. What I mean is that: on the first BCT it was tough to get a wounded IA or IP into the CSH for a serious wound, now its routine; on the first BCT it was tough to get our counterparts (even our interpreters) into the CF DFAC, but now its routine (although they do go get wanded). Before I had to pull teeth to get things for the IA, but now it comes much easier. I attribute the change to a couple of things: 1) Guidance from the GOs that ISF is the priority; 2) Train up and number of rotations (experience) among units is starting to reflect a better sense of how to work in this environment.
I still see problems, but the TTs are no longer viewed as odd step children, the word has gotten out that we provide both continuity and a closer perspective to that of the ISF. One of the problems I concur with in regards to lack of understanding is our tendency towards cultural isolationism when deployed here. In our pursuit to provide our soldiers the very best accommodations and quality of life while repeatedly deployed, and provide them with a "safer" environment to power down, we inadvertently shield them from cultural immersion.
Going on a patrol from a FOB then returning to that FOB where most of those you see are Americans creates an atmosphere where everything "outside the wire" is bad, and everything inside is good. When a BCT CDR came out awhile back to visit us here in our IA compound he remarked that we lacked a gate to our floor and that we had to fix it. He remarked that we were in "Indian Country - good Indians, but Indians still". Because he had given us some of his RTOs and because he was the BCT CDR, we complied, but for 7 months we'd been fine without it. In fact we'd come to grips long ago that if we were unable to trust our IA BN, and were worried about them, we were in bad shape. He meant well, but he just did not have the same perspective as us.
I've been out with CF some, IA allot, and Combined missions on occasion. Each one is different. When you are the minority, the civilians treat you much better. They are more at ease among you. Parents allow their children to come up and see you. Its different. We get CF RTOs rotating in and out, and patrols occasionally camping out. We usually get E-4 to E-6 fillers from the CF partner unit that will stay 3-6 months. It seems to take about 1-2 months for soldiers to adapt and see the IA and Iraqi civilians as people and not just part of the job. The RTOs are in and out so quick, they just get an inkling of it, but its still good for them, they talk to our interpreters, see IA all the time, and see that soldiers are to a great degree soldiers where ever they are from.
What he said about advisors is true. Some people are not suited to it. It may be more military culture then anything else. Some seem lost as to what they are supposed to do. If it is out of their job description, they get nervous. It is a very personal job. It requires you to be a person, and to have people skills. It is not something we emphasize enough in our culture, but the best leaders I've seen are the ones who had them. I'd also say you need a sense of humor out here, or you'll drive yourself nuts. I think the "strategic corporal" concept is not unattainable, but it is not free. When I say that, I refer back to retired General Scales' comments about emphasis on people.
I think we are getting better at understanding what to do here, but it has been out of necessity, not really out of desire. It is easier to wield a hammer than a paint brush - the weight of the hammer does allot of the work for you. We'd probably rather return to the days when sabots and MLRS fixed most problems. But I'm not sure we have that luxury. I think we'd better learn to be as good with the brush as we are with the hammer. My question is will we be resourced for it?
Originally Posted by 979797
Bookmarks