Some added news on the Training and Mentoring mission

[Ken White]

in Afghanistan.

"...Approximately 3,300 soldiers from the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, from Fort Bragg, N.C., along with approximately 700 additional training and support personnel will deploy to Afghanistan...

LINK

My spies tell me the Div and Bde will handle the trainup at Bragg...

[Surferbeetle]

From the Washington Post, by Scott Wilson Which Way in Afghanistan? Ask Colombia For Directions.

The parallels between Colombia and Afghanistan are hardly perfect. And a lot suggests that succeeding in Afghanistan will be harder and take longer. Afghanistan is a pre-modern society, while Colombia's population, even in the countryside, is well-educated, and the country boasts one of the most innovative business classes in South America. It is the land of García Márquez, Botero and Shakira, not the graveyard of empires.

[Ken White]

Disarming Afghans and disarming the Paramilitary Groups in Colombia are two very different things...

LINK. Check # 101 and # 204.

A tradition of central government versus no such tradition.

Having said that, it is a better example than Iraq...

[AndrewMcJames]

Not to sidetrack, but has anyone questioned the wisdom of having a regular unit fall in on the "ETT" mission? It is awkward enough having a junior Major with no real training advise a BN commander with a lifetime of experience, how about a Lt. or a junior CPT? What do we hope to get out of this?

[Ken White]

who or what those 700 added persons to the Bde happen to be. The most important thing that will happen is that Joe and the NCOs will react with and show the Host nation troops how to behave. Example is better than advice.

Not to mention that time and experience do not equal competence...

Not that, in Afghanistan, there will be that many with a lifetime of military experience -- fighting experience isn't the same thing.

[John T. Fishel]

look at the SFA: Mosul Case Study that Rob Thornton, Marc Tyrrell, and I posted on the Journal (SWJ). (I should note that Rob was kind enough to include us as co-authors mainly for our single chapters and snide comments)

Although Mosul in 2006 - 7 was hardly representative of Iraq as a whole, then or later, there were lessons to be adapted that were useful later. More adaptation to differing conditions in Afghanistan suggests how regular trops might be best used in the mission - much of it in a partnering role.

Cheers

JohnT

[Surferbeetle]

Ken,

Finished target practicing with my new BowTec bow (got it on sale!), currently enjoying some ice-cold beers, and finally believe that my mental state is sufficiently prepared to discuss with you our favorite topic here at SWJ…training . IMHO, successful training of troops is driven by a leadership cadre, who are effectively able to apply lessons learned from examining various ‘business models’, which have both succeeded and failed. With this understanding I am going to focus upon the current SOF business model in COIN operations and compare it to the NATO effort (and of course we are part of NATO) that we see taking shape with respect to people and hardware.

People are more important than hardware: Do we have the right mix and number of troops? Using a medical and engineering analogy we can characterize most US GPF military forces as experienced and very experienced First Responders/Engineering Aides in COIN operations: This GPF continuum consists of a large population of vocationally trained folks who have a broad knowledge of the subject. Today’s US SOF range from very experienced First Responders/Engineering Aides, very experienced Paramedics/Engineering Tech’s, experts such as Nurses/Engineers, and amazing specialists such as Doctors/PhD Engineers: This SOF continuum consists of a small population of highly vocationally trained/educated folks with a deep knowledge of the subject at hand.

While we do need more SOF for COIN missions, only part of the military (both GPF and SOF) truly understands that SOF numbers are not by definition, nor will they ever be, large enough to lead an effort by themselves. Instead SOF is designed to go in quietly, on the cheap, and effectively work with the local populace of the nation in question (a truly large number of people which dwarfs the number of all of our forces both GPF and SOF) while using existing resources (as much as possible) to effect change. The Army has the 18X program which takes young men and builds the equivalent Paramedic/Engineering Tech level troops (and yes I am also familiar with the 18C and 18D series). Unfortunately, currently, there is no 38X program, which would allow us to recruit the civilian experts and specialists at the equivalent Nurse/Engineer Doctor/PhD Engineer levels that the Army needs to field for this effort. I am not aware of a specific X series for Army and Police trainers such as our MTT troops…(tell me again why our 18 and 31 series folks, respectively, are not exclusively assigned to this particular mission?) Nor is it my impression that we administratively scour our forces in order to identify people with needed skill identifiers and force branch them as we have in past conflicts (the NBC Branch was doing this to cadets back in the 80’s during the cold war). Fortunately, our European allies in NATO are stepping up and helping out in Afghanistan (thank you very, very, much), however, I still wonder if we have the total numbers we need to get this done….perhaps, just as we have expanded from the G3 to the G8, to the G20 to deal with real world problems we need to look much harder at who is in NATO…

From the LA Times, by By Henry Chu and Christi Parsons: NATO to send 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Obama last week unveiled his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, pledging to use 21,000 additional troops to help stabilize Afghanistan against insurgents and to train the nation's security forces. The plan also called for a threefold increase in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan as part of a new push to get the government in Islamabad to crack down on militants in the country's tribal belt.

NATO has backed the Afghanistan mission with about 30,000 combat troops and support units

An AP story carried by NPR: NATO Agrees To Send More Troops To Afghanistan

NATO allies agreed to send up to 5,000 more military trainers and police to Afghanistan, including forces to help protect candidates and voters at upcoming elections.

As for new troops in Afghanistan, the White House said NATO countries agreed to send more personnel, including about 3,000 on short-term deployments, to help stabilize Afghanistan before elections in August. An additional 1,400 to 2,000 will provide training for Afghanistan's national army.

From BBC: Extra Nato troops for Afghan

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that 900 new troops would come from Britain, 600 from Germany and 600 from Spain. Italy and France were fresh committing forces, too, he added.

From the SWJ, by COL Grimes: Civil Affairs Gathering the Reins

Specializing in civil-military operations, Civil Affairs (CA) represent one endpoint on the range of military options, marking the non-kinetic end of the military spectrum. In recent testimony to Congress the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, stated "We can't kill our way to victory… It requires teamwork and cooperation." Mullen further stated that the U.S. urgently needs to improve its nation-building initiatives. Derided in the past by senior military officers as ‘work for the Peace Corps,’ nation building and associated activities are receiving renewed attention as preferred solutions in the war against terrorism. Note the recognition of stability operations as a core mission in the 2005 Department of Defense Directive 3000.05. President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have both stated a preference for renewed efforts at humanitarian assistance, nation building, stabilization and reconstruction, reviving efforts that were previously a priority in American foreign engagement. The question becomes one of how, exactly, to implement such a policy of pre-emptive engagement.

We do not need, nor want, gold plated, one-off, finicky hardware: Are we going to finally focus upon resourcing the basics of shoot, move, and communicate for the COIN Operator while being fiscally disciplined like the Marines? Are standardized weapons systems really and truly too much to ask for? Will everybody be wearing the same uniform so that in low visibility conditions we do not have to debate among ourselves whether or not to shoot them? Are we going to get serious about airlift needs in Afghanistan/COIN operations (I, for one, do not expect that my troops or myself will ever ride in a F-22 to get anywhere)? How about standardized vehicles (why do the Brits have to cruise around in inadequate vehicles)? Does NATO have a competent, empowered, and adequately resourced CTO to coordinate the communications challenges in our Tower of Babel? Will there be single/compatible civil information systems and military information systems that we can all use?

From the NATO website: NATO weapons modernise Afghan National Army

The AK-47 assault rifle is currently the firearm issued to most ANA soldiers, but a few have started utilising the more accurate M-16 rifle. Coalition forces are assisting ANA soldiers by training-the-trainers and helping to develop instructional regiments for the other Afghan soldiers. So far the transition between weapons has been smooth.

From Janes: NATO explores solutions to airlift shortfall in Afghanistan

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan is suffering a severe lack of in-theatre lift capacity, but no national solutions to address the shortfall are expected for at least another year, according to NATO officials.

From the NATO Website: Improving NATO’s capabilities

At the Riga Summit in November 2006, Allied leaders agreed to support efforts to achieve information superiority. Key to these efforts is the implementation of a NATO Network-Enabled Capability, which aims to make all operational elements, from the strategic down to tactical levels, interoperable. The Alliance is also working to improve its maritime situational awareness and establish the airborne Alliance Ground Surveillance system.

It looks like developing effective training in the Defense, Development, and Diplomacy arenas are specialties that have job security…are you free?

Regards,

Steve

[milnews.ca]

So, more horses to pull the training wagon, duplication or wait and see?

NATO’s Heads of State and Government at the Alliance’s 60th Anniversary Summit meeting in Strasbourg-Kehl, announced today the establishment of a NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan (NTM-A). This mission will further support the development of capable and self-sustaining Afghan National Security Forces. It will comprise senior-level mentoring of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and an expanded role in developing professional Afghan National Police (ANP). The mission will operate under a dual-hatted command, with a single commander for both the US-led Combined Security Transition Command- Afghanistan (CSTC-A) and the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan. The mission will provide higher-level training for the ANA, including defence colleges and academies, and will be responsible for doctrine development, as well as training and mentoring for the ANP .... In practical terms, the new mission means bringing most of current army and police training under a single umbrella, drawing on and better utilising resources that are already in theatre. NATO’s military authorities will work over the coming weeks to determine the appropriate command structure for NTM-A to enable it to conduct police training and mentoring. The military authorities, in consultation with the Afghan Ministries of Defence and Interior, CSTC-A, EUPOL, and the International Police Coordination Board, will also examine and determine an appropriate level of skill development for the various Afghan police forces.

Link here for more from this NATO backgrounder.

[ODB]

Not to sidetrack, but has anyone questioned the wisdom of having a regular unit fall in on the "ETT" mission? It is awkward enough having a junior Major with no real training advise a BN commander with a lifetime of experience, how about a Lt. or a junior CPT? What do we hope to get out of this?

myself a SFC advising those many levels above my pay grade. Brings me to that thread somewhere floating around SWJ about wearing sterile uniforms. This would be one of those occasions. Rank has no play in it, competence does, minus those select individuals who have to hear it from someone of higher rank.....

Many here have worn on me over the past months, have gotten me to see the light. Truth be told I see nothing wrong with GPF doing this. As usual I have a but. When will someone put together a standard POI, develop levels of training, but then again is our system all that effective? How do we ensure year to year as units rotate, training is not affected. Kinda like when instructors switch, one teaches you one thing, two wants it done differently, then one comes back to evaluate you and wonders WTF?

[ODB]

You just had to say that word..... I had abstained from using that word for at least a good month. Even at work, my new word that I scream daily is "PLANNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[patmc]

My understanding of moving the TT training to Fort Polk was to rotate individual teams, and later the Advisor Brigades through, thus creating a common curriculum and training center. The Polk mission officially begins in August, so the 82nd deployment probably came up too quickly to send them down there, or to prep Polk to receive them. But that is just my guess.

[Surferbeetle]

You just had to say that word..... I had abstained from using that word for at least a good month. Even at work, my new word that I scream daily is "PLANNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

....well....how about beer?

[ODB]

My understanding of moving the TT training to Fort Polk was to rotate individual teams, and later the Advisor Brigades through, thus creating a common curriculum and training center. The Polk mission officially begins in August, so the 82nd deployment probably came up too quickly to send them down there, or to prep Polk to receive them. But that is just my guess.

been more descriptive in my previous post. When talking about training, I meant the host nation forces. What is the plan to ensure uniformity from unit to unit, that continues to develop the host nation forces. Or will each unit come in with their own ideas that conflicts with the previous unit? We all know our opinion on what they should do is better than the previous unit.

[ODB]

....well....how about beer?

was hitting the spot last night after 10 hours of trying to get grass to grow in the great red clay of Tennessee....... It would be easier to solve all the issues upon the SWJ boards than to get a nice yard here.