Hey Hacksaw,

I did forget to add one other. My understanding was that FT Polk stepped up to the plate. While it could be argued that something new or a new twist on something special would have scratched the itch 'mo better' - other's involved may either have not wanted to force the issue, or would not have given it the attention it deserves. I'll attempt to stay with our format here

Not so much... don't see how the move to Polk in any way enhances institutional support and development of advisor capability. Mission still belongs to FORSCOM and TRADOC remains in supporting train-the-trainer role for new cadre (upon request)
My guess is that even though FORSCOM is in the lead in terms of resourcing advisors, the training will be taken under the wing of TRADOC. Fort Polk is not in the business of letting units fail, and as a command they can focus on training requirements where FORSCOM's focus is on meeting numbers. There is a different in philosophy in the 2 commands. I beleive that what is written on paper will be subsumed by the creative folks down there. There will undoubtedly be some hiccups, but I think Polk will resolve them quicker based on their history of doing so.

I think one of the great things about how JRTC is laid out in terms of closing the loop is the frequency and levels it touches by virtue of the cycles of rotation. Many have done advisory duty now and they are often resident inside these BCTs. Many never get asked detailed questions and so we never get the full value of their experience. If I go out and collect on SFA related stuff I have a good frame of ref. from whch to ask my questions, when other collection efforts go out they foucs on what is important to them. They may ask the questions I send with them, but they lack the background or desire to explore the responses to get at what really matters. If you give the mission to somebody with the resources so you marry up responsibility and capability we'll get more complete feeds back into DOTMLPF.

This has some temporal value, in that a team (a small proportion of the total) get to "play" in the box with a BCT. That said the MiTT will know virtually nothing about what a MiTT really does -- hence BCT might learn wrong lessons. Value for MiTTs marginal same can be said for BCTs. Not to mention what about when IZ and AFG spool down, over the long term these are two separate activities competing for the same training space. Does Polk have the most to spare in the long run???
I'll let Tom answer the 2nd Point, but you could make the same point in a different manner with regard to any FORSCOM post. The key is instituionalization wherever it goes. I think the value to the BCT and the TT depends on how the leadership understands its mission. It may also depend on how much the BCT itself is providing in terms of TTs out of hide. No easy answers, still comes down to leadership.

Just not sure, who's expectations? BCTs, MiTT members, DA Staff, press?? Why do we assume that Polk will somehow attract a qualified cadre?
Could they do worse then the numbers we've seen so far? That is not a slap at Riley - it gets after the braoder problem of how we show value to the mission and the individual. If the assignment as TT instructor is rated as high as CTC OC, and if the post invests in making it attractive to families (like Fort Leavenworth) then word will get out.

OK, but... what is it that we think is missing from the MiTT training today? My impression is that the shortcomings are more in line with language, culture, negotiatio/influence, nuts and bolts of how to teach and influence as opposed to a good training environment
It still comes down to resources for training. These resources are mostly people focused. In this case the justification to hire more qualified people, spend more money on education, do more practical applications, etc. while including that these personnel and facilities issues are dual use since its at the CTC. It would probably be unwise to assume that existing facilities and numbers of training personnel that make up the JRTC training infrastructure are adequate - I'd be willing to bet that JRTC has already done a detailed assessment that tells the Big A "here is what it will cost to do this right" - the question is will a combination of green, purple and inter-agency monies foot the bill for what right looks like, and how do we show sustained value to that customer base?

Here we agree, at least partially... the shortfalls in advisor training have little to do with climatology or terrain... and everything to do with mindset and development of the skills mentioned above. Heck we can acclimate a team in theater. Knox is looking better
While Knox might fit my own long(er) range plans I'd not step foot in the place for the next 5 - 7 years as the dust settles from the HRC move. That place will be a booming little Alexandria without a supporting road network - however it is close to Bardstown and good bourbon.

Again the shortfall isn't experience in a CTC rotation. OK JRTC gives better MRE just not pertinent to the topic
I differ. I think it is pertinent. The systems they've established to suppor the MRE can be applied to prepping advisors. Even BCTP is down range right now collecting on BTT experiences in the field to help an upcoming DIV with a CPX that focuses the DIV HQs on how better to support existing missions and conditions. Its hard for any FORSCOM post or unit to acheive that kind of scale or flexibility - they are not well resourced with the personnel to do so and meet their other requirements. VTCs can only get you so far.

Agreed, but here is a caveat... this issue was identified early in the process by senior personnel. The question was whether to give key developmental credit to MiTT participation. The worry was whether it would be more of a deterent to the best volunteering since it would limit chances to get S3 XO time. Hence decision made to give credit but not consider KD for assignment purposes. Mixed message... Answer might be Advisor OC gets big ups in board deliberations, but Soldiers won't believe until they see the trends in board results (4 year lag). Only viable means to remedy in the interim is for assignment officers to play the bad guy in the near-term
I think you have got the crux of it - to show real value our actions must reflect it.

Ultmately the perfect answer may just not be feasible, but I still beleive JRTC is a step in a better direction. SFA may be further from the port we thought it should go, but does not mean its not headed for the right one. Our understanding of what is both right and possible may make the destination different then we'd anticipated. What would be great is if we could figure out how to help Polk become better prepared to do what needs to be done not only for the Army, but for the broader Joint and Inter-Agency community who need a home for our advisory efforts.

Best, Rob