*Answer the question that was asked...*
No.Originally Posted by Misifus
Answer the question that should have been asked: Should the US Army require one to have experience in Africa before one is appointed commander of AFRICOM? No, not necessarily because the number of persons senior enough to hold that Command who can have, much less will have, experience of Africa is microscopic if it exists at all.
Answer the question my answer will generate: To achieve an end state of Africom commanders possessing local experience would require two things; extensive and long US involvement with the Continent and / or promotion of African experienced FAOs to General Officers in sufficient quantities to provide a pool large enough for a constant stream of 4 Buttons. Neither of those is likely.
A remedy that is available is to better educate General Officers in the Army (or US Flag Officers in general) to pay more heed to their area specialists instead of relying on their ego centric determinations and to insure that African FAOs are heavily represented on the Africom staff instead of being placed in totally non-germane assignments. Does an African FAO need to be a Training Battlion XO? Almost certainly not. Nor will one do much good in PacCom, FORSCOM, TRADOC or US Northern Command.
In the design of Africom IIRC, they put an Ambassador nominally with African experience on the TDA, that too is necessary but someone needs to insure he's (a) not an incompetent; and (b) is listened to...Excellent point. There are cases where certain skills matter a great deal, no question. There are others where they matter little. The US Army's problem is that it has been forced by Congress to take the position that rank is generic and not skill specific. That is, people must be selected for rank as fairly and objectively as possible and the system must cater to that by providing the skills and knowledges to allow the marginal person to perform at a minimum level of effectiveness.In other words, do job specific skills matter, or do we just determine that we can put any "smart" guy in any position and therefore be assured of a good outcome. Would you drive your M-1 tank over a bridge that was designed by a cardiologist?
Unfortunately, that's what the system manages to do -- head for that minimum level of effectiveness. No question that many, even most, in the Army transcend that and can do far more than hit that minimum level but too many can do little or no better yet they must be tolerated due to the 'fairness' stricture.
The fact that warfare isn't fair seems to have escaped notice...
Thus my answer to that problem is that the Army must do a better job of identifying what skills wil best contribute to war fighting and articulate a need for Congress to change OPM 21 and allied laws to allow the Personnel system (which needs to lose it's 1917 mindset...) to adapt, place needed skill where they are required and stop wasting money trying to make everyone equal in 'qualifications.' They will never be equal and we waste gallons of money trying fruitlessly to change that. The waste is a problem, a larger problem is the decrease in combat capability and effectiveness that waste produces...I opine that level of Command shouldn't exist -- but no one asked me. If it does exist as it obviously does, then the requirement for Staffers should insist on the maximum degree of local or area expertise and knowledge that is available.How do we opine on the level of in-country or in-region experience needed at this level of command?
The requirement that knowledge be employed is harder to enforce...
I know most are aware of all that, just wanted to write it down...
Bookmarks