Quote Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
"Iraq isn't going to be in the current state much longer, nor is Afghanistan. The potential for another commitment needing such capability in large numbers anywhere in the next few years is slight."

Gotta disagree here. I see a very large requirement for continued advisory capacity among GPF.

First, I'm not convinced that the Iraq and Afghanistan missions are going to end any time soon, at least not the advisory portions.

Secondly, when I look across the horizon, I see numerous countries that are important to us, threatened by disruptive forces of various ilks. Developing their indiginous capability to protect themselves is the only long term solution to their stability. The requirements of the future outstrip the capacity of my friends with the funny green hats.

Thirdly, we don't have sufficient tools in the rucksack to perform the required advisory functions. Train and equip doesn't work unless you're working with a sophisticated, capable ally -- sellin F-16s to NATO partners, T&E works. Other traditional security assistance also falls short. Shortly after the Nixon Doctrine was announced, stating that we would in fact bolster host nation capabilities to look after themselves, congress placed heinous restrictions on the programs to ensure that they would not be effective (AECA 76 (as amended)).

We now have an opportunity to move forward and develop truly effective means of organizing, training, eqiupping, (re)building and advising foreign security forces. The requirement to do so will remain large for the forseeable future.

I'm kind of having second thoughts about the centrality of the advising function in our strategy. I've been thinking about this hard because I've participated in a two part wargame that focused on it.

Here's my problem: the approach is based on an assumption, viz that the shortfalls that other militaries have are the result of a lack of a body of knowledge and expertise which we possess and can impart to them. There's a little voice in the back of my head that tells me that assumption may be wrong. If it was simply a matter of acquiring the requisite knowledge and expertise, weak militaries would have done so long ago. I think the reasons for their weakness are much deeper and broader than that, lying within culture and history. If I'm right, this means that we can advise until we're blue in the face and it may not make much of a difference.

Now, I'm not saying don't provide advice. I'm just saying that making it the centerpiece of our strategy worries me.