User talk:Hcberkowitz/US FID Issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 US personnel issues 2 Military activities in Closing Gaps 3 US Foreign Internal Defense Priorities and Policy Conflicts 3.1 Africa 3.1.1 Horn of Africa 3.1.2 West Africa 3.1.3 Trans-Sahel/Trans-Sahara 3.2 Southeast Asia and the Phillipines 3.3 Central Asia 3.4 Latin America 3.5 Doctrinal Development: Theater Security Cooperation (TSC) versus Geographic Combatant Command (GSC) 3.6 US Controversy regarding inadequate use of FID capabilities 3.6.1 Direct Action versus Foreign Internal Defense 4 References

[edit] US personnel issues

[edit] Military activities in Closing Gaps

US policy is to concentrate on indirect support to the maximum extent possible, then direct support not involving combat, and then, only in extreme circumstances, combat. The preference to avoid combat does not preclude self-defense.

From the MAAG days following WWII, the US has taken an increasingly interventionist, expeditionary policy, culminating in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Killebrew said "rebuilding State Department and MAAG capacity overseas is a hot discussion subject in Washington think tanks and in the policy camps of both political parties ^[1]." Unless and until Kennedy-style country teams are again in fashion, and the Chief of Mission controls all US (or other FID nation) activities in a given HN, the reality is that some variant of the MAAG approach will be involved. When coalitions provide the FID, there will be coordination requirements both among the various coalition nations and each other as well as to the HN.

Killebrew suggests "...DoD should insist that other agencies in the country team likewise fall under the authority of the COM, with the staff augmented to provide planning and oversight of all U.S. activities. Unity of command and knowledgeable and coordinated support to the host country are vital if the United States and its allies are to succeed in countering jihadist threats in the developing world." In coalition work, however, unity of effort may be all that can be achieved.

"First, the Army’s role in rebuilding a long-term overseas capacity to defeat jihadist aggression will be only part of a larger U.S. strategy that incorporates all the so-called elements of national power, focused forward on the engaged country teams operating out of U.S. missions and headed by the COM...

"Advising forward is going to become a central, mainstream mission of the entire Army, not a subcategory of mission that can be left to special operating forces or foreign area officers. Elevating the advisory function—and the management of foreign military assistance, a critical component of the overall mission—is the first and most important step that Army leaders should take to prepare for the coming changes in national strategy. Thus advising means a continued, long-term MAAG presence wherever the need is...The expectation for advisers is that, above all, they will be competent in their particular branch or specialty, with some additional training—language and cultural sensitivity—tacked on. For the majority of officers and NCOs sent on advisory duty, a tour in Algeria or Panama will be a diversion in a normal combat arms or combat support career—teaching logistics management in Jordan or fire and maneuver in Oman.

If the Army is serious about formally developing advisors, "many combat arms officers would be dual-tracked as FAOs [foreign area officers], going to language school and [earning] regional studies advanced degrees to prepare for MAAG assignments, then rotating back into the conventional force with a breadth of ‘pol-mil’ experience that would fundamentally alter the way the conventional force thinks." When considering the development of such specialist, it should be remembered that developing basic professional competence in the "hard" languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Japanese or Korean takes 63 weeks of training at the respected Defense Language Institute. ^[2]

"For those who are attracted to these complex MAAG type assignments, which at higher levels will combine soldiering with diplomacy and management of foreign aid, a separate career track toward MAAG command and administration should be established" MAAG area specialists deal more with conventional military organizations, and complement Special Forces personnel. In addition, the current foreign area officer program, which tends to top officers out at the rank of major or lieutenant colonel, would be a natural partner for producing a core of senior military assistance specialists and MAAG commanders. ^[1]

Thus far, no discussion has completely captured the complexity of a shift in U.S security policy that would switch emphasis from expeditionary to a more patient forward engagement." United States Africa Command, which attained initial operational capability in September 2007, may be a harbinger of such a more patient involvement ^[3].

AFRICOM is seen as a regional command "plus", meaning that while it would have the military responsibilities traditional geographic combatant command, including the ability to facilitate or lead military operations, but would also include a broader “soft power” mandate aimed at building a stable security environment and would ^[4] incorporate a larger civilian component from other U.S. government agencies toaddress those challenges. Where other combatant commands have a State Department advisor, after the military commander, was approved, GEN William Ward, Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates, was appointed as Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military Activities (DCMA), a new post equivalent to that of a deputy commander. Yates, who had previously served as U.S. ambassador to Burundi and Ghana and most recently as the Foreign Policy Advisor to EUCOM, is the first non-DOD civilian to be integrated into the command structure of a unified command.

[edit] US Foreign Internal Defense Priorities and Policy Conflicts

While the large operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are most visible, including direct combat as well as FID, other areas are even more promising for multinational, national, and local FID programs to strengthen weak states and close gaps. Special Forces are operating with locals, in a FID role, all over the world, including Iraq.

Also in Iraq, the Marines reinstituted a variant of the CAP ^[5].

[edit] Africa

Most worrisome is Africa, with different issues in different regions. Recently, the US has created a regional command for Africa - United States Africa Command, which, along with the Southern Command for Latin America and the Caribbean, is less a headquarters for combat forces and more one for coordinating development.

[edit] Horn of Africa

The states near the Middle East are a high priority, not only due to the terrorist threat, but for piracy. Countries of interest include Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Sudan. With its patchwork quilt of troubled states, this region has a long history as a base of operations for Islamist terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda and sympathizers such as the Somali-based group Al-Ittihad al-Islamiya^[6]

[edit] West Africa

Nigeria has had to deal with Islamist extremists in the north. West Africa, however, has the Blood Diamond problem, as a regional one including Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Liberia, the Republic of the Congo, and Sierra Leone.

Some of the most effective sub-regional FID and nation-building has taken place under the ECOWAS organization, with its ECOMOG military and nation-building force.^{[citation needed]} Western assistance to this region has involved the UK in Sierra Leone and France in Ivory Coast.

[edit] Trans-Sahel/Trans-Sahara

This region includes Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Senegal, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan. The countries vary significantly in their problems and resources. Nigeria is a major regional power both in the Sahel/Sahara and in West Africa, and is an established oil exporter, while Chad and Sudan are in early phases of an oil industry.

[edit] Southeast Asia and the Phillipines

A second region of concern is Southeast Asia and the Philippines, which the US State Department characterized in its 2003 annual terrorism report to Congress as “an attractive theater of support and logistics for al-Qaida” and other regional and transnational groups. Also in the report, the State Department highlighted the link between regional terrorist groups in Asia and al-Qaeda and the resultant implications for the region. An equally dangerous and violent group also having strong ties to Al-Qaeda is Abu Sayyaf, a Philippine-based Muslim separatist organization that was the target of a vigorous and largely successful Philippine eradication effort following the attacks of 9/11. This group has recently reemerged, prompting the Philippine national security advisor to assert in August 2004 that Abu Sayyaf is “by far the most dangerous group in the country today^[6]

[edit] Central Asia

The third troublesome area of weak states is Central Asia, consisting of the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Here, central government authority is weak, poverty is widespread, and control of the more remote mountainous regions is tenuous, at best. Taking full advantage of this weakness is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a terrorist group affiliated with Al-Qaeda, which has taken root in the region.

[edit] Latin America

US interaction with Latin America goes back farther than with other areas, including unfortunate periods of exploitation and human rights violations, with movement to a more balanced effort that has shown some successes. Those programs that worked in Latin America may be models for a better start in Africa.

Properly trained and equipped police and military forces can help close the security gap. Work with the World Health Organization and Pan-American Health Organization work with the capacity gap. Regional HN operations to interdict drug traffickers, destroy labs and seize drugs helps close the legitimacy gap by reducing the bribery of local officials.

As has been mentioned, the illegal drug trade is a natural spillover effect from weak states. Fully understanding that the US must do its part on reducing demand, the US Southern Command supports HN activities against both drug production and transportation. The "source zone" are the countries in the Andes that are the largest drug producing areas: Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Nations in Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean play roles in transit.

US intelligence sharing includes ground-based and airborne radar^[7], with air mission planning at the USSOUTHCOM’s Joint interagency Task Force East located in Key West, Florida.

[edit] Doctrinal Development: Theater Security Cooperation (TSC) versus Geographic Combatant Command (GSC)

GEN Charles Wald describes the new FID model as starting earlier in a cycle of engagement than traditional GCC activities. Phase Zero is “operationalized TSC,” a convergence of TSC activities with information operations and traditional military operations that drives the campaign toward achieving a set of desired strategic effect as encompassing “all activities prior to the beginning of Phase I [traditional joint campaign]—that is, everything that can be done to prevent conflicts from developing in the first place. . . . [T]he preventative focus of Phase Zero is less costly (both in blood and in treasure) than a reactive approach to a crisis.”

Further affecting US FID doctrine ^[8] is a new doctrine of proactive peacetime engagement,based on the principle that it is much more cost effective to prevent conflict than it is to stop one once it has started. This doctrine breaks new ground for the military, for reasons for the cultural to the bureaucratic to the legal. Regulations and legislation, to say nothing of financial management practices, tend to be oriented more to specific campaigns, rather than long-term relationship building. Some entirely proper concerns for human rights and financial accountability may not translate cleanly into other cultures. US domestic politics also complicate the situation. "While the formation of these laws and processes was driven by legitimate concerns, the unintended consequences have had a deleterious effect on U.S. ability to meet fundamental objectives of establishing enduring partnerships. Some of the particular legal or bureaucratic problems have already been repaired, while others are in the process of being fixed.

"On a second level is the problem of the overall cultural mindset that relegates Theater Strategic Cooperation (TSC) and other noncampaign activities—collectively referred to as Phase Zero—to secondary status behind traditional military requirements, such as training, equipping, maintaining, mobilizing, and employing the force. The mindset extends across the U.S. Government, but not without reason. After all, the bread and butter of the military is combat. We remind ourselves of that fact daily as a nation and military at war, and we expect that our fighting forces are fully equipped and ready. This is not to say that anyone considers Phase Zero unimportant. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) makes it clear that“addressing regional conflicts includes three levels of engagement:

• conflict prevention and resolution
• conflict intervention
• postconflict stabilization and reconstruction.”

However, there is a default tendency to equate the military to warfighting, misbalancing the resources needed for the military’s role in prevention, stabilization, and reconstruction. Thus, it is difficult to resource the total Phase Zero campaign; impacts on Phase Zero considerations are underrepresented as laws and policies are proposed and established. What should be fairly small and simple operations to build partnerships and military capabilities to support U.S. interests become more difficult and complex than necessary.

Perceptions are key during Phase Zero. We may be the world’s lone superpower, but from the perspective of our target nations, we can appear sluggish and difficult to work with. That sends the wrong message not only to longstanding allies, but also to emerging partners, who are just as likely to seek assistance from another nation instead.

[edit] US Controversy regarding inadequate use of FID capabilities

Not all special operations forces have FID or UW capabilities, which require skill at training, area and cultural knowledge, and foreign language skills. In the US, these have been the classic role of Special Forces groups rather than other special operations units, such as the direct action specialists of the 75th Ranger Regiment, or direct action and special reconnaissance with Marine Force Recon or United States Navy SEALs. FID is inherently a force multiplication function, so using FID-qualified personnel for other special forces missions may not be their most effective assignment.

While other units have been assigned to training, there is a concern that the best-qualified FID specialists are being overused in counterterror direct action ^[9]: "The problem with Rumsfeld’s thinking is that he overemphasized the “direct action” piece of the SOF portfolio, which involves the capture and killing of terrorist operatives. His plan gave short shrift to one of the other major missions of special operators: the training of foreign militaries in critical regions of the world, says Dick Couch ^[10], a retired Navy SEAL and author of “Chosen Soldier: The Making of a Special Forces Warrior." ... "Special Forces are the only members of the military whose primary job is to teach other forces how to fight, he explains...

"The U.S. military will have a tough time fighting terrorism as long as missions such as foreign-internal defense are underappreciated and considered unglamorous." Failing to train foreign internal defense forces, however, will mean that US regular forces may have to intervene to fill the lack of local forces.

In the Quadrennial Defense Review issued in February 2006, ^[11] based on a requirement for antiterrorism, "the Department will increase Special Operations Forces by 15% and increase the number of Special Forces Battalions by one-third." The Air Force and Marines will create new units under USSOCOM, although no new personnel allocations were mentioned. Other increases, however, call for undefined increases in United States Navy SEALs, and, in Army forces, Psychological Operations and Civil Affairs units by 3,700 personnel, a 33% increase. There is concern, however, over both where the qualified personnel to support these increases will be found. Special Operations personnel interviewed, however, believe this projected increase will be devoted completely to direct action missions, which have been the specialty of the Joint Special Operations Command. Countering this concern is the reality that Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations do not have a direct action capability. ^[12]

While direct action is also one of Army Special Forces' "seven principal missions," the other missions, including unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, information operations, civil affairs, place a high priority on Special Forces' language skills and cultural awareness (each of the Army's seven SF groups has a regional focus).

According to retired RADM Hamlin Tallent, who had been director of operations at US European Command, "The occupation of Iraq and the counterinsurgency fight there unfortunately are draining scarce SOF resources, which means that fewer operators are available to conduct foreign-internal defense missions in areas that are gradually becoming terrorist sanctuaries, such as Africa." Tallent also observes that if local forces are not trained, US forces may have to do the job. With an overstretched military and political considerations, many analysts question if using FID-capable assets on counterterror DA is a wise choice.

[edit] Direct Action versus Foreign Internal Defense

Developed countries will face many of the same demands for enhanced counterterrorism and counterinsurgency capabilities over the coming decades that exist today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries. It will also face a complex mix of steadily more sophisticated state and non-state actors. These will normally operate with a high degree of independence, but they have collectively and individually already found a form of low technology swarm tactics that can defeat high technology US forces unless the US can depend on local allies.

Time literally is on the side of such enemies. They can afford to fight wars of attrition, out wait the US, and pause their activities to regroup. Swarming warfare inherently is "pulsed" and allows the insurgency to pace itself both in terms of resource availability and dramatic impact. Commercial cellular and satellite telephones, websites, text messaging, and conventional telephones can provide needed communications, especially in urban areas. Open source intelligence OSINT can provide much of the information they need. They can rely on open source reporting for much of their intelligence and knowledge of what targets, tactics, and propaganda provide the most combat effectiveness. .

Such threats will seek to operate below the level of US and allied conventional superiority. They will use proxies and avoid battles when they can. They will prefer low-level wars of attrition and avoid present conventional targets. They will attack US, allied, and local civil targets using suicide bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, and other tactics in ways that are hard to anticipate or fully defend against

Terrorists can exploit religion, ideology, culture, and ethnic and sectarian identity to attack and isolate the US and outside allies. This means such threats will also seek to fight above the level of US conventional superiority. They will try to shape the ideological, political, and psychological battlefields in ways that make the US an invader, occupier, or crusader. They will use the support they gain to disperse and hide among the population, and seek to force the US to use tactics and detainments that alienate the people in the areas where they operate.

It is a FID axiom that "Unless the US can rely on local forces and local allies, this mix of attack tactics will often deprive the US of much of its ability to exploit superior weapons, IS&R assets, and conventional war fighting expertise.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] References