Posted on Feb 13, 2018
Should the old Combat Advisors, e.g. MiTT members, get the same credit being given to SFAB Soldiers?
13.1K
40
23
7
7
0
Many will remember how in the early, pre-surge days, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Army created and prioritized combat advisor teams to help build capabilities in those nations security forces. During 2005-2008 they stressed that they were the top fill for the military. The soldiers that were selected were supposed to be some of the best we had. They were sent to a school at, in the case of the Army, Fort Riley, Kansas and later Fort Polk, Louisiana to learn how to be military transition team members and combat advisers to perform Security Force Assistance role. That school was 3-4 months long and involved many long hard days of work in order to graduate as a team and deploy. Following graduation, but before actually starting the mission, they then transitioned to the Phoenix Academy at Taji, Iraq where they completed the Advanced Military Transition Team course. Following graduation from both these schools, as well as completed the other general deployment requirements they were fully trained and capable of going into Iraq or Afghanistan as a combat advisor.
During this period, the Army attempted to incentivize being on MITT, SFAT, or other advisor team by promising its Soldiers and Officers that they would receive top billing for follow on assignments, in some cases key developmental credit, an ASI for completely training, and possibly even a Combat Advisor tab or some other distinctive uniform decoration to wear showing that they had completed the course work and the follow-on assignment as an advisor. These things however never came to fruition. In many cases officers did not receive key developmental credit for their work and there was no ASI for combat advisor created. They also never received any recognition or decoration to wear the uniform for the 4-5 months of hard work they put in training and then a year long deployment as a combat advisor.
With the creation of the Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) which are really just a new iteration of the old Military Assistance Command-Vietnam (MACV) or Combat Advisor units from OIF and OEF and the creation of the Military Advisor Training Academy, really just a new Phoenix Academy and Military Transition Team Course, there is a lot of talk of bringing the ASI and tab back. While I personally don't believe that they ever will; if they do, would it not be right to give credit where credit is due to the original combat advisers from OEF and OIF who worked hard for those long training sessions and then deployed with little support from the Army or other units in their areas. Do those original advisers not deserve an ASI as they were promised and that combat advisor tab that now makes part of SFAB patch?
During this period, the Army attempted to incentivize being on MITT, SFAT, or other advisor team by promising its Soldiers and Officers that they would receive top billing for follow on assignments, in some cases key developmental credit, an ASI for completely training, and possibly even a Combat Advisor tab or some other distinctive uniform decoration to wear showing that they had completed the course work and the follow-on assignment as an advisor. These things however never came to fruition. In many cases officers did not receive key developmental credit for their work and there was no ASI for combat advisor created. They also never received any recognition or decoration to wear the uniform for the 4-5 months of hard work they put in training and then a year long deployment as a combat advisor.
With the creation of the Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) which are really just a new iteration of the old Military Assistance Command-Vietnam (MACV) or Combat Advisor units from OIF and OEF and the creation of the Military Advisor Training Academy, really just a new Phoenix Academy and Military Transition Team Course, there is a lot of talk of bringing the ASI and tab back. While I personally don't believe that they ever will; if they do, would it not be right to give credit where credit is due to the original combat advisers from OEF and OIF who worked hard for those long training sessions and then deployed with little support from the Army or other units in their areas. Do those original advisers not deserve an ASI as they were promised and that combat advisor tab that now makes part of SFAB patch?
Military Transition Team Course
Combat Advisor
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 10
5
5
0
You would think, but remember the government promised to take care of the American Indians too. How did that work out?
(5)
(0)
CPT Ray Gilmore
As one of the "Combat Advisors" assigned to an "ETT"...... that was scattered to the winds, when we hit the ground.....
I believe that the unit cohesion of an SFAB over the ETT / MACV precursors is where the difference we will be.
My team (9805) was stacked with tabs, and badges, and prior deployments.... we were ready....
When we hit the ground, and the random unit there before us, broke us all up and reshuffled every team.... that was where the issues started.
The army lost over 60% of that team..... to injury, PTSD and resignation....
I think that, those of us who were assigned to ETT's, and made it home safe and stayed in, are now approaching a significant enough rank, in significant enough numbers.... that people are realizing the need for SFABs over door kickers.
I believe that the unit cohesion of an SFAB over the ETT / MACV precursors is where the difference we will be.
My team (9805) was stacked with tabs, and badges, and prior deployments.... we were ready....
When we hit the ground, and the random unit there before us, broke us all up and reshuffled every team.... that was where the issues started.
The army lost over 60% of that team..... to injury, PTSD and resignation....
I think that, those of us who were assigned to ETT's, and made it home safe and stayed in, are now approaching a significant enough rank, in significant enough numbers.... that people are realizing the need for SFABs over door kickers.
(2)
(0)
SFC William Linnell
I was briefed that our Teams came about again as a shortage of SF ODA teams that originally had as part of their mission was to train local natives into a fighting mob against the enemy, which in Afghan was the Tali. So to take that mission off their plate to operate in selective areas against the enemy.
The Army teams that went thru the course were SSG's, SFC, MSG, CPT, MAJ. All MOS's ranging from Arty, INF, Armor, Scouts, Supply. Our team OIC was an Armor MAJ and NCOIC was a MSG Scout. With 1 SSG who was a 3d level weapons specialist.
My team started out as a MiTT team, then an ETT team to the 201st Afghan Border Police 3rd Kandak. We were broken down into 6 man teams. Camp Joyce was an exciting little Camp.
The Army teams that went thru the course were SSG's, SFC, MSG, CPT, MAJ. All MOS's ranging from Arty, INF, Armor, Scouts, Supply. Our team OIC was an Armor MAJ and NCOIC was a MSG Scout. With 1 SSG who was a 3d level weapons specialist.
My team started out as a MiTT team, then an ETT team to the 201st Afghan Border Police 3rd Kandak. We were broken down into 6 man teams. Camp Joyce was an exciting little Camp.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Greetings to all in this interesting thread.
Thanks to MAJ Oles for his original post, above (posted on 13 Feb 2018; just found it in full and responding on Tuesday, 1 January 2019).
His discussion raises some valid and worthy questions.
** Agree with and support his contention that members of those various pre-SFAB (here using a generic collective term, vice MiTTs, MTTs, SFAATs et al) "security force assistance" teams should receive retroactive credit, recognition and commensurate professional consideration, i.e. KD and CSL, etc. They performed those unique and hazardous duties with their counterparts as << combat advisors >> in every sense of the term, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, versus those performed per Title 22, U.S. Code (duty as security assistance advisors with DOD Joint Service (i.e. USMTM Saudi Arabia, MAP Jordan or OMC Cairo, Egypt) or Army-only (i.e. OPM-SANG) Security Cooperation Organizations (aka SCOs), for those functions, U.S. Dept. of State is principal proponent).
** As best I understand from online media, including article in ARMY TIMES and posts by HRC Enlisted Reenlistment people seeking qualified NCOs to volunteer for assignment and duty with the SFABs, those NCOs selected and trained (i.e. upon completion of the MATA's Combat Advisor Training Course) are awarded an new ASI, along with the "Advisor" tab, reflecting that new qualification.
** Unclear whether that tab stays as a permanent distinctive item on the uniform when the SFABer eventually rotates to another assignment. ** As a SWAG, surmise that HRC also awards a similar ASI, along with the tab, to officers accepted for SFAB who also complete that MATA MOSQ-like course.
** FWIW, in the early 1970s, DA DCSOPS (now DAMO G3/5/7) established a stand-alone "Military Assistance Officer Program" (MAOP), complete with dedicated AR in the 614-XX series. After voluntary entry to MAOP and completion of the required series of PME and training phases -- similar to that for FAOs -- MAOP members were awarded ASI 4P "Security Assistance Officer." Back then, MAOP was apparently intended to develop and provide a population of qualified military advisors firstly to support US pol-military presence in SE Asia, primarily VN and Thailand, and later to support SCOs (MAAGs, Mil Groups, MTMs et al) elsewhere in the world. For various reasons, MAOP was rolled and absorbed into the FAO Specialty in mid-1970s, as best I recall.
** In its Army-wide implementation of our Army's (ahem) "SFAB Enterprise," HRC is smart to include award of an ASI to qualified SFAB members as a means of building a manageable -- and searchable for future repetitive assignments or surge requirements -- pool of SFAB-qualified NCOs and officers. (Our Army does not deserve nor need a repetition of the DOD's beleaguered AfPak Hands Program.)
** As a parallel and ironic FWIW note, the U.S. Marine Corps' Security Cooperation Group (MCSCG) is reportedly about to undergo an expansion and rebranding as Marine Adviser Group. MCSCG is a close-equivalent schoolhouse of the MATA at Fort Benning, in that MCSCG trains, assesses, certifies and deploys USMC-resourced Security Assistance Teams ("SATs") for OCONUS duty as advisors, trainers, and force-developers/modernizers of their foreign military counterpart schools and units.
== FULL DISCLOSURE: [ Have been occasional on-site LREC SME/advisor/course-developer and role-player to support pre-deployment training programs (PTPs) of SATS outbound to Arabic-prevalent host countries in the CENTCOM AOR. ]
(I remember that initial advisor training academy MAJ Oles mentions at Fort Riley. That academy was housed inside a bunch of trailers clustered in the Camp Funston area; I was there during 2006 as occasional SME / advisor / "train the trainer" on the "Tactical Iraqi Arabic" language and "operational culture' software program for self-training.)
** Hope these observations add to this thread. Hope that the good people at DQ DAMO G3/5/7 and personnel managers at USAHRC become aware of this thread. (Can't contact them myself because DA G6/CIO deleted military retirees from access to AKO.)
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie")/MI/
SOF/Attache/Security Cooperation,
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angeles Waterfront Area), California
Thanks to MAJ Oles for his original post, above (posted on 13 Feb 2018; just found it in full and responding on Tuesday, 1 January 2019).
His discussion raises some valid and worthy questions.
** Agree with and support his contention that members of those various pre-SFAB (here using a generic collective term, vice MiTTs, MTTs, SFAATs et al) "security force assistance" teams should receive retroactive credit, recognition and commensurate professional consideration, i.e. KD and CSL, etc. They performed those unique and hazardous duties with their counterparts as << combat advisors >> in every sense of the term, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, versus those performed per Title 22, U.S. Code (duty as security assistance advisors with DOD Joint Service (i.e. USMTM Saudi Arabia, MAP Jordan or OMC Cairo, Egypt) or Army-only (i.e. OPM-SANG) Security Cooperation Organizations (aka SCOs), for those functions, U.S. Dept. of State is principal proponent).
** As best I understand from online media, including article in ARMY TIMES and posts by HRC Enlisted Reenlistment people seeking qualified NCOs to volunteer for assignment and duty with the SFABs, those NCOs selected and trained (i.e. upon completion of the MATA's Combat Advisor Training Course) are awarded an new ASI, along with the "Advisor" tab, reflecting that new qualification.
** Unclear whether that tab stays as a permanent distinctive item on the uniform when the SFABer eventually rotates to another assignment. ** As a SWAG, surmise that HRC also awards a similar ASI, along with the tab, to officers accepted for SFAB who also complete that MATA MOSQ-like course.
** FWIW, in the early 1970s, DA DCSOPS (now DAMO G3/5/7) established a stand-alone "Military Assistance Officer Program" (MAOP), complete with dedicated AR in the 614-XX series. After voluntary entry to MAOP and completion of the required series of PME and training phases -- similar to that for FAOs -- MAOP members were awarded ASI 4P "Security Assistance Officer." Back then, MAOP was apparently intended to develop and provide a population of qualified military advisors firstly to support US pol-military presence in SE Asia, primarily VN and Thailand, and later to support SCOs (MAAGs, Mil Groups, MTMs et al) elsewhere in the world. For various reasons, MAOP was rolled and absorbed into the FAO Specialty in mid-1970s, as best I recall.
** In its Army-wide implementation of our Army's (ahem) "SFAB Enterprise," HRC is smart to include award of an ASI to qualified SFAB members as a means of building a manageable -- and searchable for future repetitive assignments or surge requirements -- pool of SFAB-qualified NCOs and officers. (Our Army does not deserve nor need a repetition of the DOD's beleaguered AfPak Hands Program.)
** As a parallel and ironic FWIW note, the U.S. Marine Corps' Security Cooperation Group (MCSCG) is reportedly about to undergo an expansion and rebranding as Marine Adviser Group. MCSCG is a close-equivalent schoolhouse of the MATA at Fort Benning, in that MCSCG trains, assesses, certifies and deploys USMC-resourced Security Assistance Teams ("SATs") for OCONUS duty as advisors, trainers, and force-developers/modernizers of their foreign military counterpart schools and units.
== FULL DISCLOSURE: [ Have been occasional on-site LREC SME/advisor/course-developer and role-player to support pre-deployment training programs (PTPs) of SATS outbound to Arabic-prevalent host countries in the CENTCOM AOR. ]
(I remember that initial advisor training academy MAJ Oles mentions at Fort Riley. That academy was housed inside a bunch of trailers clustered in the Camp Funston area; I was there during 2006 as occasional SME / advisor / "train the trainer" on the "Tactical Iraqi Arabic" language and "operational culture' software program for self-training.)
** Hope these observations add to this thread. Hope that the good people at DQ DAMO G3/5/7 and personnel managers at USAHRC become aware of this thread. (Can't contact them myself because DA G6/CIO deleted military retirees from access to AKO.)
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie")/MI/
SOF/Attache/Security Cooperation,
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angeles Waterfront Area), California
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir, thank you very much for your in depth and thought provoking comments. I'm happy to see that my thoughts aren't just the irrational rantings of another "slighted" servicemember. Hopefully someone at DA someday takes a look at these things.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen Franke
Dear Major Oles,
Greetings again. Thank you for your note. (I see no "rantings" at all in your comments, by any measure.)
** Now is apparently the prime time for someone to present these matters ref retroactive accreditation, et al of SFA-related service to the attention and interest of senior DA leadership, including especially the CSA, GEN Mark Milley.
** GEN Milley has long been the very-public stalwart, proponent and supporter of institutionalizing our Army's entire (ahem) "business" of security force assistance, versus only kinetic action. ** Should GEN Milley become, as seems very likely, appointed and installed as the next Chairman of the JCS, that interest, support and momentum will likely also continue.
FYI and also for the benefit of others in this thread, here are some recent positive indicators of the emerging permanence of the SFA mission and its related units in our (ahem) "Big Army" force structure (versus that in our Army's share and presence in the chronically-peripheral SOF community):
[1] Establishment / stand-up last October of the SFA Command at Fort Bragg (apparently a MSC embedded inside the FORSCOM empire).
[2] Establishment of the grade of the commander of our Army's first (thus-far) two activated and deployment-focused SFABs as BG, versus COL. << FWIW, that distinction somewhat reflects the status of the 173d Airborne Brigade (Separate) in effect during the VN war, so a precedent understandably exists. >>
[3] Likely expansion of the MCoE's MATA -- with the blessing and support of its TRADOC sponsor, acting properly as the HQDA-designated proponent for SFA-related activities and doctrine, etc. -- into a "U.S. Army SFA Center and School," (USASFACS), a la the gradual evolution and positioning within TRADOC of the U.S. Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) at Fort Bragg for the SOF community.
Hang in there, and make some appropriate noise so that you -- as well as other disserved participants who likewise served earlier and commendably in supporting execution of this critical SFA mission -- receive suitable attention and well-deserved attention, consideration, accreditation and responsive actions by our Army.
Best regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie")/MI/SOF/Attache/
Security Cooperation (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan and UAE),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angeles Waterfront Area), California
Greetings again. Thank you for your note. (I see no "rantings" at all in your comments, by any measure.)
** Now is apparently the prime time for someone to present these matters ref retroactive accreditation, et al of SFA-related service to the attention and interest of senior DA leadership, including especially the CSA, GEN Mark Milley.
** GEN Milley has long been the very-public stalwart, proponent and supporter of institutionalizing our Army's entire (ahem) "business" of security force assistance, versus only kinetic action. ** Should GEN Milley become, as seems very likely, appointed and installed as the next Chairman of the JCS, that interest, support and momentum will likely also continue.
FYI and also for the benefit of others in this thread, here are some recent positive indicators of the emerging permanence of the SFA mission and its related units in our (ahem) "Big Army" force structure (versus that in our Army's share and presence in the chronically-peripheral SOF community):
[1] Establishment / stand-up last October of the SFA Command at Fort Bragg (apparently a MSC embedded inside the FORSCOM empire).
[2] Establishment of the grade of the commander of our Army's first (thus-far) two activated and deployment-focused SFABs as BG, versus COL. << FWIW, that distinction somewhat reflects the status of the 173d Airborne Brigade (Separate) in effect during the VN war, so a precedent understandably exists. >>
[3] Likely expansion of the MCoE's MATA -- with the blessing and support of its TRADOC sponsor, acting properly as the HQDA-designated proponent for SFA-related activities and doctrine, etc. -- into a "U.S. Army SFA Center and School," (USASFACS), a la the gradual evolution and positioning within TRADOC of the U.S. Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) at Fort Bragg for the SOF community.
Hang in there, and make some appropriate noise so that you -- as well as other disserved participants who likewise served earlier and commendably in supporting execution of this critical SFA mission -- receive suitable attention and well-deserved attention, consideration, accreditation and responsive actions by our Army.
Best regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie")/MI/SOF/Attache/
Security Cooperation (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan and UAE),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angeles Waterfront Area), California
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Justin, I'm 100% in agreement with you on the credit due to the MiTT and SFAAT folks receiving the same recognition and credit as the new SFAB personnel are. The Army did give us credit with the Personal Development Skill Identifier (PDSI): MILPER Message 08-112 (NCOs) and 08-113 (officers) establishes the PDI of T1, with PDSI T1B for Riley training and T1C for Phoenix Academy at Taji. I personally served on both MiTT (07-08) and SFAAT (12-13), but only received my PDSI for the MiTT as the academy at Fort Polk was not setup as well as Fort Riley, at least at the time 1AD went through. Combat Advisor tab at minimum should be awarded to those that were on both MiTTs and SFAATs. I'm hoping to see something in the upcoming years that addresses this point. Great article and discussion.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen Franke
Greetings again to all in this thread.
My thanks for MAJ Howard for his informative comments, above. If convenient, would be most grateful and appreciative if someone would posts here in RP, and/or otherwise send to me < direct email: [login to see] >, the awarded designations of those SFA-related PDSIs for NCO and officers, as well as any -- if otherwise different -- PDSIs awarded by HRC after completion of the CATC conducted by the MATA at Fort Benning. Am unable to find or access those cited MILPER messages online. Many thanks in advance. (Still providing, on PTOC basis, Middle East/CENTCOM-concentrated LREC SME advice and assistance to a USMC organization which is somewhat equivalent of MATA, based in the Tidewater Virginia area.)
Side observation FWIW = No one at MATA, MCOE, or at SFA Command at Fort Bragg has answered my queries and offers of some relevant open-source materials applicable to the MATA's baseline POI for the CATC or to the 2d SFABs' pre-deployment training program (PTP) before that SFAB goes "wheels up" to missions in Afghanistan.
(Ironic situation, in that -- briefly -- while the Marines can't get enough of such "read ahead and get smart early" materials, there is no apparent matching interest in receiving and benefitting from them by respective Army counterparts, CENTCOM / SOCCENT, or ARCENT.)
Many thanks in advance for any attention and assistance. Today is Saturday, 23 March 2019.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO / MI / SOF /
Attaché / SFA / HUMINT,
US Army Retired
San Pedro, California
My thanks for MAJ Howard for his informative comments, above. If convenient, would be most grateful and appreciative if someone would posts here in RP, and/or otherwise send to me < direct email: [login to see] >, the awarded designations of those SFA-related PDSIs for NCO and officers, as well as any -- if otherwise different -- PDSIs awarded by HRC after completion of the CATC conducted by the MATA at Fort Benning. Am unable to find or access those cited MILPER messages online. Many thanks in advance. (Still providing, on PTOC basis, Middle East/CENTCOM-concentrated LREC SME advice and assistance to a USMC organization which is somewhat equivalent of MATA, based in the Tidewater Virginia area.)
Side observation FWIW = No one at MATA, MCOE, or at SFA Command at Fort Bragg has answered my queries and offers of some relevant open-source materials applicable to the MATA's baseline POI for the CATC or to the 2d SFABs' pre-deployment training program (PTP) before that SFAB goes "wheels up" to missions in Afghanistan.
(Ironic situation, in that -- briefly -- while the Marines can't get enough of such "read ahead and get smart early" materials, there is no apparent matching interest in receiving and benefitting from them by respective Army counterparts, CENTCOM / SOCCENT, or ARCENT.)
Many thanks in advance for any attention and assistance. Today is Saturday, 23 March 2019.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO / MI / SOF /
Attaché / SFA / HUMINT,
US Army Retired
San Pedro, California
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Greetings again to all in this interesting thread ref MAJ Oles' good question.
** Today is Sunday, 12 May 2019.
** Would appreciate any advisement / update / SITREP about whether his query has, by now -- after a year -- been answered and its matter of equivalent accreditation been resolved by appropriate action at HQDA or the mil personnel records managers USAHRC.
** Perhaps another source for some relevant and authoritative information / action about MAJ Oles' worthy question is the newly-activated Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC) based at Fort Bragg, NC. That SFAC seems immersed inside the FORSCOM empire also there at Bragg.
Hope all is going well, effectively and safely for the 2nd SFAB, now operating in Afghanistan since late last February.
Regards to all.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro, California
** Today is Sunday, 12 May 2019.
** Would appreciate any advisement / update / SITREP about whether his query has, by now -- after a year -- been answered and its matter of equivalent accreditation been resolved by appropriate action at HQDA or the mil personnel records managers USAHRC.
** Perhaps another source for some relevant and authoritative information / action about MAJ Oles' worthy question is the newly-activated Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC) based at Fort Bragg, NC. That SFAC seems immersed inside the FORSCOM empire also there at Bragg.
Hope all is going well, effectively and safely for the 2nd SFAB, now operating in Afghanistan since late last February.
Regards to all.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro, California
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Stephen Franke Sir, to my knowledge DA has made no public statements, or released any ALARACTs or MILPERs dealing with my question.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Franke
Greetings to Major Oles, and may I extend my thanks for that helpful update BOUT GTHE . **
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Franke
CORRECTION:
… helpful update about the apparent invisibility of attention or response by DA / USAHRC to this relevant question.
** That official silence seems particularly mystifying, given the several public online statements by VCSA General Milley (soon to be confirmed and installed as Chairman, JCS) of his energetic and active support of our Army’s now-formal and permanent institutionalization (ahem) in the DOD-wide “SFA Enterprise” in our Army’s GPF-based force structure (FORSCOM seems to be the overall DA-wide proponent [or a least in terms of SFA-dedicated units and related C2/Mission Command matters], while TRADOC otherwise handles the doctrine and training side of the business – that trend evokes the evolution of USAJFKSWCS and USSOCOM for our Army’s SOF community during the 19070s into the 1980s).
** Mention that specific DOD-wise aspect because the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) has recently announced his intent to expand the USMC-wide role, size, force structure, dedicated resources, mission-sets and worldwide, on-call activities of its SFA-relevant entity, the Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group (aka MCSCG), and accordingly designate the resultant organization as the Marine Advisory Group. (FWIW, the Marines have taken and treated its SFA-focused role very, very seriously throughout the 20th-century history of the USMC.)
** Graduates of the MCSCG’s various POIs for advisors / trainers / ”force-modernizers” of counterpart foreign military forces are award the (here using the operative term in “US Marine-speak) a “Free MOS (FMOS).
** Surmise that USMC-based FMOS effectively corresponds to the respective ASIs awarded to NCO and officer graduates of our Army’s Military Advisor Training Academy (MATA) at Fort Benning (I do not know, and no one there at MATA has answered my emailed queries for clarification).
While (borrowing from George Santayana) “may the future times for our Army’s SFA presence be interesting,” may I suggest that all parties at DA and other relevant levels attend, consider, review and respond in recognizing and then properly resolving the residual and considerable worthy issues that Major Oles has presented in his initial post.
In view of the fact that our Army’s personnel system earlier (during 1970-1980s, as best I recall and upon review of the DA-directed official entries on my OPMF) had established a Military Assistance Officer Program (MAOP) and accordingly implemented an Officer ASI for Security Assistance, the precedent clearly and properly is/was there as the basis for similar official designation, accreditation and recording now by HQDA and USAHRC of relevant qualification and demanding services of our Army’s NCOs, WOs and Officers engaged in the respective execution of the SFA mission-set.
Hope these facts and observation help energize and enable attentive resolution of the overdue situation, as characterized by Major Oles in his initial and worthy post.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (FA 48G – Middle East/”Gulfie”) / MI /
SOF / Attache / SA/SC/SFA (since 1971),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro, California
… helpful update about the apparent invisibility of attention or response by DA / USAHRC to this relevant question.
** That official silence seems particularly mystifying, given the several public online statements by VCSA General Milley (soon to be confirmed and installed as Chairman, JCS) of his energetic and active support of our Army’s now-formal and permanent institutionalization (ahem) in the DOD-wide “SFA Enterprise” in our Army’s GPF-based force structure (FORSCOM seems to be the overall DA-wide proponent [or a least in terms of SFA-dedicated units and related C2/Mission Command matters], while TRADOC otherwise handles the doctrine and training side of the business – that trend evokes the evolution of USAJFKSWCS and USSOCOM for our Army’s SOF community during the 19070s into the 1980s).
** Mention that specific DOD-wise aspect because the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) has recently announced his intent to expand the USMC-wide role, size, force structure, dedicated resources, mission-sets and worldwide, on-call activities of its SFA-relevant entity, the Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group (aka MCSCG), and accordingly designate the resultant organization as the Marine Advisory Group. (FWIW, the Marines have taken and treated its SFA-focused role very, very seriously throughout the 20th-century history of the USMC.)
** Graduates of the MCSCG’s various POIs for advisors / trainers / ”force-modernizers” of counterpart foreign military forces are award the (here using the operative term in “US Marine-speak) a “Free MOS (FMOS).
** Surmise that USMC-based FMOS effectively corresponds to the respective ASIs awarded to NCO and officer graduates of our Army’s Military Advisor Training Academy (MATA) at Fort Benning (I do not know, and no one there at MATA has answered my emailed queries for clarification).
While (borrowing from George Santayana) “may the future times for our Army’s SFA presence be interesting,” may I suggest that all parties at DA and other relevant levels attend, consider, review and respond in recognizing and then properly resolving the residual and considerable worthy issues that Major Oles has presented in his initial post.
In view of the fact that our Army’s personnel system earlier (during 1970-1980s, as best I recall and upon review of the DA-directed official entries on my OPMF) had established a Military Assistance Officer Program (MAOP) and accordingly implemented an Officer ASI for Security Assistance, the precedent clearly and properly is/was there as the basis for similar official designation, accreditation and recording now by HQDA and USAHRC of relevant qualification and demanding services of our Army’s NCOs, WOs and Officers engaged in the respective execution of the SFA mission-set.
Hope these facts and observation help energize and enable attentive resolution of the overdue situation, as characterized by Major Oles in his initial and worthy post.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (FA 48G – Middle East/”Gulfie”) / MI /
SOF / Attache / SA/SC/SFA (since 1971),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro, California
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Franke
Correction of mistyping: "VCSA General Milley SHOULD BE: CSA General Milley.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (FA 48G – Middle East/”Gulfie”) / MI /
SOF / Attache / SA/SC/SFA (since 1971),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angele Waterfront Area), California
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (FA 48G – Middle East/”Gulfie”) / MI /
SOF / Attache / SA/SC/SFA (since 1971),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angele Waterfront Area), California
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google