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...