AFRICOM and the perception mess

[Misifus]

One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

[Ken White]

One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

No.

Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily because the number of persons senior enough to hold that Command who can have, much less will have, experience of Africa is microscopic if it exists at all.

Answer the question my answer will generate: To achieve an end state of Africom commanders possessing local experience would require two things; extensive and long US involvement with the Continent and / or promotion of African experienced FAOs to General Officers in sufficient quantities to provide a pool large enough for a constant stream of 4 Buttons. Neither of those is likely.

A remedy that is available is to better educate General Officers in the Army (or US Flag Officers in general) to pay more heed to their area specialists instead of relying on their ego centric determinations and to insure that African FAOs are heavily represented on the Africom staff instead of being placed in totally non-germane assignments. Does an African FAO need to be a Training Battlion XO? Almost certainly not. Nor will one do much good in PacCom, FORSCOM, TRADOC or US Northern Command.

In the design of Africom IIRC, they put an Ambassador nominally with African experience on the TDA, that too is necessary but someone needs to insure he's (a) not an incompetent; and (b) is listened to...

In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

Excellent point. There are cases where certain skills matter a great deal, no question. There are others where they matter little. The US Army's problem is that it has been forced by Congress to take the position that rank is generic and not skill specific. That is, people must be selected for rank as fairly and objectively as possible and the system must cater to that by providing the skills and knowledges to allow the marginal person to perform at a minimum level of effectiveness.

Unfortunately, that's what the system manages to do -- head for that minimum level of effectiveness. No question that many, even most, in the Army transcend that and can do far more than hit that minimum level but too many can do little or no better yet they must be tolerated due to the 'fairness' stricture.

The fact that warfare isn't fair seems to have escaped notice...

Thus my answer to that problem is that the Army must do a better job of identifying what skills wil best contribute to war fighting and articulate a need for Congress to change OPM 21 and allied laws to allow the Personnel system (which needs to lose it's 1917 mindset...) to adapt, place needed skill where they are required and stop wasting money trying to make everyone equal in 'qualifications.' They will never be equal and we waste gallons of money trying fruitlessly to change that. The waste is a problem, a larger problem is the decrease in combat capability and effectiveness that waste produces...

How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?

I opine that level of Command shouldn't exist -- but no one asked me. If it does exist as it obviously does, then the requirement for Staffers should insist on the maximum degree of local or area expertise and knowledge that is available.

The requirement that knowledge be employed is harder to enforce...

I know most are aware of all that, just wanted to write it down...

[Misifus]

Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily...

Yes, necessarily. And if they don't have the personnel, then they, the Army, should have planned better for the position.

Referring to your use of 48's. My opinion is one can't gain 'experience' by transference of the 'experiences' of another. One can gain 'knowledge' like that, but not 'experience.' As a simple analogy, someone can describe to me how to dig a ditch and I can gain the 'knowledge' of how to dig a ditch. But unless I go out there and actually dig a ditch myself, I really don't know squat. For regional commands, I would opine that these commanders need firsthand experience in that region prior to their Caesar-like ascendency.

[KingJaja]

One begs the question...does the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM?

In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?

How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?

Such an individual needs to understand Africa, he needs to understand ethnic rivalries and ethnic compositions. He needs to understand that there are many sides to a story and if there are 250 ethnic groups, there are 250 different sides to the same story. He should be able to smell out whether the host nation military he is dealing with is a national army or merely an ethnic militia.

He should understand the broad socio-cultural trends in the African continent. He should be able to distinguish between the "Bantus" and the "Nilotics", the "Afro-Asiatics" and the "Niger-Congo" people. He should be aware of African colonial history and its impact on the perception of the US in Africa. He should have a frame of reference for assessing the impact of the insertion of US forces in a given host nation.

He should be able understand the impact of displaying pictures of US forces training soldiers of "country X" today on AFRICOM's website and soldiers from country X massacring civilians tomorrow on US public diplomacy. He should understand demographic trends (on a regional / country basis) intimately.

Finally, he should know Africa, not as "Africa" but as a continent of 54 different and unique nations.

I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

[Misifus]

...I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

I think there are several 48's ("48" is/was the numerical designation for a US Army Foreign Area Officer) who do understand what you cited above in post #46. I am hoping that today's US Army appreciates this skill set more than yesterday's US Army. This of course would be due to the increased complexity of the world.

P.S. Just for the record I have never been a 48 or the counterpart known as a as a "38" for Civil Affairs. In my time 38's were generally in the US Army Reserve, not on active duty.

[Stan]

I doubt such a person exists in the US Army.

Jaja,
Before you go and sell us all short on the complexities of Africa, or, for that matter anywhere in the world, try a search on AFRICOM and FAO.

Lots of old friends, memories, disasters. What would life be without those ?

BTW, the information herein is basically free for you to peruse, but the decades that the US Military and her soldiers dedicated to the program were not.

What did a wise old Ranger tell me in 95 ? "It's my brain, don't waste it !"

[KingJaja]

Before you go and sell us all short on the complexities of Africa, or, for that matter anywhere in the world, try a search on AFRICOM and FAO.

Lots of old friends, memories, disasters. What would life be without those ?

BTW, the information herein is basically free for you to peruse, but the decades that the US Military and her soldiers dedicated to the program were not.

What did a wise old Ranger tell me in 95 ? "It's my brain, don't waste it !"

Thanks for the info. I had looked at Gen. Carter Ham's CV and didn't see anything remotely connected to service in Africa there until he was made AFRICOM combatant commander (although I read somewhere that his parents were missionaries in Africa, and that he speaks Swahili).

Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.

[Stan]

Thanks for the info. I had looked at Gen. Carter Ham's CV and didn't see anything remotely connected to service in Africa there until he was made AFRICOM combatant commander (although I read somewhere that his parents were missionaries in Africa, and that he speaks Swahili).

Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.

Sorry Jaja, I meant do a SWC search for those subjects. AFRICOM and FAOs have been discussed for nearly 5 years herein. Not something new.

That's a fair question. For some reason all the major commands have been 4 stars. I have no clue I am but a mere retired and grumpy SNCO.

[Ken White]

Secondly, (I am no expert), why does the AFRICOM commander need to be a four star? It is not as if he has too many assets under his command.

The Geographic Combatant Commanders do a lot of face to face 'diplomacy' -- or the military to military equivalent -- with the commanders or Chiefs of Staff of Armies and Armed Forces in the nations in their area of responsibility. Military folks are notoriously rank sensitive...

That's why the French have no one star general and their equivalent to a US four star wears five French stars...

[Ken White]

Yes, necessarily. And if they don't have the personnel, then they, the Army, should have planned better for the position.

I doubt it is achievable in the Army's view for the reasons I stated and you probably knew. Wishing and ideals won't change that. You view it as necessary, the institution that is the Army almost certainly disagrees. Thus instead of getting GOs with WW II experience in the Pacific to fight in Viet Nam, we got a slew of them with north western European experience...

Yeah, that makes your case -- it also makes the Army's case. Those guys may not have done great but they did perform generally adequately. As another Tab Ranger unhappily recently told me, Mediocrity has a quality all it own...

I go a step further than you -- since the Army knew it would not have such people, it should not have established the Command in the first place. As I said, I disagree with the existence of CoComs. We haven't gotten much right in the world since they were invented -- or, more correctly, over-empowered. That means I disagree with you and the Army.

Referring to your use of 48's. My opinion is one can't gain 'experience' by transference of the 'experiences' of another. One can gain 'knowledge' like that, but not 'experience.' ...

Obviously, agreed. Kniowledge cannot substitute for experience but some knowledge is better than none.

...For regional commands, I would opine that these commanders need firsthand experience in that region prior to their Caesar-like ascendency.

One approach -- also one that has major difficulties in implementation. The size of the force and the vagaries of mission locations -- and shifting focus -- will not allow such a tailored approach. It could be done -- anything can be if one wants it badly enough -- but I suspect it would be a hard sell to Congress, much less to the Army heirarchy. Recall also that developing GOs is a 30 year or so process and while that could be shortened -- might benefit from being shortened -- it still will entail more than 15 years or so; a lot can happen in that time. You're also confronted with the changeover in US national focus every 2,4,6 and 8 years due to the electoral cycle; continuity r not us...

Consider also that you'll be faced with the fact that you have a crowd of area experienced Commander types -- that the vagaries of international politics (as you know, all those other folks out there get a vote on what happens tomorrow...) may cause to be not needed in 'their' area but badly needed in another sector of the globe. I suspect we'll have to get by with are knowledge and not area experience -- it'd be really cool if they'd just use that knowledge...

[ganulv]

As another Tab Ranger unhappily recently told me, Mediocrity has a quality all it own...

I believe this is the same as what anthropologists refer to as “the dead hand of competence.”

[Misifus]

I doubt it is achievable in the Army's view for the reasons I stated and you probably knew. Wishing and ideals won't change that. You view it as necessary, the institution that is the Army almost certainly disagrees.

Well sure they disagree. However, when we get stymied by three nations in Southeast Asia whose leaders were rice farmers , and then today, by two nations in Southwest Asia whose leaders are goat herders...maybe the Army should rethink their position. These guys didn't have the benefit of West Point degrees and follow-on Ivy League degrees. Talent is so over-rated these days.

Yeah, that makes your case -- it also makes the Army's case. Those guys may not have done great but they did perform generally adequately.

Three dominoes fell in Southeast Asia. That was "adequate?"

I go a step further than you -- since the Army knew it would not have such people, it should not have established the Command in the first place.

I agree. You didn't see me jumping up and down at the formation of AFRICOM. But if they are going to form it. Then they might as well develop the right "talent" to handle it. Instead of picking just someone who has been designated as "bright." Like I said, "talent" is so overrated these days. Look at all that "talent" on Wall Street, the banking industry, insurance, etc. They've done wonders for the economy, eh?

It could be done -- anything can be if one wants it badly enough

Yes, I believe we start things and don't finish them because we really don't want them badly enough.

Consider also that you'll be faced with the fact that you have a crowd of area experienced Commander types -- that the vagaries of international politics (as you know, all those other folks out there get a vote on what happens tomorrow...) may cause to be not needed in 'their' area but badly needed in another sector of the globe...

You know, the world isn't really so big, and regional experience for at least one designated region, is not that hard to obtain. Like you said, maybe we just don't want it badly enough.

Thanks for your feedback.

[Ken White]

as the Actress said to the Bishop...

Well sure they disagree. However, when we get stymied by three nations in Southeast Asia whose leaders were rice farmers , and then today, by two nations in Southwest Asia whose leaders are goat herders...maybe the Army should rethink their position. These guys didn't have the benefit of West Point degrees and follow-on Ivy League degrees. Talent is so over-rated these days.

Ain't that the truth...

I think a big part of the problem in both regions was that the rice farmers and goat herders were deemed to be just that. Hudson High and post grad degrees could not / cannot conceive such persons to be a threat. And yes, trying to fight a land war in Europe in the rice paddies didn't help. Egos...

However do recall (as those aforementioned graduates did not) those Rice Farmers were well traveled internationally and had the benefit of some good foreign education and training plus a heavy supply of effective combat goodies -- and competent, experienced advisers -- from others.

Further consider that the current problem is not the goat herders -- it is our less than stellar state of training and general competence plus the penalty of being the Armed Force drawn from and representative of a very risk averse civilian society that has no clue about the application of force. Couple all that with a lack of will to be mean for fear of international and US public condemnation. IOW, it's not the goat herders; we have met the enemy and he is us in the current sessions.

None of that is to excuse the US Army who did not and is not doing as well as could rightfully be expected for the support it is freely given.

Three dominoes fell in Southeast Asia. That was "adequate?"

All things considered, yeah. Trust me, it could've been worse and it could not have ended much differently no matter what -- or who had been in Command. Wrong war at wrong time, etc. etc. The Brothers Kennedy wanted to boost the US economy and it spiraled rapidly out of hand.

But if they are going to form it. Then they might as well develop the right "talent" to handle it...

I don't disagree but I think (a)Africom was not solely the Army's idea -- in fact. I heard they tried to squelch it; and (b) The Per system is too dysfunctional to handle that. That should not be the case but it is and part of the responsibility for that lies outside the Army and within the Congress.

Yes, I believe we start things and don't finish them because we really don't want them badly enough.

Absolutely -- probably didn't really want it that badly in the first place but unfortunately the 'system' needs crises. Any crisis will do just so long as we have to one to which to move...

You know, the world isn't really so big, and regional experience for at least one designated region, is not that hard to obtain.

That's essentially true but when you meld that regional experience requirement with other requirements believed to be important it isn't all that easy. Age old problems; priorities and time. My perception is the grand schema places regional expertise below tactical and technical competence which in turn is below pedigree and / or appearance or presentation. That's unfair to many but too applicable to some -- the system allows that, even encourages it. It should not.