I gotta ask, just to throw it out there, Advisory Branch? Is there any other way to cement a capability in the long term, other than to develop an officer corps that will advocate on its behalf?
I gotta ask, just to throw it out there, Advisory Branch? Is there any other way to cement a capability in the long term, other than to develop an officer corps that will advocate on its behalf?
I can't speak as to how the US Forces as a whole view this, but from a UK informed perspective, why do you need it?Originally Posted by Marauder Doc
The capability is theatre and operation specific. The UK forms British Army Advisory and Training Teams (BAATTs) as and when required. Works well with a long track record of historic success. Not perfect, but certainly fit for purpose. Every Army Officer and NCO is a de-facto instructor. Their job is to train their units.
Now for those that go "oh but what about culture," what about it? Many cultures have things in their make-up that bar them from "best practice." These are generally well known, pretty well understood and not a mystery to get past.
Moreover, to my mind you have an Advisory Corps. It's called Special Forces, and they should be the repository of things that go beyond the conventional understanding of the military instrument. That's why they are Special.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
This is true on paper, but in practice, MiTTs are still providing a bulk of the advising. My class will be receiving assignments in the next couple weeks, and results from last 2 classes indicate that, for MI at least, most of the Military Age Males will be advisors. The majority are not volunteering for this assignment, but its the number one need.
Agree or disagree with LTC Nagl, but the Army is not formalizing MiTTs, and still running the advisor mission ad hoc. The new training site at Polk is an attempt to make the mission seem more permanent, even though CSA has stated he believed MiTTs should be a BCT mission. MAJs receive KD credit, but are told they still need to be an S3 or XO. CPTs receive KD credit, but are told, you still need to command, if you can get it (bc since you are KD, go be an OC).
There are not enough SF teams to meet all the places they are needed. Adding the extra BNs will still not meet the need while we are in OIF and OEF. The peace dividend may give us a break, but if someone knows when that will be, please let me know. (January 20th, maybe?)
"What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
- Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.
Just to clear misconceptions -
I will reiterate that Nagl's proposal is not for an Advisor Corps like CA, FAO, etc., but three BCT's designed and manned specifically to advise. Soldiers would rotate in/out of these units in lifecycles - train, deploy, reset, just like regular BCT's. Advisors would get support structure, FRG's, team building prior to deployment (not the 60 days now), etc.
I told him in a phone conversation a few weeks ago the worst thing he did to his case is call it a "Corps" because everyone assumes it's a branch/functional area rather than an assignment.
So a "for example", Armor Officer MAJ Smith following ILE gets assigned to an advisor unit, takes a team, trains for ~ 1 year, deploys for a period of time (~ 1 year) advising a foreign force, and returns to home station. He then moves on to other assignments.
Key to his plan is incentives - it would have to be rewarded as a job like O/C duty used to be.
The army instead is essentially going to do a bastardized version of this - certain H/I/S BCTs will be told they are going to morph into advisors for a deployment, and then deploy to Polk for training, and then to theater. They will be augmented from the generating (read TRADOC) force.
At least that's the plan.
Advisors need to bring subject matter expertise to the fight. Just because we haven't been able to get perfect match-ups for every MiTT position does not change the principle.
Those experts can then be developed as advisors (or returned to other duties).
As MG(Ret) Geoff Lambert so suscinctly put it, nobody wants a guy whose only expertise is giving advice.
Yes!
A structured cyclic program as envisioned by Nagl would eat up three Bdes worth of Officers and senior NCOs for every 'Advisor Bn' it fields.
I served as an advisor to two different foreign Armies and know dozens of Officers and NCOs who've done the same thing plus some with another Army or two under their belt. Most of us did that fairly successfully without any preparatory effort to speak of, certainly those that did got a minimal effort.
After the Nagl proposal was publicized, I asked a number of them for their opinion -- not one agreed, nor did or do I. Advising is not easy but it isn't all that hard, either and ones effectiveness as an advisor is directly related to his currency and subject matter knowledges and abilities. Dedicated advisors even on a quasi-rotational basis are a terribly bad idea.
The Marines have figured that out...
Gotta disagree with the "so easy a caveman could do it" position. There are a host of reasons why perfectly good officers and NCOs fail miserably when trying to advise others. Some of it has to do with the degree of sophistication required to shift from being a doer and a trainer to being an advisor, and some of it has to do with inter-cultural stuff.
CA and MI have shown why this is a bad idea, I think.
Advisor branch will become cliquish and exclusive and some of the most talented officers will be excluded from the mission, because they don't belong to the "club".
The best CA and MI guys I've ever met didn't wear the brass on their collars, and can't really hold the billet officially because they aren't "branch" qualified.
Must type fast to beat Ken....
How about eliminating branches. I would in a heart beat. They serve little useful purpose and divert useful combined arms discussion.
Reed
Posting Permissions
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball,
Bookmarks