CSA Sends - Transition Team Commanders

[Rob Thornton]

The “P” or personnel piece of this will serve as the fulcrum by which we will better leverage the rest of the DOTMLPF.

I’m not alone when I say that serving as an advisor to a foreign security force is among the most rewarding to be had. In my own military service it is coequal with command. I view them as complimentary – one having made me better for the other. I think if ever I was asked to take another command it would benefit both me and those served. This is because as an advisor to FSFs you will see and do things you would not see or do other wise. It is because the conditions inherent to being an effective advisor require you to develop and exercise a different side of your talents - often in a different way, and because the environment in which the advisor operates offers a view from a different perspective – both on the operational environment and our own forces.

The CSA’s message talks to the valuable contribution the advisory mission makes to our Land Power. That is worth considering beyond just our current operations in OIF and OEF. As more leaders take on this challenge, it informs the rest of our Doctrine, Organizational, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities development and decisions we make as we go forward. With the CSA’s message we stand to create both a relevant body of knowledge throughout the force on working closely with FSFs, and we create Army stakeholders that better understand how “by, with and through” both benefits our own tactical, operation and strategic objectives, as well improving upon the direction we take our own force.

The CSA’s message shows what we value; we protect and advance those things which we value.

Best, Rob

[wm]

The CSA’s message shows what we value; we protect and advance those things which we value.

The true position, I submit, will be seen when resolving the resourcing issue; that is, coming up with enough human beings to fill all these slots. When push comes to shove and there are not enough follks to go around, which will get filled first--Bn or TT command, O-4 TT advisor or Bn/Bde XO/S3? And which incumbents will be extended in their slots when the replacement pool is insufficient? While the memo says O4 TT types "will be afforded the opportunity" to be XOs/S3s, the cynic in me wonders how successful they will be in actually getting to serve in those positions.

I worry about scenarios like this :
MAJ X spends 12 months in IZ on a MiTT; he is then offered an "opportunity" to be an XO/S3 of a Bn enroute to IZ or AF rather than a Bn just returning from the AOR. I acknowledge that a lot of value accrues to the Army by having MAJ X apply his MiTT-derived in-country experience immediately. However, is MAJ X willing/able to undergo the back-to-back deployment it might entail?

[Rob Thornton]

Hi Wayne, I think your concerns are valid - it gets to matching Means and Will - but I also think this is a good step in the right direction. That first step is often the hardest for a conservative organization to make as it demonstrates both a recognition and will to change. There are challenges ahead, but having your service chief make a public recognition is a good start.

I'm not necessarily in line with John Nagl about the advisor tab, but I am on board for a personnel code that allows us to track by category advisory skills and experiences.

I'd also say that there are allot of folks out there doing advisory work with FSFs who need the same type of recognition but are not formally assigned to a TT or PRT. The TF 134 folks who work with Iraqis helping the develop RoL issues spend as much or more time in many cases with Iraqis advising them as do TTs of various flavors. The MPs who are not tagged as TTs, but increasingly are exclusively focused on working with IPs, the unit augmentees who roundout the shortages in TTs and find they have a natural aptitude for it - and make a huge difference, the minesterial level advisors who are not necessarily part of a TT, the TTs internally resourced by BNs, BCTs and DIVs, etc. There is far more advsing going on then most people realize. We should work to identify those people and ensure they receive recognition for it, as well as categorizing their experience and assigining a value code to it so they can be tracked.

Best, Rob

[jkm_101_fso]

Rob,
Great point on the Personnel codes...I was a IA BN S-3 Advisor in 2006 on an "out of hide" TT from my BDE. I had two OERs during the TT period and I wasn't rated as TT member, because according to my S-1, MTT "isn't a real job" that he can code on an OER. Which I found incredibly unfortunate. I'm concerned that guys on "out of hide" TTs won't get the same credit as an RFF TT guy. Also, I know that in many cases Sr. CPTs have served as TT commanders for IA BNs. I hope that they get the credit, just as a MAJ would.

[Chap]

We're nowhere near this yet. FAO community is only three years old; IA officers (the guys who go pound sand) are mostly guys who Navy thinks they can afford to lose. We don't capture the skills and knowledge well and my take is that they aren't promoted like the guys in more usual career paths. No idea how we'd get a MAJ Carlson, for instance. Lots of churn and some changes to make the IA process less egregious, but not much like this I see. Anyone able to correct me?