The only thing I would add is that if we are going to take the MSCs who are the current resource managers out of the picture, then we have to address the impacts of this. I think they go beyond keeping support folks and contractors there. It goes to their comments about a restructuring of the advisory corps. The authority to resource certain problems in time for to make a difference continues, but by recently changing the CMD relationship of the TTs (they now are "attached" to the MSCs), hopefully there is a quicker flash to bang. Since the TT effort/environment is so diverse, the understanding of any centralized advisory command would probably be confused by the relevancy of a particular request - a staff guy from our military culture sitting at a desk in a far away city may not share the requestor’s sense of urgency or relevancy. In example, what is needed in Mosul may be different from Baghdad for any number of reasons. A staff guy in Mosul who controls the wallet probably has a better sense of things, and at least is more accessible - and so is his CDR.
If you take the MSCs out of it, then you have to find a valid substitute that delivers what is needed without having to spend undue effort justifying it. At the same time - we have to account because as soon as the slightest bad thing happens there may be a reaction all out of proportion.
How do you do that? Great question. Allot of it goes to the authors' comments on risk. There has to be an acceptance that advisors are going to make some mistakes in the process of "building" their start up. People make mistakes, but if its in the context of mission accomplishment - a successful start up, then we should consider the price of doing business. Certainly we've seen resources applied on the big FOBs where we were left kind of scratching our head - the conclusion was - well somebody must've thought it was a good idea at the time, but they probably rotated home and the conditions changed.
An effort made up mostly of advisors can work, but they will have to be given the tools and authority required to do it. It will be cheaper in terms of political will as the perception will be a reduction of commitment, but it will have to balanced with providing the teams with needed resources.
To take it one step further and diverge from premise of the article, I think the TT mission will outlive the OIF and OEF theaters for the same reasons its attractive now. This is good reason to have discussion about what we want to do about structure. Personally I don't think setting up a permanent "corps" of advisors within the services is practical or the best idea. This is probably since I contend this mission will be with us for a long time to come and there are benefits to exposing as many as possible to the chance to be on a TT. It builds skills we are unprepared to build at home with all of its competing events. Besides, we are in a manpower deficit - I'm not here to argue recruiting or retention rates, merely pointing out that we are trying to increase our ground component numbers while also identifying we have some key shortages. Any thing that might draw from MTO&E units or already established requirements has to be weighed against that.
It was a great article, and one we should all get involved in.
Bookmarks