Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
...Hmm, I wouldn't say that my assumption was that it is "quasi-adversarial". I would characterize my assumption more along the lines of it being assumed that the US has the "answers" - ask your example shows . That being said, however, I think that is a problematic assumption - "ethnocentric" to use the verbiage of others.
Having been an Advisor in one ME and one Asian nation; I regrettably have to agree with that. We have a bad tendency to want others to do it our way. Egos...

We really, really need to work on that aspect.
Part of it goes back to the reasons behind the mission. What is the goal and how is this going to be understood by various partners, both traditional (e.g. the UK, Oz, Canada, etc.) and non-traditional (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I would suggest that mission clarity is crucial and, if the goal is to develop global partners to deter terrorist activity globally, then the implications of that need to be taken seriously, to whit, that US forces have as much top learn as HN forces, although ot necessarily in the same areas. If the goal, on the other hand, is to protect US interest globally and, especially, US corporate interests (e.g. cheap oil, favourable access to raw materials, etc.), then you are going to have a real problem (BTW, this is at the root of the accusations concerning the US building an "Empire").
Addressing the last first; true. We may well be acting primarily in our own interest but we have generally done a very poor job of elocuting the benefits to the broader world (particularly abysmally w/r to Iraq).

On the to me more important point, anecdotal evidence follows:

Two Viet Namese Company Commanders. Both had been to the USAIS Infantry Advance course. One liked Americans, the other did not and would reject much 'advice' on principle. Of the two, the latter was the better Commander and we learned more, tactically, from him than he did from us. The former tried to do what we 'advised' and couldn't adapt it to his METT-TC problems so he continually erred. "Be reasonable, do it my way" is not a good approach to advising. It does not have to be our way to work.

ME Bde Commander schedule an attack in an exercise. Due to the ensuing three hour argument over who was going to lead the attack instigated by the Bde senior US advisor; they blew LD time and the attack because at US insistence, the wrong route and unit were chosen. That debacle ruined US cred for a bunch of people.

Lastly, watching 8th ROK Div crossing a floating bridge across the Imjin to relieve 1st ROK in the DMZ, our ROK LnO, A Major who'd served in Viet Nam with the Capital Division asked me what I thought of the ROK Army. Said I thought they were very good (and I did). He said "Well, everything we do, you teach us to do. Why don't you do what you teach us?"

I had no answer for that...

Short version of all that -- Marc's correct and we have GOT to learn to tune our egos, our demands and our expectations to successfully advise others.