Expanding the Role of the Foreign Area Officer

[Ali Omur]

I want to first introduce myself, my name is Ali Omur and I am an US Army Major and a Foreign Area Officer. I have had several overseas deployments to include OEF/OIF and wanted to solicit feedback on an idea I have to expand the role of Foreign Area Officers.

The Army has a trained cadre of foreign area and political science experts that are the ambassadors and diplomats of the US Armed Forces overseas known as Foreign Area Officers (FAOs). FAOs receive years of extensive training in foreign languages, diplomacy, strategic intelligence and international relations. They fill a wide range of posts both at home and worldwide. One can find FAOs serving as military attaches at foreign embassies, providing analysis on foreign nations out of the Pentagon or working as country experts to the major combatant commands. Besides all of the great work they do in these critical areas, there is still another way the foreign expertise of FAOs should be put to use…as a tactical-level commander’s advisor.

Under current force structures, FAOs are completely absent below the combatant-command level. FAOs would be a valuable asset to the Division and Brigade-level commander within the wide range of full spectrum operations. Full spectrum operations, such as stabilizing the situation, securing the peace, building host-nation capacity and transitioning authority to civilian control all require an intensive understanding of foreign civilian populations and military forces. FAOs, by virtue of their training, possess a deeper understanding of the local population in terms of politics, culture, military and economics. Having an expert advisor on such matters would be of immense value to commanders who are already juggling a multitude of concerns. A trained FAO on the staff of a division or brigade-level unit would provide much needed advice to the unit commander, serve as the commander’s representative in building ties and relationships with the local population and leaders, and provide expert and on-the spot data and analysis to higher headquarters.

MAJ Ali N Omur. The views I have expressed are my own personal opinion and do not relfect the views of the US Army.

[patmc]

Sir, welcome to the site. Would you recommend assigning FAO's to DIVs or BDEs in CONUS, or just during deployments? I agree they would add a lot of valuable experience, but pulling them back to the states would take them away from their "real job," and you may have to guess which area to focus on, rather than having a FAO from each area, due to manpower limits. How large would the FAO force need to grow?

If the Army plans to do COIN and expeditions for a generation, it needs to grow advisors and FAOs, to keep a valuable and informed footprints where they are needed.

[Ali Omur]

Thanks patmc for your feedback and question. I definitely believe that FAOs should only be assigned when the units are in theater...the Army invests too much money and training in FAOs to have them sitting "idle" when assigned to units back in CONUS. Plus, the FAO program wouldnt have to grow too large if they are only assigned to divisions and brigades during a deployment.

[Norfolk]

Thanks patmc for your feedback and question. I definitely believe that FAOs should only be assigned when the units are in theater...the Army invests too much money and training in FAOs to have them sitting "idle" when assigned to units back in CONUS. Plus, the FAO program wouldnt have to grow too large if they are only assigned to divisions and brigades during a deployment.

Hello Major, and welcome to the SWC. You've raised a rather intriguing subject here. Very offhand, what you propose seems almost like a resort to the old and generally successful British institution of the Political Officer (a civilian, mind you, but nevertheless intimately familiar with the Military, and serving as the coordinator/facilitator between military operations and political objectives). Might this be a fair, if very loose, comparison of sorts?

[RTK]

Thanks patmc for your feedback and question. I definitely believe that FAOs should only be assigned when the units are in theater...the Army invests too much money and training in FAOs to have them sitting "idle" when assigned to units back in CONUS. Plus, the FAO program wouldnt have to grow too large if they are only assigned to divisions and brigades during a deployment.

Having worked with a few in theater, I concur. They're too valuable to be sitting in the States on staff in garrison but are a huge premium. Perhaps a training program for staffs, particularly S2s, S3s and Pre-command courses to properly use these assets is in order, however.

[John T. Fishel]

As an OLD FAO, your proposal takes me back to the future.

Once upon a time, FAO was a functional area in a dual tracked world where each officer had a branch and a FA. Assignments, in theory (and to a lesser extent in reality) alternated between branch and FA. So, an Inf FAO was expected to command a company, be a bn S3, and bn commander - in between he served FAO assignments as a Pol-Mil officer, Army section chief in a SAO, and as a DATT. Some had excellent timing and retired as 06s or rarely as 010s; some had bad luck and retired as 04s.

Along came Force XXI which allowed FAOS to single track. It tended to regularize a career with most retiring as 05s and a normal number as 06s. But it tended to restrict the opportunity for any FAO to make 07 or higher. (I grant you that the gods may smile once in a while - or perhaps it is the Fairy Godmother Dept) but the Freddie Valenzuelas, Bernie Loeffkes, Fred Woerners, and John Abizaids are likely to be nearly an extinct breed under the current system. The other unintended consequence of the Force XXI reform was to largely eliminate FAOs from the staffs of bn, bde, and div and certainly from command assignments in those combat units.

Don't know quite how to effectively remedy the situation - we clearly need FAO expertise at the tactical and operational level. A return to the dual track system would, IMO, be the easiest way to achieve the goal but it would be frought with the same career inequities and randomness as it was in the past. Perhaps, it could be modified in such a way as to get the best of both worlds...

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

been a stepchild. It really needs to be mainstreamed and they need to be heeded early in the planning process. We spent (and still spend) millions training those guys and did -- do -- not listen to them. Could have saved ourselves some lumps if we had. Recently as well as long ago...

Interestingly enough, easily the best two Battalion commanders I ever had and the best staff Colonel for whom I worked for were FAOs doing their branch time. Lot of talent there...

[Tom Odom]

As a dual area FAO for the Middle East/Nroth Africa and subsaharan Africa, I would agree that FAOs should be on the ground in the operational and tactical arena. Minimally I would say that division commanders should have an experienced FAO as a POLAD equivalent to actual FSO POLADs at higher headquarters.

John T brings up the old days of the dual track; in some cases it worked and in otthers it did not. I met a number of dual trackers who were paper qualified in their areas but had surface knowledge. I also met other FAOs who were defact single-tracked whose grasp of military affairs was equally superficial. I was cited as an example of FAOs along with LTC Tony Marley in GEN Sullivan's memo to the DCSOPS (G3) and DCSPER (G1) about fixing the program to retain to quality FAOs. I chose to retire at O5 as did Tony. Sullivan's fix was the Force XXI single track.

Personally I was OK with single track as I was an MI officer with a FAO secondary for 15 years. Working as a FAO tracked closely with strategic intelligence; that would not work well for an Infantry FAO.

But some of the best FAOs (and one of the worst) I have met were AG; they left AG for FAO because they wanted to do something operational and they did well. The exception was my replacement in the Congo and I don't think that was related to branch issues. Rather that was just dog-assed stupidity; Stan can expand on that if he chooses to do so.

Overall I agree the program is critical; I have head through contacts like Old Eagle--himself an Infantry/FAO who dual tracked--that certain geniuses are saying perhaps a FAO program is too expensive in wartime. That sort of thinking is dangerous.

Welcome to SWC,

Tom

[Old Eagle]

I was a dual-track IN/FAO. Had no problem making gates in both fields. There are advantages and disadvantages to both COAs (dual/single track) -- duh!

Bottom line is that if the Army expands FAO force structure, it must support the changes with resources. There was a time when getting a FAO assigned meant that you got a guy (or gal) with a masters in his/her area, an appropriate language, and on-the-ground experience (In-country training) in the region. There was a concerted effort to get all FAOs to those standards. I understand that in the meantime, qualifications have become more spotty due to resource constraints.

The Army actually deleted FAO slots from tactical organizations because they were not performing FAO-type functions. With the flattening of the "levels of war" construct, tactical organizations are now operating with operational and strategic impacts. It may therefore make sense to put 48s back in lower level units.

[John T. Fishel]

You both support what my experience told me. Frankly, you can probably make either or both single and dual tracking work. Old Eagle, under the old dual track system making gates in both was IMO more of a crap shoot than under single track. But, as Tom suggests (I think) dual track was more flexible in that one could often single track under it. Downside was the FAO in name only who really didn't know jack about the culture he was a supposed expert about. But then, no system is perfect.

Borrom line, we do need more FAOs at the tactical and operational levels and they have to be supported - another statement of the obvious.

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

LATAM, Euro and Korean FAOs got the best of both worlds. We could serve in theater in our branches, allowing us to keep up language skills and situational awareness. Other areas weren't as fortunate.

[Tom Odom]

LATAM, Euro and Korean FAOs got the best of both worlds. We could serve in theater in our branches, allowing us to keep up language skills and situational awareness. Other areas weren't as fortunate.

Good point and matches my impressionistic experience in dealing with FAOs for those regions. Africa and Middle East/N Africa as regions were as you say a different kettle of fish. In some cases, I found 18 series officers who were quasi FAOs (or actual 48s) to be very effective because they dual tracked on regions they were focused on to begin with.

I agree with you and John T; a rigid approach does not work well. There needs to be some flexibility in the system. In 1985, Dan Larned approved my second area qualification because he was willing to be flexible (also known as common sense). But as we all know, big Green is not the most flexible organization until a 4-star or a herd of 4-stars makes it so. It would help in that regard if we actually had a 4 star with FAO qualifications.

Tom

[Ali Omur]

Thank you to everyone for the welcome and feedback. I have been watching the threads and discussion on SWJ for a month or so, and I have been impressed with the level of experience and quality of debate everyone brings to the forum. The topic I posted is the thesis for a paper I am writing, and the feedback you all have given me is quite helpful. Since becoming a FAO I have strongly felt that we can and should contribute to the operational side of the Army. There is already an initiative in place that will allow FAOs to be Military Transition Team Chiefs in Iraq, but I think utilizing FAOs as a "POLAD" so to speak for divisions and brigades would be of immense value.

I look forward to getting to know everyone and contibuting to the forum.

[Stan]

Since becoming a FAO I have strongly felt that we can and should contribute to the operational side of the Army.

The FAOs I know, and have worked for, have been the very reason I was successful as an Army NCO.

Their significant contributions -- often at great personal risk during civil war, social and political upheaval -- sadly were never recognized. My FAOs frequently adjusted "National Attention" to situations gone haywire, and took a good many ass-chewing doing said.

Welcome aboard !

Regards, Stan

[Juan Rico]

i've been a long time lurker of this forum, and just wanted to mention that you guys are top notch. i've learned much from reading thru the various discussions and debates. don't know if you guys have read this article by kaplan (it's actually part of 'imperial grunts'):

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200403/kaplan

Our hotel was two hundred yards farther along the railroad tracks, a poured-concrete blockhouse with hard beds, hideous furniture, and cracked windows. Wilhelm quickly changed into his BDU, adorned with Ranger and paratrooper insignia, and put on his new U.S. Army black beret. We all gathered in Wilhelm's room. Colonel D. Battsengel, the leader of the Mongolian delegation, ordered breakfast brought up: buuz, or mutton-ball dumplings in goulash; fatty cold cuts; and salty camel's-milk tea. We cleaned our plates.

"The American military will eat anything, anywhere, anytime," Wilhelm announced to our hosts. Major Altankhuu translated. (Though Wilhelm's Russian is fluent, his Mongolian is more rudimentary.) Everybody laughed. After asking the name of a Mongolian officer a second time, Wilhelm, apologizing, said, "I always ask for a name twice. When I remembered a woman's name the first time, I knew she would be my wife." Laughter again. Wilhelm's friendly banter and broad smile never faltered.

After small talk about wrestling and martial arts, Colonel Battsengel told us he was from northeastern Mongolia, where Genghis Khan was born and probably is buried. Formally welcoming us to East Gobi Province, Battsengel said that the tempo of development there was about to pick up dramatically, with the establishment of an economic free-trade zone, manufacturing plants, and a Chinese casino on the border. The population of Zamyn-Uud, he said, would soon increase from 10,000 to 30,000. The Chinese were pushing hard to establish casino gambling in Mongolia, an enterprise that favored their business acumen and organizational skills.

[Juan Rico]

there's also a great article from this site that's a bit dated but still very relevant:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kaczmar.htm

“... today we lack the linguistic and cultural skills and resources fundamental for competing in the new international environment. We can no longer define our national security interests in military terms alone. Our ignorance of world cultures and world languages represents a threat to our ability to remain a world leader.”

- Senator David Boren, Chairman Senate Intelligence Committee

The FAO program, as currently established in the Marine Corps, makes an effort to give participants language and cultural training. There are two tracks established in the FAO program. The first, the Study Track, seeks to train Captains through Majors in area-specific languages, military forces, culture, history, sociology, economics, politics, and geography.73 Currently, it involves one year at the Naval Post Graduate School yielding a master's degree, follow on language training at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), and a structured six month in-country training program. This training package typically requires a three year payback tour. Following the completion of training, there is a requirement for the Marine to serve m a billet, normally in the Joint Service arena, utilizing the skills he has learned.74 This is the most in-depth program used by the Marine Corps to develop area specialists. Following a payback tour in the area studied by the Marine, that individual becomes an expert on that culture because of his immersion in it. At the present time the Marine Corps FAO Program provides training covering the following languages and areas within the Study Track: Arabic, Chinese, Thai, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese.

[Juan Rico]

my questions, i guess, are a bit on the low level since i'm just a student, but do Marine and Army FAOs train in different venues? if so, do they eventually come together at some point before deploying to their individual areas of responsibilities? do FAOs from the various branches of service work together?

[Old Eagle]

As you might guess, you can't "train" a FAO. You have to educate and develop him/her over a number of years. At the basis of the old Army FAO program was a short orientation course, language training (normally at DLI), grad school, and a year of in-country training. In fact one of the critiques of that program was it took young officers out of the mainstream force for too long. (Truth in lending -- I got my language in college, then grad school and ICT under the auspices of another, non-FAO, program. The Army was nonetheless happy to accept me.) I also now understand that one or more of those steps may be short-cutted now.

What that means, back to your question, is that not only do Army and USMC dudes and dudettes not "train" together, the Army folks don't even train together. We do serve together, however.

When explaining Army FAO opportunities and career development to aspiring officers, I'd generally categorize future assignments in 4 broad areas -- policy & plans (J5, OSD, interagency, etc), security assistance, and two types of intel -- analysis and operations. In my own mind a well-rounded FAO would build assignments in more than one area, so as not to become a one-trick pony.

Given the above paragraph, you can expect to see your colleagues from other services on staffs and in embassies. In fact, what normally develops is a fairly close group of practitioners who cross paths throughout their careers.

Rec you go to FAO assn website at www.faoa.org. I think that each of the Service proponents has a link there.

Oops -- guess I gave a Rob Thornton asnwer to your pretty straightforward question.

[Tom Odom]

you can't "train" a FAO.

Now Stan would agree with that one!

Oops -- guess I gave a Rob Thornton asnwer to your pretty straightforward question.

Ony if you rewrite and triple it....


We love you, Rob

[Juan Rico]

What that means, back to your question, is that not only do Army and USMC dudes and dudettes not "train" together, the Army folks don't even train together. We do serve together, however.

thank you, sir... do you think development and education of FAOs should be consolidated OR is the status quo actually better for the autonomy of FAOs? how independent are FAOs? is mr. kaplan's account of col. wilhelm in mongolia the average or is this an exception?

(i apologize for taking this discussion on a tangent, away from maj. omur's more relevant tactical matter)