Theater Military Advisory and Assistance Group (TMAAG)

[Rob Thornton]

On a brighter note - I was TDY down at Hood this week and we interviewed some of the leadership involved with SFA. One of the objectives was to gauge attitudes toward SFA, and ask the question did they think the tactical pieces could be handled by a BCT. Overall the answer was yes. In fact 2nd BCT had been tasked with filling out on BDE level MiTT from its BCT HQs, and each subordinate squadron had received the same task for a BN level MiTT. The DIV and BCT placed such value on the mission that it placed its DCO as the BDE MiTT Chief, and ARS Sqdn took its S-3 and made him its BN MiTT Chief.

They started out on the right foot, assessed the importance and priority of the mission correctly and put the right resources to the task. This allowed them unity of effort and unity of command. The DCO knew what was in the BCT and had strong relationships with the CMD group, as well as understanding the unit's perspective on the challenges. Having a BDE MiTT Chief who had commanded a Combat Arms BN, and was the DCO also gave him the requisite technical skills and credibility to advise. His experience level, judgment and professional maturity served him both in advisory role to an Iraqi BG counterpart, and his 06 BCT boss. Even when his IA BDE fell under a new U.S. BCT, his standing as an assigned DCO to a U.S. BCT still promoted the mission in a way even a respected BDE MiTT chief who is an individual augmentee would find hard to match.

At the BN level, the ARS SCO chose his S-3 to lead his BN MiTT, a choice he said "hurt" at first since this was his good right hand, but a decision he knew was the right one, and one he'd make over given the results it earned him in terms of building up the IA BN they were partnered with, in synchronization with that element, and in terms of the insights they gained by doing so. By virtue of being a "vetted" leader, that SCO felt he could authorize his BN MiTT Chief to order the release of his QRF. I compared that with my own experiences, I had a great relationship with my CF counterpart, but it would have been impossible for me to have gained such authority, our relationship was only months old.

I asked if they thought they could go back over and do this on a larger scale appropriate to the conditions - be it Iraq, or anywhere else. The key thing these leaders said they needed was time and authority to assume risk in other areas not critical to the mission - e.g. does every tank crew need to go through table VIII? These leaders had already done it, they had task organized in a manner that accomplished the mission. We talked some about future deployments, e.g. if they were tasked to go back over and had a year to train up, and were told they were going to conduct SFA as the primary task, what would they ask for? Time, and acceptance of risk. Time up front to consider the conditions that would frame their mission analysis - so they could consider what had changed in the area and with the unit they would be assisting (what type of security force exists, and what do the threats require that force be able to do), and risk so they could dedicate more training time to enablers such as language, and the type of training that improves individual skills at advising - then they could bring all that together to figure out the C2 pieces of teams and the frame work for sustaining them. They overwhelmingly felt the BCT had the means in terms of human capital, equipment and leadership to do the mission, after all, they'd just proven it - but they believed that with some time and risk acceptance, they could move the ball further forward. It also gets over part of the soldier and family turbulence of PCS individual augmentees to places like Riley, plus you get the benefit of a unit that trains and deploys together for the duration.

I think they have a good exportable model for the tactical level advisor piece., one that takes advantage of built in trust and resources. I'd be willing to bet that a DIV HQs could support a DIV MiTT just as well, and perhaps a Corps could do likewise. This is the part we've talked about before that if its important enough to say its a priority, then it needs to be reflected in our core beliefs - if it becomes a BCT, DIV , Corps level task, then it gets reflected in the rest of the DOTMLPF gears, gets incorporated faster into our PME, helps our leaders overcome bias - because the job description on their ORB, etc. says S-3 or DCO, but could be reflected in their OER/NCOER that they were selected internally to the key position for which that BN or BCT was selected, and could help to generate ASIs that in turn allow BNs and BCTs to monitor schools and development and forecast training.

As for where you might go for ministerial level positions, how about the service component commands and the GCC HQs? To serve in those billets make it a requirement that they get the right education in route such as a course in FMS, or a what ever that particular SCC is responsible inside that GCC. Maybe we could also task out of HRC, Accession CMD etc, and put together a ministerial team(s)

The tough one I think are the ones that fall outside the mil to mil. Building a MOI, or a MoJ is going to require additional skill sets not routinely found in DoD - building an exportable "whole of government capability and capacity is going to take time, meanwhile we'll have to find better ways of augmenting or adapting DoD existing DoD capacity to meet the growing need.

Best, Rob