Small Wars Journal

IW Shortfalls, TMAAG Update

Thu, 05/22/2008 - 12:58pm
Inside the Pentagon (subscription required) is reporting on a 15 May memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England that spells out Irregular Warfare (IW) shortfalls within the Department of Defense.

In a May 15 memo to the armed services, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, the combatant commanders and other defense officials, England says an irregular warfare study uncovered steady-state shortfalls in the general-purpose forces' capability and capacity to handle counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense missions.

Inside the Pentagon, which obtained a copy of the memo, quotes England as identifying deficiencies in doctrine, training and institutions before general-purpose forces can train, equip and advise large numbers of foreign security forces in key irregular warfare missions.

DOD's roles and missions review will seek to find the right division of responsibilities for special operations troops and general-purpose forces across the spectrum of irregular warfare, including for counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense, according to a draft terms of reference that ITP reviewed.

Based on the study's results and recommendations, England directs specific follow-up actions. Transforming the Pentagon's institutions for irregular warfare requires "concerted effort and continued attention by all DOD components," he writes.

SWJ has more at a 6 May post - IW on Roles and Missions Task List

On a related issue, Inside the Pentagon also reports that Outgoing Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody has rejected plans for a new breed of units that would spearhead the training of foreign armies, asking instead that the service's Training and Doctrine Command reassess the idea, according to service sources.

Harvey Perritt, a TRADOC spokesman, said Cody gave officials at the Ft. Belvoir, VA-based command until Aug. 31 to present a revised concept to Army leaders. Service officials will know by the end of July whether they will field a previously planned pilot TMAAG unit, he added. "By that point, the review will be far enough along," he told InsideDefense.com.

One Army official, who requested anonymity, said service leaders still believe the goals behind the TMAAG -- an expeditionary cadre of trainers fostering military relations around the globe -- have merit.

SWJ has more at The Army's TMAAG.

Comments

Old Eagle said in 2008, "The true SFA requirement is
joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational
across all phases of operations
from the ministerial/institutional level down to the individual soldier/policeman, border guard, etc
includes organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising (incl combat, if necessary) those forces
includes military, police, paramilitary and infrastructure forces"

Would TMAAGs make more sense if they incorporated PRT-like formations and PRT-like foci as well as doing SFA, which would connect host-nation security and governance elements to our own security (joint forces) and governance (DoS, DoJ, etc) elements?