Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
If a frog had wings...as of today Interagency efforts are still not where they need to be, nor have they ever been in our past.
True on both counts. Just because the US government has always been shortsighted is indicative of the possibility that it will remain so. However, there is a slight if not an equal chance that can be changed.

Those who fight for the Status Quo are likely to get it.
This was why I posted the CA history: in every US war the Army screams 'Nation building is not my job' and then ends up having to do it by default...I say again, the US Army has consistently repeated this same behavior since 1776.
I don't think that is correct. As your own examples show, that was not true in and after WW II. It was not true in Korea or Viet Nam to my recollection. There was indeed an early burble in Viet Nam but that was because the Army deliberately pushed State and USAid out of the picture -- so whose fault was that...

Now we want to do that again?
We need to permanently build in effective (staffing levels and range of skill sets) nation building capability into the Army. Call them CA, call them Advisors, call them what you will we need to admit we have a problem in this area of full spectrum operations and get strong in this area.
Not going to happen. Not affordable or sustainable. We can add some and will; we can better train everyone to do this better and we seem to be doing so. We can take SF / SOCOM / CA elements and apply them in the pre-emptive mode (which is what Bob's World and I are essentially saying) and we can apply others as adjuncts or augmentation to better trained GPF units 'enhanced' to provide advisory and nation building support where necessary -- as is being done.

You know as well as I do that the capability to get all the required skills aboard and keep them current only exists in the RC and those units have to compete with others for spaces, further, that the turnover and mobility in many of those skills mitigates against any significant expansion.

If the Army were to take your unaffordable advice and significantly enhance the internal 'nation building' capability and that cape were not used for, say five to ten years -- do you really think either the Army or Congress would allow those mostly unused space and units to remain in the structure? They never have in the past and that's what caused your cited problem in prior wars. The bulk of the CA effort was where it should have been, in the Reserve (I'd add some in the Guard, as well for several reasons). An AC buildup to augment BCTs is underway and that's all you're likely to get.

As for the RC guys, I've got more than a little familiarity with a number of nominally Civic Action / Training projects here and there including these LINK. Read the practical stuff, pgs 5-7 of the .pdf. GAO is not that swift but other assessments broadly agreed on the training and diplomatic benefits. That is not a knock, merely to point out that you have to grope and spend big bucks for small return to find productive training.

Thus it is in everyone's interest to push the USG to develop the Civil and State / USAid capability because if you don't:
if we build the capability it will be used, which may lead to additional problems down the road.
Just so. Inviting problems to solve is the preferred course of action?
...but once again we have had to do this type of work since 1776...
I say again: "but we also used to ride to work on elephants."
The requirement will never go away. It is way, way past time for the Army to stand up and say 'Hi, my name is the US Army and I have a serious problem with nation building...'
I totally agree! you're absolutely correct. Good point.

It will never go away and the Army needs to be prepared for probable employment and possible expansion as required of both civil affairs and general nation building efforts. We can agree on that. Where we disagree I think is on the extent or limits of sensible expansion in view the world situation today. My sensing is that you wish a significant expansion and my sensing is that the requisite skills are not going to flock to the Army -- especially if we avoid interventions for a while and they are in uniform but way underemployed. IOW, be careful what you ask for , you may get it

We also, it appears, differ in that you seem to be of the opinion the Army should want the mission and stand up to say we can do it and we can do it better. I strongly disagree. It is not a core task and while it was absorbed by a large conscripted Army of 12M bodies in WW II, it is undesirable in a small professional force -- underline 'small' -- that cannot afford too many off core missions or to devote to may resources to missions that are inherent (like CA etc.). It is one thing to be prepared for full spectrum contingencies and for nation building as many of us advocate. It is quite another to develop excess capability for one spectrum that will adversely impact others and which is unlikely to ever be large or robust enough to operate at needed capacity lacking another major existential war. IOW, if it is almost certainly going to need augmentation, better that augmentation be available.

Going a step further, it is not desirable in my view for the Armed Forces to be the only elements of the USG to have to "embrace the suck" as they say. That needs for many reasons to be shared for the sake of all the nation. So given that, the 'augmentation' problem plus staffing and recruiting realities it seems to me the best course of action is for the Army to stand up and say 'Hi, my name is the US Army and I have a serious problem with nation building -- I can and will provide entry and non-secure environment capability but it is our considered professional opinion and advice that it would be better for the nation to avoid such cases if at all possible through better intelligence assessments followed by diplomatic, aid and development assistance. However, in the event all that fails and if a military commitment is unavoidable, the nation should be prepared at the earliest possible time to augment then replace the Army's capability." We've about worn out the "Yessir, yessir, three bags full... " option. History also shows where that has gotten us...

Lastly and most importantly and back to the real point -- the USG should expend more effort to AVOID wars instead of trying to get into them and then screwing the pooch. If you do not force the Diplomats and Policy Makers to send civilians and guardsmen and reservists off to wars, they will have no reason to avoid them. Again, build a capability that aches to be used and it will be.