The relationship between the CSA’s message on advising & Key Ldr Development PT 1

[nascar88]

BLUF: Leave the advisory role to SF.

If we have to resort to having SMs volunteering for multiple deployments to get what they want or need, then we have an issue. We aren't considering mental health, emotional health, and family stability. Most SMs over in both theaters are on 3rd, some 4th deployments when we still have senior leadership with "slick sleeves." So, in a sense, we'd rather just go ahead and make Major's "KD." And make it a command for LTCs?? What???!!!

Coming from a BN MiTT in Diyala, the team chief Major's position is simply a SSG Squad Leader. Bottom line. My team chief was a SF guy and he'll be the first to say it. So, my team chief already had an ODA and did the advisory role, and now we're saying he doesn't need to command an SF company? Even though he did a Captain's job? Come on.

The LTC position on a BDE MiTT has only 10 personnel to include the LTC. Again, Squad Leader. The team chief is only in charge of nine personnel, and has no command authority over HN forces. The team chief and the team only ADVISE, not command. No UCMJ authory over anyone except for their team, they can only get THTs involved to have HN leadership removed.

Moving on...a lot of MiTT guys have already been accepted to SFAS and been told they cannot report until after the MiTT. Why not send these guys to SFAS, then the Q-Course and get them properly trained in HN advising? From FT Riley, to Kuwait, to the Phoenix Academy in Taji were we ever told to read FM 31-20-3. My team chief made us read it, and it is the best piece of literature for the job besides the COIN manual.

Training...most SF ODA commanders are all the same, have the same goals and set their successor for success through area studies. Of course, again, our team was the only team to do this and it helped our incoming team understand the AO, intelligence, etc. Big difference between their team chief and mine. Incoming team chief wanted to save the world, while my team chief knew it would take time and had to be smart about it. We ran intel, we ran sources, and we did all we could to advise, but no one ever read his daily sitreps. They were more concerned with timeliness of reporting than what was in the report. It takes a special person to advise, someone who is patient and doesn't do the, "well, when I was in Baghdad," and not everyone can do advising. Going back to what I said before...let the guys go to SFAS, Q Course and get trained.

And lastly...our IA battalion was on their SIXTH MiTT. Why? With each MiTT the BN should get better, right? I bet if area studies had been done that wouldn't be the case. SF cancels ODAs if the HN Army gets better. Am I making sense? Sending more MiTTs with no analysis continues the vicious cycle.

[jkm_101_fso]

BLUF: Leave the advisory role to SF.

If we have to resort to having SMs volunteering for multiple deployments to get what they want or need, then we have an issue. We aren't considering mental health, emotional health, and family stability. Most SMs over in both theaters are on 3rd, some 4th deployments when we still have senior leadership with "slick sleeves." So, in a sense, we'd rather just go ahead and make Major's "KD." And make it a command for LTCs?? What???!!!

Coming from a BN MiTT in Diyala, the team chief Major's position is simply a SSG Squad Leader. Bottom line. My team chief was a SF guy and he'll be the first to say it. So, my team chief already had an ODA and did the advisory role, and now we're saying he doesn't need to command an SF company? Even though he did a Captain's job? Come on.

The LTC position on a BDE MiTT has only 10 personnel to include the LTC. Again, Squad Leader. The team chief is only in charge of nine personnel, and has no command authority over HN forces. The team chief and the team only ADVISE, not command. No UCMJ authory over anyone except for their team, they can only get THTs involved to have HN leadership removed.

Moving on...a lot of MiTT guys have already been accepted to SFAS and been told they cannot report until after the MiTT. Why not send these guys to SFAS, then the Q-Course and get them properly trained in HN advising? From FT Riley, to Kuwait, to the Phoenix Academy in Taji were we ever told to read FM 31-20-3. My team chief made us read it, and it is the best piece of literature for the job besides the COIN manual.

Training...most SF ODA commanders are all the same, have the same goals and set their successor for success through area studies. Of course, again, our team was the only team to do this and it helped our incoming team understand the AO, intelligence, etc. Big difference between their team chief and mine. Incoming team chief wanted to save the world, while my team chief knew it would take time and had to be smart about it. We ran intel, we ran sources, and we did all we could to advise, but no one ever read his daily sitreps. They were more concerned with timeliness of reporting than what was in the report. It takes a special person to advise, someone who is patient and doesn't do the, "well, when I was in Baghdad," and not everyone can do advising. Going back to what I said before...let the guys go to SFAS, Q Course and get trained.

And lastly...our IA battalion was on their SIXTH MiTT. Why? With each MiTT the BN should get better, right? I bet if area studies had been done that wouldn't be the case. SF cancels ODAs if the HN Army gets better. Am I making sense? Sending more MiTTs with no analysis continues the vicious cycle.

Of course, you bring up some valid points; I have some issues with a few:
1. When do you propose these "slick sleve" senior officers go to combat? Wouldn't a MTT be a good opportunity for them?
2. For some branches, making MTT "KD" makes sense, because of the high numbers of Majors and low numbers of KD jobs available. Supply and Demand.
2. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED TO BE SF QUALIFIED TO BE A QUALITY, FUNCTIONAL MEMBER ON A MTT. Although I'm sure that SFAS and Q-course could be helpful, it is not logistically feasible with the high number of MTT members needed. Although, it's a nice suggestion. Do you really think we should send LTCs, MAJs and senior NCOs through SFAS at this point in their careers? Probably not a good idea.
3. If your MTT chief simply acted as a squad leader, then he didn't do his job. I don't think he would agree with you in that capacity. Leading the MTT is not the priority, nor the qualifier for KD...that's where the "advising" comes in. Many MTT chiefs pursue different roles; some basically become DCOs of the HN force, some stay more at a distance. Simply "taking care" of the members of the MTT isn't the focus of the job. MTTs are the "ticket" out of Iraq to mitigate the egregious amount of deployments that you so vigorously highlighted in your intro. Majors should get credit for leading the effort at the "pointy tip of the spear".
4. Again, having UCMJ authority over the HN force has nothing to do with this as a KD job. It's arguably more challenging that you don't have any authority over the HN force, thus forcing a MTT chief to be that much more effective as an ADVISOR. The IA BN's performance will reflect the effectiveness of the MTT chief. Because of the importance of the IA's continued improvement, I'd argue a MTT chief has more responsibility, than say, a BN Commander with a mission of FORCE PRO on a FOB, COB or LSA. Just think about it, who's job is more difficult?
5. As a MTT member in Saladin, my MTT chief didn't use THT to remove the original IA BN CDR. He simply told the IA BDE CDR that he needed to be removed and it happened. I'm sure that's not the norm, but THT was nowhere in the picture, thank God.
6. I'm not sure "a lot" of MTT guys are already accepted to SFAS. In my BDE, I can think of one. Maybe that's changed. Because of the array and diversity of the MOS req. on the MTT, I doubt SFAS-selects are the majority. Maybe your team was the exception.
7. You should contact the trainers at Riley or Taji and suggest FM 31-20-3 as req. reading. I'm sure it would help.

None of this meant as too judgemental or harsh. I think your post was more out of emotion, than rational thought. It's OK, I've done it, too.

[Ken White]

I'm still trying to figure out what the UCMJ has to do with anything...

[CommoChief]

My previous assignment was on the MTT for 1/1/7 IA BN in Ramadi from Oct of 06 - Nov 07. Comming into our AO my BN had no idea we would be providing a MTT 'out of hide'. Fortunetly the BN CDR didn't just draw straws or throw darts at the alpha rosters. He chose those of us who had at least one deployment and in most cases two. He also made sure that most of us had at least some experience in previous deployments working with the old ING from the OIF II experience pool. He made his decisions and we were on a bird to the Pheonix Academy within 72 hours. Twelve days later we began our RIP. I would have to say the assignment was an incredible learning experience. We grew as a team and thankfully complemented each others strengths and weakness. Would I volunteer to be a BN level MTT again? Only if I knew, respected and had confidence in the Team Chief.

As to whether we need a standing advisory corps:
Yes, but a very limited one. This might consist of MTT/PTT vets who could get a letter of reccomendation from their Team Chief. These would be the cadre for training base and would at some point in a three year cycle, deploy as BDE or DIV level MTT. Then these Soldiers would return to the wider Army at the station if not assignment of choice. This has the benifit of retaining the expeience base and making sure that experience is utilized at decision making levels. Both BDE level MTT we worked under were less than steller performers. They both had two or three superstars but the remainder of their Team was more interested in counting off the calander than leaning forward and getting the mission completed. The talent and experience pool is deep enough to ensure that BDE and DIV MTT are staffed by Soldiers with relevent and successful experience as a MTT / PTT. The BN level MTT should come from the BCTs, two per BN. This will require a shifting of some low density MOS to these BN. However this allows the BDE and BN CDRs to select the best qualified by experience and, equally important, tempremant. It gives the BCT and BN CDRs trust and confidence in that the MTT in their AO are dependable, afterall they selected them. It makes it more likely that the BN level MTT will be supported logistically and with augmentees.

This has the effect of keeping the institutional memory of advising alive and, if the CSA has his way, respected as another career enhancing assignment. It keeps the knowlege of what the advisor does within the BCT and BN level and in a few years at the DIV level as well.

Advisor Tab - I am really not sure on this one. Nor am I comfortable with the ASI. Reason is purely selfish in that if we don't take some of the steps mentioned in this thread toward correcting the assignment of 'duds' to the MTT role then I and every other Soldier with MTT experience is going to be easily targeted for assignment over and over and over.

Advising is not the exclusive domain of SF. The role of the MTT is primarily to develop BN Staff. That doesn't mean you sit in the compound and drink cha and play chess all day. You still go on the missions and the patrols to provide combat multipiers/ effects but the goal is to get the IA to do planning that works, not to US Army Standard but one that gets the job done that fits their culture and mindset.

Interested in thoughts from previous MTT on this post.

[Multi-skilled Leader]

Advising is not the exclusive domain of SF. The role of the MTT is primarily to develop BN Staff.... You still go on the missions and the patrols to provide combat multipiers/ effects but the goal is to get the IA to do planning that works, not to US Army Standard but one that gets the job done that fits their culture and mindset.

I would like to see a middle ground where the 18 series/SF community were large enough to provide support with cadre at the training facilities (Riley & Phoenix).

Less Rice Bowls and Stove Pipes between conventional & unconventional communities. The true advantage to TT/PRT experience is the broadening and leadership development that goes on in this truly unique mission set. It takes versatile leaders to adapt and be successful in this environment. SF Soldiers are selected and trained to excel in this mission. A generation of leaders retired from the Army with Vietnam advisory experience. The only evidence remaining are the few 4-star Generals, those such as Wallace (TRADOC), Campbell (FORSCOM), and Dan K. McNeill that began their careers advising in Vietnam. GEN McNeill served in an advisory role and most likely completed some type of SFAS/Qcourse enough to earn an SF tab. Upon returning to the conventional side he went on to become Commander, 82d, 18ABC, FORSCOM, CINC Korea, and recently NATO-AFG CINC. So isn't there a middle ground of allowing advising to become a combination of the conventional and unconventional. If we chose a "Center of Excellence" for advising, where would it go? Ft. Riley or Bragg?

Concerning advising, I believe the SF community used this "mission" to grow their community through the 70's&80's and now they've abandoned the larger advising mission for the Army for a number of reasons.

1. Lack of autonomy. Giving one 18 series to each "conventional" MTT does not give them control over the mission. It's the same apprehension the US gets when Soldiers go under limited or figurative UN or NATO flags for missions. When the intervention is on a small scale, such as the Philippines, they have taken on significant missions, but on their own OPTEMPO schedule which leads to the second point...

2. Higher OPTEMPO. The SF community has a great model of deploying for shorter duration (4-6 months). They have created a great culture of "when you're home, you're home" and "when you're gone, you're not gone for long" mentality. Contributing personnel to 15 month commitments would simply kill their culture.


Back to training advisors and being the SMEs for the Army, I believe the SF community could really become the cadre for training conventional advisory capacity. I believe it would grow their career field, ease recruiting once Soldiers knew more about what they did, and most importantly, break down barriers between the separate institutions of the Army.

Thanks for a great discussion thread.

[patmc]

But the conventional Army is ok with "their culture" of 12-15 month deployments? It's OK to "kill" the conventional force, but protect SF?

If SF can advise 4-6 months, why not do the same with MTT?

2. Higher OPTEMPO. The SF community has a great model of deploying for shorter duration (4-6 months). They have created a great culture of "when you're home, you're home" and "when you're gone, you're not gone for long" mentality. Contributing personnel to 15 month commitments would simply kill their culture.

[jkm_101_fso]

I would like to see a middle ground where the 18 series/SF community were large enough to provide support with cadre at the training facilities (Riley & Phoenix).

Riley or Bragg?

Did anybody else hear that the MiTT training at Riley was going to be come "an institution" at Fort Polk by 2010? I'm assuming located in or around JRTC? Maybe a nasty rumor. Probably a question for LTC Nagl.

[Tom Odom]

Did anybody else hear that the MiTT training at Riley was going to be come "an institution" at Fort Polk by 2010? I'm assuming located in or around JRTC? Maybe a nasty rumor. Probably a question for LTC Nagl.

Fact not fiction

[max161]

I would like to see a middle ground where the 18 series/SF community were large enough to provide support with cadre at the training facilities (Riley & Phoenix).


2. Higher OPTEMPO. The SF community has a great model of deploying for shorter duration (4-6 months). They have created a great culture of "when you're home, you're home" and "when you're gone, you're not gone for long" mentality. Contributing personnel to 15 month commitments would simply kill their culture.

.

First of all, SF group rotations are 7 months in and 5 months out when you look at the RIP/TOAs. Mission dependent but for the most part the SFODAs return to working with the same indigenous forces when they go back after 5 months out (and during that 5 months out they remain tuned into what is happening in the area they will be returining to). This is very important for long term continuity. Currently US SFODAs are advising and assisting some 97 battalions or national level CT forces on a near permanent basis around the world (but of course the majority in Iraq and Afghanistan). For the MiTTs to operate the same way they would have to become permanent organizations and contnue to rotate the same teams. Keeping a MiTT in country for 6 months and then replacing it with a new one, and then a new, etc would not be the same rotation model as SF.

Also, and what most people do not realize is that during those 5 months back and the one off cylce rotation out of 3 for one of the battalions in the Group, the SF ODAs are deploying to their assigned region to continue US engagement. US SF are conducting many operations outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in other Mid East nations but throughout Africa, Central and South America and the Asia-Pacific region. While most of the overall US military commitment remains in Iraq and Afghanistan the same US SF operating there are rotating to other parts of the world. I think this is important to keep in mind. And of course in addition to this the members SF ODAs still have to attned professional development schools and advanced training.

[patmc]

Looking around HRC website, and the branch manager message to MFE lists that MTT will move to Polk by end of next year. No details other than that they're building a unit up for the training. You will PCS to Kuwait or Polk if assigned. Nice options.

Did anybody else hear that the MiTT training at Riley was going to be come "an institution" at Fort Polk by 2010? I'm assuming located in or around JRTC? Maybe a nasty rumor. Probably a question for LTC Nagl.

[Hacksaw]

PATMC

"You will PCS to Kuwait or Polk if assigned. Nice options."

Riley was better, you need to get out more young man

[jkm_101_fso]

Riley was better, you need to get out more young man

...especially if you've been to Rusty's Last Chance in Aggieville; GO STATE!

[patmc]

i completely agree. I've at least heard some nice things about riley, can't say the same about polk.

PATMC

"You will PCS to Kuwait or Polk if assigned. Nice options."

Riley was better, you need to get out more young man