1- CAT-As need to be beefed up to the point that they are self-mobile (meaning 4 vehicle crews). Otherwise, they take combat power out of the fight to execute their missions, or their missions will always be second fiddle to combat operations.

2- We acknowledge that we need CA and PSYOP, but only have enough active for the SOF community. WRONG ANSWER. If we need the capability, we need the capability. There is enough issues integrating "non-lethal" because it is NOT (generally) what the Army does. Having your "non-lethal" guy being an overweight, out-of-shape reservist with an attitude ("I'm special so I don't have to comply with your standards") who shows up at the last minute, without resources or collective training, makes integration almost impossible. Yes, I've thrown out every stereotype there is, but believe me, I've seen most of them.

3- If everyone needs CA and PSYOP all the time (or even most of the time), they aren't SOF, and can't remain only in the SOF community. That means that the BCT CA officers, and CA & PSYOP NCOs can't be the cast offs (those that aren't "good enough" to hang with the SOF guys), and that the active BCTs need their own assets, all the time. The best solution I see for this a CO in the BSTB. Yes, CA & PSYOP are different, but they are often focused in the same areas, and alot of their indiividual training requirements (language, culture, etc) are the same. Plus, neither element is large enough to justify a company of its own- a CA CO (even augmented as in 1- above) and a TPD combined would still be among the smaller COs in the BCT.

4- If what surferbeetle is describing is the norm, than there is something completely disfunctional somewhere. If we can have a LAD before we even redeploy, we should be able to align a team at LEAST to meet our ITC, MRE and deployment. And rotating them based on a different deployment schedule is ridiculous. Same as the JTACs, an enabler like that should task organize, deploy with, and redeploy with the BCT- I don't care what service or component.