Army Mulls Train & Advise Brigades
12.14.2015 at 11:07pm
Army Mulls Train & Advise Brigades by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Breaking Defense
After 15 years of ad hoc solutions, the Army may build specialized battalions and brigades to train and advise foreign forces, the service’s chief of staff says. Gen. Mark Milley made clear that advisor units are just a proposal under study, a study that only started “a couple of months ago.” But even studying the idea is a remarkable reversal for the Army, which thoroughly rejected the idea in years past.
“Better late than never,” said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, who wrote a 2008 study lambasting the Army’s performance training and advising Iraqi and Afghan forces…
Interesting.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/predictions
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/less-money-fewer-people-creative-adaptation
I think that we can translate “mulls” as “searches for any scrap of quasi-intellectual justification not to form”. This makes such obvious sense, and if it ever happens, the Army will do it with much kicking, screaming, gnashing of teeth, and renting of garments, and then do it as poorly as possible to justify a return to outright combined arms maneuver.
Edited and added to a little bit:
Here is a proposed foundation for understanding the need for “train and advise” brigades:
The U./S./the West has moved away from what we might call its highly unrealistic “downhill” premise; a premise which suggested that everyone, everywhere, in the non-western world, desperately wanted to, and in fact immediately could, make the transition to a western way of life, a western way of governance and to western values, attitudes and beliefs. This, if we would only liberate these “pinning for westernization” populations from their oppressive (think resisting-westernization) rulers and regimes.
This such “downhill” premise suggested that (a) while the “resisting westernization” rulers and regimes might be our enemy (b) the populations (who were all pinning for westernization) were our friends.
Having recently been educated, chastised and disciplined as to the failure of this thesis — in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. — the U.S./the West has now been forced to acknowledge and adopt a more-realistic “uphill” premise/thesis; one which suggests that transforming outlying states and societies, more along modern western political, economic and social lines, will be more of a long, hard uphill slog.
This “uphill” premise/thesis acknowledging that the populations (who we now know will often be resisting “westernization” — much like rulers/regimes resisting same) will also have to be dealt with.
It is in acknowledging this “the populations are resisting westernization also” fact/context, I suggest, that the U.S./the West has been forced to realize that it must (a) help cooperative/pro-westernizing rulers and regimes (b) deal with “resisting westernization” populations and regimes.
This, by helping (via “advise and assist”) these cooperative/pro-westernizing rulers/regimes:
a. Build and sustain their military, police and intelligence forces, to wit:
b. Those very forces that are normally needed to — and employed for — the enforcement of unpopular, and contested, radical and fundamental state and societal “change” requirements.
Thus, and in sum, when you hear such leaders as our GEN Votel say that we must “get to the left” of such problems, then I suggest that we understand what he is saying is that:
a. Prior to introducing radical change to an area/country — governed by a pro-westernizing ruler/regime — we must, logically, and first and foremost,
b. Have the pro-westernizing area/country’s own standing military, police and intelligence forces brought up to size, capability and “speed;” this, so that “they” — rather than “we” — might
c. Effectively deal with the now-acknowledged resistance of certain populations and certain regimes; both of whom will, in their own view, be negatively impacted/affected by such radical, alien (and, in their eyes, often profane) state and societal changes as we require.
Thus, to see “advise and assist” as just the exercise of good old common sense.
This, as we, thus, get the “horse” (the traditional/classic military, police and intelligence “enforcement” and “protection” mechanisms) before the “cart” (of our now-acknowledged unpopular and/or contested state and societal “change” requirements).
Note: Here is the GEN Votel quote that I am referring to above, and the link to where this quote can be found:
“What I think the Gray Zone offers to us, is the ability to get out there to shape, or detour, or influence things before they become catastrophes. That’s kind of the big idea, we want to get left of problems, and not just show up and try to deal with a bad situation.”
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/%E2%80%98gray-zone%E2%80%99-conflicts-far-more-complex-to-combat-says-socom-chief-votel-0
For context, note here how GEN Votel points to the “westernization” of Somalia; this, by emphasizing that:
” … today, they’ve got an elected president. They’ve got a parliament. They’ve got a constitution. … ”
As to rulers/regimes that appear to be opposed to/standing in the way of/feel threatened by the further advance of “westernization,” consider GEN Votel’s reference to such nations as Russia and the “resisting/obstructing further westernization” actions they have taken of late. “Advice and assist” to provide that our neighboring pro-westernizing rulers and regimes have the military, police and intelligence forces available to help us, and them, deal with these “anti-further-westernization” opponents also.
We have these already they are called a “Group” [i.e. 7th SF Group (A)] instead of a “Brigade”. The next step is getting rid of the micromanagement and then to stop trying to make the host nation look like us with all the same capabilities.